Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:21, 1 April 2010

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

• 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.

• 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?

Ronald F. Maxwell

Allegations of Anti-Hispanic views against Ronald F. Maxwell, with bolded rebuttal. (Wasn't me - All I wanted to do was categorize him as being a person from Clifton, New Jersey.) KConWiki (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe he really does hold certain views along those lines. In any event, I want to invite multiple sets of eyes to review that page. KConWiki (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

• Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Misplaced Pages.

• Dionne Brand

Christine O'Donnell

Christine O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - attempt to insert negative material based on a WP:PRIMARY source backed by a non-WP:RS blog source. An IP user, so far using 128.175.100.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 128.175.100.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has re-inserted the material at least four times, with myself and another editor trying to explain on the talk page why the material needs stronger sourcing than has been provided so far. I don't want to get caught in an edit war, I turn this matter over to you guys. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Update – this issue is now moot. This solid, mainstream newspaper source — Gibson, Ginger (2010-03-20). "Delaware politics: O'Donnell faces campaign debt, back-tax issues". The News Journal. Wilmington. Retrieved 2010-03-25. — now covers the material in question, and the article is being updated to reflect that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source issue on Tucker Max

The website, www.quotabletuckermax.com, is being used as a source on this BLP article three times (sources #37, #38 and #39), and is being used as conjecture on the talk page . I have already posted my doubts that this is an adequate source for BLP articles on the Reliable Source noticeboard , but the only person who commented there was the same person who has been using the website as a source for the article.

As the website is devoted entirely to holding Max up as a subject of mockery, it is my understanding of wikipedia policy that it shouldn't be discussed on the article talk page , let alone in the article itself. Seth Kellerman (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that site http://www.quotabletuckermax.com is not a reliable source for content in T Max's BLP. and that they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This one needs more eyes. User:Theserialcomma is revert warring to keep the unreliable source in the article. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Kathryn Bonella

• Kathryn Bonella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Gamblor72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a consensus that the page creator is directly related to the subject, see talk page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive semiprotection of vulnerable BLPs - proposal

A proposal to tweak semiprotection policy to include preemptive protection of vulnerable BLPs is here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What happens when it is the administrators and the logged-in users who are trying to push the libel and violations of POV, and it is anonymous users who are trying to remove them? It happens... 97.120.254.36 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then they could get it semi-protected anyway. Your point is somewhat irrelevant. —ShadowRanger  18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oliverio II --- campaign worker again removing accurate and sourced information

Michael Oliverio II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Wilkerson_cl keeps removing accurate and sourced information from the Michael Oliverio II entry. CL Wilkerson is Curtis L. Wilkerson who is a known operative and employee for Oliverio's campaign. I have warned this user, and I am documenting these incidents on this page to alert others on Misplaced Pages. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See: "According to TSG's Web site, Wilkerson's success rate is more than 84 percent with his clients, including Sens. Truman Chafin, Mike Oliverio and Evan Jenkins." <http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/charleston-daily-mail/mi_8044/is_20060925/callaghan-manage-campaign/ai_n46272535/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilkerson_cl did it again! I request that his editing privileges be blocked for violating policy after having been warned. I have restored the deleted sections again. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have requested editor assistance (Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests#Michael_Oliverio_II_---_campaign_associate_continues_to_remove_sourced_information) on how to resolve this conflict. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tampering with Misplaced Pages

In March of 2010, the fact that this Misplaced Pages article had been edited by Oliverio campaign manager Curtis Wilkerson (who edited openly in his own name) was the subject of a report in the Charleston Daily Mail. An Oliverio spokesman argued that the material they had removed (about Oliverio being praised by President Bush, and about Oliverio's role in the ALEC), while admittedly true, gave a misleading impression of Oliverio's political history.

This isn't just accusations, this is an open admission of what they did. Since the Oliverio campaign guy has admitted that they were the ones doing the COI edits, would somebody take a look at whether the editor in question should be blocked for his history of COI edits? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Yusuf Ali

Muhammad Yusuf Ali

I am concerned that this article contains negative assertions, and has only one source (RS or not, I do not know).  Chzz  ►  08:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, G10.  Chzz  ►  08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Jesse_Ventura

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

User V7-sport adds content that does respect wikipedia policies especially in the section about the early life of Mr. Jesse Ventura. His "sources" are not reliable. One link is to a personal site that shows a "does not exist" message. The other does not mention at all that Mr. Ventura was part of an "organized crime syndicate".

Another paragraph that has problems is the one mentioning a certain military officer personal opinions as "accusing" Mr. Ventura of lying about being a navy seal. Clearly the wikipedia users who added these two paragraphs are adding content that seeks to damage the image of Mr Ventura by attacking his character. This goes against wikipedia's neutral point of view

Please look at the article and help protect it against these kind of edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jesse_Ventura&action=history

--Grandscribe (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and am watching the article. A refutation should only be included if a claim can be reliably documented. I see no such claim on the part of Ventura documented. Yworo (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations on 'jim bell'

Video evidence enough?

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

Would it be enough proof of 5 videos that this woman has appeared in some phone sex commercials? Here are the links to some commercials she has starred in:

1. Hot Talk at 800-333-6969. Starring Marina from Hot for Words
2. Free Partyline - VI-ENG-60
3. Free Talk Line- VI-ENG-30
4. Hot Chat 876.538.5869-starring Marina from Hot for Words
5. Hot LiveGirls- Featruing Marina from Hot for Words

The appearance and accents match perfectly, and seeing as this person has already been broadcasting their cleavage across the internet every week for the last over 2 years, it would not seem out of the ordinary that they would have done work like this. Yet people on the talk page say multiple youtube videos aren't enough and it "isn't notable enough" despite the article already being barely a page long.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Youtube uploads are not a reliable source (anyone can upload and doctor) - and interpretations of youtube material is certainly original research. If the information cannot be verified from a secondary source, it should be excluded.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Information must be from reliable third-party sources, this is especially important when dealing with WP:BLP. Youtube videos are primary sources and are not reliable. The relevent policies and guidelines are: WP:BLP, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:OR. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, even if we were to accept that she really has been in such commercials, the absence of coverage in reliable secondary sources generally means the subject matter is not significant enough for mention in the article Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Larry Squire

I am a bit new on editing wikipedia, so I am confused on how to edit this.

Larry Squire's advisor/mentor is incorrectly listed as Eric Kandel. Larry Squire's advisor was Hans-Lukas Teuber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanagnos (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart

Derek Smart is back in the news this week and so the warring factions are at it again on his Derek Smart

Once again, a website that has already been deemed to be libelous and defamatory, thus violating BLP has been entered into the page along with the usual material that was already removed (see page history) over the years.

The offending material needs to be removed.

I think this page needs to be fully protected because obviously the semi-protection just does not seem to be effective.

Wildcard999 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: who are you? You're obviously not a new editor, but the above is the first edit for that account. Rd232 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does who I am or whether I'm a new editor or not have to do with anything? Even the guy who posted that text and link is a new editor. I saw and reported a violation. I see that you made the edit but failed to remove the offending link he also posted and which has been removed many times before after extensive discussions because it fails WP:BLP and WP:RS. Apart from the fact that Bill Huffman, the Derek Smart detractor and supposed net stalker is the author of the page. In fact that issue went to mediation before the link was removed and deemed to be in violation. Please remove it.Wildcard999 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, this article has a history of disruption from pro-Derek SPAs. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the link I was looking for. And just to be fair the page history shows clearly that it is not just pro-Derek SPAs. So if you're going to cite that, please be accurate. Also is there any reason why you guys have still not removed the offending link?Wildcard999 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

fred shuttlesworth

this information is incorrect in the first paragraph at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Des11041987 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor)

There has been an accusation from a fellow cast member of the Australian television show, Hey Dad..! regarding alleged indecent assault by this person. It has had quite a bit of media coverage in Australia. Articles that need to be watched are Robert Hughes (Australian actor) (now semi-protected), Sarah Monahan, Ben Oxenbould and Hey Dad..!. -- Mattinbgn\ 19:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and sourcing problems with Nahum Shahaf

George, RomaC and I have been attempting to resolve sourcing problems with the article on Nahum Shahaf, a BLP on an Israeli physicist. However, the article is experiencing problematic edits by Jaakobou which violate both the BLP and NPOV policies. The issues are as follows:

1) Jaakobou is repeatedly reverting to a version of the article that includes a series of claims that are either unsourced or are based on unreliable sources.

1.1) Much of the background section of the article in Jaakobou's version is sourced to a curriculum vitae published here (in Hebrew; Google translation to English. It's on a user-generated group blog or wiki (see ). A discussion at WP:RSN#Curriculum vitae unanimously concluded that this was not a reliable source. Jaakobou does not accept this and rejects the unanimous consensus of other editors.

1.2) Jaakobou is repeatedly adding a citation which reads in full "Israeli Census - Verified March 23, 2010". This was discussed at WP:RSN#Census, which unanimously concluded that it was not a proper citation; as one uninvolved editor said, it is "not substantially different from adding a footnote that says "I read it somewhere"." Jaakobou does not accept this and rejects the unanimous consensus of other editors.

2) Jaakobou is repeatedly, on overt POV grounds, deleting material cited from reliable mainstream sources.

2.1) A mainstream newspaper report, "Truth is sometimes caught in crossfire", written by Ed O'Loughlin and published by the Sydney Morning Herald. Jaakobou rejects this source because he views Ed O'Loughlin as "an anti-Israeli" and "a Hamas supporter" . (These accusations are, needless to say, BLP violations in their own right.)

2.2) Rejection of quotes from Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper. The article's subject sued Haaretz for defamation two years ago, though it's unclear whether any proceedings are actually ongoing. Jaakobou has repeatedly argued that this makes Haaretz an unreliable source for any facts concerning Nahum Shahaf. None of the Haaretz articles cited post-date the defamation suit. The underlying factor appears to be a POV rejection of the newspaper; Jaakobou has denounced Haaretz (despite it being an Israeli newspaper!) as "an anti-Zionist publication", hence unreliable.

3) Addition of uncited material. Jaakobou is repeatedly reverting to a version which includes an uncited paragraph (see from "Shahaf's investigation" onwards) as well as other uncited claims, as well as peacock quotes of no obvious relevance to the article's subject. This has been pointed out repeatedly on the talk page to no effect.

Discussions on the talk page are going nowhere; Jaakobou is simply not responding to many of the points about sourcing that have been made by myself, George and RomaC.

It's worth noting that as well as being covered by BLP, the article is under article probation (imposed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, in which Jaakobou was a party). I'd appreciate some advice on what can be done to resolve these problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just trying to get to the nub of the dispute, so forgive me if I misunderstand: Nahum Shahaf is one of the main figures involved in the Muhammad al-Durrah incident investigations, and this page is by extension part of the dispute concerning that. On the face of it the main 'battle' regarding the Shahaf article is on how favourably we should look upon Shahaf, and his expertise. As such, the 'George/Chriso/RomaC version' contains details such as Shahaf's conspiracy theories regarding Yitzhak Rabin, and presents Shahaf's conclusions regarding Muhammed al-Durrah in a far less positive way.
• It doesn't seem to be particularly a BLP problem, as Jaakobou appears to want to portray Shahaf in a more positive way (and this board is usually concerned about derogatory information). However, given the manner of the dispute it is obviously important that the article is neutral, doesn't give undue weight etc etc. If Jaakobou continues to insert unsourced material or reverts against consensus then that is obviously problematic but I would have thought the place to raise that would be WP:AE rather than here. Other options would be to start an RFC to determine if the Yitzhak Rabin stuff is pertinent, or if it gives undue weight (as Jaakobou appears to be contending), and whether the media award is relevent etc. Quantpole (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Having said all that, I do agree that the census and CV info should not be included. As it appears this has previously been discussed and agreed, sanctions should be applied if Jaakobou continues to insert those sources. Quantpole (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The BLP issue is essentially to do with the repeated addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information in defiance of a unanimous consensus of editors. You're right that derogatory information is usually the source of concern on this noticeboard, but it's bad practice to include any unsourced or poorly sourced material; as the lead of WP:BLP says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I'm open to an RFC on the Rabin material and/or the media award, but that's a side issue - the main issue is the repeated reversion to an unsourced or poorly sourced version. As you say, AE may be the most appropriate way of resolving that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be clear, my goal isn't to present Shahaf (or his investigations and conclusions) either positively, or negatively, but neutrally, based on reliable, verifiable sources. I haven't inserted anything with regards to his Rabin assassination conspiracy theories, because other editors opposed it on BLP grounds, and while I may think it's sufficiently sourced, the proper course for its inclusion is probably dispute resolution.

I have, however, removed biographical information I view as unsourced, or poorly sourced. A lot of information was being added, cited to sources that don't exist, or don't mention the information they were being cited for. Other times, completely unverifiable sources were being used, and some things were being cited to websites that editors claimed were documents published by Shahaf himself, but were hosted on the user-generated group blog ChrisO mentioned. Unfortunately, Jaakobou was inserting (or re-inserting) much of this poorly sourced material, even after I had run several of the sources (the curriculum vitae & Israeli census) past the reliable sources noticeboard, where they were found to be unreliable. Some of this information is not negative, but given the contentious aspects of the topic itself (as well as the Muhammad al-Durrah incident, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general), I tend to take a more narrow view on what is acceptable sourcing. ← George 21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou: The issue really isn't if he was born in 1946 (as was verified by an easy census examination) or to present him in a "favourable light" but rather to give basic details such as where he got his Physics masters, or the name of the company he worked for when he was doing his CT related research. Other sources already note him as a Physicist and a developer of CT technology. His CV is just used for small details that he did his masters at Bar-Ilan University and the he worked for Elscint. This doesn't compare to the Rabin conspiracy theory RomaC/ChrisO have been pushing into the article. They can't tell you any of the details of this thing and, certainly, Shahaf has not been making a campaign to free anyone from prison. If Shahaf is indeed on a campaign to free Yigal Amir, then we'd have dozens of Hebrew sources on the matter and they just don't exist.

P.S. If there is a language issue here, I am sure there are dozens of Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians, including administrators, who can verify the information in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, as I mentioned in the talk page discussion, there's nothing wrong with Hebrew sources if English equivalents can't be found. However, they still have to meet the same requirements on reliability and verifiability as English sources, and it would be very helpful if a Hebrew-speaker (yourself included) can provide translations of the relevant quotes from them. ← George 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo George,

Best I can see, this thread was opened over the Rabin issue, which RomaC promoted for a month until you and ChrisO came on the page and ChrisO started inserting his new version of it 5 times while trampling on all the other edits. Our sole argument (me and you) seems to be over how to use Shahaf's CV where you assume bad faith when he says he completed his Physics Masters at Bar-Ilan University when other sources say he's an accomplished Physicist or when his CV (which he published, btw) says he worked for Elscint on CT technology when other sources mention that he worked on CT technology... or that he recieved '1997 Ministry of Science Fellowship' along with his '1997 Ministry of Science Award' when the award is mentioned in other sources (etc.). My issue is that you don't have any reasonable reason to argue against these additions other than what is referred to, no offence intended, as Wikilawyering that Shahaf's website is supposedly not reliable about his own credentials which are already mentioned, mostly in passing, by other sources.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 01:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but:

1. Don't accuse others of bad faith.
2. My concerns with the CV is that (a) I don't know if he published it, and (b) its posted on a site that I don't know to be his; a website which says anyone can upload to it.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you feel that this information is "already mentioned... by other sources," then cite those sources, but only if they're reliable, and only if they say what you're citing them for (e.g., if you cite a source for the statement that he attended Bar-Ilan University, be sure the source actually says that). ← George 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Jaakobou's interpretation of my position is a bit dramatic re the content on Shahaf's involvement in Rabin assassination theories. As I've said before I see no need to detail this, and don't think it should have its own section. Despite there being a number of very reliable sources on this, was no information on it in the article. Frankly, I think after the back-and-forth now there may be too much information. A couple of phrases/sentence, as background informs the reader that Al-Durrah was not Shahaf's first foray onto such investigations.

On the other points, this is a BLP and we have to be certain the sources are reliable and verifiable, a CV that we don't know was written by the subject is twice removed from that criteria. I must say, it seems some editors here are evaluating the sources not on the basis of their reliability and verifiability, but rather on the basis of how they treat the subject. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo RomaC,

If this is about who wrote the CV, I can tell you that its his website and he indeed wrote that CV. We also list it as such on the article. There's also nothing exceptional/contentious in the material cited to this CV as it is almost entirely already mentioned (with less detail) on other sources and we really have no reason to suspect that its inaccurate or possibly libellous.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"I can tell you that its his website and he indeed wrote that CV" - based on what? ← George 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The CV is his based on his picture being at the top left on the banner and him writing almost all the articles on that site with most of them being related to himself and/or his opinions/endeavours. Who else would have a photocopy of his 1997 award from the Ministry of Science or a photocopy from the Ministry of Education for his work with gifted children or a photocopy of the main page in some of his UAV work in Tadiran (etc. etc. etc. - just click the links)?

p.s. The argument for non-inclusion here is argumentative for the sake of argument. The material itself is obviously not contentious/controversial/libellous when its mostly noted about by both James Fallows and Amnon Lord. There's nothing wrong with adding that he completed his Physics studies at Bar-Ilan when every article that names him says he's a Physicist and there's nothing wrong with citing that he worked for Elscint on CT when Amnon Lord says he worked on CT.

With respect, Jaakobou 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) add site 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. You should probably take the case to WP:RSN and see if uninvolved editors agree that it's his website, and if his CV should be considered reliable. ← George 07:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know how you could show definitively that the CV was written by him, though. The photocopies Jaakobou mentions could conceivably have been obtained by someone else under a freedom of information law. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO,

Tadiran unmanned aerial vehicle documents are not free for the general public and, upon further review, Fallows says Shahaf graduated from Bar-Ilan in 1977 and the CV is only used to say that he studied there between 1970-1977. Not only that it is easy to go into the links and see that this is indeed his website and his CV but the content itself, unlike the libellous presentation on the Rabin issue, shouldn't have gotten us here.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jaakobou, but these unsupported claims are getting a bit tired. "Fallows says Shahaf graduated from Bar-Ilan in 1977". Where? Here is the Fallows article. Where does he mention Bar-Ilan? Where does he mention Shahaf graduating from anywhere? Where does he mention the year 1977? Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, he doesn't mention any of these things. This is called mis-citing a source, and it's one of the major problems this article has had. ← George 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about one mistatement, but hte general idea - of adding a bit of background to an accomplished Physicist still stands. You haven't made a single argument to why you find the material contentious and made some highly argumentative 'concerns' about the validity of Shahaf's writing about his own credentials (and the many photocopies that support it being his writing). Jaakobou 06:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Purple

• Tom Cruise Purple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Formerly a one paragraph stub which explained fairly clearly why this strain of medical marijuana might have what Misplaced Pages terms notability (July 2009 version link), its less than one kb of content was expanded to over 11kb by Cirt last week. I was struck by its {{coat rack}} aspect today when I saw it for the first time, and I tagged it (diff). Cirt removed the tag three minutes later (diff). I posted on the talk page and restored the tag (diff). After some brief discussion, NuclearWarfare removed it again (diff).

Far over half of the article's content relates to the celebrity for whom the strain was named without his consent. The section blockquoted below seems particularly unwarranted:

See also

{{{inline}}}

• Being Tom Cruise
• Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes
• Tom Cruise: Unauthorized (1998)
• Tom Cruise: All the World's a Stage (2006)
• Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography (2008)
• Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

The Medicine portal link may be appropriate, though I'm not familiar with how portals are commonly linked in articles. The Psychology portal link is possibly less appropriate, and the Scientology portal link seems as tangential and gratuitous as the article links.

Please note that I'm neither an advocate nor a critic of Scientology. I have no desire to be involved in the controversies about it on Misplaced Pages, and I have no hidden agenda. – Athaenara ✉ 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave my opinions on the validity of most of the article content on the talk page. However, I would agree with you that the see also section does seem a bit unnecessary. Those links would better placed in the Tom Cruise article, and probably should be removed. NW (Talk) 01:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I significantly trimmed down the See also section, leaving only those related to Tom Cruise that are similarly forms of parody. I also trimmed down the Portals section, leaving Medicine and removing the two that were suggested for removal, above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems quite fine, in my opinion. NW (Talk) 01:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't post here merely to move the discussion from the article talk page but to ask for input from uninvolved editors. Other opinions incoming, I hope? – Athaenara ✉ 06:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the changes NW suggested and the ones Cirt made from your comments, it looks like the problem is mostly resolved. Being named after Tom Cruise and the reaction to that is a large part of the story, so it's going to be a large part of the article. Shell 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Hardwick

This article has gotten hit by lots of IP vandals over the last two days, adding a lot of nonsense. Woogee (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected. Woogee (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehud Barak

The problem is not the article itself but a couple of references to Barak elsewhere, links have been posted to these articles in the Barak page. The problem pages are Dalal Mughrabi and Coastal Road massacre. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

References are from several renowned publications and written by professional journalists. It all complies with WP:RS. I don't see where is the problem. If there are credible sources proving the claims false, they should also be put forward. So far, nothing has emerged.Froy1100 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources are a piece by Robert Fisk, here, where Fisk writes that Thirty-six people died and a surviving videotape shows an Israeli agent, a certain Ehud Barak – yes, the man who is now Israel's Defence Minister – firing shots into her body and dragging her across a road. The other source is from TIME Magazine's "Middle East Blog", here which says they watched on television as an Israeli army officer -- future Prime Minister Ehud Barak -- shot bullets into Dalal's already dead body as it lay on a road in Herzilyah, Isarel. Blogs such as these are reliable sources, this is published by TIME, not by some random person on blogspot. nableezy - 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never new that there were authouritive reports that this guy was shooting dead people....According to multiple media reports, Ehud Barak, the current Israeli Defense Minister, led the military operation against Mughrabi, and there are reports of images of him firing shots into her dead body and dragging her across a road.

what does it mean..reports of images? has anyone got any links to these images? Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"No More Mr Nice Guy" is messing up the article. Fisk's and Butter's articles clearly talk about footage of Barak shooting the corpse. The pictures show Barak handling the body, but not shooting at it http://www.daylife.com/photo/05Q8c5zdae4a7 . I'd better put it as it was. If there are no further objections, I will include it in the Coastal Road Massacre article as wellFroy1100 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A link to the image from the video is available for viewing here. It should be mentioned that a news article in The Guardian also says: Mughrabi's body was dragged off the tarmac and shot several times by Barak in images captured by the media.

Please also note that there is a separate BLP issue regarding a comment mde by User:AnonMoos on the talk page here, where she calls Yusuf al-Qardawi a "bloodthirsty hatemongering racist". I've asked him/her to strike or redact the comments a number of times, but s/he has so far refused to do so. Could someone do something about this and perhaps issue a warning to AnonMoos regarding the general sanctions to which I-P articles are subject under WP:ARBPIA? Tiamut 11:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not an image from the video, it's a picture. It was in the papers. It doesn't show him shooting or dragging anyone, it's shows him disarming grenades from the body, according to the caption here and here (both of these are on the talk page of Dalal Mughrabi)

As for the rest of the claims, the Fisk's article is an opinion piece and Butler is a blog.

Fory1100 (an obvious SPA) was not able to achieve consensus to include this information in the Dalal Mughrabi article, so now he's trying Coastal road massacre. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs published by RSs are RSs, and Fisk is a professional journalist, he himself is a RS. nableezy - 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs published by RSs are not necessarily RSs. I'm not sure where you get the idea that a professional journalist is an RS when writing an opinion piece, could you point me to the relevant policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Quoting WP:RS, "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. And for Fisk, he is an expert in the field. What he writes is a RS. And do you have anything to say about the Guardian piece Tiamut just linked? nableezy - 13:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know that Butters' blog piece is subject to editorial control? Your assertation about Fisk is interesting but seems like your own opinion rather than policy.

Anyway, text in line with the Guardian source has already been put in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gary Reilly

Gary Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - addition of unreferenced, and possibly BLP-infringing, material by account with unacceptable name. I've indefblocked the user, and semi-protected the article for 3 months. -- The Anome (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan Trustman

ALAN TRUSTMAN

Here is my RESUMÉ. It has been posted twice and both times it has been removed without notice to me or any explanation, and replaced with the single comment that I was once married to my wife who died nearly four years ago. Among other disappointments and embarrassments, I remarried another lady two years ago. Here is what I implore you to post:

Misplaced Pages is not the place to post your resume. If you can meet our notability guidelines and wish to have an article created please Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. --NeilN 17:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Rd232 has wikilinked to your article. The reason why the text was removed was because it was unsourced. If you wish to work on it please read our conflict of interest guidelines and our sourcing guidelines. --NeilN 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help changing an article about myself!

This article is about me: http://en.wikipedia.org/Lacey_(wrestler) I have had several issues in the past with people posting incorrect/defamatory information about me. I am not a regular user of this site and I only come on here to make sure nothing defamatory is listed on my page. I have complained in the past and now I am locked out of editing my own page. I absolutely need the name Larissa Vados to be removed from my page. If anyone can help with this I would be very grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyLacey (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The name is sourced to . Are you saying it's incorrect? --NeilN 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You can also contact volunteer response team with specific concerns. --NeilN 17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayson Blair

There are severe problems in this article stemming from uncited defamatory statements. The subject was forced to resign from his post due to plagiarism, but there is much more uncited (possibly true, possibly libelous) content here. I made some changes but I don't have time to comb the entire article right now, and it's imperative that we do so immediately. --causa sui (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I made a bunch of changes covering language style, and verification & sourcing. Further content issues remain, esp. concerning interpretation of sources. I'm unable to do any more on it today at least though, so someone else'll have to take over. –Whitehorse1 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Trimmed the controversial uncited and the uncited too, the whole content is quite controversial, at least it appears to be well cited now. There are also a couple of citations that do not appear to be wikipedia reliable citations and there appears to also be excessive citations to one source, the new york times, tomorrow when I have a little time I will expose and expand the citations to see what is actually going on.Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for working on it, Off2riorob. You *might* have tended toward over severe with removal/blanking I feel. We share the same goal of course though, and caution is generally better. Post removal what's left sometimes doesn't quite make sense for a reader just yet, such as "…Landman told the Siegal committee…", as clarity was provided by the removed chunk further up that said "internal report was commissioned …with a committee …led by …Allan Siegal." It may look more well cited than it is, unfortunately. The challenging part is resolving which references back which facts and interpretation of (generally online, fortunately) cited sources. By the way, in the tidying references edit you deleted sources given including Associated Press, the subject-interviewing bp magazine, and the Washington Post. A removed peice like "Both Raines and managing editor Gerald M. Boyd, considered partially culpable for Blair's indiscretions, resigned a month after Blair's departure {{fact}}" fell under a deleted Assoc. Press reference titled "New York Times executives Howell Raines, Gerald Boyd resign". I think the ambiguous referencing styles possibly caused some confusion. You're right there are apparent non-rs citations, too. These, to student press, are accounted for by the subject having been editor of his college newspaper. When used with diligent care, and in specific circumstances, we should be fine. There is significant use of the NYT source true, though then again their article's in-depth. With an article like this, dealing with medical and libel aspects, it's always going to be a difficult task. Thanks again. –Whitehorse1 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor): allegations in Australian press

There's been a lot of debate and reverting on this BLP over the last 36 hours, since allegations surfaced in the Australian press. The debate on the talk page centres on whether wikipedia ought to ignore the allegations until charges are laid or the subject is brought before court. My view is we ought not to wait: the allegations have been reported in reliable sources and we are presenting them in context (by saying that the subject has denied them, is referring them to lawyers, and that the police have not received complaints). I'm all for the zealous protection of BLPs here, but not to the point where we ignore allegations reported in reliable sources. But I'm more than happy to follow any consensus reached here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The same topic was raised above at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Hughes (Australian actor) and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gary Reilly. -- Mattinbgn\ 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the disputed content...

Alleged misconduct

In March 2010, former Hey Dad..! co-star Sarah Monahan alleged in Woman's Day that a member of the show's staff had inappropriately touched her on the set of the television sitcom. The allegations were picked up by the news media, and another co-star, Ben Oxenbould, told A Current Affair on 24 March 2010, that he had witnessed Hughes involved in an "incident" with a girl under the age of 10 on the set. A Current Affair put the allegations to Hughes that he had indecently assaulted Monahan and other co-stars. Hughes denied the allegations and referred them to his lawyers. As of 25 March 2010, Police had not received any official complaints relating to the matter. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/police-may-take-action-over-sarah-monahans-hey-dad-abuse-claims/story-e6frf7l6-1225844068510http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/25/2856057.htm http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/puzzled-hey-dad-star-denies-molesting-his-onscreen-daughter-20100324-qwte.html

• Note: this link shows how the material was presented in the most recent version:

comments

Personally I would say that these claims are quite extreme and as yet there has not been a charge at all or perhaps even an official report, it is early days as yet to add this issue, we should wait to see if any official report is made and if there is any charges, as yet it says at the end of the comment, as of 25 of march there has not even been a official report and the issue has gone to his lawyers, we should wait before we add such extremely controversial content to a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes the claims are extreme. Yes there has been no police action yet. But the allegations are being reported in reliable sources and are ongoing (from today's news: ). There is nothing wrong with reporting the allegations here as long as (a) we report them as allegations; (b) we report the subject's denial of the allegations and his referral of them to lawyers; and (c) at all times we use reliable sources. Waiting for police action or charges is an arbitrary line in the sand. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a duty of care to living people, that fact that it is being reported in a few citations does not require us to insert it, we don't have a rush to report allegations as they do in the press, let the situation develop and if and when more is reported we can add it then. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any more of a duty of care than the reliable news outlets - every single Australian news publication - who are reporting the allegations. Letting the situation develop to see what happens is not an appropriate course: people come to wikipedia for information. It is our job to give it to them, as long as the information is reliable. In this case, every single word in the last revision of the article was supported by a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are totally wrong when you say that we don't have anymore of a duty of care than reliable news outlets, they have a duty of care to their shareholders and a need to sell and report whatever will increase sales, we have none of those incentives. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is totally irrelevant. They have a legal duty to not commit defamation. Our acceptance of these sources as "reliable" (not in any dispute here) means we ought to trust their reporting judgement. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Imagine this if in a few days it comes to nothing, no official report, no charges nothing, a malicious report even..we could change it then to read...In 2010 he was accused of sexually assaulting a girl of ten but it didn't come to anything. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be entirely appropriate. We can't ignore massive-scale coverage in reliable sources like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive localised reporting, we are not a news outlet, we are an online educational resource, it people want tittilation they have more than enough without us joining in, editors should take care to see this seperation and move away from this type of type of position, wait and see how it develops, it is not ok for us to report such controversial content without, at the least an official report and a charge or at the minimum a police investigation. Personally, in this case I would prefer to keep it out unless there are charges. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not our place to make personal subjective judgements about what we consider appropriate for inclusion. The fact is that these allegations are now what the public principally knows this guy for. We should therefore report the allegations. Moreover, I can't understand any reason to draw a line in the sand at "charges" or "police investigation". Either we cover the allegations from the moment they appear in reliable sources, or we wait until conviction (ie the point at which the allegations are proven in a court). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

personal subjective judgements. Yes it is, we have BLP policy and our common sense and responsibility as wikipedian editors, if the reporting takes off and the issue develops and the subject perhaps comments more about it and a report and investigation occurs and charges are brought then clearly the issue can be added, for the time being it can happily stay out. The situation is mentioned on wikipedia and I can support that inclusion at this time on Sarah Monahan BLP, just that she has made a comment about this and on her article this man is not named. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the BLP policy supports waiting for police action before reporting allegations. BLP requires verifiability and the use of reliable sources: both those standards are met here. So you are left with "common sense" and "responsibility as wikipedian editors". Both totally subjective opinions. All of your comments on this thread so far have been your personal opinion about what is appropriate. You are entitled to that opinion and it is a sound opinion. But it is an opinion. You have failed to show any policy-based or objective reason why the material should not be included. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets just call it editorial judgment, and erring on the side of caution and not inserting sensational disputed content that may do damage to a living person and his family. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. You are entitled to have editorial judgement and seek consensus for that judgement on the talk page. But personal editorial judgement is no basis for the reversion of reliable material, so please consider restoring it (at your discretion, I have no desire to revert you). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not at this time restore this content, I have removed it using my editorial judgement to protect a living person, I will consider changing my position if and when any new revelations are reported. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. Your concerns have been conceded to have no imperative in policy. Editorial judgement, sound or unsound, is not a basis for unilaterally reverting reliable material: WP:STATUSQUO. Your editorial judgement is no more or less valid than anyone else's, particularly when the majority position on the talk page is in favour of inclusion. I ask you again to restore the content. There are good reasons - that you have given - not to include the content. But those reasons don't justify reversion without consensus. Nor do mine. Lets stick with the status quo and leave it to the talk page consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(reset) I think the point that Mkativerata seems to be ignoring is that just because it may be legal to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. Arguments about legality and Misplaced Pages policy seem to me to be wiki-lawyering at its finest. Off2riorob is entirely right when he says that we have different obligations than the press based on the different nature of our charter and taking a narrowly legalistic approach does not serve Misplaced Pages well. I would ask, what is the harm in waiting for a short period to assess if the allegations will amount to more than a "she said, he said" situation? - i.e. there is some action, legal, police or otherwise. Lastly, majority opinion does not equal consensus for inclusion. The status quo could just as justifiably be classed as removal of the content, given that this was its original state. Surely that is the prudent action in this case. -- Mattinbgn\ 04:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you are implying that I'm arguing that because it is legal it is right, you are mistaken. I believe we should include this material because it is an encyclopaedic part of the subject. But that is a judgement open to disagreement and subject to community consensus. That's why I've opened it up for discussion on the talk page. Fine. The status quo at the moment is that the article is blank on the issue and I won't change that without consensus. But to suggest that BLP policy requires the removal of the content (as Off2riorob has done) is absurd. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• One of my concerns with this, other than the "early days" thing, is that all the significant reports I've seen are simply reiterating what has been said on A Current Affair and Women's Day, two effectively tabloid publications. The above references are all simply reporting it in terms of the original coverage. Personally, I'd be more comfortable if the press had gone beyond reiterating the tabloid's coverage, or if someone had (at least) raised it with the police leading to an investigation (which is likely to occur in the next 24 hours or so). - Bilby (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree substantially with this. -- Mattinbgn\ 04:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, more articles that hold new information regarding the allegations have been published today, one of them being This One. This article (and others of similar content) add; another accuser, as well as additional comments from previous staff / actors from the show (Hey Dad..!). The allegations have happened, whether nothing comes of them or hughes go to jail, it is still quite a big event in Hughes' biography. Parradudes (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no - the article you mention just reiterates what A Current Affair claimed last night - there is no substantive new comments. Every reference in the article to these additional people refers back to ACA as the source. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It sadly appears that more and more many wikipedian readers are from a tabloid reading environment and that they want this wikipedia to reflect their environment. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

no index

I have attempted to add a no index to the talk page this morning after find comments like why is there nothing in the article about the fact that this man is a pedophile, this no index has repeatedly been reverted by an IP who doesn't want the talkpage no indexed and suggests I need a mandate to add it' Off2riorob (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You could let them remove it if they want to – their removal won't actually do anything. Your addition won't have any effect either. You should definitely, if you haven't already, remove the allegation from the talkpage in this case, and warn the IP about adding claims of committing serious criminal activity for which a subject hasn't been charged, onsite.
The page is already no indexed by default, because it uses the {{WPBiography}} banner: That template includes no indexing. If you enable "Show hidden categories" at Special:Preferences > Appearance, you'll see any such biography talkpage has "Hidden categories: Noindexed pages" in the Categories list at the bottom. –Whitehorse1 15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that information, I did remove the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's one of those things I only knew myself out of luck, from prefs settings. Whitehorse1 17:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  p.s. quick nifty tip I've picked up: viewing source on a template you can use find in your browser to check for a noincluded {{noindex}}.Whitehorse1

Mike Fasano (politician)

• Mike Fasano (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some really vitriolic material was posted here by an apparent constituent; I removed that, but at the same time removed some really smarmy glurge about what a tough time he had as a boy and how he made birdhouses for old people; as well as some really partisan pro-Fasano stuff, including links to YouTubes of his favorite ads. The vitriol, somewhat toned down but still partisan, has been re-added once; I cautioned User:PHVoter about NPOV and the like. Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on BLP-sensitive content at Jesse Ventura#Navy career

We'd need some outside help for reaching consensus on the Navy career section of the article Jesse Ventura. While some of the content in that section is sourced, this content is being synthesized into a narrative that enhances negative information. That synthesis is, in part, based on one questionable source that presents its content, e.g. this text, in a directory named "venturawatch".  Cs32en Talk to me  03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Despite repeated warnings several editors at the Ventura page have been adding unsourced information. Everything they have provided a source for is in the article so no-one is trying to delete unsourced content. However these editors have argued that it is not necessary to provide one in this case. One quote from one of the editors on the Ventura talkpage -

'What you are stating right now is that despite the fact that Ventura was not in combat and therefore could not have earned a Combat Action Ribbon (which requires that a person actually be in combat to have earned it), that this requires a source. Not true.'

As far as I was aware Wiki policy is that all claims must be sourced, especially controversial ones, and that unsourced material may be removed from BLPs, however the several editors wishing to include their own unsourced original research do not concur. Weakopedia (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor that made that observation. Let me make my point very clear, because I'm tired and I'm getting sick of this nonsensical argument. The DD 214 for any member of the American Armed Forces lists all awards earned. Ventura's lists only two awards. There is no synthesis here, it is simple logic. If it isn't listed, he didn't earn it. All X must be Y, A does not equal Y, therefore, A cannot logically equal X. All awards must be on the DD214, the Combat Action Ribbon is not on the DD214. Therefore, he could not have earned it. There would be a need for sourcing beyond the DD214 if one were trying to claim that Ventura DID earn it, not that he DID NOT. I've asked for comments as part of dispute resolution, so by all means, please do so at the article, but I wanted to put the other point of view here before I went to sleep. Rapier1 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have some difficulty understanding the very concept of synthesis for you have used exactly the same language to defend you use of original research as is used in the policy page to warn editors how not to do things. Luckily you found a source for the material you wished to include and saved having it's finer points explained to you more forcibly. Weakopedia (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins; Twitter

Some editors would like to include the day and month of this broadcaster's birth. The information is sourced to responses to and from his twitter account on and around his birthday. See the logic here. The Twitter account is not officially verified but is linked to from his BBC homepage suggesting it is legitimate.

Background: when in the past, the month and day was deduced based on a comment that his birthday was the first day of Lent of a particular year, the subject complained via OTRS and the information was removed.

Hawkins (via an IP) has apparently objected again to the inclusion of his date of birth in the article."It's none of your business" "Just delete the bloody thing and mind your own business". Unfortunately, he has also encouraged his twitter followers to vandalize the article, so it has been semi-protected.

Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources (he has twice referred to the year, however). In any case, Twitter is hardly the best source, in my view. I think BLP policy is clear that if "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year", but other editors disagree. I would be glad of the opinions of other editors about this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He has revealed the date, more than once, on his publicly-available Twitter account. This is a reliable source, and that has been explained to you already, on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is your opinion, and indeed have included a link to your explanations in the first paragraph. The point here is to get the views of others interested and experienced with BLP matters, including appropriate sourcing/OR for these kinds of articles.--Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not merely my opinion - it's fact, supported by Misplaced Pages policy. Your bald claim that "Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources" is false. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Where has Hawkins (or any other source) officially given his full birthdate? Where has he or anybody else said "My birthdate is xxxx". Anyway, all of this ignores the fact that BLP policy (which cannot trumped by any other policy/guideline) clearly and directly states that we should omit the date/month in cases where the subject objects. Hawkins has. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true, the policy states the we should omit this info where the subject objects to it being published, it does not say that we should omit the info where the subject objects to it being published on Misplaced Pages. The twitter account clearly meets WP:SPS, and thus the actual day and month of birth, as posted by the subject of the article himself, is verifiable. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DOB. "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" This is the exact quote from our BLP policy; it specifically does say we should omit in a situation like this, where the subject has complained about the inclusion on WP. --Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The way that the quoted policy reads, is that if the subject objects to the info being published at all, but it is published anyway, then Misplaced Pages should defer to the subjects wishes. This is not the case. The subject of the article wants to control what is and isn't written about them on Misplaced Pages. This is the real issue here. Does Wikipedial allow a BLP to dictate to Misplaced Pages what can and can't be written on Misplaced Pages about them, or does Misplaced Pages stick by its guns and say, that info is in the public domain, it is verfifable and sourced, so therefore we should (and will) include it. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOB also states "Misplaced Pages includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

• have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release"

Which is the case here. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You are right that generally the subject does not get to control WP content. This is an exception, however, and I think you are misreading the policy. There are no qualifiers to the instructions about deferring to a subject's wishes about the inclusion the full date of birth, which is written in the context of privacy issues. I also think that you are putting a lot of faith in a series of tweets, none of which actually say "my birthdate is XXXX." --Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No; the exact quote is "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Nether notability (already established) nor privacy (the subject has willingly put the data into the public arena) is an issue here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The important point is that you are failing to address is "If the subject complains". He has.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Neither applies here, as shown. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an important "or" in there; "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains". Both criteria are not required; in any case a quick look at the AFDs will show, that for many editors, his notability is in doubt. --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Either or both clauses are still in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Notability in this case has been extablished, as the AFDs show. Privacy is not an issue, as Hawkin's own publication of the date shows. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Hawkins has used his own, publicly-available Twitter account to say, on 1 March, "today is my birthday". You removed the citations showing this form the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

dif please, with this exact phrasing.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This Twitter post made on 1 March 2010, contains the phrase "Thank you for all the lovely happy-birthday tweets". This Twitter post also on 1 March 2010 states "Hooray for birthdays!", thus establishing that 1 March is JHs birthday. It is already verified and not disputed that he was born in 1962. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those say "today is my birthday" or "my birthday is March 1st", do they? That's what I asked for, in response to Andy's claim above. You are (probably correctly) deducing that March 1st is the day, but maybe he was thanking people the day after his birthday and celebrating then too. Unlikely perhaps, but without a definite statement from Hawkins or another source, this simply isn't good enough. But once again this is almost moot, as BLP requires us to err on the side of caution by not including day/month info where the subject objects. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would he thank twitterers for the happy birthday tweets if it wasn't his birthday? If they'd got the date wrong wouldn't the likely response be "Thanks, but my birthday is on...". This Twitter post made on 2 March 2010 also references his birthday the previous day with the comment "didn't celebrate birthday with junk food orgy!" I think the evidence is clear enough in this case. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting the objection. The subject of the BLP does not object the his birthday being published. If he did so, then I would support keeping it off Misplaced Pages. The subject of the BLP only objects to the info being on Misplaced Pages, he is quite happy for it to be plastered across the internet elsewhere, and has published the info himself. The bigger question (above) is the one that really needs to be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is absolutely no evidence that Hawkins has "plastered his birthdate across the internet". A few ambiguous tweets don't cut it. And yes, even so, our BLP policy does allow subjects input about what is in their WP bio with regard to the month/date info, the first google hit for most people. If you don't agree with the policy, that's fine, but you need to try to change it. And that can't be done here. This is my last post here, and I hope others will weigh in. In the meantime, I will re add the year of birth since that seems well-sourced and appropriate per BLP policy. --Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

there is no ambiguity to the tweets,. Please stop making misleading claims. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the policy requiring the exact wording you now insist on. Or stop inventing rules. Hawkins has publicly said on 1st March, that that day was his birthday. What part of "you removed the citations showing this from the article" did you miss? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No answer? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Question

The real issue here is not the inclusion or omission of JH's date of birth; it is the issue of control. It is whether or not Misplaced Pages allows living people who are Wiki-notable to dictate what is and is not said about them, or whether Misplaced Pages stands up to these people and says "as long as our policies are adhered to, we will publish what is deemed to be suitable per consensus of Misplaced Pages editors", as I originally asked above.

No we don't want to go down that road of allowing subjects to control their content by tweeting in uncomfirmed accouts and we need to avoid the idea that just because we don't have a birth date that that is some kind of problem, it is not, just leave it out. Twitter is not by its very nature a reliable source and asserting that it is imo is a lowering of verifiability standards. Celebriwiki Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there is no doubt as to the ownership of the twitter account, which therefore meets WP:SPS. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a big supporter of twitter, the fact that he has to announce his birthdate on twitter in an attempt to correct them on wikipedia is a joke, any links to twitter is a degrading of what wikpedia claims to be, accepting that this twit is acceptable asserts they are all reliable, perhaps it is me that is in the wrong place. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No assertation is made that all twitter posts are reliable. We are specifically addressing this particular case on this particular article and none other than that. I take it that by "twit" you mean the post and not the poster. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps you are. Can you provide a citation for your assertion that he was making an "attempt to correct them on wikipedia"? Meanwhile, Twitter accounts which are provably owned and controlled by a person are perfectly acceptable as sources for things said by that person. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No they are not at all they are worthless and should never be linked to, if I find a twitter lnk I remove it immediately. This particular case is a joke, do you think that his birthday is some kind of fantastic educational content and we have to add this tweet as a reliable claim because we just have to know what is the exact birth date of this minor radio person, wikipedia is lost. Off2riorob (talk)

Policy says such links are acceptable. Feel free to lobby to change it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed only, twitter accounts can be verified like our OTRS system..Almost no twitter acounts are verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawkin's Twitter account is linked to from his own page on the BBC website. No greater confirmation can exist, or be required. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if his twirter account is tatooed on his arm, linking to his tweet that he claims to be his birthday as a reliable place to find out or report his birth-date from is imo valueless and detrimental to the quality of the wikipedia. Supporting this as a reliable citation asserts that all tweets will have a discussion like this, johnny has tweeted on his twitter that he was born in Texas not California and it is clearly him, big discussion and change to johnny was born in California, laughable, johnny who is 24 was born in California (cited to johnny on twitter).Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. It's not WP policy; like said: feel free to lobby to change it. And your latter point is false logic. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, as was discussed in the last round of arguing only a few days ago, Twitter's beta 'verified account' program is not the only acceptable method of determining the ownership of an account. Insisting that the only verifiable accounts are those that have that spottily implemented feature, which is used only in cases where there have already been problems with impersonation (and sometimes not even then), is pointless and counterproductive. If an account's ownership can be reliably sourced it doesn't matter if it's twitter-verified or not. Your opinion that Twitter is 'worthless' as a source is not supported by policy, and your apparent insistence that because people can post lies on Twitter the entire service is unreliable is fallacious. Yes, people can lie. They can do it anywhere. That's why we have carefully written rules on when and how to use a self-published source. As long as those are followed, there's no danger of falling down any slippery slopes. The question here is not whether the account is verifiably his - it obviously is - but whether the information can or should be used when the marginally-notable subject apparently objects to it. -- Vary | (Talk) 05:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is more than marginally notable. He has presented a show on a national radio station in the UK, and won a major national music award. I'd say that "moderately notable" would be a better description. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is not at all well known in the United Kingdon, his viewing figures suggest that without this internal discussion, there is only bots and a couple of family and friends viewing his wiki article. Off2riorob (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Our internal stats can determine friend-and-family relations? Whoo! Which way's Signpost - we really should be shouting about this innovative AI development. Also, please could you point to the apparently-new policy, that viewings stats should determine article content? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

There being no further responses I propose that we reinstate the full DoB to the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is where all this is leading, desired addition to Lady ga ga tonight.. I am just wondering, do you support this addition? Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 28, 2010, Lady GaGa chatted in a cbox on one of her fan sites, GaGaDaily. She announced that she had already written the first single off of her new album http://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gaga-in-the-gagadaily-chat-box/. She said will be "the greatest of her career" it's "an anthem to our generation." She also revealed that she will announce it's title on that fansite. She later confirmed it was relly her on her Twitter page http://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/11220130969 .

Utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is relevent, it is exactly what you are supporting and encouraging, it is the wikipedia that you support, self certification and promotion by subjects through their twitter account using the wikipedia to publish it. So, no I don't support it at all.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal, with the proviso that if a better source can be found, then that source should be used instead. It has been adequately established above and elsewhere that the twitter account is JH's, and therefore can be used per WP:SPS. Mjroots2 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the full date of birth either here or at the talkpage of the article. The same two editors Mjroots and Pigsonthewing have been arguing vociferously for inclusion here and elsewhere and have received zero support, while 4 editors have opposed it for various reasons (Off2riorob, me, and Jonathunder and Mattgirling). More importantly, since no local consensus can overturn BLP policy, I'll also point out once again that the proposed edit would violate our BLP policy (which has been recently clarified), which unambiguously states that "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth...err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained . It's not going to happen. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SLP1, you still misrepresent the policy. The subject does not object to his DoB being published. He has even published it himself. He only objects to it being on Misplaced Pages and that is because he objects to the very existence of the article. He is still trying to control his article, which is the one thing that is not going to happen. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented policy. I may understand and interpret it differently than you do, but that's a very different matter. Please be careful with your claims.

Note that the BLP policy, in the context of privacy of living persons on WP says, "where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth" ie inclusion on WP. There is no expectation that he must "object to it being published" anywhere/everywhere as you suggest.

I realize that you are concerned about Hawkins controlling the article. If I saw signs of that I would support actions to prevent it. But that is not what has happened here: the subject has objected to the inclusion of his full date of birth on WP (twice, 6 months apart, with peace in between). BLP policy accepts that the inclusion of this material may be considered a breach of his privacy. Hawkins is within his rights to complain to WP about it, and as he has we are obliged by policy to respect his wishes. --Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread seems to have considerable tendentious argumentation by Andy Mabett and Mjroots2. The date should be removed unless there's a definite reason to include it, i.e. it's inextricably connected with some well-documented incident of encyclopedic notability. A made-up example might be if Hawkins ran for president of the USA and there was a Supreme Court case about whether he was old enough to take office, because his 35th birthday fell on inauguration day. That would make his birthday notable. The operative words from WP:DOB are "widely published by reliable sources", which doesn't mean a few twitter posts. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sedgehill School

Needs some attention. User:LeadSongDog come howl 13:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed nearly everything as it was all original research. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You may want to note that BLPN is generally for BLP issues. Aditya Ex Machina 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It was the BLP issues that primarily concerned me, particularly those relating to the allegations of responsibility around the subject of the fire. If someone has access to archives of The Times some of those might be verified, but in any case NOR certainly applied to much of the article.User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Marvin Sapp

This article, which profiles the highest-charting gospel artist in Billboard's half-century history of charting album sales, still contains two notices/warnings that were posted in 2007--"Needs references or sources" and "article written like an advertisement." Both issues appear to be resolved.Jay Swartzendruber (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the advert tag and changed {{BLPunsourced}} to {{BLPsources}} - it could do with a few more. I also removed the image placeholder, its use is now discouraged. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry Bloomfield

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

(copied from WP:EAR#Violation of my article biography content by User:Jezhotwells )

To whom it may concern,

Harry Bloomfield

In the past 2 years I have been using Misplaced Pages to refer people to see my wiki page.

My profile has been edited several time in a defamatory way and even erased completely in the past few weeks by a user named “Thebattlebgins”. This is possibly an act of criminal defamation of character in my biography placed in your prestigious application on the Web.

Please feel free to check the edit history on my profile to verify the various attacks by the user “Thebattlebegins”.

I kindly ask you therefore to reveal the user’s IP address to locate and stop him from further damage to my reputation as lawyer and business man. Is there a way to block or restrict posts to my page for a certain user who is not acting according to the standards of Misplaced Pages?

Thank you very much for looking into this urgent matter and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Harry Bloomfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldbloom (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding replies from WP:EAR. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points: First it is not "your profile", it is a biographical article in a an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (subject to certain rules). Second, obviously vandalism is inappropriate and we take it very seriously, particularly when it concerns biographes of living people and it is usually quickly reverted. Third, as the subject of the article, you should not be editing it except to remove obvious vandalism. If you have concerns about other content you should discuss such concerns on the article's talk page. Fourth, the article as it is now is, frankly, a mess and I have added maintenance tags accordingly. The layout needs fixing per WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOSBIO, but above all it needs multiple, cited, non-trivial references to reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject per the guidelines at WP:BIO. Hope all this helps. We are happy to help you with this, but conversely you have to understand that Misplaced Pages has inclusion criteria and its own ways of doing things. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with hwat ukexpat says above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in Misplaced Pages:Autobiography to support the claim that "as the subject of the article, you should not be editing it except to remove obvious vandalism". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As always when attempting to precis a longer document, I omitted some nuances. Directly from WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point Andy Mabbett is getting at is our WP:COI policy explicitly does not forbid people from editing articles concerning them, it is only strongly discouraged. This is a key point, because it means amongst other things that if people are editing an article on them but not doing anything bad then they can't be blocked, no matter how extensive their editing or in what areas. Also if a person's editing has no problems, it would be inappropriate to continually pursue them for editing the article on themselves. For these and other reason it's better to make it clear that editing an article concerning them is strongly discouraged rather then saying they should not do it, which seem to imply it's forbidden which is not supported by policy.

A look at Template:Uw-coi may be helpful on how to word such advice in the future.

People of course should be aware that if they are editing an article, for example removing sourced criticism which has due weight and expressed in an NPOV manner then this is indeed forbid, and while it doesn't matter who's doing it, it's very easy to do this and similar things when you have a strong bias towards the topic, as you would usually have for yourself. In other words, the fact that you are almost definitely not objective means you are a poor editor of an article concerning yourself. It's also worth remembering that while you may not be blocked, anyone editing an article on themselves may attract adverse attention from the media even if their edits were considered constructive.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Marc Daubert ( Founding Member of the rock band Phish )

Proper references HAVE BEEN placed at the end of this article. Marc is mentioned in several books about the Band and it's former members. He is also mentioned in the album credits on the PHISH CD " Lawn Boy. " <redacted>

Thanks

Posted 3 / 26 / 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaqfather (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding some references. I've added another one and removed the tag. --Slp1 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Plasmatics

• Plasmatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's (band member's) privacy. At least two band members are explicitly named, followed by characteractizations that disparage the persons. The introduction, and sections of the article are sensationalistic in tone regarding the exploits, actions, and legal troubles of named band members, see:WP:BLP. The article is under- sourced. There are multiples of unsourced statements throughout the article, that amount to titillating claims about individual band member's lives. Looking at the article's revision history I notice that some of the material has been challenged in the past, and a meager source, represenative of perhaps only one or two sentences would be added for remedy. The unsourced material is out of proportion to the unrepresenative references provided. It appears the editors are unaware of BLP policies, when I assume good faith. However, this article appears to have been written in an irresponsible manner, which is in conflict with BLP policies, see:WP:BLP. It does not fall under "Criticism and praise" see WP:BLP I am removing contentious material and adding a speedy delete tag. // Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After removing the sensational material, the rest of the article appears OK. However, it appears that most of the material is not cited or referenced. Two templates regarding this issue and POV have been affixed to the article for some time. I believe the removed contentious material should not be restored unless its tone can be monitored. I see the major issue with this article is the tendency toward titillation, along with insentive characterizations and statements. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was indeed a mess, and it is now rather less of a mess. However, your main bunch of changes (here) shows what seems to me a mixture of good changes and dubious ones. Some of what you cut hardly seems damaging; or if it's damaging, it's damaging to the halfwits who were (or pretended to be) so offended by the Plasmatics' antics and then beat them up. (Yes, it's mostly unsourced. But so is most of what you leav in.) You get SGML comment syntax wrong in places and do things resulting in other oddities. I suggest that you reexamine your changes and revise some of them. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix the SGML. In regards to the other edits, I will let the Admin board here decide or the discussion that ensues decide. Technically, any material that is biographical and unsourced can be removed, and this is especially true with BLPs. So really if its not sourced it can be considered contentious. However, I just chose anything that might put the band members in a bad light, since appearently most of them are living. There is concern also for the people that are in their life - families and friends WP:BLP. Anyway, in this instance, I am just relying on what I consider to be disparaging information. Can it be more neutrally worded, etc., etc. ? Thanks for your input Hoary. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a punk band so there will be some rebel type content, it could use a music fan and a few more citations. I have not had a look at the removals but Steve's comments seem on the right track, although speedy delete request is a bit much, it has been removed, imo the article is worthwhile but needs improvement, they look more or less notable to me After a search any controversial content that appears uncitable can be moved to the talkpage for consideration or deletion, anything run of the mill can imo be left and tagged as requiring more citations and at least the job is started. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit - what a fucking mess. Try reading the article now. There are many things that simply don't make sense because chunks of text were just deleted without regard to sentences that follow. There wasn't that much contentious content. The Plasmatics did use shotguns and chainsaws in concerts. They did blow up cars both at shows and on TV. Wendy did cover her nipples with electrical tape. How is any of that disparaging? Sean Echevarria (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So go find a citation and put it back. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean this to come over as rude as it does. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but this is frankly bizarre. Deleting material relating to a band's theatrical stageshow - which will be well known to anyone with a passing familiarity with the band in question - and then posting on the BLP board about it? Saying that they blew stuff up on stage or wielded chainsaws is neither a BLP violation in respect of the members who are still alive, nor even vaguely "controversial" - either in the sense that it is damaging to them or "disparaging" in any way whatsoever, or that it might possibly be untrue. Ideally yes, the information and the specifics involved should have sources. But we don't need to source every detail on every page, nor does broadly accurate and relevant content necessarily need to be deleted while we wait for those sources. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does look a bit conflicted or involved, I wouldn't object to reverting back to the previous content if someone was going to work on it, the lead singer that most of the removed content was about has been dead ten years. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The very start of Allmusic's history of the Plasmatics says: "At a time (the late '70s and early '80s) and a place (the New York punk scene) where shocking the audience was often the order of the day, few bands had a greater gift for cultivating outrage than the Plasmatics. During the group's heyday, a Plasmatics show could include anything from lead singer Wendy O. Williams covered in shaving cream and electrical tape while brandishing a chain saw as blue-haired Richie Stotts attacked his guitar in drag, to the destruction of televisions, electric guitars, automobiles, and other consumer goods." To keep this out of the article on BLP grounds is, as the above poster states, truly bizarre. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall we revert it back and leave a comment to the removing account to discuss any issues they have on the article talkpage previous to removal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First, using "Holy S--- what a f----g mess" - as the first excited expression as a response to this complaint pretty much expresses the tone of the removed material, and expresses how certain editors view how to write this article. I wrote above the major issue with this article is it has a tendency toward sensationlism, and tittilation, and in other words is unencyclopedic and lacks a nuetral point of view. Using "Holy S---" and "f----g mess" are sensationalist remarks and this is also the editor who is "restoring" the article. In addition, there is the insentive characterizations and statements. Especially, Wendy's passing could have been handled with more tact. Just because this is an article about a punk rock band doesn't mean it is supposed to flout Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Also, there is the fact that there is a lot of biographical information in the article that is unsourced that does not include the contentious material. And finally, although Wendy has passed on she was part of a band who has members that are still living and her former behavior in the band reflects on them. I noted this in the revision history. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Steve but no one agrees with you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I was trying to add the following below, but apparently there was an edit conflict. Here it is anyway:

The sensationalistic and tittlitating material is now being restored word for word (or almost word for word). Specifically, the editor who opens responses with "Holy S--- what a f----g mess" has restored the following material. Here are the diffs: , , , . This is all salacious material. The section title here: and this section title are designed for sensationalism and are salacious. The tone of these diffs are unecyclopedic and they lack a nuetral point of view. This flouts Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I can link specific policies and guidelines here if I need to. In any case, it won't be long before I reccomend this article for WP:Afd. The article is about a punk rock band, it is not the punk rock band itself. In other words it is a Misplaced Pages article. There should be a clear distinction. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you should take your issues to the talkpage for discussion, there was no support here for your removal of that content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct Off2riorob. I didn't see this before, but perhaps the best thing to do is get involved in the editing process of the article. Thanks for the tip. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another tip btw - you're probably better off steering clear of the GG Allin page, or at least covering your eyes if you come across it. N-HH talk/edits 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Vijay Eswaran entry not significant for wikipedia

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

This aricle about Vijay Eswaran is not significant, it has to be deleted ] (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article looks totally alright to me, he seems notable enough, it could use some internal links and the citations working on and expanding, if anyone wants a little job. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 by an IP and me

• • i have created an article Thorogood (but it was deleted) which according to me is more notable than Vijay Eswaran , on what basis you are saying he is notable (i do understand wikipedia has guideline for this ) just beacuse some has added some content and has referred links (those are from the website the person created for himself) does not make him notable, his company Qi Group is allgedly involved fraud in India , Srilanka, Nepal .  ?

--] (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He looks notable enough to me, there are links to company and personal sites but there are also links to global independent publications, imo enough coverage to assert notability, if you feel this way still you could nominate the article for deletion and open a Misplaced Pages:AfD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Investigation reliable and notable?

A Russian celebrity gossip type show investigated Marina Orlova, by interviewing her, then checking up on her claims. For example she claimed to have graduated from one university, the show then went to that university and the staff had no record or memory of this person being there. This was broadcast on NTV (Russia) on 15th October 2009.

You can see a preview of it at Official network site, click 'Архив' then page 2, then click '«Супер Новые Русские»' to watch preview of episode at top of screen.

Or you can watch the entire thing on youtube - part 1 + part 2

NTV (Russia) is a major broadcaster, which broadcasts around the globe, which will have proper editorial controls in place to stop libel or false information from ever being broadcast. Yet User:Off2riorob keeps reverting these additions without saying specifically why it can't be added.

Now I've got people saying I'm going to be blocked if I keep trying to add it. What do I do now?--Sinistrial (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

There's currently some discussion about various issues with this article (which has been a frequent topic to this noticeboard). It already has a fair amount of attention so not that important for people here to intervene but thought I'd note it in case people are interested anyway Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Pillsbury

Someone just posted asking for some help with this politician/bureaucrat's bio to WP:3O, which is how I noticed it, but it seems to me that it probably requires some more attention than that. It appears to have been under dispute for some time, including possibly involving editing by the subject of the article itself. It needs some more eyes who are experienced with BLP issues than it'll get at 3O, I think. — e. ripley\ 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams, Jean McConville, Brendan Hughes and Ed Moloney

There has been a long standing agreement that Gerry Adams alleged IRA membership is covered briefly, since he has described claims he was in the IRA (specifically ones by Ed Moloney) as libelous and has never been convicted of the offence, and was in fact acquitted when tried for it in 1978. A great many things have been alleged about him by many sources, but the agreement still stands that we do not include a lengthy "rap sheet" of offences he has not even been charged with. Ed Moloney's new book includes the allegation that Gerry Adams planned the kidnapping and execution of informer Jean McConville. He has not been charged with this offence, he has not been convicted of the offence, it is an incredibly serious accusation by Ed Moloney. Gerry Adams has said that Moloney's claim he was even in the IRA is libelous, this is obviously way beyond that. This is not even a new accusation from Moloney, his earlier work that Adams described as libelous contains "Whether, as alleged by one well-informed source, or not the order was given by Adams, it is inconceivable that such an order would have been issues without his knowledge" about her kidnapping and execution, amongst several pages of detail about the incident. O Fenian (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the "Talk" for Gerry Adams how important it is that this discussion atracts new input and is not swarmed by existing editors with their known positions. However, it is important there be a second statement with arguments for inclusion of this matter.

Such a statement might start with this, a Google News Search now showing 184 news articles refering to, if not repeating the allegation. At this precise moment, that chapter opens with "'I'm suing Adams for the truth -- it is not about money' - Irish Independent - Sam Smyth - ‎4 hours ago‎ - Helen McKendry, daughter of Jean McConville, whose murder was allegedly ordered by Gerry Adams, according to a new book. ... ".

It might also be useful to note that there are two allegations about Adams and the IRA. In 2002, Moloneys book alleged the same as others have done, that Adams was in the IRA. This first allegation is in the article. For some reason, the second allegation made by Moloney in 2002 (involvement in the killing of McConville) has not been allowed into the article, and this is the point at issue. In 2002 Gerry Adams said he was consulting legal advice on whether either allegation was libellous. We have no information on what advice he received from his solicitors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be "alleged informer Jean McConville" in your paragraph above, O Fenian? Bastun 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean Wallace

The article on this person appears to be written by himself. My understanding is that this is not permitted. --SamanthaChambers1966 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Samantha. Welome to the site.

It is permitted, though it is discouraged. The reason for the preference others author them is that it's difficult to write about oneself dispassionately, free from bias. It is possible.

For a quick example of the issues involved you might like to read my somewhat scrappy comment at the bottom of this deletion debate. The subject is in a different professional field, but the same concern was at hand. There're a lot of jargon acronyms there for somebody new, though you should be able to get the gist.

Although the subject of this article created it, in 2006, he's only edited it 3 times and about a third of the brief article's content has been added by others. A main concern in such cases is the notability – in Misplaced Pages terms, of the subject. That broadly means sufficient independent reliable published sources that cover them in some depth exist, perhaps they've won notable awards, etc.

The references at the bottom of this article show this individual has won awards significant enough to have their own Misplaced Pages articles (even I've heard of one) and he's mentioned in the list of winners in the respective article on here (not added by himself!).

The article needs a little attention for such things as encyclopedic tone, and style, but is broadly fine. I'll try to do some work on it soon. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. --NeilN 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've built on your good work, tidying and expanding it a little. –Whitehorse1 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job. --NeilN 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

Please check this out. I think the list of arrested suspects is not quite in line with WP policy.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we add pictures or names of suspects usually, we definitely don't if they are children, anyone know of any previous similar situations? Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re pictures: The policy area dealing with photographs like this is WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed.". None of the persons depicted are minors. The image description shows it's provided to the media by the U.S. Marshals Service, via AP (presumably Associated Press; generally a reliable source). The page history shows the picture, which is on Commons, has been renamed to make clear they are charged, not convicted. The photo appears within a section titled "Criminal investigation", which details the charges on which they were indicted by the U.S. Attorney. No disparity between the text and image nor placement of the image to falsely assert by implication is evident. –Whitehorse1 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Can we have a neutral editor or two take a look at a recent issue on the above. A recent accusation that Adams was a member of the IRA has just become a news item. The general accusation is an old one and has always been denied. The new accusation is a report in a book. It needs some people who understand BLP policy who have no issue at stake in Troubles articles which are under arbcom restrictions. Thanks --Snowded 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted something there on the article talk page (clarified). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The IRA allegations have come and gone for decades. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

it is also written quite neutrally and not really excessively written and well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Thorburn

Mark Thorburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I need advice or intervention from more experienced wiki editors please; a user editing from various IPs (quite possibly the subject of the article) is reverting my edits, citing 'pending legal proceedings'. Have read WP:BLP but still unsure of the correct action to take. // Vl'hurg 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He is not really very notable is he, I did a search, is this very minor incident reported in more that that Sun paper? Have the radio station announced anything about it? that they sacked him for this email? I have nominated the picture for deletion as it is to be found at other locations on the web and there is no evidence of permission. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not found anything from the radio station. I don't think there's much other coverage to be found other than the linked articles. I just get the feeling that someone is trying to introduce some bias by removing the negative aspects (which are relevant to the article in my opinion). Vl'hurg 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He is almost unworthy of a article, a minor local news scandal about a person of little actual notability, named and shamed on the globally published wikipedia is a bit much imo. Misplaced Pages should not be the main distributor of such content about people of minor notability, are there any more citations about him, or has this email thing more in any other publications, perhaps a major nationwide publication? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:OrangeMike has inserted the content, blocked the IP for a week, citing no legal threats and semi protected the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Levi Bellfield

• Levi Bellfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Not sure what Misplaced Pages policy is as I know the page is hosted outside UK jurisdiction, but this page would be considered in contempt of court in the UK as it talks about Bellfield's prior offences while he is being prosecuted for other crimes; as demonstrated here British media cannot discuss his criminal history. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing we're not hosted in the U.K. Misplaced Pages is not censored. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Matt Miller reference in Goatse.cx

The "Geographic Location" section of the above article has rightly been flagged as original research, but since it attributes responsibility for an internet shock site to a living person with no citation or support, it should surely be removed immediately. The article is currently under lockdown pending consensus on whether or not it should incorporate an image from the shock website (warning: it currently does). The FDD discussion is here; but this is a different issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Talk:Carrie Prejean

Talk:Carrie Prejean (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated unsourced accusation using a term with specific legal meaning on talk page in reference to an individual mentioned in article. Attempted to delete such references with explanation, but those edits were immediately reverted by another editor. // Nat Gertler (talk)

Admin NatGertler is attempting to control the debate about the Carrie Prejean article. Admin NatGertler believes that it is ok and proper to quote directly the hate-filled speech of Prez Hilton toward Ms. Prejean in the Misplaced Pages article in direct contravention of the BLP and NPOV requirements of Misplaced Pages. He is for the full quote and there are editors who are reasonably against the quote. Admin NatGertler is now using his Admin position to intimidate and control the discussion so that he can impose his POV on the article. This type of tactic with editors has been going on for about one year in this article. It was recently brought up on Jimbo's talk page and Admin NatGertler believed that to be inappropriate, etc. Admin NatGertler has a direct conflict of interest in this situation and he needs to drop out and let another Admin handle it. This type of bullying and intimidation by admins is unacceptable. He is NOT a disinterested three party. He is attempting to impose his viewpoint on the article, which violated NPOV. Also, the direct quotation of Hilton's hate-filled speech is a violation of BLP. And finally the constant piling on Ms. Prejean has turned the article into a coatrack.--InaMaka (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down, do you have a citation reliable that attributes that this speech is a hate filled speech, if that is your personal opinion you need to stop asserting it all over the place. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not going to "calm down" since I am already perfectly calm. You might not like what I said but that has nothing to with whether I am perfectly calm. You don't know if I a "calm" or not. I don't even know you. I'm actually lying in bed right quietly as possible. How is my emotional state have anything to do with Mr. Hilton's hate-filled speech? That is silly. Try sticking to the issue and not my heart rate. It is not only my personal opinion, which I have a right to state, it also the opinion of the famous columnist Liz Smith and others. You can review Ms Smith's reference here: Liz Smith comments on Hilton's hate speech.--InaMaka (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its enough to make me apply for admin status, policy stops me commenting how I feel about this. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(1)"e called her a 'dumb bitch' and drew a dick shooting cum on her face. why hasn't anybody thought to call him on his misogyny?" -- Anna North, Why Does Perez Hilton Get A Pass On Misogyny?, Jezebel, Jun 23, 2009.

Misogyny: a hatred of women. -- Merriam-Webster.

(2)"Robert Siciliano, a cyber crime expert, says Hilton’s sexist rant is feeding into a growing problem online—hateful, sexist, racist rants.

Hilton, a judge for Miss USA, lashed out on his website, calling Prejean the “B” word after she told him during the Miss USA pageant she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Since then, he’s taken the name calling to another level, saying in a TV interview, he really wanted to call Prejean the “C” word.

Siciliano says it's a warning people like Hilton should heed before they use hateful words online." -- Carol Costello, Online hate speech, CNN, April 22, 2009. -- Rico 20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the deal for the uninitiated. The underlying debate is whether the Carrie Prejean article should quote that Perez Hilton called her a "dumb bitch" as part of his tirade in response to her answer to the question he posed at the 2009 Miss America pageant, which controversy propelled Ms. Prejean to the front pages of news websites for months to follow. Editors have varying opinions on the talk page. InaMaka has today taken the a new tackasserts that the term "dumb bitch" (which a search shows appears in other unrelated wikipedia articles) is hate speech.--Milowent (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (Minor edit added in light of below comment from InaMaka--Milowent (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

No. Milowent is absolutely wrong. I have called Hilton's hate-filled speech "hate speech" for over a year. I have stated this in the edit summaries, on the Prejean talk page, on Jimbo's talk page--over fifty times. Now, that an Admin has come along and he is determined to be put the whole quote in the article that admin has decided that I cannot call Mr. Hilton hate-filled speech "hate speech" even though there are famous folks such as Liz Smith who have already called it that. Also, Milowent leaves out of his summary the fact that at one point in time the article quoted the "db" quote five different times. Also, Milowent is leaving out of his summary that Milowent and Admin NatGertler have been quoting Hilton's hate-filled speech directly over and over again in on the talk page and in Hilton's article. So basically Milowent and Admin NatGertler have decided that they are going to take the tactic of stopping me from calling Hilton's words hate speech just Liz Smith did but it is ok for them to quote "dumb bitch" word for word. And finally Milowent left out of his selective summary the fact that Jimbo has called the Prejean article a coatrack.--InaMaka (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a year, incredulous, wikipedia is doomed to be destroyed by such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To correct a couple of things here: No, I am not an admin. No, violating BLP repeatedly for over a year does not make it all right. And no, Liz Smith is not a reliable source on legal matters. You want to say Hilton's speech strikes you as filled with hate, fine. But the term you used has specific meanings in the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stalking" has a legal definition too, but I get 19,335 hits for "stalking"in Misplaced Pages talk pages. Do I need to cite "a reliable source on legal matters," before writing that someone is stalking me? -- Rico 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Of course, you don't need a reliable source to state your opinion. People state their opinions all over the place on Misplaced Pages. Editor NatGertler just wants to control the debate and shut down our BLP concerns. But we all must remember that the article must be written from a NPOV and adding sensationalistic tabloid type of information in not allowed on Misplaced Pages and repeating the potentially defamatory material of another is NOT acceptable according the BLP rules. At no time has Nat Gertler provided an explanation of how the quote makes the article better--other than it was said. People say things all the time. The only reason that Nat Gertler has given is that Hilton made the comment and we can reliable source it. That is NOT an reason why it doesn't violate BLP or NPOV. It is merely pointing out that it is reliably sourced. This argument that "db" needs to be quoted in the article has not been fully explained. Yes, it is sensationalistic and yes it is sexist and yes it is mysogonistic but it is NOT necessary or helpful. We can express Hilton's hatred of Prejean's comments without quoting him word for word. We do not have to create an attack page or a coatrack to do it either. There are other less tabloid ways to get the point across without assisting Hilton in his attack on Prejean.--InaMaka (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If any accusation can be sloughed off with a "that's just my opinion"... well, we could do away with BLP policy altogether then. As for your inventions about my motivations and your blatantly false descriptions of my Talk page posts, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you wish to discuss concerns over the inclusion of the Hilton quote on the Carrie Prejean page, that should be a separate discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your talk page, and I don't see where InaMaka has made any descriptions of your Talk page posts.

I looked in the following sections:

T:Ssm (Talk:Same sex marriage)

Traditional_Marriage_Movement

Same-sex_marriage

SSM (Same sex marriage)

NOM (National Organization for Marriage)

Same_Sex_Marriage

Marriage

Please_comment_and_give_your_opinion_as_an_active_editor_of_homosexuality-related_articles_on_English_Wikipedia.2C_thank_you_very_much

Marriage

Question (about the bio of the leader about the National Organization for Marriage)

Proposed_deletion_of_Lauren_Ashley (another beauty pageant contestant that said marriage is between a man and a woman)

You say that they're "they are irrelevant to the topic at hand," but I have objectively proven that almost all of the editors that have fought for the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person have shown interest in gay/same-sex marriage. (Skip down to the bullet points.) You have consistently fought for using the 'encyclopedia' article to vilify Miss Prejean, who said marriage was between a man and a woman. Coincidence? -- Rico 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Being that I have not fought for Carrie Prejean being an attack coatrack, but merely being precise on the items it covers, your supposedly objective analysis really does not impact me. I have not fought to villify anyone. It is not surprising that editors involved in gay marriage discussions will come to this topic, as there are relevant links back and forth in the articles. And the concerns about the description of my Talk page posts refer to Talk:Carrie Prejean, not any user talk page posts, and InaMaka's incorrect comment here "At no time has Nat Gertler provided an explanation of how the quote makes the article better--other than it was said. People say things all the time. The only reason that Nat Gertler has given is that Hilton made the comment and we can reliable source it."; sorry if that confused you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rico has acurrately exposed Nat Gertler's biased editing patterns. I agree completely with Rico that Nat Gertler, and nearly all of the editors who share his left-wing poltical beliefs, have fought long and hard to use the article on Miss Prejean as an attack page/coatrack to further an agenda. It's no coincidence. One look at the history in the links Rico posted reveals this. It should be noted here that Nat Gertler successfully managed to get the Traditional Marriage Movement (a group who believes in traditional heterosexual marriage) article deleted. Coincidence? I don't think so. Furthermore, his edits on National Organization for Marriage is worrisome in my humble opinion. I strongly believe Mr. Gertler is unable to edit in a NPOV manner when it comes to any subject that opposes homosexual marriage. The Miss Prejean article is only one of many examples. Caden 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That "Nat Gertler, and nearly all of the editors who share his left-wing poltical beliefs, have fought long and hard to use the article on Miss Prejean as an attack page/coatrack to further an agenda" flies pretty hard in the face of my actual record on this article. Checking the history, I've been editing on it less than a month. My edits during that time have included such things as repeatedly reverting the addition of discussion of breast implants to a section header, and such highly uncontroversial things as correcting punctuation errors, correcting the name of the pageant where it was misrepresented, correcting the spelling of "Christian"... and yes, there were places where I called for more precision, but it was part of the same effort, an effort to improve the article. And yes, I proposed the deletion of the "Traditional Marriage Movement" article, as I (and enough of the other people who voiced in on the AfD) couldn't find sufficient evidence that it existed as a notable "movement" - but I have helped with the article that replaced it, Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Milowent, here are some other things you left out:

You wrote, "I think Carrie is an idiot,", put in the article that "some reports have noted that teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for sending such tapes," and substituted polling for a discussion -- voting that it should be in the BLP that an openly gay gossip blogger called her a "dumb bitch."

You can't just write in the article that Miss Prejean is a "dumb bitch," but can report that someone else said it, if enough Wikipedians want that. Then an admin can come along and declare, "Consensus seems to favor inclusion", and restore the disputed content -- even though Misplaced Pages:HARM#For removal of sourced content states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."

You argued, "'Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing'). I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article." Another editor thanked you for your "great objective research," and bought into your idea of "creat a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article."

There have been dozens of editors and admins that have not been editing to create an encyclopedia article, but to create an attack coatrack of a living person. -- Rico 04:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am proud of my work to defend this article and I am shocked and appalled at your selective mischaracterization of the total body of my edits to this article. I demand an immediate retraction to be published forthwith! Yes, I do think Carrie is an idiot, yet I fought against the worst bile that was being inserted back when I was active on the article. The "problem", if you will, was that reliable sources were reporting on the material you dislike. When Carrie said she was 17 at the time she made the little videos (which she was lying about), that caused reports about how other teens have gotten in trouble for the same behavior. And, yes, one rabid editor accepted my sarcastic suggestion that we create a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article. None of the drama you are stirring up surprises me. You can head over to James O'Keefe and attack my efforts to corral both extremes there as well.--Milowent (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you Milowent. What Rico posted above is quite true. Your body of edits speak for itself. Furthermore, by you calling Miss Prejean an "idiot" and your idea of creating an article called Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video, speaks volumes about you. I personally find your idea of such a BLP violation and your insults on Miss Prejean apalling. Caden 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The underlying deal is that Miss Prejean said this and the openly gay gossip blogger, that asked the question, said this. -- Rico 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the core of it all.--Milowent (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

Some editors have read or heard of the things this right wing "Christian militia" group is accused of plotting, and wish to state in they lede that "they are terrorists." There is an edit war over the terms to be used to describe them. Some references included to show that they are terrorists consist of some writer saying that the "main stream media" is not calling them terrorists, but the writer thinks they are. I suggest that they not be baldly labelled as terrorists, but if some government official or mainstream media says they are, the label should be attributed to that source, and not be included as a simple statement of fact. BLP should apply strongly to those accused of crimes who have not been tried. Some eyes on this article would be appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to only use extremely strong citation there and take care not to assert anything, there is going to be a big trial. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should be fully or semi-protected so that language or categories achieve consensus on the talk page before being added. I have edited it so I hesitate to protect it. Edison (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Full support for that Edison, semi protected, excessive categorization with BLP issues, I can't see that anyone under the circumstances would have any objections. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim Ung-Yong

This guy was apparently a famous child prodigy in the 1960's who since then has been trying to keep out of the public eye. The article was vandalized a few days ago (without being fixed) and I just came across it by accident. It has a weird and long history of editing from IP addresses over a several year period. Almost all the content (though not obnoxious) was unsourced with source requests, and seemed weird enough that I deleted it all. Looking at some of the old history (July 2008) it was formerly sourced to a now-404'd German-language article on a Korean TV station website. There is a Wayback Machine snapshot of the article, which is a somewhat gossipy human-interest story but reasonably backs up some of the older and longer versions of the article, so I might restore some of it (the stuff removed is not exactly contentious, just a bit unusual). A bit more annoying, the guy has a fairly large number of Google hits, almost -all- of them apparently derived from the enwiki article. There are also a bunch of interwiki links to non-English wikipedias and the ones I can decipher any of seem to have about the same info. Even the Korean one has the same outgoing links (I can't read any of the words though). I wonder how many of enwiki's BLP problems propagate to other language wikis like this.

Given the frequent vandalism to this article, some watchlisting would be appropriate. On the other hand, a fair amount of the (extensive) IP editing is of reasonable quality, so semi-protection probably isn't called for. It could also be useful if a Korean speaker could look at the Korean sources and maybe find additional ones.

I have been looking into IP-address editing of BLP's in response to a request from Casliber; there actually doesn't seem to be that much in general, and this article is pretty unusual.

66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado & over-zealous patrolling by admin users who are taking matters personally

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

Nelly Furtado & Gestapo-style patrolling by admin users

Manual of Style for Bios, Nelly Furtado & Gestapo-style patrolling by admin users

Please bear with me because this is very serious

PART I - Introduction

I seem to unwittingly have stepped on a minefield in a battle being waged by Misplaced Pages ‘patroller’ Morenooso against “Portuguese nationalists”. On 27 or 28 March 2010 on the Nelly Furtado page I added the word “Portuguese” to “Canadian” where it said she “is a Canadian singer-songwriter”, thus changing it to “she is a Portuguese-Canadian”. User Morenooso (More Noose?) reverted it and sent me a note about me using “different styles” which would make it difficult to read” – pure nonsense, by the way, as readability is one-thing and in-house style is another (I have ten years experience as a real life editor – radio, television and magazines). So, I tried to plough through Misplaced Pages pages on Style etc and read something about hyphenating nationalities. So I went back and changed it to “Canadian of Portuguese descent”

Guess what? Mr Rambo Morenooso came shooting within less than 15 minutes of my posting! And someone called Slim Virgin went and semi-protected the page in question. This is what “More Noose” left me: Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Nelly Furtado. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) · Advice - This article was put under semi-protection by an Admin because of nationalist edits like yours which can now be considered vandalistic. I'd recommend dropping the issue. --Morenooso (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC) What exactly the first note means, god only knows – why not spit it out? The second note “Warning” already alerted me to the fact that something was going on. So, I went to the page and saw that he had reversed my edit. That really got my blood boiling! So, I began looking into the matter. Oh, and by the way – the page is now “semi-protected”! to stop vandals! How can we stop the nooses such as ‘more nooso’?

PART II – attack against me

I demand a public apology from Morenooso for accusing me of vandalism and of “nationalist edits like yours”. It is at the same time a brilliant choice of words – so you are assuming that because I have a Portuguese name that I am Portuguese, making “nationalist edits”. So, if my Portuguese surname makes me Portuguese, does Furtado not make Nelly Portuguese? I am not using this as an argument for “Portuguese-Canadian”, but merely to illustrate your ridiculous accusation – and hoping that more sensible administrators will take corrective action.

For your information I am actually South African of Angolan parents – there are five independent African countries that speak Portuguese and where a significant portion of the population (possibly the majority) carry Portuguese surnames.

I am also fluent in a few languages, contribute to Misplaced Pages in at least 6 and can easily read another 10, in which, if I suspect something is wrong I can refer it to colleagues who speak that language to check. The colleagues I refer to are professional translators on a number of forums where we are in permanent contact to help each with translation issues.

PART III – historical record of tampering with this issue

Unbeknownst to me, this is an old war, which has been going on for ages, with Morenooso personally involved in it as far back as could (ab) use his powers! People have for years been adding “Portuguese” to Nelly Furtado’s “Canadian” only to have it deleted by the likes of Morenooso and – according to the records, someone called Yamla before him. I ask you, is it not better to accommodate popular sentiments rather than have people who get cheap thrills out of imposing their authority overriding contributions on the grounds of some ill-defined rules? And don’t give me nonsense about rules, because I’ll get there. In the process, I’ve now taken the trouble to spend a lot of my time on this, so I expect the matter to be handled with the respect that it deserves – and not a cabal cover-up to protect Morenooso. . I could live with it if it was strict editorial policy. However, the Furtado case has – over the years - been argued back and forth. NOT – as you would have expected - on the grounds of editorial policy, but on all kinds of ad hoc rules nonsense such as seen in silly comments of the type “prove that she is Portuguese and I’ll allow it”. But fine. Let’s go with the rule that Morenoose most often trouts “mention of nationality in the opening paragraph”. However, this rule is not followed in other languages. So, Misplaced Pages must either re-invent centuries of editorial policies, codes and guidelines (as it appears to be doing) that will apply TO ALL LANGUAGES (after all, it is the Misplaced Pages Project), or, if that is not the aim and each language must determine its course, then it must accept existing language conventions and bow to centuries of English editorial style. And nowhere is there a rule about how to refer to nationality in the opening paragraph. In my time, I’ve proofed, subbed, edited, translated a few hundred thousand words. Now, about Mr Morenooso (‘more noose’ on freedom of expression? I’ve put ten years of my life into freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in Africa). Morenooso is extremely arrogant, leaving his print wherever he goes through with statements like “I repeat”; “have already said”; “I hate to be blunt but the rules are the rules”; “If you don't want to follow this rule, then I gently suggest you edit other articles or go elsewhere where you are permitted to break the rules”; “It is the country where the person is born. Period.” Period? That’s it? He is the law? That’s what it would appear if you read the complaints against him! http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nelly_Furtado And his comment to me personally “I’d recommend dropping the issue”. The latter actually implies that Morenooso thinks I know that there is an issue around this matter - in other words, he indirectly admits that this is just one more time that he is dealing with this matter, undoing one more edit. With millions of edits every hour, how was he able to go back to my second edit in a matter of minutes? Obviously this is a pet hate of his. Or does he do nothing else but monitor if anyone dares to change when he has ruled on a specific matter? Type Morenooso into Google and you will be happy/ aghast to see how many times the name comes up in connection with his abuse of power. Type +; + etc to read the complaints against Misplaced Pages. But neither you or I should have to do that – merely look at his record on the Nelly Furtado discussion page. And before Morenooso, his ‘predecessor’, waging this war against referring to Nelly Furtado as “Portuguese-American”. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12061&mode=threaded Still on Google – and therefore out there embarrassing us, the Misplaced Pages community to the world - Morenooso has the following to say on his privileged user page: “chances are I put your talkpage on Watch” – what exactly does that mean? What kind of language is that to be using towards other contributors? Some of us are more than equal? But here is an interesting comment by Morenooso: “Misplaced Pages has rules. With every rule there is an exception. Unfortunately Furtado does not fall in the exception range – Morenooso. Ok. So what is the “exception range” and where do we mere mortals find out how to gauge whether we are within the range? Or would Morenooso prefer to keep it a secret for the initiated cabal?

PART IV – the folly of this administrator war

At any rate, it is sheer folly to try and provoke Portuguese speakers across the world for the sake of trying to impose a rule that as you can see from the examples below is not followed in probably thousands of cases (the one I listed below I gathered in a few minutes – imagine how there aren’t out there. The Misplaced Pages community is about knowledge not turf wars – so let’s try and not turn this into it with accusations of “nationalist edits”. What would become of Misplaced Pages if actions of users such as Morenooso attracted the attention of hackers out for vengeance? Would your Gestapo-style policing have been worth it?

There are also comments by these super-editors or patrollers about “Portuguese nationalists” repeatedly adding the word “Portuguese” to the opening paragraph.

I see reference in discussions between these Gestapo users about blocking Portuguese IPs and Ids to stop them from insisting on adding “Portuguese” to Nelly Furtado. These cowboy rogue patrollers are doing a great disservice to the Misplaced Pages project and should be weeded out. Take the trouble to Google for instances of people complaining about “Misplaced Pages editors”. Yamla, Morenooso, http://manojranaweera.com/2007/01/08/wikipedia-sucks-no-it-doesnt

PART V – Lack of consistency in application of soc-called rules

Please look at the log under “Nationality as per Manual of Style for Bios- statement by government & dual birth certificate of page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nelly_Furtado ”I have reason to believe that Morenooso has a personal grievance to seeing Nelly Furtado being referred to as Portuguese – he reversed it once now it sees it as a personal affront every time someone adds the word Portuguese. He has demonstrated it here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nelly_Furtado by amassing a range of arguments for doing so, including ridiculing himself by claiming that adding Portuguese to Canadian “Portuguese-Canadian” makes it hard to read!

If the logic is that the person should be referred to by the nationality under which he or she gained fame, then why is Albert Einstein referred to as “Swiss-American”. http://en.wikipedia.org/Albert_einstein In fact, if the style rule is to make the text look tidy, then is “German-born Swiss-American” nor far worse than “Portuguese-Canadian”?

And what about the notability rule here? Einstein was famous long before moving to the US – in fact his move to the US was a consequence of his being famous!

The arguments by the super-editors for not citing Furtado as “Portuguese-Canadian” are ridiculous, one by know-it-all Morenooso himself with this latter day commandment: "Repeat: I do not think a statement by Furtado that she is Portuguese would be sufficient" by user Morenooso; another asking that proof be produced that Canada has accepted her dual citizenship”. How arrogant! Nationality is not only about paperwork, it is about identity!

What kind of inquisition is this? Is this being done with every one of the hundreds of thousands of people listed on Misplaced Pages as being A+B? I believe not. Because if it is, where is Einstein’s US birth certificate?

And so what, if members of the worldwide Portuguese community take pride in seeing Furtado as one of their own and want that fact made prominent? Are the Canadians complaining? Threatening to deport her is she goes live claiming to be Portuguese? Again, nationality is not only about paperwork, it is about identity! Who is Morenooso to want to impose his own vendetta against it?

Would it not serve the project better if people like Morenooso cared a bit more about knowledge and culture than on militarily imposing a rule that is flaunted in thousands of pages, for a personal sense of gratification? If Morenooso cared more about knowledge, he would know that Furtado was the official singer at the UEFA Euro 2004 held in Portugal, as the “Portuguese poster girl” for the cup. Her rendition of the Cup song (Força) has become a worldwide symbol of Portuguese identity. In fact, the Congress of Portuguese-Canadians has since then created the “Nelly Furtado ‘Força’ Award”. Imagine that – an award conferred by the Portuguese community in Canada named after none other than whom? A deservedly “Portuguese-Canadian”.

PART VI – the history

Nelly Furtado is mentioned in the article “Music of Portugal”. http://en.wikipedia.org/Music_of_Portugal

Furtado began singing in Portuguese at community events of the Portuguese community in Canada, her officially first public appearance being singing at her mother’s side singing the Portuguese anthem on Portuguese National Day. How much more Portuguese than that do you want her to be? Do a DNA test?

It is a shame that Morenooso should spend so much time patrolling well-meaning contributions with a Gestapo mentality instead of making more fruitful contributions to the project.

For your information, Portuguese-Canadians are officially recognised as such in Canada, the Portuguese-Canadian community being held in high esteem in mutual respect, arising from when Canada invited and assisted Portuguese to immigrate into Canada (in what is called a sponsored immigration look it up) at a time when Portuguese were being repressed under the yoke of the Portuguese nationalist dictatorship. In 2003, Canada issued a series of stamps commemorating 50 years of the official Portuguese immigration.

Part VII – The Style Guide

Nothing is ever cast in stone – even constitutions get reviewed, changed amended etc. Happens to laws, decrees etc all the time. It is a logical process of civilisation – look at the pillars that uphold your values and revise them as and when necessary. And inept administrators get fired. In the past few days, instead addressing the issue, I seen people writing about making the rules less ambiguous, so as not to fave further challenges by those advocating for "Portuguese-Canadian". So the rule-makers are a power unto themselves?

There are numerous areas that dearly need improvement, so it is such a pity that members such as Morenooso choose to spend/ waste their time tilting at windmills.

Part VIII – a few examples of references to more than one nationality in the opening paragraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/Daniel_Fernandes_%28footballer%29 is a Portuguese-Canadian footballer

http://en.wikipedia.org/Danny_Fernandes Canadian singer of Portuguese and Italian descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/Lucas_Silveira What exactly is a Portuguese-Canadian family?

http://en.wikipedia.org/John_Tavares_%28lacrosse%29 “and is of Portuguese descent”

http://en.wikipedia.org/Mario_Silva is a Canadian politician and is one of two MPs of Portuguese descent in the Canadian Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/Nadia_Almada Madeiran-born UK reality television star

http://en.wikipedia.org/Grace_Aguilar English novelist and writer on Jewish history and religion, was born in Hackney of Jewish parents of Portuguese descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Hal_De_Forrest was a Portuguese-born American early silent film actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Francis_Barretto_Spinola was the first Portuguese American to be elected to the United States House of Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/Seal_%28musician%29 English soul and R&B singer-songwriter, of Nigerian background

Portuguese-Canadian National Congress http://www.congresso.ca/english/default.aspx

Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals http://www.fpcbp.com/

Part IX

I’ll monitoring all these pages now to see whether good sense prevails or whether the likes of Morenooso get their way and everything now gets changed to cover up for the inadequacies of people who should never have been entrusted with power – however little. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than a bit of forum-shopping going on here. Short version of this controversy from my perspective: MOS:BIO discourages the use of ethnicity in the lead. Editors are claiming that Furtado has always been a dual citizen. If true, that would allow the use of "Portuguese-Canadian". However, no source has been presented that shows the Canadian government recognizes and respects any claim by Furtado to Portuguese citizenship. What has been presented is private analysis of Canadian and Portuguese citizenship laws, which comes under the blanket of WP:OR. This has led to a long-festering dispute. Unfortunately, it has become a shouting match. Morenooso has been making claims about the contents of MOS:BIO that do not stand up under examination, which has been inflaming the situation.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Does BLP proscribe quoting what JTF-GTMO wrote about Abu Bakker Qassim?

Abu Bakker Qassim was a Uyghur captive in Guantanamo -- one of the first five to have been determined to be innocent, in 2005.

The initial determination that five of these men were innocent, while the other 17 had their enemy combatant status confirmed was controversial, because critics noted that that the five who were determined to be innocent, and the 17 who were confirmed to be enemies faced essentially the same allegations and essentially the same evidence. Back in 2004, when these individuals Combatant Status Review Tribunals were underway, some interagency memos were exchanged between Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and OARDEC. JTF-GTMO was the agency responsible for the Guantanamo captives detention and interrogation. OARDEC, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, was created in 2004 when the SCOTUS ordered independent reviews of the determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants".

I found one of the memos buried in a large file, and I put it on wikisource -- Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO. This memo has a short paragraph about each of the Uyghur captives.

I quoted some of those brief paragraphs in the articles of the captive it applied to. Here is what JTF-GTMO wrote to OARDEC about Abu Bakr Qasim

Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan.

Even though when the SCOTUS ordered that the Guantanamo captives access to habeas corpus be restored, the DoJ and DoD quietly acknowledged that they were no longer prepared to argue they had evidence to justify labelling these men enemy combatants, there are some US politicians and some commentators who continue to describe them as terrorists.

What JTF-GTMO wrote about these men is important. I suggest that we don't want to follow the practice prevalent in Stalin's time of making inconvenient information simply disappear.

User:Iqinn has removed those short paragraphs from the articels on the Uyghurs. On December 18, 2009, The edit summary for removing the section states: "rm - strong BLP concern - the removed part is a misinterpretation and misrepresantation of a questionable primary source - I see this issue as taken to the talk page where i left a message"

After he responded to the points left on the talk page another contributor reverted the excision 2 days later.

Three months later, on March 20, 2010, Iqinn excised the passage a second time, with an essantially identical edit summary. I restored it to status quo ante with the edit summary: "reverting per WP:Reverting#When to revert -- see talk" Iqinn excised the material a third time, with the edit summary: "do not revet controversial material back into the article that violates BLP policies - fix the problems or discuss on the talk page" Another contributor subsequently changed it back.

On the talk page Iqinn told me I was "edit warring". He said he was going to bring the issue to BLPN. Ultimately, it doesn't look he has done so.

After that long preable I have a few questions:

1. Does anyone agree that BLP authorized the removal of this material?
2. How seriously should one take the advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert, in general? And specifically, when should BLP over-ride the advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand exactly what is the issue, is it this content? If it is then where is it cited to? Content removed in good faith and with the desire to protect living people should not be replaced without a community consensus here or on the talkpage of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan

• That is the passage in question.
• The source is a 7 page document found on pages 28-34 of http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/publicly_filed_CSRT_records_1731-1808.pdf#28-34 and manually transcribed to wikisource by yours truly Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Works related to Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO at Wikisource

There seems to be no BLP problem here. It appears that BLP and the cited passage may have been misunderstood. Whether and how much of such a source is appropriate is for the article talk page, but this is labelled extract from a clearly relevant official source discussing a detainee. As long as we quote and attribute it correctly and make clear allegations are just that, there is no problem.John Z (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Minchin

Inside tim Minchin's Misplaced Pages article, it is stated that he was born and raised in Northhampton, UK. I think that this fact is wrong as Tim states inside his DVD "So Live" that he was BORN and raised in Perth, Western Australia. Is there someone who is able to rectify this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorN57 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Rivard, Ry. "Edits to online encyclopedia spark flap: Misplaced Pages user says Oliverio's campaign manager removed information from site" Charleston Daily News March 31, 2010

• Administrative backlog
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages BLP policy