Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:51, 11 October 2011

• 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.

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Zara Phillips

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

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article

Shades of Conan-Doyle's dog in the night here. An editor has recently added a section to the Palin bio regarding the content of Joe McGinniss's new biography of her - including references to an alleged affair with her husband's business partner, and to claimed use of cocaine and marijuana in her earlier life. Though this is sourced to the Daily Mail, a little Googling shows that other, more reliable sources are reporting the story (as allegations by McGinniss, rather than as necessarily factual), see or (and for the allegations of a 1987 sexual liason with Glen Rice, also from McGinniss's book). The odd thing is the complete silence at the article talk page etc. I find it difficult to believe that nobody is watching the article, so what is going on? Have the Palinistas all abandoned her? In any case, I think a few more (neutral, or at least uninvolved) eyes on the article may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The wiki has lost a lot of editing, and SP doesn't attract as much attention as Rick Perry and others, now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still editing Misplaced Pages pretty much every day, and (disclosure) I'm not all that fond of Sarah Palin personally. However, I think that any contentious claims about her need to be referenced to high-quality reliable souces. Perhaps the warriors have lost interest a bit because she isn't a declared presidential candidate, but we still have an obligation to maintain BLP standards here. Do you have a specific recommendation, Andy, or is this just a sociological observation? Cullen Let's discuss it 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My only recommendation was that uninvolved editors should keep an eye on the article. The McGinniss book seems to be attracting a significant amount of attention in the mainstream media (see L.A. Times review for example), and we will clearly have to tread carefully to find a balance regarding how this is reported. (And BTW, for the record, I'm no Palin fan myself - though I suspect that is fairly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am no fan of SP, or of editing US electoral politics articles in general, but no amount of overwhelming RS consensus is going to convince me to include that she might have had sex with some dude, a decade and a half before she became notable. That is the very thing that WP:SENSATION wants us to avoid. The other stuff, however, needs to be better sourced. In fact, I am not sure if it should be included at all. We are not a gossip rag, no matter what the subject. --Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Joe McGinniss's new book per Cerejota's impeccable reasoning and have placed the article on my watch list per Andy's request. The Los Angeles Times review Andy linked casts real doubt on whether this book, or reporting on it, can be considered a reliable source for the SP article. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I watch it every day, but I hate to edit without discussion on talk (and even more loathe to revert). I agree with Cullen's recent removal of this section, as it certainly is pure sensationalism. Worse, it's the type that will always inherently lack secondary sources (the he said, she said type). I guarantee it's not the last we'll see this added to the page. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit at issue is a splendid example of the political silly season "this person alleged that John Doe is still beating his wife" level of relevance in a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Im actually surprised that this hasn't come up earlier, i guess the Palin fever is starting to break ;-). I commented on the talk page that i dont feel this material should be included for more or less the reasons expressed by Cerejota, Cullen328, Fcreid and Collect. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I first posted material to the Sarah Palin article. As this has been reverted, I've now taken this to Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book. I've explained my reasoning there, and very much welcome additional input into this issue. I am unconvinced by some of the arguments above. WP:SENSATION does not appear to apply to me. This is not something merely reported in scandal-mongering papers. It's something being discussed in reputable, reliable source papers. It is not infotainment or churnalism. The above reference to WP:SENSATION appears to be a rather broad interpretation of what WP:SENSATION is actually about.

As I've said on the Talk page, the driving principle behind WP:BLP is the use of reliable sources, and we have those aplenty in this case. Misplaced Pages is not a gossip rag, and we should not repeat what gossip rags say. However, when a significant scandal is covered by multiple reliable sources, that is something we should cover, in a careful, measured, neutral and, above all, well-cited manner. Let's use all those cites given above! Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is being covered in reliable sources is the fact that McGinniss made the claims that he did. And, in any event, reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion in a BLP. Frankly, if this material doesnt qualify and sensationalistic gossip, I dont know what would. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow how you are interpreting WP:BLP. I've re-read it and I don't see anything comparable to your language of "necessary, but not sufficient". If reliable sources like The Guardian, LA Times etc. are covering the issue, I don't see how it can be dismissed as "sensationalistic gossip" alone. While I appreciate your comments so far, Bonewah, I don't see how they relate to policy or reliable sources, which I understand to be the central principles behind all our efforts here. Could you perhaps re-explain your point with specific reference to policy? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The material includes accusations of felonious criminal activity not sourced to any named person. If that is not almost a textbook definition of "sensationalistic gossip" I wote not what would suffice for you. Collect (talk) 21

01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive explained my thinking at length on the SP talk page, including quoting the relevant portions of BLP policy directly, I dont know what more you want. Further, between here and the Sarah Palin talk page 8 different editors have rejected inclusion of this material in her biography so far with only you arguing for its inclusion. While that does not preclude further discussion and minds changing, i think you are clearly swimming against the tide here. Perhaps our time would be better spent not arguing in the face of such clear consensus. Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the McGiniss book is WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long track record of major books, it was published by a major publisher, and it's been widely reviewed.

Whether it's true is another question, which we can't decide. We should include the charges and the reviewers' reactions. That should keep it WP:NPOV.

Whether it's salacious is irrelevant. Unfortunately in the public discourse, WP:RSs regularly publish salacious information (which I don't think has anything to do with their qualifications for office), as they did with Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner.

So now the vote is 2 to 8, and as you know WP:CONSENSUS is not a majority vote. --Nbauman (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegations made in the book are currently covered by Misplaced Pages in Joe McGinniss#The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, along with analysis of his claims by other reliable sources (which are not supportive). The reviews claim that McGinniss relied on anonymous sources for his claims, this is definitely a big no-no for us per the BLP policy. Unless there's some corroboration for his claims, they should stay out of Sarah Palin and Glen Rice. Kelly 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rice himself admitted to sleeping with her. It should be included in his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.227.232 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP prohibits material that doesn't have a WP:RS; a book by an author of many books with a major publisher is a WP:RS. I don't see anything in WP:RS that prohibits books or articles which themselves quote anonymous sources. All the President's Men is a WP:RS even though it doesn't identify Deep Throat, isn't it? --Nbauman (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely keep new info out the page It would violate the wikipedia rule that editors have to take into consideration the living person and the implications such claims can have on their lives. This is to controversial at the present time with reliable sources saying different things and it is not so relevant to her overall history and bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolo91655 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We've taken into consideration the implications on the living person into consideration. We've also taken into consideration the fact that she's a public figure (in the libel sense), that she's thrust herself into the public forum, that she's been outspoken on many issues, that she's a politician who held positions of public trust, that she's talked of running for president, and that the public has a right to know all the information about her that they might consider important in deciding whether to vote for her. We've also taken WP:CENSOR and WP:WEIGHT into consideration. I personally don't think salacious material is relevant, but it made a big difference for Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner. If it gets media attention -- book reviews -- then it meets WP:WEIGHT and has to go in. And it has. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Media attention != relevance. In the case of Spitzer and Weiner, the relevance is clear, they lost their jobs over the affairs. Similarly with Clinton, depending on the incident, he either had to go to court or it led to an impeachment trial. No such relevance exists in this case. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, media attention = relevance. Otherwise, how do you determine relevance? Do you just say, "I don't think it's relevant," and delete it?

I think that if there's a hypocrisy issue, it's relevant. If one of the issues that Palin used to further her political career was chastity before marriage, and she had a one-night stand with a basketball payer before she was married, that would be relevant. Whether Joe McGiniss' account is true is not for us to decide. We only decide verifiability, not truth, and include the skeptical reviews. McGiniss is a published author, his publisher is an established publisher, so fairly or not, it's a WP:RS as defined by WP. --Nbauman (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The book and allegations are mentioned in Joe McGinnis - however, the allegations don't belong in biographical articles about people mentioned by the book, because other reliable sources say that this book is not reliable, as shown above. A possible new wrinkle is that Andrew Breitbart has published e-mail from McGinniss which possibly shows that claims in the book are hoaxes or lack evidence, though none of that should be included in Misplaced Pages unless documented by other sources. Kelly 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way we do things in Misplaced Pages. The standard for admissibility is verifiability, not truth. If one source that we define as WP:RS says that somethig is true, and another WP:RS says that it's false, we include both the charges and rebuttal, and let the reader decide.

I think that McGinnis and Breitbart are both irresponsible and often wrong, but my opinion doesn't entitle me (or anybody else) to remove their claims. All that it entitles me to do is to add to McGinnis' claims, and Breitbart's claims, the reasons that other WP:RS give for not believing them. And that's what we should do in the Sarah Palin article.

Even if we agree that McGinnis' charges are completely wrong, they have gotten so much publicity that the charges and rebuttals should be included in the article. People who read Doonesbury will wonder if they're true. If they see no reference at all to McGinnis, they'll wonder whether Misplaced Pages is censored. And the answer will be yes. --Nbauman (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not agree with that position. Contentious material must be sourced to reliablke sources and while the normal presumption is that published works can be used, where the preponderance of outside sources is that the material is deliberately used as a means of attack (see the NYT and WaPo reviews) and the material is sourced to anonymous sources, and the material relates to felonious activity, the policy actualy requires that such material not be used in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give a link and quote the WP guideline you're referring to. That's not my understanding of WP:BLP, and it's not my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR either. --Nbauman (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably WP:GRAPEVINE ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards"}. See also WP:RELIABLE - "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. (emphasis added) Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Also WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Be wary of sources that...attribute material to anonymous sources." WP:LIBEL may also apply here, as the Palin family has notified the book's publisher to preserve evidence in advance of a lawsuit. Kelly 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah Palin edit

We have numerous reliable sources saying that this book was published and that it's been controversial. It's kind of bizarre to pretend that it doesn't exist. The article should at least refer to it briefly. We don't need to repeat the allegations but we should acknowledge it, and also mention Palin's reaction to it and to the author, which are also notable.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid whose joy is in printing material specifically found to be trash by the reliable sources - WaPo and NYT, inter alia. But heck - I suppose the fake Irving autobiography of Howard Hughes should be used for claims in the Hugehes article by the standard you propose - the same level of "realness" is in both. Cheers, but I think consensus is exceedingly strong here, Will. Collect (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Every major news source has talked about this book, if only to call it trash. It would not violate any part of BLP to say that a book was publsiehd that has been called "trash". The existence of the book, and Palin's reaction to its writing and publication, are not gossip. As for the Irving biography, it's mentioned in the Howard Hughes biography. It should be, because it's very notable even if it was a hoax. The McGinniss book should at least be mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages does mention the McGinniss book, and the controversy engendered, in Joe McGinniss. Kelly 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Howard Hughes is probably not the best example here, since he is not alive...probably a closer analogue would be Jerome Corsi's work about Barack Obama, no mention of which will you find the Obama BLP. Kelly 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Palin article should probably say something along the lines of

• Palin complained publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. Palin increased the height of her fence to block his view. After the book was published, Palin threatened the writer with a lawsuit, saying that the book is a 'series of lies and rumors presented as fact'.

That would not violate the letter or spirit of BLP, and would refer to what appears to be a significant issue that she has reacted to publicly.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In order to maintain neutrality, you'd have to include statements from the other RS's, like the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and others who derided the book as an agenda-driven, badly-sourced attack piece. Mention of the lawsuit would likely end up requiring mentions of the McGinniss e-mails obtained and published by Breitbart, and McGinniss' response to them. Then it would quickly expand past the weight it deserves in the Palin article. Since there seems to be general consensus that the book is trash, it should likely just be kept out of the Palin biography, as we do with other attack "biographies" like Corsi's work on Obama. I'm not seeing how this situation is different. Kelly 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text deals entirely with Palin's actions. I don't think it's necessary to bring in a lot of other aspects since, as you point out, the matter is dealt with in great length in another article. As for the Corsi book on Obama, I am not aware of any similar actions he took in response. Per the Streisand Effect, reacting to something often brings it greater prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh, rather than belabor the point endlessly I'll just say I disagree. Palin's actions (actually her attorney's actions) don't have much weight in the context of her overall biography. And the text really wouldn't be neutral if it didn't convey the WP:RS opinion of the book, which puts the legal actions in context. So far the consensus has been to exclude McGinniss' allegations, I'll wait to see if that changes. With respect - Kelly 22:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text doesn't mention the allegations, so that's beside the point. We could add that it was "widely criticized" or something to that effect, but I think it'd be best to keep it short.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a revisipn based on the input from Kelly:

• Palin complained publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. Palin increased the height of her fence to block his view. The book, published in August 2011, was widely criticized. Palin's lawyer threatened the writer with a lawsuit, saying that the book is a 'series of lies and rumors presented as fact'.

Any other input?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to prevent being misrepresented, I'm still with the above consensus that the material doesn't belong at all. Just to be clear, where are you proposing to put this - in one of the subarticles (like Public image of Sarah Palin? Kelly 00:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above concered different material. I'd suggest putting this into chronological order, under "After the 2008 election".   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That section seems primarily concerned with significant political activities (book authorship, "death panels", Tea Party movement, "mama grizzlies", and Presidential run speculation. I'm not sure how tabloid reporting on a discredited writer can fit in with appropriate weight. Kelly 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she raised her fence and the fact that she has reacted to the book are not "tabloid reporting". They are widely reported incidents in the subject's life.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Today, the New York Times reported that Palin was...doing nothing. There are literally thousands of reliable sources writing about her, we can't possibly include everything, especially stuff extremely questionable on BLP grounds. Kelly 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that this book was written. It is not a "questionable" assertion. More has been written about this than about numerous other items included in the biography. For example, the article devotes as much space to her view on the troop surge in Iraq, a topic about which she merely has an opinion that few people have ever discussed. I'm not saying we should devote much space to it, just a few lines. I don't see any specific BLP policy clause the requires us to suppress mentioning this book.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not questioning that the book was written, but I'm just not seeing any comparison with weight given the rest of the section in which you want to insert this. There are thousands of articles about Palin's looks, breasts, glasses, even discredited speculation she caused the 2011 Tucson shooting. We ignore most of it, not sure why we need to include mention of a book by a discredited author with equal weight to her impact on the 2010 Congressional elections. Kelly 00:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this book needs mentioning at all. But mentioning the book, mentioning negative reactions to the book, mentioning that is was controversial, mentioning legal action about the controversy, all whilst skirting around the question of what was so controversial in the first place? If I made that edit, I think I'd feel a bit like I was working for Pravda.--FormerIP (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretending the the book never existed and that Palin didn't react publicly to McGinniss's moving next door to her would be more "Pravda" like then simply acknowledging briefly that these things have happened. People who want to learn more can follow the link to the writer's biography. There's nothing in the proposed text which violates either the letter or the spirit of BLP. If you think differently, please quote the specific text that says we must not mention the existence of unfavorable but well-known biographies.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. What I would say is that the episode is either noteworthy or it isn't. If we begin the tale, we should also end it, not tell three-quarters of the story so as to protect the subject of the article from having to read the same thing on Misplaced Pages as she has already read in all mainstream news media in the US. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We often give incomplete accounts of something when a more complete discussion exists elsewhere. "Widely criticized" is a fair summary. Can you suggest a few more words which would summarize it more completely?   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WaPo: Derided as being a hit piece by a writer who said he hoped it would end Palin's career" comes to mind. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to “the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze. seems to accurately reflect what the WaPo reviewer sees as his motive for writing the book. Reliably sourced enough? NYT Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.” Yep -- the McGinniss book was not only "criticised" it was roundly trashed by the major newspapers. Heck even in the UK (Daily Telegraph): These are the depths to which Joe McGinniss has sunk, 42 years after he wrote a fine book called The Selling of a President about the 1968 Richard Nixon campaign. / For no discernible reason other than blinded hatred of Palin (and no doubt to make some money) McGinniss moved to Alaska in 2010 and rented the house next door to his subject. This stunt – and his synthetic indignation at the understandable ire it prompted from the Palins – is given extensive treatment.. Yet some editor thinks that Misplaced Pages should in any way promote such trash - seen from the viewpoint of all the major newspapers? Sorry Will -- this goes far beyond accusing LaRouche of calling for the murder of a prosecutor ... this is plain and simple malignity. Even Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher would not push the book -- which I suggest Misplaced Pages should not come within a league of pushing. Apparently one editor's mileage varies - even from them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the existence of a book, and saying it was "widely criticized" or "trashed", isn't really promoting it. Rhetoric aside, are there any policy-based objections to the proposed material? If so, please cite the specific text in question.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Nbauman immediately above this section break (presumably the post to which you initially posted on this board). Kelly 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If the proposal here is to mention the McGinness book in a sub-article, okay, but there's no need to say that Palin "complained" about him, or whined about him, or fretted, or lashed out. Just keep it short and concise, and say she "objected" to his presence. And leave out the crap about the fence. Maybe she entered and left in darkness too, or blasted music to annoy McGinness, all of which would be as trivial as raising her fence. And also leave out the "threats" (more negative connotations in the word "threat") by Palin through her attorney. If she sues, that might be non-trivial. Only an experienced Misplaced Pages editor could take this crappy book and use it to call Palin a "complaining" and "threatening" bitc*.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking that input into the draft, we get:

• Palin objected publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. The book, published in August 2011, was widely criticized.

Any further input?   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine for a sub-article, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's intended for the biography. But a longer version could go into the "Public image" article.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with the short version in a sub-article, but I don't see why it should be mentioned in the main Palin article, which isn't the place to describe everyone who's creeped her out or trashed her. She's objected to a million things, including the Fed's second round of quantitative easing, but they can't all be covered in the main Palin article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the above mention as it is now in a sub-article but it is not notable enough for the main article. If other stuff exists in the main article that is less notable than this book, then the other stuff should obviously be removed.Jarhed (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of this material in any Palin related article. For any sufficiently famous subject, literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles will be written and to mention all of them in wikipedia simply because they appeared in print somewhere would result in a desultory mess. Other than to wave the reliable source flag, no one has made even a prima facia case for the inclusion of this material. It is totally irrelevant and a gross violation of a number of policies. Bonewah (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The "prima facie" case for including this is that Palin has responded personally to the activities of McGinniss. It's not an issue of something that someone wrote about her - it's about what she has done regarding McGinniss. There's nothing in BLP which says that we must suppress the mention of unfavorably, or even trashy, biographies. this was written by a notable author, issued by a mainstream publisher, and has received considerable attention. Including a mention of it in the article would not have any effect on Palin.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is your case for inclusion, then I stand by my objection. Nothing in your response indicates that this material has any lasting importance to the subject, your hand waving not withstanding. Bonewah (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon what policy languuge are you basing your objection? the appearance here is that editors are objecting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not sufficient reason.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? You actually need a rule to tell you to only include that which is relevant to the subject? How about common sense or perhaps discretion? Hell, at some point you might even note the consensus against inclusion, even if you dont agree. Bonewah (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on policies. This is a well-known event. The proposed text is neutral. No one has given a good reasons for leaving it out. If there's nothing else I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) People can and do often make policy-based comments without explicitly quoting policy. Looking at some of the comments above, it appears that many of them allude to the following policies and guidelines:

• WP:SS: "Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles."
• WP:NOTNEWS: "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
• WP:UNDUE WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
• WP:BLP: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing concrete issues to respond to. WP:SS, a guideline, refers to the general organization of an article. There's no question that a couple of sentences would be better split off into a standalone article. WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, refers to events which have short-term notability. This issue has been written about for over a year, so that clearly doens't apply. WP:WEIGHT, a policy, is very important here. It says that matters should be covered in Misplaced Pages article in proportion to their coverage in independent sources. On that basis, this issue deserves to be included, much more so than many other topics which have received less attention but are given space in the article. The language quoted from WP:BLP is important, but no one has asserted that saying McGinniss moved next to her and wrote a book about her is a "titillating claim".   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More than one editor has said above that a brief mention would be okay in a sub-article but not the main article, because it is a detail, and such details belong in a sub-article instead of a main article. More than one editor has said above that this info does not have much enduring notability; there was press coverage when the author moved in next door, and now there is press coverage because the book has been published, but in between there wasn't so much, and there's no reason to expect much in the future. Regarding undue weight, more than one editor has indicated above that it would be wrong to include this in the main article while omitting comparable info about other things Palin has objected to (eg QE2), and other comparable authors who have written books about her. Regarding BLP, yes the fact that she didn't like it when someone moved in next door to her is a somewhat sensationalist, titillating, tabloidish tidbit, and all the more reason to keep it out of the main article, if not out of the sub-article too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I would go further and add that relevance is important here. Further, I feel that Will, you are not giving WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP the consideration that those policies deserve. You are insistent that everyone else quote you the rules which forbid the exclusion of this material and seem to believe that anything which is not expressly forbidden by the rules must be included. This is simply not the case. I do not feel that you have made a strong case that this material is relevant enough to be included at all, and I cant help but feel that your constant call for others show you rules forbidding its inclusion is merely cover for the fact that not much at all has been said about why this is important enough to include. Indeed, WEIGHT says almost exactly that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Undue weight says several times that "significance to the subject" is what is important and so far, the only time you have even attempted to establish significance was to by claiming that because Palin responded to the book's claims, they must be relevant. That is an incredibly weak argument, especially considering how salacious these claims are and the fact that this is a BLP. Bonewah (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think "WP:WEIGHT" should be our primary guide then would you agree to deleting all the material which has received less attention than this book? 02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I already recommended that as a remedy for anyone claiming that this non-notable book should be included. However, you should be aware that such is not considered a valid claim as per WP guideline: Misplaced Pages:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, there has been extensive discussion on the talk page of the article about how bloated it is. I don't think anyone trying to pare it down would encounter much objection.Jarhed (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a policy which we need to follow, while Misplaced Pages:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay and merely informative. I've started a fresh thread on the article talk page about issues which have received less coverage than this, yet receive more weight.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, both are guidelines not policies. You can find the link to the WP document that gives the definitions of both at the top of the BLP article.Jarhed (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I earlier said that I was fine with a bare mention of this book in a sub article but I been convinced otherwise. Voluminous reliable sources attack this book's sourcing and its author's veracity, and every salacious claim has been denied by the subject with no evidence that she is not telling the truth. This book is trash and unacceptable for a BLP in any form.Jarhed (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do object to inclusion of this data as per plain BLP policy. The policy explains that notable events for celebrities generally have a mention in more than one publication. In this case, all we have is one book that is making the salacious claims and nothing else. Mentions of the book in other publications count only for the notability of the book, not the claims contained therein. This is the real issue: if there were any truth to these salacious claims, they would be extensively reported on by multiple news sources. There is no such coverage, as such they cannot be reliably sourced as per BLP.Jarhed (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the multiple sources for celebrities guideline: Misplaced Pages:WELLKNOWN#Public_figures. I might point out that this guideline was made precisely to cover cases such as this: salacious but unverifiable claims made by an otherwise reliable author and publisher for the purpose of selling books.Jarhed (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's say John Doe writes a biography of Sarah Palin. What standard of notability do you think would need to be met before we mentioned it in the WP article?   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For an article on a controversial figure, biographies might have to be handled case-by-case. For the current discussion, I would feel a lot more comfortable with including it if you could find one reliable source that didn't say the book was poorly sourced.Jarhed (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is proposing adding the claims from the book, only a mention of the existence of a notable book. The existence of this book has been reported in multiple new sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the book has some notability, but mainly for its author. I note that the book is covered quite well on his own WP article. Just because an author publishes a book about a celebrity does not make it notable for that celebrity. Palin's mention of the author on her facebook page also does not make the book notable.Jarhed (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What would make it notable, aside from being mentioned in hundreds of newspaper articles?   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the BLP policy one more time, because it seems to me that the inclusion of this book in a BLP is clearly covered there.Jarhed (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks keep saying thatm but they seem unable to find any actual part of it which says that we should omit any mention of a notable biography.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

From wp:blp "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" (emphasis mine) From wp:undue: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." (emphasis mine) Honestly, ive never seen an administrator so determined to ignore Misplaced Pages's core principles as you seem to be now. Bonewah (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the New York Times a reliable Source? What about The Washington Post? Boston Globe? Newsweek? Anchorage Daily News? Sunday Times of London? The Christian Science Monitor? Philadelphia Daily News? El Mundo? The Sunday Telegraph? Los Angeles Times? The Globe and Mail? Houston Chronicle? The Independent? National Post? The Ottawa Citizen? Pittsburgh Post - Gazette? The Guardian? The Ottawa Citizen? Philadelphia Inquirer? San Jose Mercury News? Tulsa World? St. Louis Post - Dispatch? Contra Costa Times? The Daily Mirror? Every one of these newspapers thought the book was notable.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of source to subject

<--Relevance, Will, relevance. Just because something has appeared in a reliable source does not automatically make it relevant to the subject of an article. The undue weight section I quoted just above says exactly that "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." If an event is in the news, it is therefor in reliable sources. Undue weight makes clear that this is not enough, going so far as to say that this is especially a concern. If you dont see how the passage I quoted above means what I just said, what the hell do you think it means? seriously, when you read the words "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" what do you think that means? Im honestly asking. Bonewah (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So do we agree that the existence of this book has been noted in numerous reliable sources? If so, then we should be able to agree that it is has received enough coverage that WP:WEIGHT indicates it should get a mention.

As for relevance, I don't understand the argument that a widely reported biography by a notable writer and a major publisher is not relevant to a WP biography. How do we establish the relevance of a book about the subject?   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is starting to remind me very much of the talk page discussion about Trig Palin not being Palin's son. The same arguments were made back then, reliable secondary sources, the quantity of the coverage shows weight, etc. I suppose it wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask you to search the talk page archives (all 66 pages of it) and just substitute "McGinniss book" for "Trig" in the discussion. I invited you to read the BLP again hoping that you would get from it that it is unacceptable to use a source in a BLP that is widely reputed in reliable sources to be poorly sourced. This is not my opinion, the reliable sources say so. I would like to understand, from your reading of BLP, why you think it is appropriate to use this source.Jarhed (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than asking me to read old archives on a different topic, I'd like you to read what I've written here. I'm not proposing using the McGinniss book as a source. Is that clear?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We are talking past each other. I said that asking you to read the archives would probably not be appropriate, although you might find that many issues similiar to yours have been dealt with there. I compared this issue to a similiar lurid issue also with poor sourcing and a lot of RS weight. You want to include a source in a BLP that has been discredited as a poorly sourced smear by the reliable sources, and I want to know how you justify this as per BLP. I am asking this question because by my reading of BLP, no justificaiton is possible. All of your weight issues are handled by the description of the source in the McGinniss BLP, where it belongs if anywhere.Jarhed (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. I do not want to include the McGinniss book as a source. Is that clear?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your distinction between the source and RS coverage of the source strikes me as disingenuous and amounts to giving that much weight to the source. You fail to make a case that any use of this source jumps the BLP bar. You dispute my contention that issues similiar or identical to this one have been debated at length in the talk page archives, but I assert it again. There was a notable porno movie made about Palin and a lengthy debate ensued about including it in her BLP, a debate that contained arguments identical to yours now. The arguments you present have been done over and over again, and I would appreciate some acknowledgement from you that you understand that your arguments are old hat.Jarhed (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging the existence of a book is not the same as treating it as a source. For example, we have an extensive article about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The logical thing to do with a widely noted yet poorly reviewed biography is to note its existence and the poor reviews, not pretend it never happened.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

<=== And your argument to acknowledge the existence of the book differs from the same argument to acknowledge the existence of the porno movie how?Jarhed (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC) BTW, as per your "Elders of Zion" example: Who's Nailin' Paylin?Jarhed (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you "don't understand the argument that a widely reported biography by a notable writer and a major publisher is not relevant to a WP biography." its because you are choosing not to get the point. Ive spelled out, in plain English, how both wp:blp and wp:weight expressly say that the mere appearance in a reliable source does not automatically establish relevance to a subject and that both policies make clear that only material which is significant to the subject should be included. I cant spell it out any more plainly than that, and, frankly, I think that no matter what I say you will simply go back to repeating the line that because this book is mentioned in a reliable source it must be mentioned in Palin's bio. Thankfully, im going off for a weekend holiday so someone else can continue this dead parrot sketch, but please note that my silence does not mean my acceptance. Bonewah (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that WP:WEIGHT requires we give issues which have received significnat coverage some space in an article. For reasons which I don't understand, you believe the opposite. That much is apparent. Have a great weekend.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "issue" here. And sometimes when you find no one agreeing with your arguments, you likely should consider the possiblility that you are, in fact, wrong. Articles on many people do not include every article and book written about them - the existence of a book or article on a person does not mean that it belongs in any Misplaced Pages article, and this has been true for the past five years at least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

David S. Rose

David S. Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, David S. Rose, is an autobiography. It has serious neutrality issues, reads like an advertisement, and would require an extensive rewrite to be made encyclopedic (even if the subject is assumed to be notable). Further, the subject does not satisfy Misplaced Pages's standard for notability since David S. Rose has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He has included a laundry list of references but they are mostly about other topics with single quotes from himself. The Sun Times reference is a dead link, the Forbes reference is a dead link, etc.. 24.5.68.9 (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the possibly commercial ELs, but honestly this is not the biggest puff bio by a mile. Ceers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please just torch this article? I don't think I've seen this many maintenance tags and in-line citation/clarification/verify needed tags in an article since...ever. Honestly, someone just gut the thing, and then we can start over new. hbdragon88 (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

sargon dadesho

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

This bio is slanderous and cites blogs and other deadlink sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.174.254 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This bio is for a Syrian political leader and makes a lot of statements of fact that I am unable to evaluate from a cultural perspective. This person lives in the US and the article is probably overall a positive. A prior deletion effort failed. I removed the obviously slanderous material and watchlisted.Jarhed (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Garaufis

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

Could someone please review the last paragraph of this article? As the ruling is covered in the New York Times it likely does have a place within the article, but as it reads now it appears slanted towards criticism and somewhat lengthy in comparison to the remainder of the article. Jezebel'sPonyo 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that paragraph violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I have to get back to work now. Any editor with time available, please clean up this mess. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Marintia Escobedo

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

This article reads like someone's self-promotional fluff piece. It seems very inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.119.40 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I really can't tell if there are any BLP violations in this because it mentions so many other individuals. The person is so non-notable that it could easily be speedied.Jarhed (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a shot at separating the real claims of notability based on her career in entertainment in Mexico from the huge amount of unencyclopedic POV-laden prose in the article. There are plenty of credible claims of importance, so CSD A7 does not apply. It could possibly go to AfD, but she has plenty of coverage in Spanish sources so it is likely the article would be kept. What it really needs now is a thorough copy-edit and some inline citations. --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work, that looks a lot better.Jarhed (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Side issue to Sarah Palin controversy (Levi Johnston and his "mayoral campaign")

Multiple editors have presented information in the Sarah Palin/Joe McGinniss controversy likening it to a publicity stunt on the part of McGinniss. I have no quarrel with those arguments. However, it's plainly obvious that due to his association with Palin, editors inserted information into multiple articles referring to Levi Johnston and his announcement about a year ago that he was running for mayor of Wasilla. That very clearly was a publicity stunt; do you see Johnston on this list? I don't. While mentions of this "candidacy" were deleted from certain articles, they remained in other articles, often to the point of overshadowing mentions of the article's titular subject. Unfortunately, that is a favorite Palinista tactic, which was previously brought up in Talk:Sarah Palin WRT Palin herself and duly ignored.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

1. References to "Palinista" are contrary to WP:AGF and other policies. 2. If the reliable sources make factual claims, then such should be included given proper weight. 3. "final lists" of candidates do not mean much when the issue is one of intent to run. 4. Political slly season is here in full bloom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OTOH how is speculation about future events encyclopaedic? Either someone stood for office or they didn't, old news that some one once said that they might stand for office doesn't really cut it. John lilburne (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we speaking of Sarah Palin#Possible 2012 presidential and Senate campaign?   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What articles besides the Johnston article are you guys talking about?Jarhed (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide more background if necessary, though I'm probably going to pressed for time starting at some point this morning. The Anchorage Daily News carried an Associated Press story roughly a year ago, in which they cited a TMZ.com report that Johnston was considering filing for the office in connection with a proposed reality TV show. This was coincidental with Johnston hiring a well-known Anchorage criminal defense lawyer, Rex Lamont Butler, as his entertainment agent. None of which sounds to me like a serious candidacy as opposed to a publicity stunt.

Johnston apparently filed paperwork with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, but that all did was allow him to be considered a candidate under state law for the purposes of raising and spending money. That is different from actually filing for the office, which occurs according to municipal ordinances and during specific filing periods. I didn't fully search the APOC website, but it appears that Johnston filed a disclosure report in June 2011, which was about four months past the deadline.

The relative inactivity of WP:ALASKA predates Sarah Palin's announcement as John McCain's running mate. Since the latter occurrance, I've noticed far too many Alaska-related articles which have been hijacked by gratuitous references to Palin, her family and associated individuals/topics. This specific complaint was triggered by the existence of such in Verne E. Rupright, which I noticed recently is ripe for cleanup/rewriting, especially since he was reelected just the other day without the presence of whatever media circus may have previously existed.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, rather than "Palinista," how about "individuals who demonstrate a willingness to serve as unpaid publicists for Sarah Palin and individuals associated with her?" The clear distinction between being authorized to raise and spend money on a campaign under state law, and actually filing for municipal office under the ordinances of that municipality, is something I began pointing out on here specifically with regard to Johnston roughly 10 months ago. Either I've been flat out ignored, or have seen reversions of my edits when I've attempted to make a more realistic portrayal of the situation, as opposed to the ad infinitum ad nauseum parroting of some media circus which began with a TMZ report. The only reason I can see for this is that it would portray Johnston in a light contrary to the goals of the "unpaid publicists." I've run for elected office before; a few press releases and a half-assed attempt at meeting what little paperwork requirements he faced does not equal a campaign. The lead of the Johnston article states: He considered running for Sarah Palin's former job as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, but withdrew from the race in August 2011. What did he withdraw from? Every indication I've seen is that he did not file a closing report with APOC. Furthremore, he never filed with the City of Wasilla, which is different from any filing requirements he faced with APOC. The recent media report that he wasn't running for the office, near as I can tell, came after the conclusion of the filing period.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon further digging, I was mistaken on one point. The filing deadline was in July, not August. Most municipalities in Alaska hold their filing windows in August. Another check of APOC's website reveals that Johnston filed the bare minimum of paperwork with them, and as of this date did not close out his campaign. Given that the paperwork listed the address of Rex Butler's law firm, I could possibly state without being incorrect that Johnston's actual involvement was limited to affixing his signature to the forms. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman reported the following on July 30: After being the first to file a letter of intent to run for mayor last August, former Bristol Palin beau Levi Johnston did not follow through with his official paperwork with the city. The following paragraphs in the story contain quotes from Tank Jones, not Johnston, and give conflicting information as to Johnston's actual intent during what was the final days of the filing window. In other words, a Frontiersman reporter must have noticed earlier in that week that the deadline was fast approaching and that Johnston still had not filed as a candidate. And that's what's important to this discussion, not whether the celebrity-oriented media declared him to be a candidate, and not whether filing a letter of intent with APOC made him a candidate in the eyes of some. To quote from the letter of intent form: Although I have not yet satisfied the filing requirements as a candidate, I will comply with the requirements of AS 15.13 as though I were already a candidate.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

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

This is a fairly simple question - Given that the stated purpose of a citation is to fully identify a source - How does the citation "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" meet that goal?

I am faced with the situation of two editors agreeing that it is sufficient, despite the fact that it provides no useful information to the reader.

I believe someone with a stick has to lay down the law - I've already directed them to WP:CITE, but they have ignored the guidelines contained therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit more detail would benefit - perhaps a small quote that supports the content in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

brought from the external for discussion purposes only and not for reprinting - "Moore had attended a seminary for one year, when he was fourteen, but dropped out because he was forbidden to watch football. Moore would run for office at the age of eighteen, help open a youth crisis center when he was still little more than a youth himself, and run his own alternative newspaper for ten years" - Michael Moore - A biography by Emily Shultz - 2005 - Hardback published by ECW Press - 2006 paperback published by Satin publications - ISBN-10: 1905745036 ISBN-13: 978-1905745036 - page 8 - It doesn't appear to be an official with permission bio but says, "Emily Shultz sorts the man from the myth with in depth interviews and research" - Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick search through the references in the article would find reference 19 which is a book by Emily Schultz, published in 2005, complete with ISBN number. While the cite could be expanded, it wasn't difficult to find what it was referring to. That format is seen in other articles, but usually there is a Bibliography section where one could look. Maybe that's the answer - change ref 19 to the same format and move the Schultz book to a Bib section. Also, I noticed that the diff of the latest revert by GlassTwiceAsBig uses the Harvard citation template. Does that reference meet the criteria of WP:CITE? Given everything, yes. Ravensfire (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob and Raven, I saw no need to clutter up the sourcing by redundantly typing out all of Schultz again; when using a different page range from the same source I have always used Author last name, date of publication, and page range...had Schultz written several of the references...say 2 books in the same year on the same subject or if the source was an updated work with a different year (3rd edition for example), I could see the need for expansion. I would be ok with a bibiliography section, but I'm concerned if a newbie editor doesn't understand Harvard citations, would this not lead to further edit warring and time wasting rather than trying to improve the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Given a bib section and inclusion of the book there, fine - however, that was not done. All that was added was a reference that is confusing for an average reader - remember that the user will be clicking on a link which gives them nothing more than "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" - which does NOT meet WP:CITE - "...what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source". For this purpose, "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" is clearly insufficient, and Mike has repeatedly refused to clean up his reference - which is his responsibility WP:BURDEN.--The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case I do agree - from the history of this BLP, there has been a lot of complaints and disputes, could the experienced editors active there please raise the citations to as as high a standard of detail as possible - Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So this is not to be followed anymore?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly follow guidelines, (those shortened footnote guidelines are over my head never mind over newbies heads) - its just a personal request (perhaps over and above the levels stated in the guidelines - there has been a lot of previos complaints/disruption) to make them as clear and verifiable as possible on this particular biography. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, fixed, full book cite, better than the self-published links, I suppose. Since we're obviously not going with a bibiliography, are these new standards just for me or will all editors on this article be required to follow them?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Making changes on a high-traffic article for a controversial person is a chore. Optimally, all new cites should follow the article standard and old cites should be upgraded as part of normal changes. Consider watching the article for new edits that do not follow the article standard and either informing the editor or fixing them yourself. On a case by case basis, it might be appropriate to revert a non-standard edit. You might find that most everyone will follow the new standard automatically.Jarhed (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I used a book cite template, and that wasn't good enough, now it's a raggedy cite. ARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHH! I give up, some articles "are more equal than others" I suppose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Hostetler

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

Please add this to the article about him. It is from another of your articles here that you have already published.

National Football League quarterback Jeff Hostetler (career 1985-1997) grew up on a farm just outside Jerome. Hostetler led the New York Giants to their 20-19 win over the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV (see 1990 New York Giants season).

I am a librarian, and from Somerset County. He is a native son. Thanks Kelly1200 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Glazer

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

I'm a regular at WP:COIN and have recieved a report regarding this article. A user, Jerglazer (talk · contribs), claims to be the subject of the article, has reported at COIN that they may have a COI and would like a piece of information removed from the article. here is the report at COIN. There's a source there that backs up the claim but I have no idea how reliable it is especially since it's a few years old. As I'm not incredibly familiar with BLP policies, I thought I'd ask for help here. OlYeller 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a very weak reference. It's essentially stating a fact based on a photograph of two men standing together. If it is being challenged, I'd say remove it. There is no way AfterElton, a self-described "pop-culture" site, is an RS. The Interior (Talk) 18:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• content - In October 2008, AfterElton.com noted his boyfriend to be actor Chad Allen. - http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/10/gaycelebrityboyfriends?page=0%2C2 -

AfterElton.com is a blog, is there a stronger citation, or others asserting his LGBT status, he is in the LGBT people from the United States category, has he self declared as LGBT? He is named on the Allen bio Chad Allen (actor)#Personal life - using the same blog cite. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The actor's orientation is not featured on his professional website nor is it hidden. In fact, other than a few light bio details, there is not much that is not professional on his website at all. All of the sourcing in the personal life section of his WP article are gossipy blogs. Based on the lack of such data on this person's website, I would be willing to delete the entire personal life section as inadequately sourced.Jarhed (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the data on the gossipy websites is very stale.Jarhed (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is no way of knowing if the COIN requester is really the person, but I am willing to give benefit of doubt and go further that this data in his BLP is causing problems in his personal life. Delete forthwith.Jarhed (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the other contributing editors has found and added a reference from 2006 published in The Los Angeles Daily News. Perhaps this is a tense issue (as in time) and they're not dating anymore. Would it be prudent to change the tense to note that at the time the references were written, they were dating (assuming we consider any of the sources reliable)? Even so, as this isn't exactly highly valuable information for an encyclopedia, I'm inclined to strike it from the contents completely but I have no idea how WP:BLP and or WP:CENSOR apply. OlYeller 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I wouldn't dispute if you removed it but this is a hot topic area and we have experienced editors that may want to comment and I suggest giving this one a little time for responses. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I say delete as improperly sourced. This celebrity is actively maintaining a personal website which is authoritative for such data.Jarhed (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On November 27, 2006, The Los Angeles Daily News printed an article by Greg Hernandez about Chad Allen which said that Jeremy Glazer was Allen's real-life boyfriend, and that they were both in the film Save Me. Since then, reporter Hernandez has been let go by the newspaper but they have agreed to host the online archives of his regular column "Out in Hollywood". The old article is at this link. This 2006 story corroborates the 2008 story. There's also the May 2009 photo layout in the San Francisco Sentinel by photojournalist Bill Wilson where he says Chad Allen spoke at the GLAAD Media Awards and told the crowd about his partner Jeremy Glazer. Wilson writes that he later questioned Glazer who confirmed that he was Allen's partner. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it all seems pretty much verified , I would prefer to see mention in a mainstream publication but it seems correct. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So? Old gossip with poor sourcing, and we have good reason to believe that these BLP details are incorrect. Someone could argue that we should keep it in the article for historical reasons, I say no because of the poor reliability of the sources. These details are not negative in any way and are only of prurient interest. Not a tabloid, I say delete.Jarhed (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, weakly cited I agree, it is normal from what I have seen that unless someones sexuality is notable it is only gay publications and gay blogs/outing blogs that are interested in such details and the BLPCAT might still be undue from whats been presented so far. Off2riorob (talk)

Jarhed, the sources I found, The Los Angeles Daily News and the San Francisco Sentinel, are perfectly fine ones, reliable as any other news reports. Chad Allen told a room full of media types, gathered for an awards ceremony, that Glazer was his partner and that they had known each other for exactly four years. This is not prurient or gossipy. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to look at those sources again. They are entertainment blogs and do not share the editorial oversight of their newspapers. I'm not saying that they are invalid for gossip, I'm saying that their gossip is old and that we have good cause to delete the references for poor reliability and for not a tabloid. Yes, dating data in a BLP is prurient, not encyclopedic, and we should delete it when we have a good BLP reason to do so.Jarhed (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to borrow a dictionary to see what the standard definition is of prurient. The Bill Wilson photo layout is celebratory, not salacious or gossipy—just like the GLAAD Media Awards. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for you I looked it up, and sure enough, it is an excessive interest in sexual matters. It is nobody's business who is dating whom and not encyclopedic. Some celebrities feed the machine, and some, like the celebrity in question, live like a normal person. Delete the prurient dating data as poorly sourced and not a tabloid.Jarhed (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So having a partner—just that much information and no more—is excessive to you? Do you wish to remove all mention of partnerships in Misplaced Pages? I doubt you will succeed. To me, excessive interest in sexual matters would be if Glazer's tool size was discussed, or his kinks, or even whether he had sex or not. None of the links says he has sex, they just say he has a longterm partner or boyfriend. Of course we can assume he has sex, but the links do not say so. Excessive, eh? Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Before we start on fixing every BLP on the wiki, perhaps we could fix this one, you know, the one where the living person asked for assistance?Jarhed (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's okay; there's nothing to fix. If Jerglazer says that he is "not a boyfriend of actor Chad Allen" then perhaps the two have had a falling out since May 2009. Perhaps there's a new love in his life... he doesn't say. At any rate, the old information stands as reliably sourced, and dated, and attributed. Glazer was the boyfriend/partner of Chad Allen for at least four years. Binksternet (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lauren Oliver

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

The author just tweeted to invite readers to have some fun with her page . I just had to revert a joker. I could use some more people watchlisting the article for jokers. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just semi-protect it.Jarhed (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for awhile. Is it now OK to semi-protect BLP articles even when there is no current major problem? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would wait a little to see what the flying monkeys do. Its not usual at present imo to pro actively protect prior to some degree of disruption - perhaps some will come and improve it as its not very good and she seems only minimally independently notable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, I was just thinking about playing whack-a-mole with tweeters.Jarhed (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Emed

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

This obscure Turkish artist article suffers from clear efforts to exaggerate his importance, and by a severe weakness in the s.p.a. author's command of English. I don't want to discourage them, but this is getting problematic, as the s.p.a. keeps removing maintenance tags without doing anything to cure the problems. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits to address the templates and left him with a BLP ref improve one, see what he does with that - I agree with your comments there is perhaps an exaggerated notability but I can't read the externals - he does seem to have won a few minor-ish awards, seems harmless ... I don't know if it would survive at AFD though. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember a bio of this person previously deleted but perhaps under a slightly different name? Off2riorob (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Can Emed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Howard Schultz

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

The article is skimpy to begin with. But it's also been vandalized. It says that Schultz' mother was Kim Kardashian. Clearly needs fixing, and quick. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.115.64.20 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The usual fact altering vandalism by an IP address - a user has reverted it. Thanks for the report - welcome to Misplaced Pages.Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tomas Tranströmer

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

My wish for correction is with regard to this sentence: "According to Britain's The Daily Telegraph, a poll run on the Nobel Prize website after the announcement said 88 per cent of respondents had never read his poetry."

It should be removed if it can not be enriched with a comparison to other Nobel laureates who are/were poetry writers.

As it is now, it is not clear whether it should be construed as a negative comment on the interest in poetry by the respondent to the Nobel Prize site, or on Tranströmer, or on the value of the Nobel Prize as an indicator of a writer's significance, or perhaps all three.

In any case, such citations from the press of such nature tends to bring ridicule over Misplaced Pages for repeating what is essentially "yellow journalism".

I lack the editing skills and ask for help in removing or in improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealist707 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize in Literature is an ongoing scandal: it is usually awarded to Europeans who nobody has ever heard of, and as our article states, more Swedes have won it than writers from all of Asia put together -- even before this event. Looie496 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mola Mola (musician)

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

After checking the internet movie base I have found that there is no record of Jack Hazebroek appearing in any films or tv series. I have checked to total character listings of all films and series on this page and there is no mention of Jack Hazebroek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkyboy124 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues, but this BLP has no refs. In addition, virtually every musician linked in the article also has a BLP with no refs. I'm tempted to create my own bio and link to Mola Mola's.Jarhed (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• - now under discussion at - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jack Hazebroek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article was accused of molesting a (then child) cast member of a well known television show on which he appeared 20 years ago. At the time there was considerable discussion about whether this uncorroborated and untested statement should be allowed to appear in the subject's article. (Note: I have no opinion on the truth or otherwise of the accusations. If the accusations are true then I ahbor them.). The "consensus" (IMO there was no consensus as such) was that as there was a police investigation, the claim should be included in the article.

Recently, this edit was made to the article, making the reasonable claim that this investigation does not appear to be going anywhere. It was reverted here with the equally reasonable claim that Misplaced Pages does not report on what has not happened. While this is reasonable as far as it goes, this seems to me to be manifestly unfair to the subject of this article. For nearly two years, this article has included an unsupported accusation of a most serious kind that seemingly can't be qualified in any way until the New South Wales Police issues a statement of some kind. This may not happen for years, if ever. Surely this can't be justified. I suggest the removal of the claim in its entirety until if and when New South Wales Police decide to lay charges. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these kinds of allegations do not belong in a BLP article. However, I didn't feel up to the headache of removing the material (it did receive a lot of press), so all I did was remove one dead link and add a sentence that as of March 2011 the police are continuing to investigate. If we can get some consensus here whether the material should be removed, that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried for a long time to get some sort of consensus on a rule not to include unproven criminal charges in a BLP. So far as I know, most Anglophile countries have an innocent until proven guilty rule. WP is such a well known source of bio information that such charges can follow a person for the rest of his life, even if they were never proven in court. I always try my best to stop attempts to include them, but I am not always successful.Jarhed (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone (perhaps a local Aussie) find a cite for my desired addition - Nineteen months after the allegation from Monagahan, Hughes has not been interviewed by the police and there have been no charges. - Personally I don't see why this can't be added anyways as an uncited statement , what about - nineteen months after the allegations there are no reports of any charges or that Hughes has been interviewed by the police. This person was tried in the media - the reporter of the allegations sold her story to the press before she went to the police, there is no chance of any charges ever against him.- the press coverage alone would make a fair trial impossible. Its unfair to leave his biography like this for nineteen months without an update. Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no source making that claim. The most is the "no charges after 12 months" that turned up last time it hit the news. The problem so far has been, and continues to be, that you can't reference a lack of news, and the media won't report on the until an anniversary of the allegations or the police come out with a statement one way or the other. I'd like to see the claim that there have been no charges stick, even unsourced, and I agree that the odds of there ever being a trial are incredibly small. Which risks a situation where the police may keep the case open, even if it is unlikely to proceed, and thus the allegations may sit untested for years with no news of progress. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Julian's grandfather Warren Alfred Hawkins is Australian born and was not born in Scotland as reported.

Heh, speaking of unproven criminal allegations.Jarhed (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dennis W. Chiu

Dennis W. Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attempts to remove puff are being met with added puff <g>. Might someone with a nicely sharpened pencil visit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a conflict of interest user attempting to promote a living person using wikipedia as a vehicle for said promotion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevant s.p.a. is now throwing around terminology like "tort of invasion of privacy" when we try to get said s.p.a. (possibly the subject, or the subject's Significant Other) to flesh out the article and source it more encyclopedically. I'm detecting a bad case of WP:OWN here, as well as our long-term suspicions of COI. --Orangemike (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the COI template on the article as he had removed it and I left him a note on his talkpage. I can't even look through those primary externals. We need better policy to stop such creations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the obvious stuff, removing bare URLs, the stuff about his law review article and the 9th circuit, and other puffery. More work needs to be done, notably in the references. Instead of citing to several separate items, the references are a collection of cites with explanation. Very odd and difficult to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To update .. - the main contributor to the article has replied on my userpage, suggesting an openness to work together/step back a bit to allow others editors to improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't that simply be AFD'd? He doesn't seem notable according to the current version of the article. He's done stuff but nobody seem to be writing *about* him. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bernhard Schaller

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

Dr. Bernhard Schaller's case was presented as example of scientific misconduct at the seminar "Responsible conduct of research in academic medicine" at the Charite, http://www.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/portal/charite/organisation/veranstaltungen/2011/Oktober/GWP_Kongress_flyer.pdf by a journalist (Hubert Rehm). There is at least one report in the Internet about the issue (http://www.laborjournal.de/rubric/archiv/editorials/205.lasso). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECVH (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The seminar schedule isn't really a useable source in itself. The "Laborjournal" piece looks like a reliable source, but I can't read German. You may wish to add some conservatively written information about this to the article. I notice there have been attempts to add mention of the incident in the past. The article itself is currently essentially unsourced, and rather promotionally written. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - You appear to be at the wrong location , this is the WP:BLPN - not, WP:desired additions. The sourcing you presented doesn't imo assert independent notability to the details - I suggest you bring the issue up on the talkpage of the article . Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

article: M.A.Padmanabha Rao

M.a.Padmanabha Rao 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)This is regarding the article: M.A.Padmanabha Rao

1. The Editors of Misplaced Pages I came across lately are very disappointing to scientists.

2. One undergraduate who cannot understand scientific content in the article suggested Deletion within 20 minutes of creating the article.. I saw adverse commenting and unacceptable language by one or two more Editors without going through the article and understanding.

3. One of the main objections is that one should not post an article on self. For latest Physics discoveries in 2010 that I mentioned in the article, one undergraduate Editor criticized as an “Advertisement”. They should first go through the contents to see whether there is truth in it.

4. One Editor said there is a conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest since I am a retired Professor and published my research paper in Brazilian J. Phy, March 2010 from my home address <redacted>

5. Instead of suggesting what should be done to meet the standards of Misplaced Pages, they simply label for Deletion.

6. These Editors do not care to suggest any modifications, since they do not know.

7. They do not give an opportunity to the authors to defend.

8. They do not provide any e-mail address or any other means to reply.

9. They do not point out exactly where and why the scientific content is unacceptable for them, since they do not know.

10. Previously, one Editor did not like introducing in some websites like "Radiation" on latest breakthroughs in Physics.

11. I have projected latest Physics Discoveries 2010 in article: M.A. Padmanabha Rao. Now the article is labeled for Deletion. These Editors do not seek Experts advice. In general these undergraduate- Editors prove detrimental to science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.a.Padmanabha Rao (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An alternative way of creating new articles, which would deal with some (but not all) of these problems, would be to start your new articles at Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. By doing so, you would definitely receive suggestions for modifications, and have opportunities to reply - although you might still find yourself dealing with undergraduates, and perhaps still suffer disappointment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna (again again)

The question now is whether there should be a separate section on a 2004 lawsuit that is only now getting publicity, and whether the sourcing, which conflicts, is sufficient to indicate whether there is one or multiple lawsuits. Input from BLP-experienced editors would be appreciated.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it because everything associated with this article irritates me, but there is no real conflict between the Guardian and the NYT. Just because the Guardian identified only one lawsuit doesn't mean there aren't others. And I can tell you, by looking at primary sources that aren't citable, that Bolgona has been sued more than once in the Southern District of New York. I haven't verified - and don't intend to - whether all of the suits arose out fo the 2004 convention and complain of "wrongful arrests" (the usual term, by the way is "false arrest") by Bologna.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning was that the Guaradian would have mentioned any other suits if they were material. I'm interested in that other suit or suits. I know it's OR, but it would be nice to know if Bologna's presence in those suits is ex officio or if he is accused of any specific wrongdoing. If the latter, I'm surprised that either the Guardian or someone else hasn't written it up, hence my concern. I know someone with a Pacer account and may beg her to look him up. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "material" - important enough? Even if you get your friend to look at the list of lawsuits in which Bologna is named, that won't help you much because someone would then have to pore over the docket for each case to understand what has happened in the case and what Bologna's alleged involvement was. It's a major task and, in my view, a waste of time. This is why we have to rely on secondary rather than primary sources. And, in this instance, a throwaway line from the NYT that Bologna was inolved in lawsuits (plural) is absolutely meaningless without context, and the NYT gives almost none. It's a joke and, even putting aside the issue of Bologna's notability, it's a BLP violation to have unsubstantiated bare allegations in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

a throwaway line from the NYT that Bologna was inolved in lawsuits (plural) is absolutely meaningless without context: I agree with you 100%. That's why I raised the issue here. We now have a separate section referring to "lawsuits." ScottyBerg (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, although I'm responding here to your comments, I have stayed out of editing the article and discussing the article on its Talk page until the tumultuous AfD runs its course. And even if the consensus is a keep or there is no consensus (a de facto keep), I'm not sure what, if anything, I will do. Despite my view that it's a very small tempest in a large teapot, that's clearly not the view of many other editors, and I don't feel like fighting with them, particularly now with passions running very high.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So much for my resolve to stay out of it. I just reverted material citing to primary sources in clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY and commented on that Bologna Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article, if it survives, is going to be a major bone of contention for some time to come. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert Adair (and) British Poetry Revival

This is NOT the Gilbert Adair who is the Irish/London poet connected with the British Poetry Revival and who has 14 books of poetry out as well as many mainstream academic books (on American Epics) and articles on poetry/film/literature, and who started and ran the Sub-Voicive Poetry series in London for many years (now on faculty at University of Hawaii). There needs to be 2 entries for this name in order to straighten out who is who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.73.10 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

lynn cain

• Lynn Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Will.i.am (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Taboo (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a note that Lynn Cain is the Uncle of Will I Am NOT Taboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.9.143 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The source cited seems to say otherwise. Can you find an alternative source that gets this fact right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Bashir

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

This article is heavily biased. It does not meet Misplaced Pages standards, particularly with regard to the edits made by right wingers in the section about the Presidential election 2012. For example, it is absolutely true that the US Code prohibits the use of the US flag in advertising. It is also true that it is not enforced, but so what. Bashir's comment about Sarah Palin was accurate and has no place in this article. Clearly an edit by some ignornant right wing fanatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsphill (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The section was badly sourced, and in any case looks like trivia to me - I've removed it for now, and will expect anyone reinserting coverage of the issue to provide a proper justification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Camelio

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

I have attempted to improve the article on Brian Camelio but I have just been accused of harassement on my talk page. I'm a bit tired now. Could someone check my conduct and let me know whether I acted properly? Have I added too many maintenance tags? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Its just normal free to anyone to edit wikipedia attack issues. Remove the article from your watchlist is my advice - be strong, you have done nothing wrong. User:Bcamilio at en wikipedia is clearly having a massive conflict of interest - they are the person in the article - at commons Bcamalio -- you as a NPOV experienced contributor are being attacked by the subject of the article that just wants it as he wants it. Its promo the whole thing - this also ArtistShare - promo trash - you are the only neutral thing in the whole advertisement and you get accused of harassment - it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have removed the unreferenced material and I have semi-protected the article for now. --Edcolins (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I also support you as being uninvolved enough to use your block button if the COI becomes more of an issue in that sector. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Brad Sherman

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

IP vandalism, covered in press: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/brad_sherman_wikipedia_sciento.php

Probably worth semi-protecting, and keeping a close eye on thereafter. --JN466 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That was the work of a single IP user who was blocked and hasn't come back. But I am also concerned about the many edits by a staffer in Sherman's office, BenFishel (talk · contribs) & Benjaminfishel (talk · contribs), who has been busy adding positive material to his boss' bio. He's also mentioned in the same article.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the IP, and your reverts over the past few weeks. It's not a much-watched article, and things would probably have been worse if you hadn't kept an eye on it. As it is, having an unsourced allegation of past alcoholism in the article for more than a week was bad enough. I still think semi-protection might be advisable; you last blocked the IP only a few days ago. --JN466 11:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• - update - the IP vandal came back and I reverted and reported him and User:Salvio giuliano blocked him for a week. - article has also been semi protected by User:AlexiusHoratius for violations of the biographies of living persons policy until 8 November 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000

Repeated issues with User:Mystylplx/User:Griot. User edits without neutral point of view. Edits do little if anything to improve Ralph Nader-related articles. Exclusively posts criticism and negative WP:POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&action=history As a result, the aforementioned articles read very poorly, more like negative op-ed, than as encyclopedia entries. In fact, searching several other entries for the subject biography reflect greater quality of writing with superior neutrality. Taking overall edits into account, I strongly suspect this user is a Democrat who is much more concerned with pushing his own WP:POV than creating a solid article. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on the Ralph Nader talk page. Is he planning on running for president again? If so we can expect lots of action on his articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW his article is supported by "Project Socialism" when socialism is not even mentioned in it. Actually he is one of the most important figures in the development of modern capitalism. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Pilgrim (software developer)

Over at Mark Pilgrim (software developer) we have been working toward a consensus as to how to properly present the fact that he suddenly took everything he had ever done - including some very popular books - off the web. In particular, there were concerns about attempts to use the phrase "Infosuicide" as being a NPOV violation. Now I see that a page called Infosuicide has been created referencing Mark Pilgrim. Is this a problem? Any advice about how to properly handle this situation would be most appreciated - I normally work on engineering/science topics and not BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat on a tangent - is a screenshot of a generic 410 notice really a "copyrighted" webpage and need a fair use rationale? I'd think no copyright could be claimed on it. Just like how someone can't copyright stop sign. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any advice? I am really not comfortable with calling a decision to delete some web pages as "suicide." It feels like a violation of BLP policy. I could really use some input from someone more used to dealing with BLPs. Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, infosuicide seems to be going to be deleted or merged to online privacy - my search returns suggest its not a common expression - Who is calling his actions infosuicide? Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds from here like a classic case of techneologism. Collect (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It look like the Infosuicide page may be going away soon as a non-notable neologism, but I still need an answer about the underlying BLP policy. The semi-protection will be coming off of Mark Pilgrim (software developer) in less that a week, and I would like to have a paragraph in place by then that doesn't violate BLP policy. Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What that article needs is some independent WP:RS. Have his recent actions been mentioned in any? Unless multiple reliable sources are calling his actions infosuicide then imo our article shouldn't either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just expanded the Mark Pilgrim content, and with (for the moment) one ref from Eric Meyer. If it's not your field, then yes, Eric Meyer's blog is WP:RS for web development matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosuicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am removing this page from my watch list and will make any further comments on the article/afd talk pages. Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Frederick

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

An editor, User:Vabio1 is repeatedly edit warring and reverting to ensure that a current political candidate, Jeff Frederick has only favorable material in his article, a violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Vabio1 has previously been sanctioned for violation of the three-revert rule Misplaced Pages policy. In various recent situations, Vabio1 either

• 1) uses either irrelevant citations (a violation of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability), or
• 2) claiming opinions unfavorable to Jeff Frederick are "controversial", without describing favorable opinions in the same biased way (a violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV).

Giving irrelevant citations, Vabio1 has on the Talk:Jeff Frederick page asked other editors do his work for him to identify a suitable references, or 2) to accept his argument that a Misplaced Pages reader should be able to deduce certain conclusions from a reference that doesn't mention Jeff Frederick. The latter would be Misplaced Pages:Original research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." If Vabio1 is correct in his edit text, then he should be able to identify suitable references.

Vabio1 finds it OK to include ratings by various political organizations, which obviously are controversial to their opponents, but describes unfavorable ratings/scores by a business organization as "controversial." Misplaced Pages considers it important that all sides of a controversy be included and stated fairly (see Misplaced Pages:NPOV). Criticism of Virginia Free, as in the last Vabio1 edit, should be in an article on Virginia FREE, not here.

I would like the opinion of other editors on this matter. --Zeamays (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had Frederick on my watchlist for a while, but it became a pain to control as Vabio1's edits are craftier than the usual partisan single purpose accounts. However, I cleaned up his latest round of stuff and reluctantly put it back on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere

How do the BLP guidelines apply in the case of these two articles?

The first article, NXIVM, is a company specializing in personal development seminars led by the referent of the second article, a BLP of Keith Raniere.

Request: That administrators take an interest in this serious but interesting matter, but please not to make any edits to the articles without first familiarizing yourself with the WP:RSs on the discussion page of the article Keith Raniere. At least take a quick overview first.

The problem is, as you will see, the sources call the group a "cult", a "cult-like organization", or otherwise describe him and it negatively.

Therefore, we allow him and it to use their own websites to cite much of the articles to "balance", and we allow them to mis-represent other references, because of BLP and NPOV guidelines: it wouldn't be fair to him and it, the logic goes, to simply faithfully report the main points and information in the articles; they say; because of BLP guidelines, we have to write a NPOV article despite the sources; even though we don't have any WP:RSs other than their own websites and a fact or two cherry-picked here and there out of references; that says positive things about him and it.

Tough case! But very interesting....Chrisrus (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Mundine

He went to Kingsgrove North High School. I went to school with his cousin Michael Mundine at the same school and he was in Year 7 there when we were in Year 10.

I can tell you this though. He was a very quiet kid. Not at all the person he is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.88.219 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages articles can't be based on personal recollections; to add any of this information, we need to know where it has been mentioned in an independent reliable source - book, newspaper, magazine, serious TV documentary, etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

derek goldby

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

The final sentence in Derek Goldby biography is untrue. please delete.

Derek Goldby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.120.249 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was unsourced and somewhat non-neutral, the IP identifying themself as Derek Goldby has gone ahead and removed it, I've watchlisted the article, and all is well with the world. (Probably.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Damien Echols

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

Hello, recently a user, fairly fresh from a 3-RR violation ban, (opticks3 (talk · contribs), has been attempting to push unreliable sources, potentially libelous material, and, before being called out for it, this wonderful link about "sacrifices that are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years" on the West Memphis Three article. As his efforts there have been blocked, he has moved on to the personal article for Damien Echols, where he is now trying to push a series of cherry-picked quotes and legal document highlights in an attempt to paint the recently-released Echols in a particular manner that is less than neutral (the previously mentioned external may offer a hint). The objections of Echols himself and his legal team, of course, were not listed besides these cherry-picked "internet gotchas", which are questionable to include under any circumstance. As I have little time to eject such behavior, I request more eyes and hands over at the Damien Echols article. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that user bloodofox also fairly fresh from a 3-RR violation ban, was the reason that both of us were banned due to his repeated reversion/deletes. I made one poor choice in source reference and immediately removed it when it was brought to my attention, which is how it is supposed to work. Please read through the Talk pages on both West Memphis Three and Damien Echols articles for a better understanding of the issues we are trying to resolve. Additionally, please contact the senior editor -- Kim van der Linde as she is the editor who imposed the block and may be able to provide additional information. Thank YouOpticks3 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is a complete disaster - it's a biography that begins with the section "conviction and sentence", as if nothing at all is known about this person's life prior to death row. Later sections then concede that the person might have had an existence before that - the structure is rather like a confusing movie that starts at the end of events and then tells the story by flashbacks. Needs pretty much a complete re-write, sadly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, as any admin can see, I've never been banned for any reason, including 3RR. Presumably Opticks is confusing the editing lock on the West Memphis Three article with some sort of ban, although he himself was recently 3RR period banned. And agreed about the article; like the West Memphis Three article, it's in an abysmal state and needs a total rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne Bremner

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

CaliforniaAlibaba keeps putting information in my Wiki page that is false. And taking out my corrections. Can something be done about this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annne bremner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? This edit, for example, seems to be properly supported with references -- so it's not clear on what basis you assert the information is false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just a brief note to mention that this seems likely to be related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bremner should not be editing her own biography, particularly given her edits. Hopefully, based on one recent comment on the Talk page, she will start suggesting changes there rather than making them herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor who the multiple accounts Anne bremner (talk · contribs) and Annne bremner (talk · contribs) (one with two "n"s, one with three, plus an IP) are complaining about. As far as I can tell she had three objections. The last is still open and could use third opinions.

1. Inclusion of information about a lawsuit against which the firm she works for (unsuccessfully) defended the police department. There was a misunderstanding about whether it was her colleague or herself who worked on that case. She deleted the information without comment, which I reverted. She left an edit summary clarifying the misunderstanding, but unfortunately another editor (either from WP:RCP or WP:COIN) reverted it . After I saw her edit summary I checked another source and removed the information .
2. Inclusion of information about damage to her car in the DUI case, which was referenced to a newspaper whose reporting she apparently disputes. She deleted that information and included her own claim of $34,000 of car damage and an unnamed expert who states she was in a hit-and-run accident . User:Binksternet suggested condensing the section to get past all the confusing he-said/she-said, which we've done . (He also added the information about DUI to the WP:LEDE, which I see User:Bbb23 just removed back.)
3. The edit which Nomoskedasticity points to. Others are welcome to condense that too for WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, etc. if you think its necessary. Or not. As you may have noticed from this summary, I don't sacrifice detail in the name of concision.

Regards, cab (call) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow Item #3. Which section are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Look for the text starting with "whose attorney, Dan K. Webb" (that passage, up to the end of the paragraph --- one of the things that User:Annne bremner was removing before). If you think it should be condensed or rewritten, go ahead. cab (call) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor condensed that section a bit, and I've copy edited it and condensed it just a bit more. The same editor has also severely condensed the DUI section and commented on the article Talk page. I'm not sure I agree with the removal of material from that section, and I certainly don't agree with the conclusion reached by the editor about motive. In my view, the DUI case could have been handled in a couple of sentences (or not at all), IF Bremner hadn't made a stink about it. The stink took more time to explain in the article than the DUI. Another case where the aftermath of an event becomes more of a big deal than the event itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Tramiel

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

See also Talk:Jack_Tramiel#Claims_of_"ruined_lives" .

I have already removed a claim diff that "Former employees at Atari Corp. have also stated the work environment was very unpleasant and volatile, with some later complaining that their lives and careers had been ruined by Tramiel and his sons." which appears to be based on a comment reporting second hand information posted in a blog given http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=995 - it appears to be a non-neutral statement given that in the same place others had good things to say.

The article makes some claims that would need referencing in any article - in particular the history of Jack Tramiels's early life and concentration camp experience - the claim that " He was examined by Dr. Mengele and selected for a work party ... his father was reported to have died of Typhus in the work camp; however, Tramiel believes he was killed by an injection of gasoline", others statements in the article fail verification eg "Tramiel is sometimes viewed with disdain for his overall business conduct practices and operations under the Atari brand" (I have removed this pending a reliable source).

Could someone check the article for further neutrality/verifyability issues. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I took out a couple of uncited things that could be negative, including "sparking a price war." The article does not seem so bad, or a problem at this time. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mos Def

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

Mos Def announced he would be changing his name in 2012. The article says that citing to a reliable source. Since that announcement, there have been a number of editors, mostly IPs but not exclusively, who want to change the article now, even though there's no reliable source that says he's changed his name earlier. One editor said he heard Mos Def say it on a TV show, but I would be troubled by citing to a TV show unless it was crystal clear what Mos Def actually said. It would be better to cite to a news source. In any event, after backing out changes repeatedly, I requested semi-protection of the article (most of the changes were coming from IPs). The admin, however, imposed full protection and suggested "we" reach a consensus on how to fix all this without edit-warring. So, I started a subsection on the Talk page and set forth my views more clearly.

It would be great if other editors would weigh in on the article's Talk page so we can reach a consensus. Otherwise, I fear it will have to go to a higher level of dispute resolution because I'm assuming the admin's warning was directed at everyone, including me, so I'm not going to take the chance and revert changes without a clear consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Hi, could someone look into this image, please? I reckon it WAY wrong, especially since it's linked with the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. In my opinion, it's just as easy as to put a 'Wanted' sign on someones forehead. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Igor_Sayenko.jpg The person on the photo is rather recognisable. The point of blurring is to make someones identity anonymous (especially in a high profile-case). Obviously, this photo could use some work (to say the least). My concern is about the person depicted on the photograph. I don't know him, but obviously, this can't pass wiki's guidelines.「Robster1983」 02:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anwar rasheed

Dileep would play the title role in a film called 'My Name is Avarachan', that would be directed by Jose Thomas.

and not Anwar Rasheed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venugopal1234 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

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

I assume that I am correct that the agreement, as it was discussed here, was to omit the "Santorum" definition from the bio article, but another editor considers it to be important information. I do not wish to edit war over it, especially on a page I have recently semiprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. And it is EW for anyone to keep pushing the stuff into the BLP. Collect (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, a "consensus" does not create an exception to policy. The definition is unfortunate and distasteful but for better or for worse it has become a part of Sen. Santorum's legacy. Sen. Santorum is a minor figure in American politics and to have more than one Misplaced Pages page/entry devoted to him and this controversy is not appropriate. It simply is what it is; unfortunate and distasteful but complete and comprehensive. V/R A. Poinçot (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If these are your feelings, then surely you won't be too heartbroken if we follow previous consensus and keep it out of the BLP. Kelly 02:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No feelings hurt. After rereading "neutral point of view" policy WP:NPOV I don't think the definition should be included in the main Santorum bio. V/R A. Poinçot (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Liam Fox

The last sentence under "Personal life", suggesting that hois marriage was a cover, strikes thois reader as unsubstantiated and potetially defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.24.237 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have gone. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions may be libelous and defamatory: references to sexual orientation and relationships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.213.88 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also seems to be toast and the article is now semi-protected. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Le Vell

Basically a request for a few more people to keep an eye on this page.

I fully protected the Michael Le Vell article due to some back-and-forth involving some serious allegations (sourced, but at this point just allegations I think). Since consensus on the talk page seems to be leaning toward inclusion, I'm going to unprotect the page, but it would be good for some other editors to look into the matter. I personally have no opinion of whether it should be included and if other editors and/or admins see a need for action in any direction I won't stand in their way. AlexiusHoratius 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Amy Childs

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

The last few sentances do not seem very appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.111.55.124 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out; I have removed the problematic content and issued a warning to the IP address (unregistered editor) that added it. Note that, in most cases, it is possible to edit articles to remove such material yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition - I've also requested semi-protection for this article at WP:RFPP due to its recent history. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

... declined by User:Fastily, so some more eyes on this article might be helpful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mola Mola (musician) (again)

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

I have again researched this page and find the content regarding Bill Wyman and Andy fairweather Lowe misleading and disingenuous. The article is written as though the writer had a close working relationship with the artists but there is no record of him working with either person and he certainly did not work with Bill Wymans Rhythm Kings as has been stated. I would treat this page with caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkyboy124 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The continued existence of the article Jack Hazebroek, to which Mola Mola (musician) is a redirect, is under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jack Hazebroek. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bob rae

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

In the text his religion is described as Anglican but in his biography to the right he is described as Jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.115.240 (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The sections of the article covering this are sourced to a dead link, so that could do with some more work. My own initial searches haven't found anything to confirm what's written there. Misplaced Pages's article on his wife doesn't mention her religion, even though the article on Rae lists her religion as though it were his. Anyway, I've removed the "religion" item from the Rae article infobox, as being unsourced and contradictory. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rachael Barrett

Very poor sourcing for a BLP. Might well be an autobiography - see . Philip Trueman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubbed and likely to be stubbed further unless RS are presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan

In the biography of Pierce Brosnan in Misplaced Pages the following passage appears:

"Brosnan was brought up in a Roman Catholic family and educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy. Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."[3

This a gross lible of the "Christian Brothers". The Irish Christian Brothers never had a school in Navan nor did they ever have Pierce Brosnan as a pupil in any of their schools.

Please have the passage removed immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athgarvan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did you find that out? Where does "Navan" factor into this? Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Navan is the town where Brosnan grew up. However, he may easily have been schooled outside of Navan at a boarding school.The Interior (Talk) 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The quotation above is from the referenced article in Cigar Afficianado magazine. It is a pretty strong statement, but the reference seems to support it. Tgeairn (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburg

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

Please remove these utterly ridiculous and libelous comments about Rabbi Ginzburg, he is not an extremist and would never claim that it is fine to kill gentiles for any reason besides pure self defense. Everyone on earth has the right to defend themselves including gentiles. He never implied in any way that it is allowed to kill gentiles for organ harvesting. If this is not removed within 3 days you can expect a libel lawsuit, I am not asking for much, just that there is some semblance of objectivity. It doesnt take a genius to see how speculative these so called sources are. the fact that Inbari is a jewish Israeli does not make him an authority on all jewish people and does prevent him from being a liar.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raishlakish (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure this will get sorted out promptly. However, please don't threaten lawsuits anywhere on Misplaced Pages, as the policy of no legal threats means that you cannot pursue legal action (or threaten to do so) and continue to edit Misplaced Pages at the same time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The material in question is meticulously sourced and has been scrutinized by a number of other editors. Further scrutiny is of course welcome. But in reality there's no problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

3 persons at Ex-gay movement

There's a list of people associated with the Ex-gay movement, at Ex-gay movement#People associated with the ex-gay movement. There's an open RfC about whether the list should exist, which is not the issue here. The issue is that three people who aren't notable (not notable enough to have an article, anyway) are listed, and their entries are mainly about accusations (with arrests and convictions in two cases) of sexual crimes.

I removed these for BLP considerations, but they were restored and a couple of editors are arguing that this is good material, the discussion being here: Talk:Ex-gay movement#3 removed. Since I've done another revert I've fouled out, so would appreciate another set of eyes taking a look at the matter. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide concrete reasons why you think the Austin and Cook entries violate WP:BLP. Vague and unarticulated "concerns" are no excuse for edit warring.

As for notability, neither Cook or Austin can be described as totally "non-notable". Collin Cook definitely belongs because he was a prominent figure in the movement as the founder of HA. Austin's notability rests on the notability of Renew Ministries and was affiliated with NARTH. If Renew Ministries is a significant force in the movement, or if Austin held a key position at NARTH, he should be included. Notable for inclusion in an article is not the same as notable for one's own article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the crimes in question are directly related to the people's ex-gay efforts; if what was at hand was mention of an ex-gay counselor shoplifting peanut butter or cheating on their taxes or whatever, then it would not be relevant and should not be included. This is a very different situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The lists of people associated with the ex-gay movement should be removed completely. Not just the entries that aren't notable enough to have their own articles (but please note that those clearly should not be on the page). If someone's activities are notably part of a social movement then they should be mentioned in meaningful way in the prose of the entry and not listed with short bio blurbs. Listing non-notable people with short bio blurbs equates to making an end run around WP:N. Last but not least, listing non-notable people with a large portion of their bio blurb being dedicated to the crimes they've been convicted for/arrested for/associated with is quite clearly against the spirit if not the letter of BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo on this. If they are significant players int he movement, then points about their involvement can be included in the body of the article. No need for list. --BweeB (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the list should be removed and replaced with appropriately sourced prose, but pending the resolution of that issue, it's an NPOV violation to include individuals whose "success stories" are sourced to personal blogs and "ex-gay" websites, while removing individuals whose crimes are sourced to RS newspapers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't right one wrong by perpetuating another. Why are there "'success stories' ... sourced to person blogs and 'ex-gay' websites" in the entry in the first place? Remove those too.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's why I started the thread that led to the RFC. ;) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether there should be a list or not is a separate matter, and the subject of an open RfC on the talk page. Comments about that should be made there, not here. The matter here pertains strictly to the exclusion of Austin and Cook from the article (whether in a list or in prose) on the basis of WP:BLP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I proppose we exclude Cook and Austin. --BweeB (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus. Uhm no it doesn't. The question asked pertained to those entries. The entire list is currently posing a BLP problem. One of the two main concerns of BLP is "privacy," something that non-notable people can reasonably expect us to take seriously, and indeed our BLP policy tells us to do so. This means that the addition of any personal biographical details of non-notable people is a violation of one of the core BLP principles. If someone's activities are notably part of a larger subject matter then those activities can be addressed in the prose content of an article. But listing people "associated" with a subject and listing biographical details even though they fail WP:N is clearly against BLP. So I respectfully disagree with you on that.Griswaldo (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you agree with me. I voted against both reincarnations of the stand-alone list, and am dead set against including the list in the article as well. If it were up to me, I'd cut it in a heartbeat. (And I think I have). I'm definitely against the vague, abuse-inviting title People "associated with" the movement. I agree that it is an end run around notability. However, that RfC is still open, and I'm acting on the basis that the list does exist, not whether it should. I've taken your BLP concerns into serious consideration, and am reading the policy in depth at the moment. My major concern was that the reason given by Herostratus for deleting the items was vague and based on false assumptions, except for the case of Lewis, who I agree doesn't belong. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, and I think we are, I wasn't disagreeing with your view of the article but with the applicability of the conversation to the board. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconding this, basically. I don't think the list belongs and I am/was one of the major players in trying to get it removed, but if/while it stays, it can't contain only positive information, particularly when the negative information is better sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Update - I took the liberty to remove all entries for individuals without Misplaced Pages articles of their own to protect their privacy. Clearly I think the entire list should go, but IMO the temporary measure was needed in the meantime.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Davenport (property developer)

This article is largely based on a self serving self-authored biography at 33portlandplace.com and davenporttrust.com. The con man is now safely in jail for advance fee fraud and presumably serving the remainder of his term for VAT evasion. But on the way he bought the Lord of the Manor of Giffords, Salop and self-described himself as Lord Edward Davenport. He is entitled to call himself Mr Edward Davenport, Lord of the Manor of Giffords, Salop.. Nobody has picked up on that; reiable sources all say he is a "self-styled Lord (or peer)". Surely this should not be in the lede? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but it is gone now. I wish they would just vote in Parliament to get rid of these nonsensical pseudo-titles, but that isn't NPOV, so I'll just say, I'm glad it's gone from the lede.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Gordon

There are some subsections under the section Cup Series career which have no sources. Three examples are 1994, 2004, and 2005. There are also some subsections that I don't think have enough sources. Three examples are 2008, 2009, and 2011.

I think there are some violations in all of the subsections I mentioned. However, I don't want to delete the subsections which have no sources, and I don't want to delete some of the content in the subsections which I think don't have enough sources. I also don't want to spend what I consider a lot of time looking for enough sources for the content in question to be kept. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution