Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 20 June 2013

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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

Murder of Barry Pring

Murder of Barry Pring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’ve removed material identifying someone considered a possible perpetrator from this article per WP:BLPCRIME, which another editor is keen to include. This has been the subject of a book which has been removed from sale following a legal action, and some media articles (mostly in the tabloid Daily Mail from what I can tell), but AFAIK the suspect has not been arrested or charged. Is there any way this could/should be referenced or should it stay out altogether? January (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it's worth including information about Anna Ziuzina as it is an important part of the information relating to the case. I personally don't care about including the book or not, but it could be said to be relevant information as per - . Thanks, Jay UK Crime Guy (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this even a notable death? Falls under WP:NOTNEWS I would say... GiantSnowman 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm questioning whether the suspect's identity should be included, not the book. January (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Search-truth-Barry-Pring-s-murder/story-18136796-detail/story.html#axzz2VnufEy19

Any more thoughts on this? January (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• For previous articles on the topic, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barry Pring and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death of Barry Pring. – Fayenatic London 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

List of cancer victim hoaxes - person with mental illness included on list

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

I have just removed the details concerning a person diagnosed as suffering from mental illness from the List of cancer victim hoaxes article, as a WP:BLP violation. I would be grateful if others would look into this, and let me know if my actions were appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think this excision is appropriate at all. BLP asks us to consider protecting the privacy of ordinary people who, through no choice of their own, nevertheless by accident, become publicly known. I suggest WP:WELLKNOWN applies to people, like Ashley Kirilow, the individual whose privacy AndyTheGrump seems to be suggesting BLP authorized protecting. Kirilow did everything she could to make herself a public figure, so as to make her fraudulent fundraising efforts more successful. Geo Swan (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't alter the fact that she was suffering from a mental illness - which makes your assertion that she did it by 'choice' problematic. Do you think she chose to become ill? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• You still haven't quoted the passage from BLP, or any other policy, that would authorize your deletion.

In courts of law, the ruling as to whether an individual had mental health issues serious enough to release them from responsibility for their acts. I have four points to make:

1. The wikipedia is not a court of law.
2. Judges' rulings can generally be counter-intuitive, as for instance Feith v. Rural. Judges' rulings on the responsibility of individuals with mental health issues are often surprising and counter-intuitive.
3. Judges' ruling on this issue are sometimes highly controversial, with respected legal experts suggesting or accusing those judges of lapsing from the judges' equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
4. You are assuming that silence and obfuscation of issues related to mental health, is in the best interests of individuals with mental health issues. I think this meme underlies all your attempts to remove all coverage of WP:WELLKNOWN individual you think have mental health issues, based on claims that coverage of those issues is damaging to them. I don't see you providing any policy basis to support this action.

I drafted an essay You can't say that here! to address this meme. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since nobody has suggested that Misplaced Pages is a court of law, the above is irrelevant. And WP:BLP policy isn't a 'meme'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't merely continue to claim wikipedia policy imposes a moratorium on any discussion of individual's mental health issues, without quoting the relevant passages from policy. Ashley Kirilow is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, the coverage of her was relevant, neutrally written, and well documented. I think you have a responsibility to quote those passages from policy that you think authorize your excision.

I cited the example of Betty Ford in my new essay, who was the first public figure to openly acknowledge and describe the difficulty of a long struggle with alcoholism. Her open discussion of her mental health issues had a very positive effect on public health and of all the people who followed her example. If the wikipedia had been functioning then, and you had argued we had to impose a moratorium on coverage of her alcoholism, you would have had a very negative effect on her mental health, that of her family, friends and associates, and the millions of people affected by other alcoholics who followed her example.

You have offered no arguments that your moratorium is actually in the best interests of individuals who may have mental health issues, and you have offered no quotes from policy to show policy suggests of requires a moratorium. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a toss what you say in your essay - it isn't policy, and it never will be. The WMF has made it perfectly clear that we have to take considerations of personal privacy into account: "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest." You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your repeated claims that such cases are of more than passing interest. The only sources cited regarding the individual concerned date either from when the case first came to light, or from the court proceedings and sentencing. This type of material is exactly what the WMF statement is intended to cover. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, the passage you think justifies this excision is:

"The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest."

This says nothing about imposing a moratorium on information that is (1) written from a neutral point of view; (2) well documented; (3) relevant. In fact, the sentence you chose to replace with ellipses was " Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles; "

Was the information about Kirilow not written from a neutral point of view? I believe it was neutrally written, and you have made precisely zero effort to show it was not.

I don't believe there is any question the information about Kirilow was well documented and verifiable, and you have made precisely zero effort to show it was not.

Was the information about Kirilow relevant? I don't believe there is any question that it was highly relevant. In hoax after hoax comparisons were made between the recent hoax and Kirilow's hoax.

As for your claim that I have provided no evidence that "such cases are of more than passing interest." Can we stick here to the BLP claim you made -- that BLP authorized excision of all coverage of Ashley Kirilow. Yesterday I provided 22 external references, that demonstrated that (1) Kirilow attracted worldwide scrutiny, and that coverage of her case was not of a passing nature.

You write: "This type of material is exactly what the WMF statement is intended to cover." Well, you still haven't provided a link to a policy that confirms your assertion that there is a moratorium on covering individuals who may have mental health issues, or on covering the mental health issues of individuals we do cover. What the policy you cited requires is that all coverage of individuals should be neutrally written and verifiable.

Kirilow was caught about three years ago. The 2012-11-06 article from Discovery magazine below devoted five paragraphs about Kirilow to a discussion of the legality of faking cancer. Regard this as a further refutation of your claim that coverage of Kirilow was (1) from when her case was first reported, or (2) from her sentencing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Benjamin Radford (2012-11-06). "Leukemia Hoax: Is It Illegal To Fake Cancer?". Discovery magazine. Retrieved 2013-06-14. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I agree with Geo Swan on this. If something is well known and widely and repeatedly sourced, privacy concerns etc. are moot. WMF says we have to take into account these kind of issues, not that we have to remove everything that vaguely sounds bad about a person. In this case, taking into account this, we can conclude that the amount of coverage of the case is such that we can't talk about privacy anymore. --Cyclopia 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I've deleted the article in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good call, and I am glad that the relist by a non-administrator was ignored. I would've reverted that if I'd seen it at the time, honestly. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR/Synth

This is being brought here since this is a biography of a living person and not an economics article and this material obviously is WP:OR/WP:Synth. Opinions at Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Synthesis_tag welcome.

• At this diff I removed as argumentative for a bio a sentence written by User: SPECIFICO saying that Milton Friedman predicted one of the two things Soto claimed only Austrian economists had predicted; the source does not mention Huerta de Soto.
• Lawrencekhoo reverted it, writing: If a claim is made about economics, it's entirely appropriate to present the mainsteam view.
• Srich reverted it writing: as presented, particularly with "however", it is WP:OPED. Article is a BLP, not economics subject..
• SPECIFICO puts back another version writing: Provide context for Soto stagflation remark, with mainstream view from AEA Pres. Friedman. SPECIFICO writes: “Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association.” Again, no source mentions Huerta de Soto.

It also would be helpful to point out to User:SPECIFICO that ridiculing the subject of the article is against BLP and certainly doesn’t make for collaborative editing.

• At this diff User:SPECIFICO writes: There's no SYNTH there. Poor Soto -- he's being protected from fresh air like a sickly old asthmatic. Soto is strong! He stands tall! He is and able to live and breathe in a sentence next to the immortal Milton Friedman. Here's to both of them.
• At this diff User:SPECIFICO writes: Look at here: Flat Earth Society. "The myth that the earth was flat..." Now, should we say "Soto gave voice to the myth that the Austrians were the only ones to predict the staglation..." Decisions, decisions!

Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope interested editors will make their comments on the article talk page as the full context of the discussion is there. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps above is more a WP:ORNissue than a WP:BLPN issue, given lack of interest? Sometimes it's hard to tell which noticeboard to go to if WP:BLPN is involved. Hearing no dissent tomorrow will move above there with note I did so... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, User:Specifico speaks on his edits, in the wrong section (so I moved it up here), to suggest that it's forum shopping to take the WP:OR topic to another forum given that I wasn't sure which was best and since no one except the other editor who also opposes Specifico's edits responded, I wondered if that would be forum shopping. I really don't know.

But obviously User:Specifico doesn't care to share his rationales for his edit with this noticeboard - or much on the talk page where two editors disagree with his edit. It really would be great if people could opine. I feel like no one cares anymore and it's very frustrating. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Given no response on the WP:OR policy issue, also brought to WP:ORN. Not too late to comment on either that issue or ridiculing the subject of the bio on the talk page. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Other issues

Since User:SPECIFICO often fails to engage in talk page discussions per WP:BRD, also could use an eye on these two issues clearly explained by my talk page sections:

• WP:Undue on Larry J. Sechrest criticism - resolved
• Removing full names/links of primary influences from lead (i.e., leaving those way down in the info box) - think I'll just fix it
• Per this diff keeping primary source info on Huerta de Soto's views which adds to/clarifies another source's perhaps inaccurate description in the preceding sentence made seven years earlier. Discussed here at my talk page. Resolved. Thanks for any help... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping

I express no opinion about the substance of this request, but the forum shopping allegation is nonsense so long as proper procedures are followed. WP:FORUMSHOP says: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." If there is an OR issue here as well as a BLP issue, there is no reason to not list in both places, provided that you are clear that you are doing so and cross-links are provided. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for outside neutral opinion. Hard to keep it all straight, sometimes! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, OP expressly stated that the reason for the anticipated move was because OP didn't like the way the BLP posting was going. That is forum-shopping. Moreover, as is consistent with such motivation, the stated intent (before my reminder re:policy) was to move, not to dual post or to link, the matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

a) If there's no response except process issues, that's not an issue of "how it is going" policy wise. b) Move was a suggestion. If that's not the right thing to do, I won't do it and other alternatives here and elsewhere have been suggested. c) Just because people aren't commenting on it doesn't mean it's not a clear policy violation that needs to be dealt with. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refactor other editors' remarks. My words above were as indicated in the edit summary, a response to TransporterMan. Thank you. 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand your comment or, looking up WP:OP, who the open proxy you are addressing is; am I an open proxy? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OP = original poster. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So to clarify "Don't understand your comment." You mean only Transporter man is allowed to respond because you were responding to TransporterMan? And therefore it was OK for User:Specifico to change his/her comment after I responded?? New one on me... In any case, when one starts with "perhaps i came to wrong board" and ends with "Hearing no dissent" it means, hey, is this ok? ie. trying to figure out proper procedures. I thought moving was better than leaving in two places, but putting in two places seems ok after all. Who would have thunk it? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and not the alternative possibility, WP:NOTHERE, I will recapitulate:

Putting it in two places only after you are dissatisfied with the result of putting it in the first place is forum shopping. There are well-documented policies that would lead you to post appropriately at the outset, but the choice should be based on the content of the question not the outcome of your first attempt. If you had liked the outcome of your first try, would you be contemplating a second go-round? The answer is blowing in the wind. Time to chill on this. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

May it's so obvious to other editors that Srich and I are correct, they didn't have the energy to affirm it. Often editors are more motivated to disagree than to agree. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike Gatto

The biography of Mike Gatto, a local politician, seems overly positive of the person's career and accomplishments. Not only that, but the majority of the editing and writing in it, including uploading the picture, has been done by a single user (looking at the history of the page should make it clear which one I am referring to). Edits to this article also constitute the majority of the contributions from that user (and the rest are all about subjects related to Mike Gatto's position and district area). I am not trying to start an accusation or harassment but I am wondering if some sort of higher-level action should be taken besides just editing the article for NPOV. K.Bog 21:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's a promotional bio, and carefully tended by several accounts. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

*Little wonder: it was apparently largely copied from smartvoters.org. I've templated the article for copypaste issues, with a link to the source. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted an image identified on the talk page as a copyright violation, material sourced to a bio supplied by the subject, and material sourced to the subject's then-law firm. This page is well-tended by the subject and/or his supporters. I fully expect to be reverted. Some administrative action may be called for if this pattern keeps up. Looking through the edit history, I think it's gone on for quite long enough without sanction. David in DC (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also started fleshing out the refs to actual reliable sources. At a glance, they do appear to stand for the propositions they're used to source. But a second set of eyes would help.David in DC (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Anderson

JON ANDERSON is the living former lead singer of the band YES. This article is filled with rude words and false statements pertaining to made up names for actual living people who are or were members of YES. Here, JON is shown in photos and is called "Jizzle". Please delete this entire article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.197.153 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can´t comment on "false statements", please discuss that on the talkpage you linked to. To my eyes, the article is not filled with rude words, the fotos seems fine and nowhere does it say "Jizzle". It is very unlikely that this article will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but of course it can be changed/improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Highly likly this person has found the article on Gizoogle's page Jizzle Anderson.--Auric talk 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone email WMF about the copyright violation of the WMF logo on that site?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically when you run a page through that service you're the one committing a copyright violation :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the site is set up. Having the WMF logo beside a hoax article seems rather illegal to me. I won't email WMF but someone else may wish to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Jane Censoria Cajes

• Jane Censoria Cajes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a young Filipino politician. Just removed some really bad gossip/negative crap from the 'Controversies' section, as usual. Probably needs more trimming due to lack of citations. A few more eyes appreciated. §FreeRangeFrog 23:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jane e-mailed OTRS last night, and I'm working with her to get this cleaned up, because there is a lot of crap there. The "Controversies" section will probably be refactored once this is all said and done, because there is information on this stuff happening, but it doesn't seem like she did anything wrong based on what is out there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bill Connors

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

This article consists almost entirely of praise and praising interview quotes, is generally brash and pompous as if the subject of the page had written it himself, and is not at all like a neutral or objective encyclopaedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.49.213 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

cross-wiki issue (Tā moko and NSFW images)

Tā moko is a tradational tattoo practice among the Maori people of New Zealand which focuses on the face. At the top of the Tā moko article is an invitation to translate the content from the Russian language wikipedia. The Russian article contains a number of images missing from the English article. An image of a seated woman dated 1935 and claimed to be in the public domain, which I believe to be fraudulent (a) the quality of the photography makes me very suspicious of the early date (b) 1935 was during the nadir of the tā moko, a period when school children were beaten for expressing Maori culture in schools; genuine evidence of the practice during this period would be huge cultural news (c) the location and style of the work don't even match the Google translation of the text of the Russian article (which has some issues) and certainly not the English language article nor the sources listed in either. Far more likely that this is an image of a modern person passed as a historical person, and a edited to add the tā moko for titillation. Almost certainly that's an image of a living person, edited and being passed off. The original source may be here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is incredibly risky to assert that in 1935 we did not have high-quality photography - as, in fact, we had excellent photography back in those dark ages. I agree the person was living when the photo was taken, but we really can't say much more unless we have substantially better evidence than "photo quality" here. Collect (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the policies of the Russian wikipedia are but it seems to be the evidence is woefully inadequate to assert the photo is from 1935. The source is given as the above link yet there's not way to know the photo is from 1935 from the photo, it doesn't have any text and the numbers in the name could arise from a whole lot of others things. Also why does the file have an English name? This suggests it may have come from somewhere else but where? I didn't find anything from TinEye or a Google Reverse image search. BTW, in the same vein, even in the image is from 1935, are we sure it is PD? The PD template there appears to be something similar to {{PD-Russia}} or {{PD-old-70}}. Given the little details we know, I don't see how we can know that the author either died more than 70 years ago or the photo was published anonymously and I don't believe the anonymously part would even definitely apply since it is unlikely the author of the photo is Russian or it was first published in Russia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea Varela

Migdia Chinea Varela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject says she's tired of trying to keep the article in the form she wants, and asks that we delete it entirely. She's been given all sorts of warnings over the years: COI, AUTOBIO, blanking, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please help. Erroneous and hurful information has been placed in the Migdia Chinea page and now this Orange Mike editor threatens to block me and continues. He has bullied me before with protocolafter protocol. Is it any wonder there are few women editing Misplaced Pages -- it's because of bullies like this guy. Please, delete the Migdia Chinea page and be done with it because he's is using this as some sort of personal vendetta against me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs)

We don't have a reliable source for the birth date or exact birth place. We shouldn't be restoring them to the article after they have been challenged. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do this. An editor named Orange Mike has been after me for quite some time and I give up. He threatens me with being blocked and uses unfamiliar intimidating protocol after protocol to get his way. I must ask you to, please, get this guy off my back. I have an appointment that I have not kept to take care of this. I have offered to just let him delete my page and not deal with this -- but his goal is humiliation or intimidation by all means possible. Is this the way WIKIPEDIA should be conducting its business? I now realize why women are not editors. Please, I ask you to remove this guy from my back. He's not following procedure -- he's carrying a personal vendetta against me for reason that perhaps only he can understand. I have nothing at all against him, but he's got to be stopped as far as I'm concerned. I'm unememployed and looking for work to pay my mortgage -- I will lose my home if I don 't get a job. I will have no reason to go on. Don't you understand that the bully's objective is to push you to the wall? This is not an objective witch hunting -- if there was ever one. This is a guy who enjoys this sort of abuse and bullying. Please help me and just delete my page. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest two things:

• Orangemike should step back from the article temporarily and let the noticeboard handle it. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the accusations against him, which I suspect stem from an unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages procedure and culture more than anything else. It is just a means for letting things cool down so we can separate out the issues from the personalities.
• Ms. Chinea, can you please, either here or through an email, let us know what erroneous information remains so we can remove it immediately from the article? Thank you.

Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick glance - OrangeMike's escalation of the situation on Migdiachinea's talk page was unneccessary. GiantSnowman 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read my previous message. I HAVE NO TIME FOR THIS. You don't have my birth date and that is a subject of speculation because my birthdate was estimated by the school I was sent to from Cuba because I had no passport. I was a Cuban refugee child who parents sent out of the country alone (unaccompanied minor) ffor political reasons and lived but was not born on Coral Gables. Why do you insist on putting information here that is false and deleterious? And if you do, then you ought to put all information, not what this guy Orange Mike wishes to have in it. I do not know Orange Mike personally, but this editor has been causing me grief for quite some time. When my first short film went to Cannes, he didn't think that it was worthy of having a page, despite an article on the Bruins and other corroborating evidence -- it went to 36 festivals and it is the first short film produced, directed and written by a Hispanic woman to do so. It's ok, It was deleted. There used to be a section in Misplaced Pages to protect the rights of Hispanic wikipedians or information about Hispanic Americans -- Frankly, given what is going on and the way that I'm being bullied by this Orange Mike with a vendetta, I do not wish to remain here and a page with incorrect information should be deleted. This man Orange Mike should be kept away from women like me. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Chinea, we have already removed the birth date and birth place from the article and they will not be restored. I've asked Orange Mike to have no further contact with you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok -- I had to stop to read other stuff. Now you know the situation. I have had a life that has been complicated by world politics. I think keeping Orange Mike out of this is a good idea. He has issues with me and seems to enjoy bullying me. I have no personal issues here of any sort. I have stayed away from editing Misplaced Pages because I don't enjoy this sort of harangue. I'm also on survival mode trying to pay and keep my home. I'm applying for jobs. Any jobs. I can't be kept away for the pleasure of some. Perhaps Orange Mike is a great editor elsewhere, but he uses this venue as his own personal fiefdom and I'm not for him to push around with protocol and bureaucratic calls to arms. There ought to be a rule. Thank you. Mig (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace

Thank youMig (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Headline

I've done some clean-up work on the article. Nothing substantive. But I'm stumped about what to do with a ref. It's a newspaper story whose title misspells the subject's name. I've boldly corrected the spelling in the citation. But now my boldness is failing me. Did I do the right thing? I suppose I could have put in the middle of the headline, instead. But that would look odd. And leaving the typo in wikipedia, just because the Bruin made the mistake seems wrong too. But maybe we're not supposed to correct typos? What say ye? David in DC (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would apply MOS:QUOTE to newspaper headlines as well: "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment" -- John of Reading (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it for quotations. It makes sense to be applied across the board. David in DC (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Princess Alia bint Al Hussein

Princess Alia bint Al Hussein

the picture in the article is for Queen Aliaa not Princess Alia ,, thank u

i hope u change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.47.52.128 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look more like Queen Aliaa than Princess Alia. I should email the Ford library to either verify or correct their image description. I added 'citation needed'. I don't know if the monarchy can be contacted but I will see if I can do that as well. The US embassy should have an email though. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan Haggerty

The Dan Haggerty article was largely rewritten in this edit by, avowedly, his publicity agency. I was tempted to undo it wholesale, but the original article had its own issues, including a discussion of Haggerty's drug arrest that had no source cited. Suggestions?

DCB4W (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut it back to a stub maybe.--ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that far -- but depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Kaisa Sere

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

I don't see how this person's bio is any useful to wiki readers. It is a mere personal bio. This person is not an outstanding scientist that warrants significant public attention. It should be best kept at her university web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.52.208 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Prima facie she meets the requirements of WP:PROF.--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cilia Flores is not Maduro's wife.

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

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

PLEASE, MAKE THE PROPER CHANGE OF WIKIPEDIA IN GOOGLE, STATING THAT CILIA FLORES IS MARRIED TO MADURO. PLEASE CHANGE THAT BECAUSE SHE IS NOT THE FIRST LADY. SHE IS A CONCUBINE, AND MANY PEOPLE LIKE ME USED TO LOOK FOR WIKIPEDIA AS A SERIOUS SOURCE BUT NOT ANYMORE WITH THIS. THANKS FOR YOUR PROMPT ATTENTION TO MAKE THIS CORRECTION.

Debatable. Most sources say they are married, but mostly just by labeling her "wife", without going into marriage details: BBC, Biography.com; Guardian; New York Times. Reuters explicitly doubts it. Telegraph says no. Foreign Policy isn't sure. El Mundo specifies "life partner", which implies strongly not married. Is it a violation of BLP to say that the media debates whether someone is married? --GRuban (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Far better to call her a 'spouse' or 'partner' Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stuartyeates. This is probably an English issue but note that a term like concubine should almost never be used to refer to someone living in modern times, and it makes even less sense if the person is the only current or the primary partner. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The term 'concubine' is a common derogatory term in countries like Venezuela and Colombia. We can do 'partner' or 'life partner' or heck, girlfriend. But never, ever 'concubine'. Also note that this person is likely not referring to our article, but to the Google search results on the subject's name (the infobox), over which we have no control anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not married: "Flores and Maduro are not married nor have children in common, but they share their life since about 20 years (...)"ABC

I agree that "concubine" is totally inadequate, and has a totally different meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the term is wholly inappropriate here. And that it should be used rarely.

However, In case you really think concubinage exists today only as a vulgar term in Latin America, please allow me to disabuse you of that notion, now that I've done a bit of googling.

Please see China Concubines Return Thanks To Increasing Capitalism from HuffPo, China's concubine culture is back from Asian Times, China: The Plight Of Sex Workers – Analysis from Eurasia Review, Concubine culture brings trouble for China's bosses from The Guardian, Tanzania: Children Now Seen in Criminal Underworld from the Tanzania Daily News, The Concubine Revival from The Times of Israel, Kosher concubines from Israel HaYom, Pakistan TV Debate on Concubines and Slavery in Islam from EuropeNews and Concubines and Prostitutes from Christianity Magazine.

I'm horrified, but not exactly surprised. I apologize for the digression, but I thought it important note. David in DC (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat OT, but the usage by the OP and that described by FreeRangeFrog seems to be somewhat distinct from that used in the sources above, most of which seem to be using it in a manner similar to the older usage described in our article namely referring to a 'lesser' wife or somethng akin to that donated by the word 'mistress', and commonly where the man already has a wife; whereas the case here appears to be where the person is basically the spouse, and the only one even if they may not have a piece of paper. While there are probably some people in those countries who similarly refer to an unmarried partner as a concubine in a derogratory fashion, I wonder how common it is. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Nekrasov

In the Misplaced Pages article, it says, "In 1990 he married the actress Olga Konskaya (1964–2009)." This is definitely incorrect! Olga Konskaya lived across the street from me durin g the early 1990's, together with her first husband, Igor. She could only have married Mr. Nekrasov at a much later date. Regrettably, I last spoke with Olga around 1996 and then lost track of her, so I don't know myself when she married Mr. Nekrasov, but it was definitely not 1990!

Paul Carlson Frankfurt, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.193.77 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We usually don't accept private anecdotes to inform content, but I checked the source and, even if I don't speak Russian, it seems to me that there is no mention of the marriage and especially of the 1990 date. I removed the sentence. --Cyclopia 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Melih Abdulhayoğlu

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

This article is identical to the bio page on the comodo website and is obviously written by an non-objective party. Mark for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techrefresh (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can point us exactly to the page that it is a copy of, violating copyright, this would help us assess copyright violations (I checked on the COMODO website, and the bio I found looks different to me). As for the rest, neutrality problems are not a reason to delete an article, sorry -if you feel it is biased, fix it. The subject looks notable, with interviews etc. --Cyclopia 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Byrum

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

I happen to agree with her on almost all issues; but this article as written is more like a candidate biography from a campaign website than a proper neutral BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Depuffed a campaign piece. Collect (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Maer Roshan

• Maer Roshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Puff pastry piece. Is this eligible for speedy deletion as spam? It appears to have been hatched as a fully promotional piece, and has continued in that way for three years. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not eligible for speedy deletion, though it certainly needs de-puffing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I figured that was probably too much to hope for. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Of Monsters and Men

This page contains opinion not related to biography. Located within first paragraph: "Of Monsters and Men are mainly known for heavily ripping off their entire musical style, riffs and style from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes, who in turn ripped off their style from Arcade Fire. This was demonstrated most notably in the similarities between OMAM song 'Little Talks' and Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes song 'Home.'" Please have removed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.61 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. If it's a high profile article with a history of such commentary it would be helpful to have this watchlisted by established accounts. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Grace Dunham

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

This bio should be removed. This person is not significantly accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.12.183 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is intended to report issues with biographies. If you feel this person is not notable, you may ask at WP:N/N, or nominate the article for deletion yourself. §FreeRangeFrog 23:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Alice Walker

An editor recently added a review of one of Alice Walker's books, as voiced by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. They condemn the work as anti-Semitic. The WP article contains no other external reviews of her work. It seems that this slating by the ADL may be too fringe to include. As an unrelated aside, Walker has recently publicly condemned Misplaced Pages for perceived inaccuracies in the Alice Walker article and openly accused it of slander. Thoughts on the ADL addition are welcome. Span (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the ADL statement is a solid source to work from. I do not think it would qualify as "FRINGE" at all. She has also fairly recently refused a Hebrew translation of her work The Color Purple to be printed. I find that fairly extreme. That deserves a mention. Keep the above mentioned critique. Again, from my cursory reading of the JP article, she allegedly uses some unpleasant language and facile historical comparisons re Israel/Palestine in the new work. The attempt to delegitimise an entire language, and by extention an entire ethnic group who speak that language, (completely disregarding the individual Hebrew speakers' political views) to me borders on racism, and a rather disturbing undertone of a "collective guilt" which arguably most Jews, whatever their political opinions may be, would find creepy and distasteful to put it mildly. Imagine the uproar if say, Amos Oz refused to endorse any Arabic translations of his works! Her whole stance on I/P may deserve its own section. Obviously balancing cites should be hunted up by interested eds. Irondome (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What you find 'fairly extreme' is beside the point - we base articles on published sources, not on the opinions of contributors. A section on Walker's 'stance on I/P' could only possibly be justified by demonstrating that published sources gave it significant weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I find it fairly extreme. But that would not affect my contributions to a NPOV new section. There is considerable material out there that would support a new section, and it would be balanced. And yes, my opinion counts as an autonomous individual. I just dont migrate it to mainspace, unless there is strong citational support and consensus. Ok? Irondome (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's valid criticism from a notable source, not a personal attack but directed at her work. It's phrased perfectly well in the article. As to her misgivings in her blog, looks like most of that personal stuff with the daughter is gone now. §FreeRangeFrog 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Hernandez

Aaron Hernandez (an American football player) has been questioned in a murder investigation, and it might be worth keeping an eye on the page. Calidum Sistere 03:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection. I've also removed the section on the murder entirely, since it grossly misrepresented the only source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's back again.--ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ziad K. Abdelnour

Ziad K. Abdelnour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, This is regarding the editing of Page Talk:Ziad K. Abdelnour from Unregistered IP's. The SEC content with not reliable source is continuously updated to the page from unregistered IP's. Which is already settled in 3rd opinion not to use SEC links and dealbreaker links as only source. Even I requested to Semi Protection, but it has been declined. This is happen since last 4 days. Please helps us in protecting this page from Edits from Un registered IP's.Rajmavrick (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson

Editor Dumbledore1 is adding information at Robert Pattinson article in his personal life section without providing reliable sources. The sources he or she is providing as references are tabloids, media and fan speculations like these http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/nina_schubert/, http://social.popsugar.com/Robert-Pattinson-make-great-dad-12425385, http://voices.yahoo.com/nikki-reed-reported-twilight-affair-robert-2992109.html.--Jockzain (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Even with reliable sources, we shouldn't be including every minor detail of Pattinson's personal life. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip magazine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Roberto Alomar

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

There are allegations of HIV transmission at Roberto Alomar, which while sourced could use additional eyes, given the nature of the allegations. Alomar is not confirmed to have HIV, and I would think we ought to tread carefully here. Among the concerns is this diff , where an editor seems to be trying to add weight to an accuser's reliability with original research, implying that because a tennis player has certain career earnings, she can't simply be "out for money", as a lawyer in the source claims. In my mind, it's not up to wikipedia to comment on the validity of the claims, but if the claims are in the media they should be covered as neutrally and as carefully as possible. I reverted the diff mentioned, left a note for the editor on their talk page, but hope that other editors can weigh in on how this subject is being covered in this BLP. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A good example why allegations make for bad BLPs. Even when presented "neutrally" they may well harm the subject. We have no deadlines here, so if further solid facts appear, we can always add them. Collect (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

David Gorski

There has been debate on the David Gorski talk page as to whether or not he is notable per WP:PROF.

• One side says: The sources in the article make it look like a "vanity BLP". There are 25 citations. However 7 of them are websites where Gorski is employed, 6 others to sources where Gorski is either the author or the managing editor, plus a YouTube video, cites to a mom and pop website called www. Lanyrd.com, a local radio station, a podcast and a few newspapers/magazine articles where he is referenced in a single sentence. A breakdown of the sources can be seen here.
• The other side says: Gorski appeared in a symposium for The Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium Series of the McGill University: Drs. Ben Goldacre, David Gorski and Michael Shermer on the threat of Pseudoscience. The introductory information for this states his contributions to the Science Based Medicine Blog have a world wide following. This statement and his appearance in the Trottier Symposium seem to support notability and come from a reliable source. The event was reviewed in The McGill Daily. He was an invited speaker at Michigan State University's DO-PhD Seminar Program which aims to “to introduce DO-PhD Students to exceptional physician-scientists and translational research both from Michigan State university and from other distinguished academic institutions.” He was chosen to contribute his views to an article on Medscape about alternative medicine What to Do When a Patient Wants 'Alternative' Medicine.

Comments anyone? Thanking you in advance for your participation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not he meets notability criteria, I'm not sure we need his vacation photos in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he barely meets WP:GNG if you loosen up a bit (what there goes beyond the average academic/researcher?), but WP:PROF is trickier. At AFD ultimately it comes down to the person's g- or h-index, which is tricky at best sometimes. At least to me. §FreeRangeFrog 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Keithbob I don't think it is appropriate to remove the comments from other editors on a talk page, even if you place them here. Additionally the portion of my comments you chose to paste here were a few additional references that I prefaced with 'this may' support notability. I am also concerned by an earlier statement to another editor, “you are destroying the format of the article and I can't stand by while you do that.” The format of an article regarding what sections are most appropriate is not strictly governed by policy the issues with format should be discussed collaboratively and supported by guidelines that are linked to on the talk page (rather than using multiple reverts). The tone of User:Keithbob in that statement and the one that follows in the discussion section on the talk page strongly suggest a poor understanding of WP:Ownership.

• The single clearest and strongest case for notability is per WP:ACADEMIC. Criteria 1 is substantially satisfied by a single article by David Gorski, "Blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation". This article is identified in Google Scholar as being cited by 777 other articles. This should clearly meet the standard as spelled out in Misplaced Pages:ACADEMIC#Specific_criteria_notes. As further evidence of notability Gorski's work led Case Western University to apply for a patent on the “Gax gene” (Growth arrest homeobox gene WO 1995023161 A1) this application has been substantially cited. Gorski's work is featured in a book published by Elsevier under the imprint Academic Press, Gene Therapy of Cancer (Second Edition) Translational Approaches from Preclinical Studies to Clinical Implementation (Edmund C. Lattime, PhD, and Stanton L. Gerson, MD, eds, 2002). This book features an entire chapter with Gorski as lead author.

A critique of the current references in the article appears on the talk page most of the criticisms are not valid per Misplaced Pages:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. The radio station identified as “non notable” has a WP article that has not been marked for deletion.

Regarding the references in the truncated quote starting this section, on the talk page User:Keithbob states, “I hardly think a promotional brochure that is trying to hype the appearance of one of its guest speakers qualifies as an objective reliable source for establishing notability.” This seems a disingenuous description of a University's biographical material on the invited speakers for an established lecture series, note there is also review article. User:Keithbob's representation of the Science Based Medicine blog as “his personal blog” is inaccurate. It is described in the book The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2011 (Mary Roach, Tim Folger, eds, 2011) as a prominent medical blog. The Science Based Medicine Blog is cited by this article in the Toronto Star (Alternative treatments led to Steve Jobs death, says Harvard researcher by Lesley Ciarula Taylor, 2011) and adapted to this article (Is Oprah Winfrey giving us bad medicine? by David Gorski, 2009). The Science Based Medicine Blog is mentioned in several of the book references that follow.

User:Keithbob goes on to ask, “Has he ever been on national TV? been the subject of an article in a science or medical magazine? or even in a skeptics magazine? featured in a book on cancer research? has he written any books on skeptics or cancer research that were published by an independent publishing house? These are things that might make him notable.” While these are indeed things that would contribute to notability they are not required if the above WP:ACADEMIC criteria is satisfied and it is not up to an individual editor to create a set of standards for notability.

• In answer see the book above about cancer research featuring Gorski. National press coverage includes articles in USA Today (How to guard against a quack by Liz Szabo, 2013), The New York Times (Bridal hunger games by Linda Lee, 2012) and The Washington Post (Oprah: High priestess of the New Age by Amarnath Amarasingam, 2011). The Medscape article above is a reliable source choosing to feature Gorski's opinions. Books that cite him as a source or present his views include: The Book of Common Fallacies (Philip Ward, 2012), Alternative Medicine (Catherine G. Davis, 2012), Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives (Michael Spector, 2009), Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left (Alex B. Berezow, Hank Campbell, 2012) and What If There's Nothing Wrong? (Alison J. Kay, 2012). These references should provide more than adequate substantiation of the notability of David H. Gorski per WP:GNG.

I remain concerned that the approach and attitude of User:Keithbob is not in keeping with WP:Ownership and the series of multiple edits does not follow WP:BRD and could be seen as WP:EW and seems a clear violation of the three revert rule per “An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.” The agreement to notability and removal of the notability tag only to replace the notability tag later is certainly questionable. That said, I respect the experience of User:Keithbob and acknowledge and appreciate this article being discussed on its talk page and here.

MrBill3 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Swami Maheshwarananda - need someone that knows German

There's been a merry edit war ongoing here about whether to include some "allegations" material about a yogic guru called Swami Maheshwarananda.

Meanwhile over at the talk page Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda, there's some lengthy "discussion" about whether to include mention of the material, but also there is now enumeration of some possibly reliable sources that do seem to mention the allegations.

First problem is, most of the sources offered are in German, and all of them seem to be of German origin. I can't read German (and don't want to rely on Google Translate for tone), and also am unsure of whether Respekt, for example, is the equivalent of Private Eye in terms of reliability, or something different.

Ultimately we need to establish, first, whether the allegations should be mentioned at all, and secondly, with what wording. (The one English source offered claims that none of the allegations relate to behaviour that would be considered criminal in the countries involved, and therefore no-one has been charged or convicted.)

Please help! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it is published in reliable publications, it should be included in the article. It is enough to have one reliable source in order to state it in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Profil is a reliable source by any measure. That said, I'd be concerned that even that article, although well-written and relatively neutral, covers no more than allegations. All the given sources are that - allegations. Essentially gossip at this point. When and if this dude gets actually charged with something, or an official investigation exists, then fine. We add that to the article neutrally, etc. But not at this point. WP:BLPGOSSIP covers this well - the gossip loop might come from the Profil article for all we know. Either way, allegations. §FreeRangeFrog 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution