Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:05, 6 February 2014

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

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

Carl Freer

I came across an article about Carl Freer and Tiger Telematics about a month ago and recommended Freer for deletion. The article asserted a claim of him being a criminal but his actions are similar to thousands of others and did not seem to amount to WP:CRIME. With the exception User:BabbaQ who voted to keep (although did not really elaborate how it meets WP:GNG), the other reasons for keeping the article left by editors were not based on guidelines. After the article was kept, I edited it to more conform to BLP guidelines for neutrality, original research, and verifiability (at least in my opinion). The edits were reversed yesterday by user User:Universaladdress who asserted that the content I added and removed was already “approved” and from reliable sources. However, the information removed was WP:UNDUE and the information I added was something other editors left out when introducing negative information.

While I do not care about Tiger Telematics or Gizmundo as they are company pages, BLPs are different and need to be strictly adhered to. While Freer and Erikkson do not seem like saints, they also do not appear to rise to the level of WP:CRIME. If they did meet notability for criminals, we could double the size of Misplaced Pages’s database with criminals who would qualify as well. Also, after the Freer article was kept, a User:Universaladdress requested page protection which was applied to the page. Page protection should be requested for persistence vandalism, not because someone disagrees with an article being recommended for deletion. This is poor use of page protection in my opinion.

So, long story short, there seems to be some major BLP violations with Eriksson and Freer. I would request that it be looked at by those familiar with BLP guidelines in order to ensure that they are being followed with these articles. The talk pages show much contention among editors who are either trying to heavily weight the articles against these guys, as well as other editors who want to whitewash the article. Looks like something that has gone on for years and will go on for years until someone steps in. I would love to do it, but leaving it up to those who deal with issues every day is probably the best. Also appears that people are either using multiple accounts on the talk pages or people are coming to Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of these pages, which makes it dangerous as they are here to put specific information into the articles that they want, not putting information in objectively.

Please take a look at the following for additional information:

1. BLP violation post on Carl Freer talk page made by me on 1-17-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Carl_Freer#BLP_violation_and_neutral_point_of_view_

2. Edit comments on Freer that explain the edits I did to the article a few days back. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Carl_Freer&action=history

3. Edit history of Stefan Erikkson showing the edits I made a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stefan_Eriksson&action=history. Also notice that it appears people do not care about the Eriksson article as much as the Freer article as no edits were made since I made them to Eriksson.

4. Talk page of User: Universaladdress explaining my reason for edits to these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Universaladdress I should have assumed more good faith and will take the heat for that as I should have developed better communications; however, the history of the talk page for these articles showed me that all editors

So, either what I read here at BLP is wrong, it is being interpreted differently that how it is written, I simply don’t understand the policy even though it is pretty clearly written, or there is a major BLP violation with these articles. If am wrong, please let me know so that I understand the policy going forward. I am also completely open to taking my lumps from more experienced editors for not assuming as good as faith as I should have. And, ultimately, I would like to see Misplaced Pages to be used as an encyclopedia, not a platform for airing out complaints about people they don’t like.--JakenBox (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the primary-sourced stuff about RICO doesn't belong - WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly prohibits using court documents, etc. as sources in BLPs. However, if this person is notable (and per the AfD decision, he is), he is primarily notable for his involvement with a massively-dubious game console that is one of the most famous gaming business failures of all time, and thus there's going to be some significant negative slant to the coverage. That may be so, but that appears to have a significant and fair basis in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. AfD 1 resulted in no-consensus with AfD 2 being kept based on votes. If you look at the discussion, there does not appear to be anyone giving a reason to keep the article other than non-policy reasons. What confuses me is why Eriksson is being mentioned as a "business partner" when the reference doesn't state that they were business partners. They both were higher ups in the company, but if we include Eriksson in the article for Freer and vice versa, then all the directors should be included in the articles. Introducing information about Eriksson in Freer's article and vice versa only slants the information to them being co-conspirators and criminals together. The other part is the sentence that states, "Freer was also engaged in an abortive attempt to relaunch the Gizmondo, claiming a potential launch in the 3rd quarter of 2008; however, this never occurred." The reference doesn't say that the potential launch was aborted and stating that it "never occurred" can be logically concluded since you don't see it on the shelves at Wal-Mart, but a BLP should include information from the references, not what can be concluded. Finally, if they are criminals, there is no way that they meet WP:CRIME. The events that they would be known for do not have a lasting effect like what would be needed to support notability. Basically, it looks like someone created both articles as attack pages. They are interweaved along with the pages for Tiger Telematics and Gizmundo with information that is weighted too heavily based on sources. --JakenBox (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Stefan Eriksson are all appropriate, in my opinion - removing either unsourced/dubiously-sourced material or stuff which is completely irrelevant (his girlfriend being pulled over, etc.). Nice work there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how to address Eriksson any further. The majority of the references are in Swedish and Google translate is very poor. Thinking of just stripping everything that isn't referenced. --JakenBox (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Back again. Seems like there is a single editor who insists on adding information in violation of BLP guidelines. Unsourced information is being added as well as information that is not in the source provided. Not sure where to go to request that this be reviewed, but would like someone to help and take a look if there is an interest. Thank you again. --JakenBox (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the monkey bit should go. It's puzzling that the lead makes no mention of this aspect of his life (the general issue, not the monkey bit). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Only the monkey bit is all you see as being tabloid fodder? Um -- look closer at the "stuff" and the SYNTH in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The "toxicology report" from his DUI arrest has now been repeatedly added to the BLP. Are such reports of encyclopedic value in a BLP? Collect (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I would consider this a primary source. We could not use this unless a reputable secondary source has published it. --John (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Does CNN count as a primary source? . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect from your WP:POV they are minor things. But when these "minor things" are reported in detail in reliable and secondary sources then they become inclusion worthy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now an editor seems to think the "petition to deport" is worth 1600 characters in the BLP ... AFAICT, the White House has not the authority to deport, making the "petition" a bit of a sideshow. Collect (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, full disclosure; I signed it too. :) But it has no place in a WIkipedia article, online petitions are fluff. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't be bustin on da beeb. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that this is even up for discussion. Any idiot can can start a frivolous petition, and a handful of other idiots can register a mass of e-mail accounts to "vote" in no time. This thing has been abused to ask for things from the deportation of Piers Morgan to demanding the government build a real Death Star. It is beyond the realm of credibility that this bears mentioning in a BLP. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Any idiot can. And handfuls might follow. 200k is not a handful. Not every petition is the one that gains the most sigs. "THIS" one is. It's not generic. This petition is notable. I think it is stupid. I think there's no chance that the white house will do more than hand wave about what they can do. That doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning. --Onorem (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. It will have no effect on the life of the BLP, and is nothing more than tabloid fodder. Maybe if Justin Timberlake started the petition, and Obama responded personally, it could be mentioned on JT's article. But not in Bieber's or Obama's. Dave Dial (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• The petition actually took up slightly over 1800 characters... over 1350 were references to five sources: TIME, Reuters, CNN, The Indepedent and MarketWatch. Straw man again, Collect? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  
• I'm just getting a vibe of sheer arrogance here from several editors. Right on this page the petition is described as a bit of a sideshow, online petitions are fluff and nothing more than tabloid fodder. This is apparently in contradiction to the many reliable sources which have chosen to report this incident. I have already posted on the article's talk page on sources which have reported this in serious detail: Forbes, TIME, ABC News, CNN News, Toronto Sun. There's more when I search now: Agence France Presse, BBC, Associated Press. The four news agencies mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources have been covered. What more do you need to convince you? Is there even a need to convince you? Do you have the authority to dismiss all these reliable sources? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Any idiot can can start a frivolous petition, and a handful of other idiots can register a mass of e-mail accounts to "vote" in no time. - I have mentioned reliable sources to back me up, can you do the same for this statement? Can you prove this is the case? The multiple reliable sources apparently don't support your view. This thing has been abused to ask for things from the deportation of Piers Morgan to demanding the government build a real Death Star. - and so what? Each "petition" should be analysed by itself. Other petitions should not affect it. Read below on how this petition is relevant to Bieber's article - it's to his image. Similarly, Morgan's petition would reflect his image. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• beyond the realm of credibility that this bears mentioning in a BLP / no effect on the life of the BLP - it's comments like this that make me feel this discussion should not be here. It should be on Bieber's talk page. I don't know if you guys are getting the full picture here. I have posted my rationale for adding the content on the talk page. Please go and read it in full. Essentially, the content was posted in the "style, image and news" section of Bieber's article. The petition reflects Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. 200,000 people have endorsed Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". This is relevant to Bieber's image. Petitions that cross the 100,000 signature mark require an official White House response. Bieber's petition has doubled that and become the most popular open petition on the website. This makes it noteworthy. Whether the White House has the legal authority to deport Bieber has nothing to do with Bieber's image and thus should not even be discussed, whereas the mere existence of the petition with its signatures reflects Bieber's image. The multiple sources I provided above prove that this incident is well documented. Since nobody has cited policy yet, I will: the content fits WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• As mentioned, please take further discussion to the talk page, you will be able to read more responses there as well. I have included this discussion there in a collapsed section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- BLP discussions are properly placed on this noticeboard, and I deleted your copying of this page to the article talk page -- such "moves" are improper and can be misleading as the timestamps do not correspond to timestamps on the article talk page. Please simply use the concept that BLP discussions are properly held here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to merge the discussions in good faith, so that everyone there and everyone here can come together to discuss, instead of some here (or some there) not reading what's on the other side. There seemed to be more discussion on the talk page, so I moved it there. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

By number of lines by one editor - close to a tie <g>. The principle is that people watchlist pages they have posted on ... if a post is copied to another page, they will not see the replies at all on the other page. Which is why copying discussions if "not done." Collect (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. But anyone who actually watchlisted this page would actually see my notice from 00:15-00:36 that I have tried to move the discussion to the article's talk page. I didn't do this behind anyone's backs. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• and <g>? Let me tell you what I grin about. You clearly had the ability to reply to this discussion, because you did so on 00:41 and 01:14. But you somehow neglected to reply to my rationale on including the content to the article, when I explained in detail how it is related to WP:WELLKNOWN as it is relevant to Bieber's image, noteworthy and well documented. A gentleman would dare to publicly admit defeat. Right now you don't even bother (or don't have the decency?) to reply. You have previously dismissed my arguments with sweeping statements and broadly hid behind WP:BLP, a rather disturbing trend. Also, please don't pull the "I have a life" card again. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The petition is a joke, and deserves zero mention in the article at this time. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What a weak reply. Nothing to back your statement up, no reference to policy, no reliable source cited. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been away since yesterday, but see nothing that has transpired here in the last 24h to change the situation. That these faux petitions are covered by the media doesn't make them relevant to the subject's biography. Piers Morgan's article doesn't mention the signatures in support of his deportation either. I'd be supportive of a brief entry at We the People (petitioning system), as it is the petition itself that received the coverage. It has nothing to do with the subject's legitimate legal woes. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, Collect and Dave Dial. The petition is not a central part of the story of Bieber's biography. It is interesting, to a point, and that is why newspapers cover it. But we are not a newspaper. If it is still attracting serious comment in a year we could cover it. --John (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the petition should not be included, these kind of things as Tarc pointed out got the same coverage by the people who wanted to build a real Death Star. As for Justin Bieber's legal troubles if WP:RS are reporting them then we should include them per WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view being a fundamental principle (WP:PILLAR). So while the article has a section devoted to his philanthropic work which is also documented in WP:RS so should his legal troubles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity purposes, here is the updated content in question: In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported. The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

For the three users who have posted above me, I can't help but feel that you haven't grasped my point of view yet, specifically, regarding the content's relevancy to the article (Bieber). I acknowledge that it is possible to view the petition, by itself, as nothing to be included in Bieber's biography, because it wasn't actually something Bieber did? Simply put, you view the petition as being separate from Bieber. But I disagree, because I take one extra step to see a "bigger picture". The petition clearly states what it thinks of Bieber, chief claim that Bieber is a negative influence to American youth. Is this not reflective of Bieber's image? There is a section on Bieber's image in his article. If there were no section on Bieber's image, the petition would not be relevant unless Bieber is actually deported, as there would be nowhere for the petition to fit in. But by endorsing the petition, the signatories have endorsed this view of Bieber's image. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional replies to Tarc, just because Piers Morgan's article does not cover it, doesn't mean Bieber's article should not. It could be that both articles should have the content. From what I see, Morgan's article has no "image" section, so there is no good place to insert that content. To Knowledgekid87, just because the White House has received a petition for a Death Star, to me it doesn't affect the relevancy or the noteworthiness of the content in relation to Bieber. Noteworthiness is determined by the White House's rules that it has to respond, as well as Bieber's petition being the largest open petition, a days-old petition overtaking months-old ones. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Clue: Reposting walls of text generally does not actually convince others that you are somehow the only person to really understand Misplaced Pages polices. Collect (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You've done nothing to rebut my arguments except implying that I still do not understand policy, while posting too much. Your post is quite irrelevant to the argument at hand. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If I am making an argument, I try to back it up with elaboration and substantiation, so that it all links together (in this case, to Misplaced Pages policy). It's not fluff trying to out-type anyone else. I don't just state my point and leave expecting others to understand (see Two kinds of pork's post for example, and even yours, Collect, because you were the first one to revert my edit, I expect the most substantial arguments to come from you, but what have you produced? Simple arguments I have shot down and side-steps) Quite frankly, I am insulted that nobody is really bothering to argue on my rationale. I have done my part to argue my point-of-view, but honestly, nobody is offering a direct and detailed response, how will consensus be derived then? By ignoring me? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File a RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, however at this point I think there's no need to. I hope all other parties will give more detailed replies... you too, Two kinds of pork, are free to elaborate on your own stance and also argue why my own rationale is not "valid". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is, when we do include criticisms of the subject in a biography we tend to look for critics who are actually credentialed or in some way recognized as a reliable/recognizable voice. That's why we go with rock critics to include in music articles, a Roger Ebert for film, and so on; not randomguywithblog.com, not a person-on-the-street interview. That's where these petitions lie, in the realm of the anonymous and the ill-informed. A mass collection of stupid people doing stupid things can itself be notable, sure, that's why we can mention it in the petition article. But the opinion of thousands of anonymous individuals on a matter of celebrity and immigration issues is 100% worthless. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it is definitely among the better ones. I get that a critic is more reliable or preferred. But this is the public commenting on Bieber's public image, it's not just hundreds or thousands of people endorsing their opinion, it is hundreds of thousands of anonymous members of the public endorse a certain opinion regarding their image of Justin Bieber, then I think it's noteworthy. The White House itself sets their threshold for an official response as 100,000. That's what they consider noteworthy. The newspapers of the world have reported the petition once it crossed the White House's threshold, so they consider it noteworthy too. That's why I too, follow suit and consider it noteworthy. Bonus points for being the largest open petition and surpassing month-old petitions within days. It's not that the image section is called "image in the eyes of critics only". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We as editors have the luxury of being able to use discretion about content to include, even if it is reliably sourced. This petition is obviously a joke and any coverage it has received has not discussed the matter with any seriousness. Should the petition reach a groundswell, and obtain coverage of more than a light hearted note, I'd imagine our shared discretion will certainly change to include. But I doubt that's gonna happen. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a lack of seriousness, it's probably because experts say Bieber won't be deported, which I acknowledge. I will still maintain that the petition's relevance to the article is not on immigration, but on its signatories opinion on Bieber's image of a negative influence. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

100,000 clicks on an ePetition doesn't mean that 100,000 individuals expressed their opinion, though. Online petitions are rife with and lulz, because we cannot verify the identity of the voters. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What you said is true, and will apply for any online petition. It doesn't mean this petition was manipulated though, unless you have a reliable source suggesting that. I believe that the news agencies have taken this into account when reporting it. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents regarding the petitions topic, but as starship.paint stated, isn't the fact that this petition has been covered by a lot of major media a sufficient reason for mentioning it? See Time, Forbes, others... It might be indeed just a tabloïd-friendly topic, but even here in France it did make it to major TV news programs. Whatever your views are on the relevance of this petition, the media consider it a significant event - maybe just funny or plain stupid, but significant. OTOH I agree that it doesn't deserve more than a few sentences, at least until TWH responds. --JimeoWan (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that US Lawmakers are getting involved in the petition: So it's notability might not be as questionable now. The petition now has just under 250,000 signatures. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As there are almost 320 million citizens of the United States, it seems that well under one in a thousand Americans has signed this petition. That's not a landslide. The place to report on this petition is the article about the petition website, not in a biography of a living person. If the U.S. government actually initiates deportation action, perhaps then. But all kinds of BLP crud can accumulate around the most famous celebrities, and we have to show some editorial judgment. This is chaff, not wheat. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And how many of those petitions get a response from congress? This is not mere tabloid crud. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And the Congressional Resolution is where? That a single member of Congress says something is not the same as Congress doing something. Collect (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's almost like some here have the mistaken notion that this petition process is an actual cog in the machinery of the federal government, i.e. a means of private citizens initiating actual legislation. All this website has been since Day 1 is a public relations novelty, not a direct channel between President Obama and his voters. When petitions reach the threshold for response, said response is delegated to some obscure policy wonk. The Death Star response was penned by a Paul Shawcross, the chief of the Science and Space Branch in the White House Office of Management and Budget. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated in the talk page; this argument is getting really ridiculous. As far as I can see the only reason people have to not include this event in his article is because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Correct me if I am wrong. This petition has significant coverage (including just about every new company such as CNN, USA Today, NY Daily, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox, Time, ABC, and countless more you can easily verify yourself). In fact the petition has gained support from Sen. Mark Warner (sarcastic or not is simply speculation).

The petition has been the subject of debate on the legality of deporting him based on his past criminal record (refs ) or whether his O-1 visa could be revoked (refs ). His petition has also taken a spin into the immigration debate with various news outlets suggesting bieber is a new face of immigration (). I fail to see why is there an argument in the first place. --CyberXRef 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's have https://canada.wikipedia.org already, and deport the info to there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, there is no legitimacy at all in an actual deportation taking place here, and this has nothing to do with immigration in general. If this is the TMZ-esque spin that some are giving this, then that is all the more reason to keep it out of the article. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yevhen Konoplyanka

It seems like some people are messing up with this page. I found Adolph Hitler's picture under the Yevhen_Konoplyanka, I edited it by erasing it but after that I noticed a lot of abusive staff written in players description. I really hope someone adresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.250.122 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism issue more than a true BLP issue. I've rolled back all edits made today to fix more of the problems. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

rich priske

Rich Priske

there are no articles , interviews or sources for most of this. it reads like a personal resume of a nobody written by same said nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.107.4 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AFD is that way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Roy Suryo

I am sorry if this is not the right place to give some reports. I came across the article about Roy Suryo and I want to give some comments about the article. This article has many irrelevant information without credible sources and probably too much boasting. He also is not an IT expert and have no proof of becoming one. He has no accomplishments in IT area even in Indonesia. He is simply a Democratic party politician.

On these accomplishments:

* Analyzing Sound Recording Telephone President Habibie & Jakgung Andi Ghalib
* Analyze Recording Meeting of the Bank Bali scandal Cessie
* Pioneering Method of Searching via BTS and CDRI for Investigation
* Analyze and cliche Photo Wahid & Aryanti Boru Sitepu
* Provide Technical Referral Tracking Phone Fugitive Tommy Suharto
* Speaker of Indonesia in Expert - Meeting Palais des Nations (UN Headquarters), Geneva, Switzerland
* Board of Experts - ITE Team Bill (now Act No. - ITE. 11/2008)
* Expert witness in various cases involving Communication Technology & Digital Photography
* Expert Witness & Broadcasting Law Judicial Commission on Constitutional Court Case
etc

There are no so called "IT specialist" expertise on it. And although I doubt that these are all his accomplishments, I will not leverage more about these issues and want to discuss about the IT since I do not have any proofs.

As I do not want to be a hater of him, I really want to tell that Roy Suryo is really famous in Indonesia, not for his accomplishments, but for his controversies on several occasions (such as identifying some porn photos) as you can search his name on google search engine. So this page maybe can be categorized as a "boasting page".

Thank you very much if you can consider my opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randz888 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some of the unsourced personal information, puffery and badly-written content. As a cabinet level (I suppose) member of a sovereign government, the subject may meet at least WP:GNG and/or WP:POLITICIAN, but you are of course free to nominate the article for deletion. §FreeRangeFrog 16:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rick Joyner

Rick Joyner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The whole article is worshiping him for his good work and worshiping the church. There are tons of links to sites owned by them to scam google I assume. Every citation links to an website owned by either his church or himself. This article is of very poor quality and should be at least flagged or removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.255.5 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article is especially bad. It should probably be nominated for deletion. There doesn't appear to be secondary source coverage of Joyner, or if there is, it's not obvious from a google search. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I contested the prod and made a start at fixing the article. I believe he's more than notable, but that the article had been destroyed by COI nonsense. There's not much national coverage of him, but there's tons of coverage in the North Carolina state-level papers. Anyway, take a look at it now before making any hasty decisions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now an IP is rolling it back one click at a time. Sigh...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Riza_Aziz

Riza Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had multiple restorations and reedits of a controversy section that appears to violate BLP policy.

See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Riza_Aziz&diff=592796737&oldid=592640199 and many others.

The material which is continuously being replaced is sourced poorly or not at all, is conjecture/original research, and is shaded. In addition, to the extent it is sourced, it uses non-credibly blogs, one of which is is the subject of news reports saying that attorneys for the subject have sent a demand letter for retraction. See: Deadline.com Letter to Sarawak Report

Notable is that no other sources carry these same claims. I have attempted to negotiate edits in this article, which the editor ignores, and made a RfC as well. But the continued editing is so defamatory that I believe it goes here. Thank you. Versaedit (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even remotely acceptable. Synthesis and original research, referencing a single unreliable source. Watching in case it gets inserted again. §FreeRangeFrog 00:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Siobhan Williams

Siobhan Williams

Someone keeps REPEATEDLY inserting a birthdate of Jan. 10 1990 for this actress, which is inaccurate.

--One of the links they use as a reference ( https://twitter.com/siobhanw_/status/421523659916734465 ) is no longer valid.

And the other article they source (http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/10/hell-on-wheels-season-3-premiere-anson-mount/) contains inaccurate, unverified information. This is not the actress' correct age. This birthdate in fact is contradicted in this article: (http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/16/page-6---young-calgary-actress-landing-the-roles) According to this, she is 22 now.

IN CONCLUSION: as the articles all contradict one another, this actress' age is unavailable and unknown to the general public and thus should be prohibited from being uploaded onto the information page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhanwilliams (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the information was inadequately sourced, I removed the dates. If an accurate source comes along, we can add it back later.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Part 2

(copied from the article's talk page)

I have removed the subject's birthday per WP:BLPPRIVACY and per WP:V and per common sense. Tiller54 claims that this dead twitter link is a reliable source as to the subject's DOB. I disagree. Furthermore he is using this article from entertainment weekly verifies the DOB, when in fact the article talks about a 23-year old actress, and this age is attributed to Anson Mount, an actor on the show. Hardly a reliable source. If this is not enough, this request on the BLP/N board, (presumably from the subject herself) complaining about the DOB being in the article. I can't verify if that is Williams, but it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't want this information in the article, and since we can't verify it from a reliable source, we keep it out of the article until a RS can be found to add it back in.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Pippa Bartolotti

Wholesale deletion of a long-standing section 'Career' is wrong. The previous section relied on the person's own blog which was unsourced and had clear differences with other material. The revised one was sourced using primary inline sources; the only contentious part was use of a secondary source pippabartolotti.info, which could be rectified if necessary by referring to its primary sources. In any case this is preferable to relying on the person's own blog (as Ref. 1). Without any Career section - and no Early-personal-life as is common - the biography is denuded of significant content.

As the wholesale deletion is just negative, I'm asking for a discussion on how and what can be restored. Max Wallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwallis (talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As of 2nd February, no editor is ready to defend the wholesale deletion of the "career' section of a well-referenced biography. Do I presume it was done by a Wales section editor who doesn't watch this page? comment added by Maxwallis (talk • contribs) 11.42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt III

Kermit Roosevelt III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to conflate Kermit Roosevelt III and Kermit Roosevelt IV. Teddy would not be pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tem42 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Teddy would be delighted that his family is still causing trouble. Anyway, the talk page contains this message from the UPenn Professor named Kermit Roosevelt:

And from a later email:

All completely unreliable, but still....Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1. President Theodore Roosevelt openly outright DESPISED being called "Teddy"- referring to him as such is essentially dishonoring him.

2. Per WP:SUFFIX, "IV" is his true suffix. Calling him "III" would be a suffix misuse and would be basically like disregarding the existence if one of the previous Kermits. Discounting them would be a dishonor. 174.254.176.242 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the suffix is honorific in nature and has no actual legal significance. If he uses "III" then "III" it is. I would also point out that if any middle names are involved for any of them, then all bets are off as to "numbering" people. Collect (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the applicable policy and the III is part of his common name and the name he uses. It is not really relevant that someone without an article (even if it was his father at some point in the past) shared that name. If that other person did have an article only then would we need to disambiguate the names, but that is not the case here. We shouldn't be in the business of "correcting" a person's name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the suffix, he did say the III is part of his legal name as he uses it on official legal documents so it is not a mere honorific. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the "III" is not a "required part of a legal signature" thus that part is fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If he signs a document without the "III" it is still his legal signature. Collect (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is part of his name on his passport and other documents that require the full legal name as he said in his note. Passports usually match birth certificates. How you sign stuff seldom requires you to use your full legal name. It is relevant to the discussion as that is a part of his full legal name and that should be what is in the article as his name. This generational stuff is a distraction and that is what is irrelevant. General wiki policy on how we name articles and reliance on reliable sources is the only thing we should be concerned with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IOW you seem to think his birth certificate must have "III" on it? I doubt it. And try reading up on "legal signature" - nowhere is it required that some mystical "full legal name" is required, or even exists. For example, passports do not require "legal name change" forms where a person is married, nor do most married women have their full maiden name on passports, though they may. "Full legal name" is not even relevant to this discussion - his name is whatever he legally wishes to assert it is (basically, as long as no fraud is involved). Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to misrepresent what I stated. I said "usually" not "must" as I haven't seen his birth certificate. I am well familiar with the passport application process - "Certified U.S. Birth Certificate" is one of the required documents for people born in the US. If that is the name on his passport it is likely that that is the name on his birth certificate. By common law your legal name is whatever you say it is as long as fraud is not involved but most American men stick with how they were named by their parents and he has asserted that "Kermit Roosevelt III" is his name backed up with usage where fraud would matter. The only relevance to wiki about his full name is that is the name first mentioned in the lede. Common name is normally how we name articles and the name used in the rest of the article. In this case we need a disambiguator so the III serves that purpose. We could have just as easily used something else, but the III is convenient and correct as that is part of his actual name. Saying the III is not part of his actual name is what is leading to this discussion in the first place with people thinking it would be OK to "correct" it to IV based on some sort of naming rules his parents and he neglected to follow. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated clearly above, he has the right to use whatever suffix he desires as long as it is not done for any illegal purpose. "Correcting" it to "IV" in a Misplaced Pages article is thus wrong per my arguments - and does not depend on any "birth certificate name" at all. appears determinative here -- and specifically allows variance from "birth certificate name" and "passport name." BTW, I had an uncle whose "birth certificate name" was wrong - and was easily handled by the Passport office, and my wife's mother's birth certificate listed a "wrong place of birth" (um -- "South Carolina" instead of "Scotland" and the agent did not burp at all). Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes we agree. The only reason I got into this is because I thought your original comment about the "suffix is honorific in nature and has no actual legal significance" weakened your basic point that you reiterated above and that I agree with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to IP 174.254.176.242 for what TR called the "outrageous impertinence" of calling him "Teddy". At least I'm in very plentiful company.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Zelinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/Elizabeth_Zelinski

This article is a violation of NPOV and V.

Elizabeth Zelinski wrote this article:. "...these findings translate across MY comprehensive longitudinal study of aging (the Long Beach Longitudinal Study) and a nationally representative sample of older adults." As with all autobiographical accounts, there is definitely a bias in the information reported.

Page 395 of the book, Everyday Cognition in Adulthood and Late Life, edited by Leonard W. Poon et. al, has the following chart:

Table 22.2. Some examples of metamemory questionnaires that were designed for, or have been applied to, life-span developmental issues:

Questionnaire |Documentation 1. Memory Questionnaire (MQ)| Perlmutter (1978) 2. Memory Functioning Questionnaire (MFQ) |Gilewski et al. (1983); Zelinski, Gilewski, et al. (1980) 3. Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ) |Bennet-Levy & Powell (1980) 4. Short Inventory of Memory Experiences (SIME) |Chaffin & Herrmann (1983); Herrmann (1984) 5. Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) |Dixon & Hultsch (1983a, 1983b, 1984); Hertzog et al. (1985)

It is Ms. Zelinski's own opinion that she was "the first to develop a comprehensive standardized questionnaire of self-reported memory to determine whether people's beliefs about their memory are echoed in their objective performance." The SMQ, in wide use today, was developed at the same time as the MFQ, and the MQ was developed two years before those. I also think her colleagues would disagree that she, and she alone, was the first to develop the questionnaire.

If the only thing notable about Ms. Zelinski is her part in developing the MFQ, should not the other colleagues also have their own respective pages? Or should the MFQ not have its own page? It's my opinion that neither Ms. Zelinski or her colleagues are notable enough for an encylopedia entry here. Information on the MFQ, MQ, SMQ, SIME, and MIA might need a page, or could be merged into any one of numerous articles on memory and recollection.

http://books.google.com/books?id=seKqGhnkSg0C&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=%22Memory+Functioning+Questionnaire%22+vs+%22subjective+memory+questionnaire%22&source=bl&ots=yUSgLXy7Wy&sig=UrVoi4O6vnBN9NeJuj_h2PTcnWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VdvqUpu8F8OayQGLoYHwBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Memory%20Functioning%20Questionnaire%22%20vs%20%22subjective%20memory%20questionnaire%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.37.71.96 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ericka Huggins Page

I am writing regarding a user Pokey5945 repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's Biographies of Living Persons policy. A look at their Talk page shows this is not the first complaint they've gotten for exactly the same behavior on other pages.

In the section titled New Haven Black Panther Trial, they have cobbled together a variety of historically discredited information in a concerted effort to defame Ericka Huggins. In particular they seem determined to claim Huggins participated in the torture of a young man--which is simply not true. She was not charged with this crime, she was acquitted of the crime she was accused of, and Pokey5945's determination to imply otherwise is not a neutral point of view, is not verifiable and is extremely damaging to Huggins, a college professor.

Additionally, since they have repeatedly undone any attempts to add additional facts to it feels like this is part of a concerted campaign on their part. There have been complaints by others that Pokey5945 has manipulated other pages in a similar way as well--please review their Talk page. I would like to know at what point a user gets blocked from a page. Even aside from the damage being done to Ericka Huggins, one user should not have the right to block the development of a page, and undo additions of historically relevant material that is backed by verifiable facts, not hearsay & contrived evidence.

Please let me know what can be done about this. Thank you for your time. Politigrafica (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Politigrafica

Tim Dog

An unusual situation here, for a man who is alleged to be both dead and living. I removed the following from this article:

"Since then Vice has looked into the death turning up an active PO Box in Tim Dog's name, and a phone call made to a number of his where it was assumed he answered, the following day the phone had been disconnected."

"Turning up an active PO Box" seems misleading, as the article says: "...there is still an active PO Box in Tim Dog's name". The differences may be subtle, but I feel they're important. The former sounds like he's using this PO Box, while the latter doesn't imply as much; after all, a dead man can't cancel his PO Box. Much worse is the "phone call" issue. The Vice article says: "Somebody called his phone and he answered". Yet the source they use for this claim is a link to a You Tube video. The video is an audio-only excerpt from "Conspiracy Worldwide Radio". There is no way of knowing who the person who answered the phone is or what number was dialed. Furthermore, the voice on the video emphatically states: "We're not at all, in any way, insinuating that Tim Dog is alive". Finally, the sentence: "Somebody called his phone and he answered", is not a statement of fact by the article's author, but rather a quote from a man named "J-Zone". Some will no doubt argue "V not T" and "if the source uses it, so can we". I would contest this; if our source is using an obviously shoddy source of its own, then we should look for another source, especially when possible WP:BLP issues are a concern.

I would also like to ask for clarification as to whether we should presume this man to be living. It's a very odd case; his death was reported by reliable sources, but all of them were using a single obituary from a very questionable source, that has since been taken down. On the other hand, presuming him to be living would seem to presume him guilty of the alleged offense of faking his own death; a strange way to violate WP:BLP. Whatever the case, we should make a decision, as the article currently begins: "...Tim Dog was...", while listing him as 46 years old in the info box. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• If what you say is correct about the sources relying on a dubious obit, we should presume him to be alive, thus BLP still applies.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To expand on this, we should presume him alive in terms of the applicability of BLP policy. The article itself needs to avoid making definitive statements as to whether he is dead or alive until the situation becomes clearer. That will make the wording tricky in places, but I'm sure there are ways to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, Andy, and I have a few ideas. I'll have a go at it after I catch 40 winks. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I've just been short on free time. Ten inches of snow and a snow blower sans gas don't make a good combination. I should be able to work on it at some point today. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Ranker

In December, the office of Kevin Ranker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made some requests on the talk page. These have not been actioned. Could some kind soul please pop along and have a look, and either action them or explain why not? Any decently thoughtful response will be appreciated. Thanks Guy (Help!) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Francesca Capaldi

Francesca Capaldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a minor about 9 years old. Her birth date was added to her article using messages from two different verified twitter accounts of her co-workers on a TV series as references. The info added is most likely correct. Her official show bio posted on a Disney site does not release that info. I removed the info from the article per my understanding of WP:BLPPRIVACY which states that this type of info requires "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The twitter account, while verified, are from other people and as self-published sources are reliable for info about themselves, not others. On the other hand, the existence of those twitter postings should reasonably be known to the guardians of this minor and the fact that they are still there may lead to the inference that they do not object to releasing the birth info. This is a marginal call and I would like some input from others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as "marginal" at all. To me, you quite clearly did the right thing. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Outrage (2009 film)

Is now being used as a coatrack about Larry Craig introducing speculation not made in the film, and weakly sourced as well. It is not claimed to be related to the film proper, and is simply an example of a WP:BLP violation as being a contentious claim made about a living person here. The edit summary Frank discusses this as part of the hypocrisy) does not allow a claim of fact to be made without a strong reliable source for the claim of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep the 1989 stuff out of the article. Larry Craig is a major part of the film, and Barney Frank is a major interview subject, but this 1989 bit about Craig gunning for Frank (pushing for more severe punishment) is not in the film. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman

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

I've removed a lot of content from this BLP that was cited only to Stockman's press releases and that was generally non-neutral in tone. These changes were reverted. I would appreciate input from experienced editors.GabrielF (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now this looks like a legal threat from 1houstonian.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's a legal threat - he's saying someone else has libeled the subject, that there is a legal case around that and he doesn't "want that to enter Misplaced Pages". Regardless, we shouldn't be allowing problematic SPAs to act as if they own articles, which seems to be the case here. There's obviously a COI issue, so he should be requesting changes, not making them himself. §FreeRangeFrog 04:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

John Barrowman and the Daily Mail

The Daily Mail was recently discussed at RSN and was roundly (but not unanimously) trashed as a reliable source. On this BLP article, another user wishes to use this article to source "He lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life", "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." and "Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go." The other editor (I think) acknowledges that this is an unreliable source, but sees it as a case of WP:SELFSOURCE. My own view (I had to remove a whole lot of much worse sludge sourced to even worse publications than the Mail, and warn the user when they restored the bad sources, so I think they are kind of sore at me) is that, while these are not the worst things to say about someone, we should probably try to find better sources for them or leave them out. I believe that using SELFSOURCE as an end-run around WP:BLPSOURCES like this is a little disingenuous; if a source is unreliable for BLPs because of its reputation for poor fact-checking, then we should probably not be using it at all. Does this article need to be revised? Does WP:SELFSOURCE need to be clarified? Do we need a proper RfC on blacklisting the Mail for BLPs? Could we compromise and say something like "According to a 2008 interview published in the Daily Mail..." What do you think? --John (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a tabloid (I mean it is!) and as such I'm fairly sure it falls outside of what we think of as reliable sources, especially for BLPs. But perhaps an RFC wouldn't hurt, and it could set a precedent. §FreeRangeFrog 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not the best source for any contentious claims, but it meets WP:RS and has about the same record with regard to press complaints as other UK newspapers. Personally, I suggest that BLPs should require multiple independent sources for all contentious claims. Collect (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's just silly. How is this sort of thing supposed to burnish your (ostensible) credentials as a "strong defender of BLP" & whatnot? Really, where does this come from? The Daily Mail is trash, and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be working on BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wowee --- when in doubt jump in with ad homs! I would note that my position on contentious claims requiring multiple sources has been iterated a few times now, so I find your leap her to be outré. And the fact you "know" a major publication is "trash" means little -- its record is pretty much the same as other UK papers, where even the Guardian this past year was found to have committed an egregious breach of standards. Cheers -- now shut the heck up when it comes to making gratuitous personal attacks. Collect (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect, it's unwise of you to bring up this claim again. When I asked you last year to provide supporting evidence and you couldn't, you got most upset when I called you on it. Are you absolutely sure you still think that "its record is pretty much the same as other UK papers"? Have you recently discovered evidence that this is true? If not, I suggest you modify this statement. --John (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just on the issue of "tabloids" - note that in the UK, "tabloid" is a size format and says nothing about content -- The Times is a tabloid format newspaper but no one would argue that it is not a reliable source. The issue of the unreliability or otherwise of The Daily Mail as a source isn't related to its tabloid format.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No indeed, so why bring it up? --John (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is indeed confused between tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism, it is the latter that we are forbidden to use on BLPs and not the former. --John (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

John, this has been discussed already, several times in fact. First of all, the archives of BLP/N and RS/N indicate that no "blacklist" exists for The Daily Mail. So your attempt to remove this source from Misplaced Pages is unprecedented and without any basis, such as consensus or policy. Second, various discussions on this topic have indicated that when a notable interviewer conducts an interview with a celebrity on an uncontroversial topic, and when none of this content is disputed, editors may use this source in an article about the subject. That is the case here. Third, your edit history on this subject demonstrates that you have an opinion about the use of reliable sources that differs greatly from the Misplaced Pages community. Those relevant discussions indicate that Misplaced Pages consensus and the relevant policies and guidelines are completely at odds with your interpretation of how we evaluate sources for reliability. At no point have you commented on the author of the source in question, the subject of the source, the accuracy of the source, the currency of the source, nor the authoritativeness of the source. Instead, you have assumed a priori that the Daily Mail is always unreliable, an opinion that is not shared by the Misplaced Pages community nor by any accurate interpretation of policies and guidelines. Unless a specific source is explicitly blacklisted and filtered, as an editor (and as an admin) you cannot personally remove those sources or prevent their use without evaluating each source on its merits based on the context of its use in each and every article. I believe this process has been explained to you before, and you should be quite familiar with how we use sources by now. Unfortunately, you appear to be engaging in tendentious editing behavior, as this latest dispute appears to follow in the footsteps of your campaign against People magazine, a campaign which was stopped in its tracks by the community, which was forced to file an RFC in order to put you down like a rabid dog. Not only did you fail to get any support, you failed to convince a single member of the community that your interpretation of the BLP and reliable source guideline was correct. Strangely enough, your user space page history shows that you started this latest, obsessive campaign against the Daily Mail right after your People magazine campaign was shutdown. Isn't it time you stopped disrupting Misplaced Pages with this nonsense? Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Carol Bush

• Carol Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few eyes on this one just in case - it came in through OTRS and I just fired up the chainsaw to remove a lot of synthesis and primary sources. §FreeRangeFrog 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

James R. Fouts

After a long period of relative peace, this page has been repeatedly edited by anonymous IP addresses and suspected sockpuppets, often in an effort to expand the "controversies" section with ad hominem and unsourced attacks. In the latest round, an editor has disclosed my home address in an effort to discredit my efforts to keep things encyclopedic. It's been a tedious exercise at best.

The subject of the page is controversial in local politics, and deserves due consideration against libelous and slanderous edits.

Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tofy Mussivand

At Tofy Mussivand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a pov editor continually edits stating that the subject is Kurdish, which is unsourced. He's pov editing across a number of articles, changing names, quotations, etc and doesn't respond to talk page notices. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorted, editor blocked. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

James R. Fouts

• James R. Fouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see . Thx. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

IP is removing well-cited, contentious content and citing WP:BLP. There could of course potentially be balance issues if the article were nothing but a laundry list of cited accusations, but the wholesale removal of incidents that are reliably sourced to have resulted in civil settlements against the subject and extensive discussion in secondary sources looks more like whitewashing than holding up policy. Incidentally, this article does have a substantial history of blatant BLP violations, so the more eyes on it the better. VQuakr (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the situation slightly. 88.104.24.150's edits here make perfect sense and I've been saying so on the talk page too. By the way, you can't have "settlements against" people, you have "settlements with" people. You can't draw negative conclusions from a settlement, you really, really, really, really can't. People's lawyers tell them to settle all the time just to save time and money. It doesn't mean a thing. Maybe you should get that kind of thing straight before you go adding stuff like this to a BLP, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point about the settlement phrasing. 88.104.24.150's edits are good faith and I agree with about 75% of them from today, I just think they may have overshot a little. My previous post should have made that clear. VQuakr (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam Weinstein

The subject seems to still lack notability after being marked in November 2013. Phrasing of the article makes it seem pretty clear that the subject is the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.253.76 (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Try WP:PROD or WP:AFD. §FreeRangeFrog 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of nominating it for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adam Weinstein. Stalwart111 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Irish homophobia controversy, 3 biographies that need oversight

Been considering where is best to draw attention to what I would call mostly a quality issue and also an issue where care needs to be taken, and that would benefit from oversight from neutral parties who understand how Misplaced Pages works and can take due care to head off any legal issues in advance. I'll try to summarize.

An Irish drag queen and businessperson Panti/Rory O'Neill was interviewed on a Saturday night television programme. He was asked about his views on homophobia, and the interviewer Brendan_O'Connor_(media_personality) pressed him to specifically name people he considered homophobic. O'Neill named John Waters (columnist) as well Breda O'Brien and conservative Catholic group The Iona Institute. This resulted in legal threats, and RTE removed the interview from their website and issued an apology.

Details of this Panti#RT.C3.89_Censorship_Controversy issue, have been added at length to the articles Panti, John Waters (columnist), and Breda O'Brien. A significant proportion of this has been added by one user Special:Contributions/Tbrambo, to all three articles. Tbrambo has a pretty clear agenda, not that particularly disagree with it but the quality could be a lot better and care and better sourcing is needed, I'd politely call it overenthusiasm. The writing is very conclusive for what is a fairly contentious issue, not as encyclopedic as perhaps it should be.

The biography on Panti could do with improvement* but the controversy is very relevant to that page and almost certainly belongs there . I'm editing from Ireland and I'm not sure I can be properly objective, and not get sucked into the article that needs careful monitoring. I only wanted to make a few edits to improve the quality but Tbrambo is acting like he owns the article rejecting an edit that turned a link into a properly formatted citation and named reference and then reusing it to bolster points made elsewhere in the article (and it was only restoring and fixing an earlier edit anyhow). (There was also poorly backed up hyperbole in the article, which isn't quite so glaring after adding a named reference to one the articles already referenced).

John Waters (columnist) is a newspaper columnist, it almost goes without saying that he is controversial at times, and aside from being verbose and a little presumptive it seems appropriate for the controversy to be conversed on his page. Legal types might want to monitor the page to make sure the wording is suitably careful. There appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article, this is mostly a quality issue.

The article on Breda O'Brien also has a section on the controversy, there appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article. The controversy is given nearly as much coverage as everything else in the article, it seems like undue emphasis, and brevity and a more cautious wording is what I'd suggest.

So maybe someone experience Misplaced Pages editors will look at it, maybe fix up the references with the fancy editing tools you have, and maybe keep an eye on the articles to make sure they do not overstate their case and risk legal issues. It think it is a storm in a teacup and I don't want to get sucked any further into it but there is need for improvement and oversight. -- 109.78.153.72 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

what a mess. while the instigating incident is indeed a storm in a teacup, the fact that it ended up in someone quitting their job and senators debating whether or not the public tv station should be handing out hush up money in settlements is bringing it to the point where it does matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The stuff already acknowledged by RTE to be improper should be excised, and for which damages were paid, -- Misplaced Pages should never be in the business of perpetuating slurs. Collect (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"someone quitting their job" that is not an accurate reading of the situation. Mr. Waters has many jobs, writing primarily.

aside from that, the cleanup was far more expansive than I expected. the issue may need to be revisited, if more information comes out later. irish defamation law is strict, and RTE have lost badly before, the payments may yet turn out to be on best legal advice. -- 109.79.210.65 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Professional wrestlers who are "lecherous"

In my aimless and time-wasting wanderings through Misplaced Pages, I sometimes come across articles about professional wrestlers, and never know quite what to make of them. For example, today I arrived at the article about Dean Malenko in which the voice of Misplaced Pages pronounces him as "lecherous". But are we supposed to treat these professional wrestlers as characters in a drama (in which case "lecherous" might be fine), or instead as real people (in which case "lecherous" might not be so fine)? In other words, are we really supposed to care about professional wrestlers?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it is describing a character he was playing and his "lecherous ways". Yes, we care about professional wrestlers. BLP applies to them too. But in this case, it's describing the role he played. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:PW and frequently edit wrestlers' articles. Since professional wrestling is scripted, the wrestlers are all acting in kayfabe / storylines. Anything in the "professional wrestling career" section usually refers to the character the wrestler is playing. Wrestling has many distasteful storylines but we still have to report them. We've had necrophilia, slamming a 78 year old woman through a table, a "live sex celebration", wrestlers attacking another wrestler in their own homes, a commentator (really) set on fire, miscarriages, all in storyline. We also have storyline injuries, characters (Santino Marella, a Canadian, has played and is playing an Italian for the entirely of his career in WWE) If something is legitimate, which is usually the exception, some kind of note is supposed to be included that the incident is legitimate.starship.paint (talk | contribs) 04:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'm just wondering if there ought to be some statement in the BLP for dopes like me, saying that the stuff is not serious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is, it just hasn't made its way around to the bios just yet.--WillC 12:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know it's in the works, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite single Malenko only pursuing a romantic evening with a woman, he's "lecherous". But when that woman gets knocked up by the pyromaniac necrophiliac mentioned above to "protect" her boyfriend, then ditches both guys (in story and reality) for the aforementioned "live sex celebration", leading fans, wrestlers and commentators alike to chant "Slut!" for the rest of her career, there's none of it. I'm only fake outraged at the hypocrisy, but damn fake outraged. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Such hypocrisy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Kyle Chapman

Kyle Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who may be the subject periodically edits this in what I see as a significantly POV manner. I've already reverted them once and could be perceived as having a vested interest, so I'd like someone else to take a look. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin Griffin

I want to report some incorrect and defamatory information posted about me on my page:

Colin Griffin

Would appreciate if I could have this deleted and that correct information could be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Griffin (talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was defamatory, but it appeared to be invented. It certainly wasn't in the "source" that was given for it. Anyway, I deleted it.

I advise you not to edit the article about you. This may appear bizarre -- Who knows you better than you do yourself? -- but if you read more about the matter I think you'll come to understand. Meanwhile, if people add their fantasies, don't hesitate to suggest changes on the talk page; and, if these don't get a prompt response, don't hesitate to post a message here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If blatantly false or unreferenced defamatory information is added to the article, it's perfectly fine for the editor to remove it himself. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Woody Allen

Please consider participating at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, a discussion centering on BLP issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that your concerns are well warranted. I've added a sub-sub-subsection at (adding the word "children" to the subsection header), which I think is a balanced way to do that in a way that's consistent with BLP. It adds two sentences, one on the Dylan Farrow open letter and one on Allen's recent vigorous denial. Coretheapple (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Weitzer

• Ronald Weitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rjw99 (talk · contribs)

Concern that this has been largely written by the subject or other COI accounts. Mostly supported by primary sources, with lengthy descriptions of subject's views, publications, etc. Further concerns that editor is self-citing in multiple articles; he may be an authority on the subject, but this sort of copious self-referencing is nearly always problematic. JNW (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Prof Irvin Kirsch

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

There should be an addition. Prof Kirsch also says that for mild anxiety and depression the herbal remedy St.John's Worth is proven to be a useful as any anti- depressants, with very small side-effects indeed. Obviously that is not good news for Big Pharma- who are trying to have this herbal remedy listed as a medicine- so they can exploit it better

best regards annegret odwyer

I assume you mean St. John's wort? See WP:MEDRS. Misplaced Pages does not give equal time to pseudoscience and medical quackery. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan Landin

There is nothing defamatory in this page, however I would like the heading to be changed to reflect my proper name, which is Daniel Landin, not Dan Landin.

Please can you alter the heading for accuracy?

Many Thanks

Daniel Landin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.25.81 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- John Reaves 18:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dylan Farrow

Currently only a redirect, it can be regarded as highly controversial to redirect to the accused instead of to her mother. Related discussions ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, Talk:Woody_Allen#The_Open_Letter_From_Dylan_Farrow.2C_as_fact.2C_was_removed, and above. Suggestions? --Trofobi (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Join the conversation at one of the two place you've already linked instead starting a new one here. -- John Reaves 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Hall

Hi. I recently edited Joseph Hall to include a link to Murder of Jeff Hall. I'd appreciate other eyes on this change, given the sensitivity. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I relocated it to a new See also section - probably works better there.--ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Salvador Sanchez Ceren

"Presently he is the vice president and minister of education; his goals have been to bring El Salvador closer to the Chavez Social left as seen by his ties to FARC, ALBA, and Chavezism" is not cited. Because these alleged ties, factual or not, are to controversial organizations, it seems biased to see these on his page without sources ahead of a presidential election in which he will take part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.54.61 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yevhen Konoplyanka

• Yevhen Konoplyanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boguslavmandzyuk (talk · contribs)

Can somebody please help explain WP:BLP to this editor? He feels that, because the uncited information is not libellous, it is fine to keep on re-adding it. He has already been warned about edit warring by another admin, but he won't listen to me seeing as I keep removing the material. GiantSnowman 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ram Bahadur Bomjon

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.

Dear Editors,

This is a complaint concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon Some time ago there was an attempt of authors/editors of this biography entry about Ram Bomjon to use it as a means of libel of my person, who am mentioned in the article as one of his victims, the Slovak woman (former versions) and now, as Marici.

Last time it was a sentence where the author cited the public justification of Bomjon (the biography entry's subject), that he had kidnapped, tortured and let raped me because of "witchcraft". So after my complaint to Misplaced Pages, this sentence had been taken away.

Recently but a hidden manipulative attempt appeared again, when, though a new paragraph appeared about my person under the Controversies chapter, which is much more accurate, yet the link to my website provided there was directing not to the Home Page of my website, but to a long article about the attempt of this cult to create a public opinion that I am supposed to be schizophrenic, mentally disturbed, etc.

Unwisely I myself had named that single article "Is Marici schizophrenic..?", not knowing that someone will misuse this title to manipulate with public opinion about me by adding a link to this single article on Misplaced Pages, avoiding the link to the more relevant Home Page, from where the readers could learn also about the more important facts : criminal acts, the other victims, names of perpetrators and witnesses, media articles,etc. Only a few people did read the whole article, where I am explaining how this cult tried to "make me crazy" in the public eye. Most people, most probably, just absorb the content of the title.

I have written to Misplaced Pages with a request to correct this problem, and replace the link with the more relevant link to the Home Page of my website, but finally I decided to correct it myself. To prevent similar misuse of links to my website, I took the liberty to add a short sentence mentioning my website in the other language versions, as there I am giving an overview of all known controversies connected to Bomjon, not just my case. Also a more relevant link (than an article about my alleged mental problem) would be an overview about the media articles dealing with Bomjon. People should know about the background activities of this person. But, being an officially declared "enemy" of this Guru and his cult, I don't want to advertise my own website in this article, which should remain neutral. Yet, when the authors and editors breach the neutrality of the article by using it against me, I wish to correct the biased information and manipulation with links provided by them.

But I was unable to correct this link on the References chapter, as it had been blocked for new links and also repairs. That's why I am writing here, with the request to replace the link to the single article mentioning schizophrenia, with the link to the Home Page of my website.

Also, after repeated attempts of the followers of Bomjon to use Misplaced Pages as a weapon of their libel-war against me, I am requesting the board of editors and anyone responsible for the standard of Misplaced Pages, to make sure that similar biased updates, harming individuals connected to the biography subject, do not happen anymore in the future.

Thank you, Marici Punarvasu Zs. Takacs 2/5/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marici Punarvasu (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

George Brock (Journalist)

I am the subject of this entry.

I simply wanted to offer the mention of a book published since this entry was compiled:

Out of Print: Newspapers, Journalism and the Business of News in the Digital Age by George Brock (published in 2013 by Kogan Page)

Thank you for your attention

George Brock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.68.46 (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

added Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Blacklight Power is a pseudoscience, free-energy provider with many claims that are far outside of the mainstream. These claims are rightly treated with great skepticism. However, that doesn't exclude it's founder - Randell Mills, from the protection of WP:BLP. In particular, the article uses the term "fraud" in the lede with very thin support. The citation traces back to a 15-year-old article that appeared in the Village Voice, and is sourced to an expert physicist, but not someone in a position to accurately judge the motivations of Mr. Mills nor to interpret the field of securities fraud. The use of the term has been actively defended at the page, in my view in violation of WP:BLP. If there were more recent evidence of fraud, or if the those leveling the charge were able to show a cause of action, such as an investor, then the use of would be appropriate. However, I'd appreciate it if someone not involved in this page could take a look. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't specifically mention "securities fraud", and I'm not sure where Ronnotel is getting that reading, nor why he keeps repeating it. I would think that the implication (given the commenter and context) is one of scientific fraud. 'Fraud' doesn't always mean 'money'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why "fraud" is dangerous term to use and should be avoided. It has many meanings, and it's impossible to separate the connotations of financial impropriety in this situation. Ronnotel (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In full context, the sentence in our article reads

"The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and critics have ruled it out on those grounds, with some labelling it "fraud", "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and a relic of cold fusion."

There's no possible way to misread that as referring to financial impropriety. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement. BLP has raised $80M on the basis of this scientific claims. If his claims are fraudulent, then how could that not be interpreted as financial impropriety? As it happens, I do know something about securities fraud and Mills could be exposed if he can be shown to have intentionally misled his investors with fraudulent scientific results. Ronnotel (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the assertion in the source is that it's the scientific claims that are fraudulent, then that's a distinct issue -- on its own it doesn't amount to an accusation of financial fraud. The sentence in question does not imply financial fraud (I agree with ToaT that one can't read it that way), and as long as there's no (unsupported) assertion regarding financial fraud I don't think there's a problem. One can after all engage in scientific fraud, and it seems that's what some observers make of the scientific claims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the scientist who is quoted is very likely competent to judge whether an experiment and its results is flawed. However, what's at issue is whether that scientist is competent to determine whether the scientific flaws are the result of unethical behavior, which is what the term "fraud" invariably implies. Other scientist with qualifications that are as strong or stronger have been more closely involved with the company in the intervening years and we haven't seen any repetition of the fraud charges. That should give us pause - isn't this giving undue weight? What's more, with a fair reading of the article in question, it's difficult to see how the term "fraud" was the only part that seems to have made it into the lede. The article is actually quite supportive of Mills. Ronnotel (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Isaias Afewerki‎

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

The article needs a look. Recently Erescholar (talk · contribs) made a large edit to the page, during which Afewerki's last name was changed to "Afwerki". I don't know enough about this person to know if this is the true spelling or not. --Auric talk 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging from a quick Google search, looks like we have it wrong. Everyone else (except Britannica online) uses Afwerki. §FreeRangeFrog 17:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

George Foulkes

George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock

I'm no fan of George Foulkes but someone keeps adding in unsourced, unverified and potentially defamatory paragraphs to his page. The editor in question obviously does not want the UK to be in the EU and is taking out his frustration by adding his biased opinions to this article. The edits in question can be seen below, they are the last sentences in the Controversies and introduction sections respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050511

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohehken (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Emanuele Michetti's page

Emanuele Michetti's wikipedia page was written by himself. His editing name is "userdobby." He is not a notable figure in film and as I understand it, a biography must be neutral. It is an unreliable and prohibited page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.225.146 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Linda Moore Forbes

The article "Linda Moore Forbes" is no longer correct. She now goes by just Linda Forbes (post divorce).

Source: Her professional bio, Linkedin and her bio on her place of employment, Technet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latetofool (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. "The White House Now Has to Respond to the Petition to Deport Justin Bieber". TIME. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
2. "Deport-Bieber petition reaches threshold for White House response". Reuters. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
3. "Petition to deport Justin Bieber may be reviewed by White House". CNN News. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
4. Selby, Jenn. "Justin Bieber arrest latest: Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford defends 'successful' fellow Canadian". The Independent. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
5. "Bieber tops Muslim Brotherhood on list of White House petitions". MarketWatch. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
6. http://noisey.vice.com/blog/in-search-of-tim-dog

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution