Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:58, 16 October 2011

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Zara Phillips

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

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

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

David S. Rose

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

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

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

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

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

I've reverted some overzealous tagging and cleanup, started a discussion explaining some of my rationale for doing so.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but the first reference tagged as a dead link that I tried worked. --Ronz (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dennis W. Chiu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my view, so I've done that, although the article creator, a single purpose account, is going to be all over me, claiming I removed material that would have established notability - not an accurate claim, but it will probably be made nonetheless.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dennis W. Chiu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anthony Bologna (again again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is, if we do what I'm planning to do, which is to follow WP:FIRST and so on; if I faithfully report all the notable important facts that we've been able to find about him and it; it's going to be a pretty damning article. This is because the WP:RSs are pretty much a bunch of exposes, spelled with an accent. They are all investigative reports on a pretty creepy cult-like organization with lots of details, with titles like "Ex-NXIVM Insiders Tell All" and "Inner workings of creepy cult exposed" and so on. Don't take my word for it, look at the RSes yourself, they're pretty much all collected on Talk:Keith Raniere. Is there another analogous case somewhere? Will it be enough for WP:BLP if we just quote a bunch of stuff from thier websites? There are a few denials here and there in the sources, but for the most part it's just "refused to comment for this article", mostly. Has anyone ever seen anything like this before? Please advise. They're likely to sue Misplaced Pages or Jimbo or me or you or whoever they can, because that's what they usually do. It's very interesting and all, but it's may turn out not to be fun at all. Want to try and disuade me? This may be your last chance. Chrisrus (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I went ahead and created this: Keith_Raniere#Criticism_of_NXIVM. It's not much, but I think you can see where this is heading if I continue. Was I wrong? Is this a violation of WP:BLP guidelines? Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

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

OK, if no one cares, then I don't care. I let it go. 「Robster1983」 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the image was removed on 10 October at 19:37, so I'm not sure why Robster1983 thinks that no one cares.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anwar rasheed

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

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

Rick Santorum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liam Fox

Liam Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

Michael Le Vell

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

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

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

Amy Childs

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

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

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

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

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

Mola Mola (musician) (again)

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

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

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

Bob rae

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

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

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

Rachael Barrett

Rachael Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Pierce Brosnan

Pierce Brosnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have found a similar reference here. It specifies Christian Brothers in Navan but is perhaps worded more guardedly. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Athgarvan, please familiarize yourself with our policy against legal threats. Your use of the word "libel" can reasonably be construed as a legal threat. We are not saying anything negative about the Christian Brothers in Misplaced Pages's voice. Instead, we are reporting what Pierce Brosnan has said about his experiences in his youth. We now have two sources quoting Brosnan saying essentially the same thing. Both should be considered reliable sources for direct quotes by Brosnan. As I see it, your dispute is with Pierce Brosnan, not with Misplaced Pages. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburg

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with Nomoskedasticity. The sourcing in the article seems to be fine, and the claims in the article don't go further than a large number of reports in reliable places. Inbari is a leading academic researcher of the extreme right in Israel, which Ginsburg is a leading member of. Note that the complainant is yet to write a single word on the article talk page. Zero 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

3 persons at Ex-gay movement

Ex-gay movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edward Davenport (property developer)

Edward Davenport (property developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Except that it wasn't gone! Kittybrewster ☎ 23:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources don't say that. They say self-styled "Lord" Edward Davenport, which is exactly what is in the lede. Everyone knows that when it's in quotes it's not real. It's not lending any authority, rather reflecting the fact of his own self importance. Fmph (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please could somebody change the article from property developer. He was never that. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Gordon

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

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

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

This is not the only problem with this article. I put a bunch of tags in the sections asking for refs. If they do not come, then we are at liberty to remove the text from the article. Overall, it needs a lot of trimming and rewriting, but I do not have a big desire to tackle it myself. --BweeB (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

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

Offensive slurs in the religion section on Rick Perry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.17.127 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That was vandalism that was in the article for only a short time. Our apologies that you saw it in that brief (few seconds) period. NW (Talk) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Solyndra loan controversy edit war is brewing

The article Solyndra loan controversy has some major NPOV issues. A lot of the edits to it have come from users new to Misplaced Pages who may be editing with an agenda. The sources cited do not always back the claims and it seems to be cherry picking information in some key places. Maybe some more people can take a look and offer some ideas to improve it. I think a edit war could be brewing. Forgot to add in particle one user Mk2z0h seems to be the one mostly editing the article. Kudos to him for citing sources, albeit not the most reliable ones, and editing it himself, but he appears to be cherrypicking information.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark McMenamin

Th person who did the most recent edits to the McMenamin biography appears to have been in too much of a hurry to be objective or even to check spellings.

In the sentence "McMenamin has argued that a formation of multiple ichthyosaur fossils placed together at Berlin–Ichthyosaur State Park may represent evidence of a gigantic "kraken" that killed the ichthyosaurs and intentionally arranged their bones in the unusual pattern seen at the site." the word "kraken" would more accurately read "cephalopod, reminiscent of the mythological kraken."

The sentence, "Opponents have dismissed the theory as too far-fetched to be credible." is rather biased. I suggest a change to "The theory is controversial."

Also, in reference , the name of the co-author is misspelled. It should not be "Shulte McMenamin, Dianna L.", but rather "McMenamin, Dianna Schulte". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.195.7 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If the corrections you propose are non-controversial and supported by reliable sources, then you can make the corrections yourself. Misplaced Pages, after all, is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If these matters are in dispute, please discuss them on the article's talk page, and discuss to achieve consensus. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

• Bryan Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attack page. causa sui (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see some excessive weight (maybe) given to the SPLC and random Fisher opinions, but I hardly see it as an "attack page". NW (Talk) 15:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite speedyable (though I considered it). But the purpose of the article is to disparage the subject and catalogue all the reasons we should hate him. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I cut a bunch of stuff out. Looks better now. causa sui (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Louise Blouin Media

Louise Blouin Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Louise Blouin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louise Blouin Media have responded to the negative story in the New York Observer. I'd like to note as well that the quote we have from the Observer story reads more like an editorial opinion column than an objective news story. The series of lawsuits they describe, if true, don't seem to imply anything about "keeping the lights on" either literally nor metaphorically.

Due to a potential conflict of interest (the Observer article discusses a dinner at which I was in attendance), I won't be getting directly involved. I merely post here to bring the issue to wider attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting in connection to this that the negative information was added by a WP:SPA - Percival Buttermere--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Obvious BLP implications using a rhetorical device sourced to unnamed people regarding a living person. Collect (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Prashant Bhushan

Prashant Bhushan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains given points to make it removed. -People who are relatively unknown -Don't have Neutral point of view(about "Sri Ram Sena") -Please Verify sources(Prashant Bhushan attacked by ) -Attack page(to Hindu Community) -Avoid self-published sources(Prashant Bhushan is expressing his own point of view) -Using the subject as a self-published source(Negative publicity over Kashmir Issue in India) -Avoid victimization -Semi-protection, protection, and blocking(Please block the person who is creating misleading articles) -Personal views are heavily biased towards Hindu community & India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok.vaghela (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I could use some help on this article. The OP, a single purpose account, is adding controversial information to the article repeatedly. His wording is awful. Some of his sources are inappropriate. I've posted a warning on his Talk page and added some advice, but it doesn't seem to work, and unless I claim exemptions, I'm making too many reverts. By the way, some of the material he wishes to add may turn out to be useful, if worded carefully and properly sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Edelson

Aaron Edelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was posted by Mr. Edelson and contains a) nonsense and b) erroneous biographical information designed to mislead the public or law enforcement. This entry also does not meet notability guidelines as this person is utterly unnotable. Would be happy to delete myself but mobile isn't working well with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.132.254 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "law enforcement", but the sources in the article don't support any of the material except that he is an artist. One source had absolutely nothing to do with Edelson. Another source was a piece written by Edelson, which even as a self-published source didn't support the assertions. I'm not sure how it's survived this long. I've stubbed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aaron Edelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duminda Silva

This seems to be a rather negative BLP currently suffering from some deletion of content, without reasons given, by IP and registered editors. Also, unsourced allegations i.e "doing Drug business". They have recently been involved in a shooting in which another Sri Lankan politician (Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra) was killed. (Silva themself has apparently had 2 bullets removed from their skull!). I have reverted some of the deletions but the page is almost an attack page, very little positive content.

Not sure if this article even meets notability requirements, but perhaps it should be stubbed to remove unsourced allegations (some of which has been done I now note) and then protected (if not outright deleted.) Needs watching for vandalism certainly. Apologies if this is the wrong venue. Regards, 220.101.30.184 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a significant amount of material (entire sections) from the article as being allegations only, charges that were dismissed, trials from 3 years ago with no indication as to the outcome of the trial - all of this material is extraordinarily negative and doesn't belong in the article unless it resulted in an actual conviction. I've also reworded the material about the recent shooting as we can't say that Duminda killed someone else - the reports are confusing at best but are mostly allegations and accusations at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is spinning out of control at this point. I've requested protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy ####! What a cat fight! Concur with protection. Thanks for your continuing attention, Bbb23! :) Regards, 220.101.30 talk 10:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected for 10 days. I guess I can go to sleep now.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You've earned it ! 220.101.30 talk 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Siris

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

The subject (or someone associated with same) has asked that the COI tag be removed, and has started asking on the talk page.

In the live help system, I've advised the user regarding COI best-practice, etc.

If others could help improve the article, that'd be great.  Chzz  ►  14:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple editors (Rob and OlYeller) have addressed this at the article talk page, and it looks like the COI tag will be removed soon if there are no objections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

George Soros

George Soros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Un-vetted information is being posted as fact with regard to Mr. Soros's involvement in the Wall Street protests. This information is pure conjecture and should not be reported as fact, nor be part of any encyclopedia. Please remove this posting and place a lock on the page as this source is very likely to be a heated battle ground for the next few moments of our lives. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Jinglehimerschmit (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone deleted the content but I reverted as it is sourced content. However I did create a neutral summary of the report from Reuters and took the content out of the lead and move it to the career section. On a related point, this article needs some attention and grooming. The article is a bit mixed up with some vanity text, off topic info about his company performance and arbitrary organization rather than chronological. If anyone has time, I could use some help cleaning it up. I made some edits today but there is lots more to do. Thanks in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Clifford Irving

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

Loaded with uncited gossip and tabloid narrative. causa sui (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is surprisingly light for a BLP on a very well known person like Irving. The article is already tagged for that, so I hesitate to slap on more "fact" tags. I'm not seeing any obvious salacious gossip in the article, and there's nothing in the talk page. Do you have any specific concerns apart from the sourcing? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much everything in the section on the Howard Hughes autobiography reads like a People magazine history, without the citation. There's a lot of stuff in here that only one person could know, like personal phone conversations between two people, but there is no mention or even interest in how the person writing the article came to know that, or why anyone else should believe it. Some examples, but I could object to almost every line in this section:

• Then, James Phelan read an excerpt of the "autobiography" and realized that some of its factual information had come not from Hughes, but from his own book.

We're reading James Phelan's mind here. Phelan probably told somebody this narrative, but we don't say who he told it to, or where we read it, and we don't make it clear that it (as his own personal mental activity) can only be attributed to him and cannot be independently verified.

• Meanwhile, Frank McCulloch, known for years as the last journalist to interview Hughes, received an angry call from someone claiming to be Hughes himself. But when McCulloch read the Irving manuscript, he declared that it was indeed accurate. Mike Wallace interviewed Irving for a news broadcast. Wallace later said his camera crew told him Irving was not telling the truth. "They understood. I didn't. He got me."

See above.

• Hughes's lawyer, Chester Davis, filed suit against McGraw-Hill, Life, Clifford Irving and Dell Publications. Swiss authorities investigated the 'Helga R. Hughes' bank account; they found that $750,000 had been deposited and that the Irvings, who by this time had returned to their home on the Balearic resort island of Ibiza, were denying everything. When Swiss police visited the Irvings on Ibiza, Clifford Irving tried to hint that he might have been dealing with an impostor. Then, James Phelan read an excerpt of the "autobiography" and realized that some of its factual information had come not from Hughes, but from his own book. Finally, the Swiss bank identified Edith Irving as the depositor of the funds, and the fraud was revealed.

It helps that Irving confessed to fraud in open court. But these details still need to be cited.

causa sui (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Then my suggestion would be that you be WP:BOLD and simply remove the above and any other problematic passages. I notice that the article has had very little activity, so there seems to be no recent concerted effort to cause trouble there. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the easiest thing to do is to delete it all. I guess I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the events (which took place a bit before my proverbial 'time') would know how to get it sourced. I'll let this hang for a bit before chopping it down. causa sui (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not post a note on the talk page or reach out to editors who have contributed heavily to it in the past? That might yield some action. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tomas Tranströmer

The report taken from the Telegraph is both unclear as to whom or what it is deriding or if it is indeed derisive. Suggest removal as it is not worthy of space in an encyclopedia which strives to be factual.

Lack the necessary skill, so please help.

Idealist707 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed by Rob.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't any longer supporting any content and it was just a bit derisive, so as it was complained about I thought it was better out than in. . Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Griffin O'Neal

Griffin O'Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I understand that the "Legal Troubles" section of this article is sourced to the teeth, but am I alone in thinking it should perhaps be trimmed back? As it stands there are two sentences describing the subject's career, and four paragraphs regarding his various run-ins with the law. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal troubles of Griffin O'Neal - not a suggestion , more of an observation. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this guy other than what I just read in the article (and I'm also no BLP expert, just happened to be browsing here), but if he's vastly better known for his legal troubles than for his acting career, shouldn't the article reflect that? (I mean, if people are more likely to be looking up "the guy from that boating accident" or "Ryan O'Neal's son who keeps getting arrested" than "the guy who appeared in Assault of the Killer Bimbos", is there any reason for the article to pretend otherwise?) Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your position - but he is far from a major criminal (probation - community service) and the article currently more represents a rap sheet of minor convictions than a life story of a notable actor. Griffin O'Neal's criminal record -

Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section on his legal problems should be trimmed back (though not eliminated) per undue weight, especially since all these incidents save one took place 19 or more years ago. I don't trivialize his offenses but the article needs balance, espcially since the main reason he is famous is because his father is more famous. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article as written now gives too much detail about his legal troubles, especially since alone they would not make him notable enough for an article, and because his true reason for notability is his family connection not his own acting career. I suggest we remove the details about each incident, and incorporate it back into the personal life section. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a degree of support for a rewrite with a bit less weight and a merge into the personal life section - I had a look, not a two second job ... anyone like to be bold? Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaniz Ali

Kaniz Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is not a biography but only an article to promote herself (kaniz ali). It also talks about a kaniz ali charity fund which does not exist and is not a registered charity organisation. The article only boasts promotes kaniz ali and the work she does for a living in order to gain more recognition. This site is for facts and biographies and should not be used for promotional purposes.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.194.162 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• - I cut the article by half - making it twice as good - promotional article, person of minimal note - a couple of promo articles - the creator requested its deletion in feb this year but it was refused - Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Criminal accusations were posted in a thread visible here: . The names of people were then redacted, but the accusations remain visible in the history. The thread was removed but has been restored at least once. Some attention from this board seems called for. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the original unredacted accusation of criminality: μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Laurence D. Fink

Laurence D. Fink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I remove content from this article today because it was unencyclopedic in tone and gave undue weight as presented. At least one of the references it was taken from was lengthy enough to give a balanced view of his career, so we can definitely do a better job of presenting his career in a balanced way that does not come off as an attack piece. A few new editors who understand BLP policy helping out would be goodness. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Anythingyouwant. I noticed that the IP address that added the removed content also added the same, or some of the same to the BlackRock article and his edits there may alsdo benefit from an investigation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. I shortened that stuff at BlackRock per undue weight, even though a living corporation isn't exactly a living person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wallace P. Carson, Jr

Wallace P. Carson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am personally acquainted with Wally Carson. His wife's name is Gloria. The portion where the article says "He and his wife, Mary, have three children" relates to Carson's successor as Chief Justice, Paul J. DeMuniz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.26.64 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Based on your notes above, I found this online reference: , which confirmed your information. I have updated the article accordingly. --Jayron32 18:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

William Loren Katz

William Loren Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Welwyn Wilton Katz. I am the author of Time Ghost, published by Margaret K. McElderry in 1995. For some reason, though my name is clearly shown on the covers all over the internet, and his is not, he has become known as the author of my book. He had nothing to do with it. I never worked with him, and he never worked with me. I am the sole author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.159.115 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Removed. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, book is indeed written by by Welwyn Wilton Katz - Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tegan and Sara

Tegan and Sara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biased contributor opinion/commentary can be found within the category "Social Relevance and Activism" (The quotation marks are my own): "Their music does, in fact, reflect their own style that was not necessarily the popular choice of music when they first began. They stuck true to who they were as artists, and as people, and achieved success on their own merits rather than changing everything about themselves to please the public eye. That message is one of the most positive messages a youth in America, or the World, can receive in this day and age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.179.118 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I see it has been removed - it was a bit self serving but some kind of trim might be also an option - Tegan_and_Sara#Social_Relevance_and_Activism - the interview at www.outimpact.com - is an almost not used external here but trimming may be better than blamking. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Dell'Olio birth year

Nancy Dell'Olio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a silly dispute. An IP has inserted a birth year for Dell'Olio based on a Daily Mail article. Essentially, the DM acknowledges that Dell'Olio has frequently lied about her age but is reporting her latest representation. Even the DM says the following about Dell'Olio's latest birth date: "It was assumed that this was Nancy finally being truthful about her age".

In my view, this is not a report by the DM as to Dell'Olio's age, but the DM reporting what Dell'Olio says. Thus, the source is Dell'Olio, and she has shown herself to be an unreliable source for her age. Therefore, I reverted it (3x), but the IP insists on keeping it in, despite my explanations on the Talk page. The latest pronouncement by the IP, which I find facially absurd, in response to my comments, is: "Whatever. This wiki needs a date of birth."

I could take this to 3RR on a very broad interpretation of the policy (the IP's insertion of the date constitutes a revert), but I've never cared for that interpretation, so I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

SHOW US THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is quite amusing - She is accepting (and celebrating ) a 50 birthday so ...there are claims of two years additional and two years minus, shall we accept the average/mean or should we attribute it to the subject , as in, Dell Olio celebrated what she said was her 50th birthday in 2011? - Its not like her exact age is part of her notability is it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's amusing and I agree her "exact age" is unimportant, which is why we should just leave it out of the article AND leave it to her and to the media to beat to death.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis

Mikis Theodorakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soosim (talk · contribs) insists on mentioning the same interview, in which Theodorakis is alleged to have made anti-semitic comments, twice in a row . The sentence he keeps re-adding refers to the same interview made in early 2011. His argument that it is a "different source" is specious: Basically he just wants to say over and over again that Theodorakis is an anti-semite, Theodorakis is an anti-semite, as much as possible for effect. There are many sources that mention the incident, shall we include a separate sentence for each one? I have opened a thread on the discussion page, but the user refuses to participate. Allegations of anti-Semitism are serious. If they can be substantiated, they should be mentioned. But not gratuitously in this fashion. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Repeating the same content multiple times, each time using a different source is redundant and, frankly, ridiculous. I will keep an eye on the article. Dr.K.  17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inmate numbers

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor removed an inmate's number from an article. Another editor restored it, and I reverted (now twice). The restoring editor says it's needed because it's like a social security number and can be used to look up an inmate. I've seen inmate numbers in other articles and have always removed them. Although, legally, inmates lose a many rights that free citizens have, I don't see why Misplaced Pages should put in that kind of identifying information about inmates. Is there any guidance on this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No precedent that I'm aware of, but I don't know what encyclopedic need there is to include this info. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that such information as an inmate number should generally be considered superfluous information unless there is reasonable cause to feel that confusion could result from omitting that piece of information. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I did perform one of the reverts to restore this information. I admit my actions were spawned at seeing the inmate number compared to a SSN. I think it is a better argument to suggest the information is superfluous and a level of depth the interested reader should expect to research. While I admit this is a better argument, I do not concede that in general, an inmates prison number should never be incorporated as article prose. In fact I can imagine several reasons why such information is relevant. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The comparison was by another editor, and I continued it. It's not completely specious, either. The laws regarding social security numbers are complex and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I don't see a big difference between an SSN and an inmate number. Both are identifying information and they are neither public or private exactly. Mostly, people get upset about SSNs because of pfishing issues. In any event, I'm curious what your "several reasons" are.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is probably true that inmate numbers don't have associated "pfishing issues" as social security numbers do. But I think there is an implied insult in presenting identification of a person as their inmate number, because it very effectively strips away the individualizing qualities that a personal name conveys. Indeed in many accounts of prisoners the inmate number is included with surrounding language expressing satisfaction in what may be a fall from a higher station in life. But Misplaced Pages is supposed to not partake of some of the seedier sides of tabloid journalism and I think this is an instance where WP:BLP would generally be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Bus stop is spot on here. The number is only significant in two ways (a) as a convenience for prison bureaucratic processes, and (b) as a means to dehumanise and stigmatise individuals. Neither of these are part of Misplaced Pages's remit, and unless there are compelling reasons in particular cases to do so, I can see no reason to include such information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the two basic reasons. I disagree that one reason should be dismissed as a "bureaucratic process". This man transformed himself, through his crime and became, even more so, a number.

It is plausible someone could be interested in corresponding with an inmate. This is not possible under a given name. Funds, stamps, an ability to purchase a coke, are all dependent on if someone cares, and then if they have the correct number. There are searches that a person might reasonably desire to accomplish, and having the number will significantly refine the results to useable information. It's not unreasonable that a person might believe they could find this information in an encyclopedic resource like Misplaced Pages.

It begins to seem unreasonable when instead we create reasons to segregate reasonable facts, by imagining some superseding moral obligation. Following this path will next assail a reliable source for perhaps themselves mentioning this fact. I am not advocating we banish the mans name, but my imagination allows if as fair if at one venture we acknowledge "Steven J. Hayes, known as inmate 97425, remanded to the Connecticut Department of Corrections ..." Other than that, "Fuck him" which is a personal opinion, but one I do hold. My76Strat (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lying to the 9/11 Commission

Can someone please look at this and let me know if they think that this is a WP:BLP violation? Discussion is here. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution