Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 4 January 2012

• 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.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

BLP problem imbedded in another article

Disappearance of April Fabb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Robert Black (serial killer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I removed the following sentences from the article:

A prime suspect in both cases is serial killer Robert Black,() who has admitted he targeted young girls on cycles. He had moved to London, from Scotland, in late 1968 or early 1969.

The cited source from May 1994 says:

A Robert Black, Britain's worst child killer, last night began a 35-year sentence for murder, senior detectives were hoping to interview him about a lengthy series of other sex murders. Police hope Black may be persuaded to confess to murders they suspect he has committed since the late 1960s.

and then further down, the article lists Fabb as one of thosse possible sex murders.

To me, this is way too attenuated to include in the article. The article doesn't say that the police actually interviewed him, or if they did, what the results of the interview were. It's just a hope for an interview of a suspect. Also, don't forget that the Independent article is now 17 and a half years old (no follow-up on the Black issue), and there's no evidence Fabb was even murdered. In my view it's a BLP issue for Robert Black and should be removed. It's also in the Black article, although I haven't touched that yet. Another editor is fighting to keep the Black material in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have personally studied this case since 1969. Robert Black has never admitted to any of the murders he has been found guilty of - the latest being Jennifer Cardy in Northern Ireland only this month. The only statement Black has ever made is that he targeted young girls on bicycles wearing white socks, which applies to April Fabb and Genette Tate. Agreed there is no evidence that either were murdered - but where are they then? They were only young teenage girls. Incidently, the Tate entry has not been altered. Why? There are numerous police statements and newspaper articles following the Cardy case this month which refer to Black being a prime suspect in this case and the Tate case, perhaps these should be included? That is all I am saying: he is a Prime Suspect and that is fact; therefore this entry should remain in the article. In any case the revision to the Fabb entry has taken a long time to surface. Frankly the revsion smacks of arrogance. With regards, David J Johnson (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether Black is a "prime suspect" is immaterial (the Independent article doesn't use that phrase anyway) as it's clear from the source that all it says is they "hope" to interview him about Fabb. All we deal with here are reliable sources in support of material that is policy-compliant, not what you think is a "fact". Where Fabb is now is irrelevant to this issue. If we knew that, we might not be having this discussion. So, too, is the fact that she was a young teenager when she disappeared. Finally, it doesn't matter what other articles say or how long this has taken "to surface". It is what it is now, and it must be dealt with properly. The probability is the material doesn't belong in the other articles, either, but, again, I'd have to look at each one to have an opinion. And skip the arrogance bit - It's unconstructive, and I don't even understand how you get there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that you roam Misplaced Pages editing anything that you personally disagree with. The fact remains that Black is considered a "Prime Suspect" in both the April Fabb and Gennette Tate cases - a fact in the public domain for years and recently confirmed in the press after the Jennifer Cardy verdict. Black has never admitted to any of the murders or disappearances and is unlikely to do so.

I have to say that your attitude does Misplaced Pages no good. You keep mentioning "we" as though you are a complete authority. The deletion you keep trying to attempt is your opinion, as there are plenty of references that could be included - but that would make the entry reference heavy. For almost two years other editors have accepted the wording and improved upon it - why not you? What is "unconstructive" is editing out someone who is seen as suspect. Frankly threats about being blocked do not worry me and shows your arrogance.

The April Fabb entry was composed in good faith and edited by others in the same spirit. Certainly not by persons who roam to find anything to change. I hope it will remain a accurate summary of her disappearance for her still grieving family, For them and in the interests of accuracy the reference to Black should be reinstated. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss what should be in the April Fabb page regarding suspects and hopefully come to an agreement. However, the constant deletion of part of the article is not constructive. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "reinstated". I stopped removing your version, so other than your removal of the word "prime", the original version is, unfortunately, still in the article. "Reference heavy"? There's currently only one reference. I'm assuming it's the best you and all of your collaborators can do. Doesn't matter anyway as the reliability of the source isn't at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• David, have you read our notability guidelines on people, more specifically the part about when can a criminal be called a criminal? If you do read them, please confirm whether those guidelines would apply here or not. Wifione 17:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:CRIME is probably the guideline Wifione is referring to: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured." (emphasis added by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The emphasized guideline was added by me, to respond to situations like these that could arise and would be arising across BLPs. It's important that we give serious consideration in such situations to not including such material. Yes, if judicial authorities (and not policing authorities) have confirmed a person is a criminal or have passed certain strictures/arrest warrants against individuals - and if we have reliable sources confirming the same - I believe only then is it alright to mention such details in a biography. Pure news material on accusations, crime reports, police statements, should be strongly avoided. The new face of Misplaced Pages, as we see it evolving, is extremely protective about BLPs. Wifione 18:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• If David doesn't respond to Wifione's comments, I will remove the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wifione, Regarding Robert Black, all I have stated - amongst others is that he is a "suspect" in this case and also Gennette Tate, not a convicted criminal. Defining evidence is not there in either case and incidently was not in the Cardy case - but he was still found guilty! He has never admitted to any of the cases he has been convicted of and I doubt, having followed the saga since 1969, that he ever will. I am not accusing Black, just mentioning that he is suspected in the same way that suspects are mentioned in D B Cooper, Zodiac or Jack the Ripper etc. There have been plenty of press reports since the end of the Cardy case which mention Black as a suspect in both the Fabb and Tate cases. I just felt that in a short article we did not need to quote the latest batch. Also he is mentioned as I suspect in Maurice Morson's book, which is referenced in both articles. Anyway, I am now off for a break and trust you will understand what I am trying to keep in the article(s). Thank you for your courtesy. Wih best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

David, although you have "responded", you haven't really addressed WP:CRIME or justified inclusion of the material in any of the articles. I am going to therefore remove the material from this article (later, I can deal with the other articles). Because this involves a BLP, you should not reinstate the material without a clear consensus for doing so, which, at the moment, you don't have.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Equally, you have not answered any of the points I have made and why not take-out all the other suspects material, such as G Tate, D B Cooper etc. Does this mean that you are going to trawl through all the other suspects in crime cases and then delete them? Sorry I have a life, rather than changing other folks contributions in quantity day after day. Perhaps mention should be made of a suspect, without naming him/her, in both the Fabb and Tate cases? David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Banana Man

Hi everyone, I just came across this edit to our disambiguation page Banana Man, and I wondered what you thought. Is the addition ok? I'm in two minds. It seems like it is a YouTube phenomenon, and not something that mainstream news sources or books have chosen to publish. I found these two references on Google News, but nothing else.. Let me know what you think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 02:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The WND ref seems OK and I have added it to the dab page. --BwB (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look for me! I'll leave the link in. I'm pretty sure that DAB pages shouldn't have references though, so I'll take that out. I'll leave a hidden note there for anyone who's curious instead. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• - I removed it. It's not notable enough for the lede of his BLP so it's not a primary descriptor of him and as such seems undue to add him to the banana man disambiguation page. - The only other living person on the disambiguation page, is Sam Zemurray, who is clearly is well known as the banana man as it is states the nickname in the opening of the lede of his BLP, whereas for Ray Comfort this is not the case. Youreallycan (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also a Banana Man reggae artist. I see he has no wiki page so I plan to start one once I have compiled sufficient verifiable reference material. Anyone have any suggestions how to make it show in the search engine as "Bannana Man (Reggae artist)" without titling the page itself as such? I'm still a bit new here. (Observation Station (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC))

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• note - there is this related report - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User threatening to keep on disrupting

• - Holocaust deniers and the French far right

There are attempts by some people to minimize the importance of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala's close ties to people like Robert Faurisson and Jean-Marie Le Pen. However, these are more than well documented:

• http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolocaustDenial_83/5429_83.htm

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4001332/French-comedian-gives-award-to-Holocaust-denier.html

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/outrage-at-french-comicrsquos-award-for-holocaust-denier-1214725.html

• http://thejewishchronicle.org/view/full_story/2424137/article-When-is-anti-Zionism-no-longer-funny-in-France--Ask-Dieudonne-

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/only-in-france-the-black-antisemitic-comedian-at-a-rally-of-le-pens-far-right-424947.html

and these are only links to sources in English. Don't get me started with sources in French. Oh, do get me started, if you wish... Cheers, --Insert coins (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• note - there has been a bit of an edit war and the article has been fully protected for three days. Users wanting to investigate and opine will need to refer to the recent edit history. - It would help if whoever is wanting to make an edit would present it here for investigation. Or please specify what is the actual desire of this report? Youreallycan (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The actual desire is to show that some administrators, like bobrayner (talk · contribs), have acted quite unreasonably when they have shot the messenger on the topic of some people removing references to Dieudonné M'bala M'bala being close to the political far right and a genuine associate of convicted Holocaust deniers. The actual desire is to show and prove that administrators like bobrayner are wrong in giving these removers of valid and factual information a helping hand. --Insert coins (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We are here to discuss content only - please take any objections you have about editors or admins actions to the relevant noticeboard. What is it that you want to add, that he is an associate of John and Harry? What section do you want to add your desired addition to? Please present your desired addition here for discussion , please include the citations you want to support it with. Please consider reading/re-reading WP:BLP policy prior to posting your desired addition, so as to get it as policy compliant as possible, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(Back after a break). Sorry. I'll say what I want in a few words, that will be easier. I would like the introduction of the article being put back into its previous state (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dieudonn%C3%A9_M%27bala_M%27bala&diff=prev&oldid=468051036), on account of the association with "John" and "Harry" being a defining trait of the article's subject, as per the many sources I provided. These could/should be added to the article's introduction as well. Thank you!.--Insert coins (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this. It seems obvious to me that administrators have rushed to the wrong conclusion here. There is a long-running campaign to "clean up" this article by supporters of its subject. It is a matter of record that Dieudonné has all but scuppered his own show-biz career and is now known primarily as an unhinged and extremist political campaigner. Besides Le Pen, he is also a friend of the terrorist Carlos... It is hardly a character assassination to mention all this in the intro. That is the public image that Dieudonné cultivates. Mezigue (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A note Mezique, well to both of you really - It is clear you both strongly dislike the subject of this article; that is not illegal here, personally I would ask you both to just stop editing it, you have both expressed strong opinions anti the person. Saying that, during this discussion at BLP noticeboard do not comment in an attacking way about this living person - continuing to refer to him as "unhinged" and similar will not be tolerated here, please lets keep it clean, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider both the warning and the advice to be unwarranted. I have discussed the issue dispassionately and provided facts, and I always strive to edit in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages rules. In the case of this article, you can see here that I have stopped PoV-pushing from whatever side/angle it comes from. I will continue to do so. Mezigue (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome to ignore whatever you want, however, if you continue to opine in any way here in a derogatory manner regarding this living person, I will report you and request restriction of your editing privilages. Youreallycan (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a "friend" of Le Pen and Carlos is not notable for the lede imo. The other side of the coin has some support as well , that recently there has been a concerted effort to portray the subject unduly and that users have been coming to re balance the NPOV of the article up. It is always the case that if you create a POV article other users come to NPOV it back up. An NPOV article is a stable article. These is just a little too much vagueness in that version of the lede. Like, describing him as "now politically far right" is that something he has said? You have sources that you want to use to support it, if you can lay out here your desired addition to clarify self declared positions from the subject and the attributed opinions of others and the specific points that your citations support so that interested users can investigate, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so here is a draft of the lede/intro, as it should be written IMO. Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, simply known as Dieudonné (insert date and place of birth), is a French comedian, actor and political activist of Cameroonian and Breton descent. As a comedian, he became famous in his duo act with fellow comedian and actor Elie Semoun, both on stage, television and film. Parallel to pursuing a solo career as a showman owning his own theater in Paris , he has developped an intense political activity, culminating in his standing for elections in 1997, 2004 and 2009, and unsuccesful attempts to run in 2002 and 2007 as well as his launching of his own party, the Parti anti-sioniste (anti-zionist party) . Due to his controversial statements and his many convictions for defamation and hate speech , his political positions have increasingly shaped the public perception of his persona, both in France and abroad --Insert coins (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't put ethnicity in the lede like that - also you are removing this "claims to be leading a 'justified fight' against Zionism, and Israel which he deems racist and oppressive." which appears to be a well known citable notable primary position of his, why is that? Youreallycan (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This also "Due to his controversial statements and his many convictions for defamation and hate speech , his political positions have increasingly shaped the public perception of his persona, both in France and abroad" - is far too vague and unattributed/able to be in the lede. Due to.. and the public perception of his persona and he has developped an intense political activity, culminating in etc. Such opining belongs in the body of the article where it can be correctly attributed and rebuttals added. Youreallycan (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I do assume your good faith, so you should assume mine. There is a simple answer to your question "why is that?", and it is spelt out in what I wrote: "here is a draft".--Insert coins (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A draft is a starting point to seek talkpage consensus - not a solution to an edit war for which a BLP has needed to be fully protected from. I think from the discussion here we can assert that there is no consensus for your desired alterations and that after the article is unprotected attempts to replace them without talkpage consensus will be a return to the previous edit war. Youreallycan (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jan Helfeld

• Jan Helfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject appears to be a self-published interviewer. Article gives false impression that he has a television program called "The Bottom Line", but any such "program" seems to be limited to the subject's own website, which sells his video podcasts. Of more concern is the fact that the article appears to be used as a coatrack for criticism of various elected officials, cited only to the subject's self-published YouTube videos. The subject himself appears only to be notable for successfully suing one of his interviewees, so subject's real notability is limited to a single event. Should we really have this article on Misplaced Pages? Yworo (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He did have two amusing interviews that got some media attention: Harry Reid making questionable statements on taxation and one with Pete Stark who threatened to throw him out the window. He's actually a rather subdued Borat type. I know I saw one of them widely discussed at some point. Obviously of questionable notability, but amusing. CarolMooreDC 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I don't dispute he is amusing. Even if he were notable, we shouldn't be using the article as a coatrack for promoting his views, though. Yworo (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

List of polyamorists

• List of polyamorists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cooltobekind (talk · contribs)

This article needs attention. I keep removing improperly sourced entries based on original research into subject's relationships, but they keep being returned. Polyamory is a sexual preference and covered by WP:BLPCAT which includes lists - living people should of course not be included unless they self-identify with the term, regardless of what relationships they may or may not be in or have been in. And of course, even for the deceased, the subject must be identified with the term by a reliable third-party source, not by the original research of a single Misplaced Pages editor. Yworo (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless WP:RS can be found that refers to a particular individual as 'polyamorist', it is clearly WP:OR to apply the term - and even if such a source can be found, it may well be questionable to apply what amounts to a fringe term/neologism to the individual concerned. The list looks to me to be little more than a coatrack for a particular minority perspective on human sexuality - and one that actually tells us little about the individuals labelled as 'polyamorist' in any case. Human sexuality is a lot more complex than the simplistic shoeboxing implied in the article - which if it isn't merely WP:OR, is dubious pop psychology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The entry on H. G. Wells really took the cake. Cited only to the statement in Experiment in Autobiography saying "I have loved several people very deeply" - doesn't say sexual love, doesn't say "at the same time", doesn't say "multiple sexual relationships". Nearly everybody has "loved several people very deeply", but loving a parent, a friend, and a spouse doesn't make one polyamorous. He's not living, but sheesh, that doesn't even rise to the level of "original research". Yworo (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Polyamory is not a 'sexual preference' - it is a broad term covering multiple consenting relationships - it is also a sexuality, (i.e. some people are born polyamorous, with attraction and love for more than one individual). Yes, sexuality is very complex, and I do not mean to shoebox, but merely record a list of consenting relationships involving multiple parties. I feel polyamory includes this - User Yworo does not. My arguments regarding clarification and use of the term 'polyamory' are outlined in the talk page on the article. If polyamory is not the best term for these kinds of relationships, what is? Cooltobekind (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the references I used were taken from other wikipedia articles, so I assume they had already been subject to scrutiny Cooltobekind (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We are constrained to use the term or terms used by the reliable source being cited. If no term is used, there is no basis for inclusion in any list or category, since we are not permitted the luxury of original research. Polyamory is certainly a sexual identity and covered by WP:BLPCAT. Sorry I used the wrong, though certainly related, term. Yworo (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't matter whether it's a sexual or a gastronomic preference. Unless there is a reliable source asserting that an person is a polyamorist, or a connoisseur of jellied eels, we do not say so, either in the text or by categorisation. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd take this further: I'd suggest that only explicit self-identification as a polyamorist would justify inclusion on a list - anything else will imply that we know more about relationships than the participants... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - self-identification in a reliable source (and relatively recent). What are the articles that you mentioned, Cooltobekind? Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think requiring self-identification as a universal principle is going too far. But without self-identification the sources need to be rock-solid reliable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The list contains people who may have had affairs, but categorizing them as "polyamorous" with a claim (OR?) that such is a specific "desire" runs quite afoul of WP:BLP for living people, and of WP:OR for the dead ones. I am here positing that categorizing people as "polyamorous" is "contentious per WP:BLP, and that adding a definition for "polyamorous" here is "original research" at best. Collect (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that stance. If the list has been suffering from problems with OR, then we should avoid listing people as poly unless a reliable source (which probably includes the subject, if they're alive) says explicitly that they're poly or uses clearly equivalent wording. Of course a different word or phrase might be used in non-English sources. Apparently-overlapping periods of relationships ≠ polyamoury. Affairs ≠ poly. "I have loved several people very deeply" ≠ poly. bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My polyamorous acquaintances are extremely angered by the idea that adulterers are polyamorists! The two concepts encompass such different worldviews that it's hard to say just how wrong that idea is. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Query: would changing the title make any difference for users skeptical about the list? "List of people in poly relationships" or something? Re AndyTheGrump, the word's first documented appearance is in 1992 so requiring self-identification as such (unless I'm misunderstanding you) would exclude some people who have really notably been in poly relationships as documented by biographers and historians. (And yes, obviously adultery, serial monogamy, and original research should be excluded.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What is this? Is this a list of people who have openly had more than one sexual partner at a time - and sticking the label "polyamerist" on that? Or is it a list of people who have wanted to (which might include a high number of the male population)? The problem here is suggesting people who have lived (even for a time) in a particular style of sexual relationship are linked by some form of shared "sexuality"/desire. That's abject nonsense. Even if we limit this to people who have self-described as polyamerous - what the hell did they mean by that? This just doesn't look a useful list at all. Suggest deletion.--Scott Mac 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The place to suggest deletion is WP:AFD. --Jayron32 03:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that I would constrain this article to people identified in reliable sources as polyamorous. Although there are many similar ideas in many other cultures, they have subtle differences that make any attempt to create a list based on the definition of the term fraught with peril and prone to OR. I'm especially concerned that this list may accumulate historical figures who the editor perceives as having been polyamorous when they lived before the term was invented in a culture that didn't even possess an equivalent concept. To make an analogy, many people would consider down-low men to be gay, but there are distinctive differences between the down-low and gay communities and cultures, and they would take great offense to such a classification. We should avoid getting distracted here by the many misunderstandings about the definition and nature of polyamory appearing in this thread. Dcoetzee 03:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So, it would be a "list of people who have at some point described themselves as polyamerous"? I'd say that's the definition of an indiscriminate list of trivia.--Scott Mac 03:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • How is it different from List of bisexual people etc in terms of scope? sonia♫ 04:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, we would need to allow for deceased/historical figures described in history books or biographies. Using only data from after 1992 is crazy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Unclear what you mean, since the term was not coined until 1992, only history books or biographies written after 1992 would contain the term. The writers of those books would of course use data from before 1992, but we can't use that data directly. We could of course cite books that apply the term to historical figures. Yworo (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I mean that some users are stipulating that the people in question must have self-identified as poly, which omits a large number of people well-known (through biography and history) to be poly who did not live to see the coining of the term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't think anyone has suggested that self-identification be applied to non-living people. This is the BLP noticeboard after all, and primarily discusses how to treat living people. Yworo (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
              • OK, perhaps I misunderstood. No one specified living, but you're right that perhaps it was implied. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Another issue, it appears that Category:Polyamory has been being used to collect the same sorts of historical figures who predate the term. Yworo (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've now cleaned this up... Yworo (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

redux. An IP is inserting . He had inserted it several times sans any source at all previously, and now uses a source which just does not say what he claims it says. Warning about misuse of sources was given and edit war to insert material contrary to WP:BLP also, but as he is an IP is is quite non-utile to try getting him simply blocked, I fear. Cheers - this is getting tiresome. Berezovsky might be Satan incarnate, but putting material into a BLP repeatedly which is not based on a reliable source and specifically not in the source then proffered remains contrary to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be true that Boris Berezovsky has not taken legal action against the book but the problem comes in implying that that fact means it was not the subject of legal action or that Berezovsky does not dispute the contents. Because the claims in the book are the same as in the Forbes article, they would have been covered by the Forbes libel case. In the end the parties reached an out of court settlement in which Forbes (as publishers) withdrew one of the main accusations, so there was no formal judgment. In a 2001 interview with Berezovsky by Andrew in The Financial Times (2 January 2001, p 15) is the comment: "One book he says he has not read to the end is a highly critical text about himself, called Godfather of the Kremlin, by the Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov, published in the autumn. 'Several people asked me to sign it but I refused,' he says." When Klebnikov was assassinated, The Times reported that Berezovsky denied the charges in the book (Jeremy Page, "Business editor shot dead in Moscow", 10 July 2004, p 23) and The Independent noted that reviews in Russia for the book were not positive: "Some said that his book about Mr Berezovsky - Godfather of the Kremlin; The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism - was anti-Semitic in tone and overly critical of the tycoon at the expense of other key characters such as Russia's former president Boris Yeltsin." (Andrew Osborn, "Editor who unmasked super-rich of Russia is shot dead in Moscow", 10 July 2004, p 26). Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And for an IP to claim that the Pravda source says that Berezovsky does not "contest" the book's claims? Isn't that a bit of a misuse of the source which does not make such a claim? Collect (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP has all the appearance and POV of the indefinitely blocked User Deepdish7 - see him in this diff, adding Berezovsky never contested the book in court. - and he also had a focus on Paul Klebnikov's book in relation to accusing Berezovsky for allegations of murder. I left the IP:80.4.251.95 a note asking him to either log in and request unblock or to stop editing as such is block evasion. - Youreallycan (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I semiprotected for 60 days. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That will be a help, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to report edit warring and violation of Misplaced Pages deletion policy by user Collect (talk). The source reads "Klebnikov did not calm down after the court process and wrote a whole book about the notorious oligarch titled “Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism.” Berezovsky did not take any legal action against Klebnikov after such a publication" (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/19-08-2005/8781-berezovsky-0/). So it confirms the fact that Berezovsky never contested the book in court. I see this page is operated by a gang of Berezovsky supporters who try to whitewash the page big time170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

HUH? Examine from IP80... which I reverted on my own user talk page, Then IP170... shows up and does , , all within a matter of minutes. As everyone here knows, editors have control over their own user talk pages, and this pair(?) of editors seems to think that they are in control - to the point that they have committed exceedingly clear edit war on my user talk page. Note that I issued a warning to IP170... at .. And by the way guess who has edit warred agoin on my user talk page? . Will someone take care of this wondrous example of s ingle-minded editor/editors? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors do have control of their talkpages, but erasing warnings is prohibited. And you are trying to refrain from the main discussion and the fact, that you edit-warred and violated Deletion policy on Boris Berezovsky page, as proven above. Someone please take action against him. Thanks170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, first, removal of a talk page notice is considered to mean that the user has read and understood the material, and is not at all problematic, see WP:BLANKING. Second, to the extent that Collect's comments implied that the Pravda article did not state that Berezovsky did not file suit over the accusations in the book, obviously that is incorrect as the article does so state. However, I read his comments as stating that even if Berezovsky did not avail himself of legal process, the article provides insufficient support for the conclusion that he tacitly agreed with the accusations against him. The other comments here are in a similar vein. So, while there is sourced information for the proposition that Berezovsky did not file suit, there does not appear to be support that the sourcing is sufficient to state or imply that Berezovsky's failure to sue in court is somehow proof of his complicity. In the absence of consensus for the edit, I do not see how removal of the statement violates the deletion process or any other content guidelines. If you would like to gain consensus for the addition, I suggest that the appropriate case be made at Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Since Collect is aware of the discussion, and participating, I am going to temporarily semiprotect his talk page. (N.B., another admin already did so) Xymmax _{So let it be done} 00:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• It was not alluded on Berezovsky page that he availed himself of legal process against the book. The amendment to Berezovsky article only said "Berezovsky never contested the book in court", that's all. It's not said that he availed himself of legal process, nor did the amendment say that Berezovsky tacitly agreed with the accusations against him. The fact that he did not file against Klebnikov in court for his book is still a fact, and I see deleting this fact from the article as violating Deletion policy. Thus I would appreciate if you could undo user Collect's unlawful deletion. And in any, in any case the fact that Klebnikov published a book which was a very extended version of the article, still has full right to be represented in that section of the article. Thank you 170.148.198.157 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Doron Braunshtein

• Doron Braunshtein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only reliably sourced facts in this article are negative. The subject appears only to be notable as New York's "Village Idiot" (he was called this by the New York Press), for causing a stir with "Obama is my Slave" T-shirts, and for claiming that Hitler inspired his designs. While there are also claims of positive accomplishments in the article, they are unsupported. If they were removed, the article would be completely negative. Does this Doron really have sufficient notability for an article? Yworo (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy just needs a facebook page not a wikipedia biography 'imo' -- I would stub it or delete it, but you better get the opinion of someone from New York City - Youreallycan (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I had to use extreme will power to hit the "D" key rather than the "m" key in the last sentence of my comment. :-) Yeah, let's see if someone from the Big Apple has an opinion on this... Yworo (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mepuffed a tad. And non-notable works by a non-notable person are not notable enough to be itemized. Collect (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been speedied twice already. I'm for flicking the switch on it again, now. If anyone protests we can undelete and go to AFD. Any objections?--Scott Mac 23:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Throw a handful of salt at it. Youreallycan (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. I just depuffed the last claim, his song reached the top 100 on the iTunes Spoken Word charts? Yworo (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gone - A7. I will back up if any regular user challenges it.--Scott Mac 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

William C. Bradford

William C. Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Misplaced Pages entry for Dr. William C. Bradford contains malicious and factually false information (however "cited") aimed to damage his reputation and his ability to retain employment. Dr. Bradford is a relatively unknown person and this article contains irrelevant details; he is unable to respond directly due to a nondisclosure agreement. A smear campaign ensued with misleading information having been published, which is now being cited in this Misplaced Pages article. The existence of this article is tantamount to cyber-bullying, and it should be struck in its entirety from Misplaced Pages, with all new entries barred. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.93.73 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The blog/opinion column is not RS for the contentious claims made AFAICT and I removed that section. Collect (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good move. The whole tenure dispute section is given, I think, way too much weight in the article, and could probably be trimmed down significantly to address the issue without giving a blow by blow account. Also, I'd point out there are other BLP concerns here, beyond just Bradford, as numerous faculty members are named. Quinn 14:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed down the tenure controversy section a whole lot (maybe too much, but wanted to err on the side of caution), and am watching the talk page if the OP, or others, want to come over there and discuss any further changes. Quinn 15:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bart Chilton

Bart Chilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this on the entry on CFTC commissioner Bart Chilton. Doesn't quite sound right, does it?

"Chilton is also known as the father of awesomeness and being amazing. Chilton is considered to be feared by Chuck Norris, Tim Tebow and The Most Interesting Man in the World."

Rajeevtk (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don Grady

Don Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don's birth given name is Don (Italian origin) not Donald(English origin) middle name is Louis (after his father) Agrati.

Don Louis Agrati NOT Donald Michael Agrati which is what is currently posted on Misplaced Pages.

I am Don's wife, Ginny of 26 years. I can scan you a copy of our marriage license or his birth certificate for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.183.90 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a published source which says so? We need sources that are published to use them at Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. That would be very helpful, and would help us to get the article correct. --Jayron32 01:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is also necessary to provide some kind of published link between the person Don Louis Agrati and the subject of the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

But if the sources fail to establish his name as Donald, we probably shouldn't be writing that either. When we have an absence of reliable sources in either direction, but a credible assertion one way, we should probably go that way. Buddy431 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cusop: His personal website, already linked in the article, states his birth name as Don Agrati. --Jayron32 04:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael French

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

This article has sources and statements that must be considered. His sexuality is currently disputed, as this living person, Michael French, himself has not yet confirmed officially his sexuality. Tabloids may say something, but they have reputation as unreliable. Moreover, he has a driving ticket. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday Mirror cite appears not only "dead" but "removed" from the Mirror site - thus it is not reliably sourced as a claim and I removed it. The driving ticket is totally useless as a major item in a person's personal life. Collect (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the Mirror article in Newsbank, it's entirely based on quotes from unnamed sources. Clearly fails WP:BLPGOSSIP. January (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Can we call Zakir Naik Sunni although he doesn't identify himself as such?

My answer is definitely not, but there's a discussion at Talk:Zakir Naik where there is an editor disagreeing with this. I'd like more input. I'll add a pointer to the talk page to here. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the Talk page, but I don't see the answer as a no unless we're identifying him as Sunni in a category or infobox. At the same time, I didn't see sufficient reliable support to put Sunni in the body, either.

As an aside, I edited a recent addition to the Criticism section and, even as rewritten, I'm uncomfortable with the material. The sentence now is "Khaled Ahmed criticized Naik for 'indirectly support' Al-Qaeda by referring to Osama bin Laden as a 'soldier of Islam'." It is from an opinion piece written by Ahmed in a reliable source. Any opinion on the matter?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this sort of question keeps coming up. We don't put anything in the encyclopaedia unless it can be verified by a reliable source. If a reliable source describes him as Sunni (or blue-eyed, or left-handed, or deaf in one ear, or ....), or there is a credible attribution to the person themselves (for a non-self-serving assertion), then yes. Otherwise no. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This "sort of question" will always come up because it stirs up editors and because the policies are not interpreted in the same way by different editors. I would like to add that I've elaborated on my statement about the Sunni addition on the article Talk page; in my view, it's a bit more complex than I made it out to be in my first statement there and in my statement here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehsan Mehmood Khan

Ehsan Mehmood Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Lock of WP:Reliable sources which should directly be addressed about the subject.

There is no any sources of third party which can establish the WP:Notability. And there are issues of WP:COI, and by an editor with several IP addresses, WP:Good faith edits have been reverted.Please take a look at talk page,and view history. I am not familair to use the tools.I am sorry for that.I hope experts of the WP:Policies and guidelines will give their opinion.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell whether Khan's really notable or just wants to be. However, I wouldn't say there aren't secondary sources in the article. I'm also not following your COI suspicion. I've cleaned up the article a bit, but I don't see much more to do with it unless someone wants to do some additional research on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Also, the stance of an editor with several IP addresses is full of suspicion. I thoroughly went through the edit history of the article since its creation. It rather proved that you User:Justice007 (formerly User:Ehsan Sehgal) have continuously been reverting and deleting the reasonably reliable references and external links provided by several editors operating from different IPs. There is no issue of WP:Notability or WP:Reliable sources at present. You appear to be evasive of going through the reliable sources provided within the article. At this stage, Khan's article carries a number of realiable references and secondary sources and is notable per WP:BLP standards beyond any shadow of doubt. Maintenance tags implied by you challenging the notability of this article have rightly been removed by another editor User:JC Bills who probably is the creator of this article . You are suggested to drop egoistic edit feud now and contribute positively to this article if you really have some stuff to share with.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the editor issues, which I don't care much about, I don't necessarily agree that the notability is clear or that the sourcing is great. However, as I commented on the article's Talk page, editors should not be reverting back to an earlier error-laden version just because they don't like the tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite all interested editors to look here. Khan's notability is clearly in question. SubContinentalAnalyst, I ask that you refrain from phrases like "egoistic edit feud" and implying that Justice is not a good-faith editor. He makes a lot of good points below which you would be well advised to answer. Furthermore, JC Bills being the author of the article does not give him special powers. NLinpublic (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My note

I still disagree and in my opinion the mentioned references of the article do not reveal the degree of indepedent note,that would qualify the subject for WP:Notability. As notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. As the wikipedia policy, if no reliable third-party sources for an article topic,wikipedia should not have an article on it. And if a topic has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,it is not presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage means that sources adress the subject directly in detail, and it is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material- Example, " The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Morten Walker-1992-01-06) Tough love child of Kennedy, The Guardian, "In high school,he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly trivial. And moreover, not all coverage in WP:Reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for examples, "Directories and databases,advertisements,annnoucements,columns and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined,despite their as WP:Reliable sources.Topic must be notable and direct addressed by the third party and connection of the source to the topic must be clearly indentified.In last,I would like to express my concerns relating to creator of the article,that it seems to be WP:Ownership,and violation of WP:Policies and guidelines,because BLP and Notability tags have been removed without explained summary,while there has been asked for waiting the result of WP:Consensus.I do not care what the result of consensus is,but I stand firm with WP:Good faith for effectiveness of wiki rules. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Two comments. As to the notability issue, I agree that it's not clear that the subject is notable. You are, of course, free to nominate the article for deletion if you wish. As for the tag issue, there was discussion by more than one editor about removal of the tags, so I don't think it's fair to say that the tags were removed without explanation. The very latest removal of the tags didn't have an explanation in the edit summary, but in the context of the Talk page, I don't believe they were removed in bad faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Consensus should be decided here,because for that, issue has been raised here not on talk page,and I think creator of the article should not remove the tags,he should have asked for that here,till result of consensus.Thus it's violation,isn't?. Justice007 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. First, this is not an issue of content, just whether the tags belong or not. Second, regardless, there's no reason why a consensus can't be reached on the article Talk page. That's one of the purposes of a Talk page. Indeed, it's better for it to be there rather than here unless someone believes there's an actual BLP violation or wants more input about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is content dispute,I was asked by User:Drmies to drop a note here.Please revisit talk page and read thoroughly,then decide.Thanks for your concerns.Justice007 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I sort of see what you're referring to (indeed, two admins became involved on the article's Talk page), but I'm still at a loss. You came here expressing concerns about notability, not about content. If you have a content issue, what is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes actually my main concerns are notability of the subject,but somehow there is also violation of WP:Neutral point of view ,as removing tags because creator of the article just does not like it,and some sentences which I and you edited,were also reverted,and then reverted by you.That is not a problem,I am insisting for notability that should be addressed in the exact concept of the WP:Notability. I want to see the opinion of other editors too, sothat we can reach the WP:Consensus . Justice007 (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Now at Article for deletion discussion

• - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Mehmood Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

HMAK

-This is article is defamation of character as much of the information is false. -I am a personal friend of the person this article is about and this is wrong and libelous. -HMAK never fought Wale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacroManagement (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article (HMAK) is a load of rubbish, I can't see any logical reason not to solve the problem by deleting it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just went back over a year to get a version of the article that clearly was free of vandalism. I expect that I'll submit this to AFD later if someone else doesn't best me to it. In the meantime I have semi protected the article due to the months of unchecked vandalism. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I also threw a warning on the user who added the most blatent recent vandalism.--v/r - TP 14:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Don pardo

Don Pardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The family part of Don Pardo's bio does not mention that he has two older daughters. I dated one of them, Donna Pardo, when we were both in high school in Demarest, New Jersey in the early 60's. (Northern Valley Regional High School). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.228.184 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Only to be added if accompanied by reliable sources. I briefly dated one of his daughters , which is of no interest to anyone, and doesn't necessitate her inclusion in the article.... 76.248.147.199 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no information about his family in the article anymore. There was one sectiion on his son, but I've removed it as his son is not notable, and there was no need for a section on his son's life.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Greenfield-Sanders

Timothy Greenfield-Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a major photographer, which appears to have been edited in large part by the subject. Lacks inline citations, but rather than stick tags on it, I'd appreciate others' thoughts as to whether there are concerns re: conflict, content and neutrality, or if everything looks fairly acceptable. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Puff/ad - removed a lot of such. Collect (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Isaias Afewerki

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

Important negative information about this person appears to have been deleted by his supporters in order to hide the truth, as reported by various news sources, about the acts committed by him and his government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.27.143 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Viveros-Faune

Christian Viveros-Fauné (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Claims "his writings have been published in...The New Yorker" (among other publications), however a search for any reference to him inside the magazine returns with no findings. Other searches confirm this: Mr. Viveros Faune has not had anything published in The New Yorker. The New Yorker has never even mentioned his name--ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.1.244 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOCITE and also WP:BEBOLD - If it's uncited and your search reveals no confirmation you can either tag is as "citation required" or move it to the talkpage for discussion or from where someone can cite and replace. Youreallycan (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Le Vell

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

Brief earlier BLP mention

In September 2011 Le Vell was arrested on suspicion of a sexual offense. The issue of whether to include the arrest was discussed on the article Talk page in October, and it was left in. Today, an editor added a recent report that Le Vell was "cleared" and no charges would be made. Although I disagreed with the initial retention of the material, I even more strongly felt that all of the material should be removed now that the police have dropped the matter. Otherwise, even though he's been "cleared", it leaves the impression that he did something wrong. I'm relying on WP:CRIME for the removal. One of the more active participants in the previous discussion (and there is now a current discussion as well) insists on retaining the material based on: "BLP requires that all events that have received significant media coverage in reliable secondary sources should be mentioned". I'm not sure where the quote comes from (not from WP:BLP), although I vaguely recall the phrase from somewhere. I'd like other editors' opinions as to whether the material should remain in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tough luck for him, but it is a signficant fact about him. BTW, the Crown Prosecution Service "decided there was insufficient evidence to charge." BBC News, 1 Jan 2012. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't WP:CRIME ("A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured.") apply, and why is it a "significant fact about him" more than about any other person?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRIME addresses the issue of notability, ie whether there should be an article on someone, simply because of their involvement with a crime. This is clearly not the issue here -- Le Vell is notable for completely separate reasons, namely his acting career. Notability guidelines "do not directly limit the content of an article or list". WP:DUE would be the operative policy here, and I think that a sentence along the lines of the current Le Vell was arrested and bailed on suspicion of a sexual offence in September 2011, but cleared in January 2012 after the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge him gives it "a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This was pruned back to avoid undue weight, but it is still within BLP. WP:WELLKNOWN describes a public figure as including a celebrity, which Le Vell clearly is. It would be most odd for his BLP to mention the Ratio Money controversy, which most people have never heard of, but not mention the September 2011 allegation, which, unusually for a soap star, received widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources (BBC, Guardian etc). BLP exists to prevent poorly sourced junk from getting into articles, not to override coverage in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it also suggests not to include material when the subject was never convicted. This incident does not appear to meet either criteria 1 or 2 for perpetrators (see the footnote), so should not be mentioned. See also WP:HARM. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that "criteria 1 or 2" refers to WP:CRIME? As I explained above, that it not relevant here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read all the way to the end of WP:CRIME. It also deals with what material to include in an article, not just whether a subject is notable for an article. Yworo (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of media coverage that this has generated in the UK, it would look like censorship to remove it. It is doing no harm to point out what all the reliable sources said about it. This meets all the criteria for a WP:WELLKNOWN incident. Either that, or the BBC, Guardian and Manchester Evening News have all got it wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Since the two BBC citations mention it, I think it would be fair to add that he strenuously denied the charges. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no charges to strenuously deny. Youreallycan (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct: he strenuously denied the allegations. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally I am very cautious on BLP issues, but really cannot see the problem here. Removing this is overriding what the BBC and all of the British media thought about its notability.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it was reported but only in a basic pre charges manner. I think your being affected by the news aspect of this issue, - it has no long term encyclopedic biographical notability. No charges, nothing to answer. Youreallycan (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the possibility of WP:RECENTISM, but this has generated enough reliable coverage over several months not to be a one day wonder.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's over - nothing to report is the outcome. It reminds me of the justin Beiber is the father of my baby "not" story. Youreallycan (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a mediocre comparison. This was not a routine British tabloid junk story, as Le Vell's career would have been ruined if he had not been cleared. This is why the BBC, Guardian etc covered it. It is well within WP:DUE and BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well , I don't support its inclusion for the reason I have stated. In 2011 Le Vell was accused of unspecified sexual allegations by an unnamed woman. The prosecution service refused to charge for lack of evidence. Youreallycan (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not support the inclusion either. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support inclusion in the article as it is. Because it is such a scrappy little article, the question of WEIGHT is all the more important. I would support inclusion within a fuller and more rounded bio. --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look and was a bit surprised at the scrappy-ness of the biography also. Youreallycan (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The incident meets WP:WELLKNOWN, and removing it would leave a significant BLP gap. This has picked up far more coverage than the Ratio Money incident.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know there are a few small reports about it, I live in the UK and read the press and watch the TV and I only found out about this today. I think the press were quite professional in the way they kept a bit of a lid on this, ultimately - celebrities are open to any allegation from anyone and they are accused of all sorts. We have no obligation to report an unproven unspecified allegation from an unnamed person that was rejected by the prosecution service. As time moves on from the news of today there will be less and less reason to cover it. Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new story, as it received widespread coverage in September 2011.(BBC and Guardian) I was initially against mentioning it, but it reached the stage when it would have been ignoring reliable media coverage. If the BBC and The Guardian think it is notable, there is no real problem.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its now a historic news story because its over, allegationsd - no charges. What's even worse in cases like this in regards to WP:CRIME is that, he will never have the opportunity in a court of law to prove his innocence as he has not been charged. How far in the future is it till the en wikipedia is the primary reporter of this allegation factoid ? Youreallycan (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WELLKNOWN again. Some allegations are notable even if the subject denies them. This is why citing WP:CRIME is irrelevant here.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to point out WP:CRIME was 'corrupted' during the last week; I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Suspicious_alteration_to_WP:CRIME and reversed the alteration since it seemed to to be unilateral edit not backed by consensus, so I hope the Le Vell discussion doesn't get too sidetracked by that guideline. On the separate issue of whether LeVell's arrest should be documented, I think it's important to take stock of the aims of Misplaced Pages: it is an encylcopedia, so its purpose is to document facts, not allegations. If he were simply arrested, investigated and released without charge then by only saying this we are perpetuating an allegation and I don't think this is fair to him. However, if there are 'facts' that surround the investigation (i.e. did Le Vell go on record at all? was he suspended from his job?) then these are facts about him and it is appropriate to document that type of thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Le Vell made no comment on the allegations for legal reasons, other than to say that he strenuously denied them. He was not suspended by his TV employers while the police investigation was in its early stages, which was shown to have been the correct decision. It is possible that Le Vell will comment on the record on this incident at some stage, which is another reason not to be too quick to remove it from the article.--♦IanMacM♦ 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that Le Vell will comment on the record on this incident at some stage - if and when that happens, there might possibly then be justification to discuss it in the article. In the meantime, since there is clearly not a consensus to keep this material in the article, I'll remove it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Betty, I fully understand your concerns, and as I stated on the article's Talk page, you have a good point (although I wouldn't have used the charged word "corrupted"). I've notified the editor who changed the guideline. As for the Le Vell article, I fully agree that with you that even without the assistance of the now-removed language from WP:CRIME, the information should NOT be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that certain allegations were made, were investigated by police and were found to be unsupported by evidence for a prosecution. These facts were widely reported in mainstream news media with a high degree of reliability. These facts are clearly important in the subject's life. Hence we report them. We do not report the details of the alleged crimes, since that would give undue weight to these otherwise unsupported allegations. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Judge

Paul Judge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs eyes on it, there is so much unsourced information and most of the ref's are bare URL's. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Per BLP guidelines you're correct to have cut unsourced text, and though I didn't run a check I suspect some recent additions may have been copied directly from the subject's website. But the current article is, uh, naked--noncontroversial content could have been left, with templates noting the need for citations. A cursory Google search reveals sources to support the most important biographical outlines, and I've added some of these at the talk page. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Morgan York

Morgan York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Morgan York is possible autobiog and is unreferenced

I'm not sure how serious the concern should be about the content. It doesn't appear potentially libellous (in the colloquial sense that its rude or contentious). It does read like either an autobiography, professionally doctored spewage, or infomercial though. not so much poorly written but not Encyclopedic. I've tagged it with a couple of templates and noted that there are dead links. I am just not expert enough to judge if it should be more severely dealt with. fredgandt 04:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I've removed the unsourced fan-mag business, which included everything short of her interest in pink unicorns. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww ;-) fredgandt 04:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian Souter

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

Yet more shenanigans at our Brian Souter article, for the umpteenth time. Masses and masses of ip editing, constantly re-adding material removed by logged-in editors and vandal watchers. The latest round involves an editor using an ip adress sockpuppet to attempt to avoid detection. Duly reported. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the only disruptive element on this article, and the article history shows that you have been reverting and deleting adequately sourced details over the course of several years now. You refuse to engage in discussion on the TALK page, and you simply delete warnings about disruptive editing on your own talk page. Whether you like it or not, Brian Souter is a controversial figure and Misplaced Pages is not here to make him look good. As long as the details in the article are accurate and sourced, they belong there as per WP:WELLKNOWN. And you are in no position to throw accusations around about IP/socks. Roguana (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never, in my entire, long Misplaced Pages career made an edit while not logged in. So you can cut the foul accusations, both here and elsewhere. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, naturally we will all just take your word for it considering what an untroublesome editor you have proven yourself to be. How many warnings have you deleted from your TALK page now? Roguana (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is about the lede then it should be a summary of facts already in the article and not the place to introduce new material. I thought the addition from Roguana made for an unbalanced lede, both in terms of prominence and the tone in which it was written, so I've taken the opportunity to try to balance it out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look closely Sam, I did not "add" anything to the article, I merely undid User: Mais oui!'s deletion of perfectly sourced and appropriate details from the lead section. And yes, these details were included in the article and so their inclusion in the lead was warranted because it is one of the things that Brian Souter is most well known for. I have no objection to the lead section being expanded (as you have just done), but I strongly object to editors removing sourced, accurate details just because it is unflattering towards the subject (which is what Mais Oui has been doing on this article for years). Mais Oui's actions are a blatant violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. Roguana (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the size of his notability in regard to his support for this issue, as reflected my the size of the section - Brian Souter#Section 28 - I don't see why a minor mention in the lede as there is currently after Sam's write is undue. The current version of the lede is imo a much better version than the previous disputed version. Youreallycan (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anuj Bidve

Anuj Bidve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Anuj Bidve (student killed on Boxing Day whose family learned about it through Facebook)

In response to an OTRS complaint that a search on this name turned up a rather vulgar expression which would be upsetting to friends and family if they searched Misplaced Pages for this student killed on Boxing Day whose parents found out about his death via Facebook, I've created an article for him. I know he's dead but as he is recently dead I think it's still a BLP concern. If anyone would like to turn a bad hastily created stub into a decent article it would be a kind thing to do. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure that this person really qualifies for a wikipedia biography or that the murder is a wikipedia notable one. Perhaps WP:SALTing of the title or his name is a preferable option. I didn't find anything about him by searching http://en.wikinews.org - Youreallycan (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

iqbal sacranie

Iqbal Sacranie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have removed references to Union of Good as Sir Iqbal Sacranie has never been a trustee or member of Union of Good. Apologies have been received from number of blogs who had inserted this false and libelous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raheenamemi (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fabio Barraclough

Fabio Barraclough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this biography has contacted me with strenuous complaints. It looks like a serious BLP case. I'm forwarding this to OTRS as well, because I think we need a lot of eyes on it.

The first line of his biography states that he was a money launderer and spy - without a source. He objects strongly. I have not yet checked the strength of the sources more generally, but it is not ok to start a biography in that way without a source front and center.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Per policy, should it not be immediately removed (at least normally) if not oversighted? Ah, been done. fredgandt 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be promotion for a book - which does not even seem to support some of the claims made. Collect (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, should we have a ]? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also made a couple of reducing edits. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If the content is to be expanded a bit, it will require strong citations and attribution to whoever is claiming this or that contentious detail. Youreallycan (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm that OTRS has got this: ticket is 2012010310014919. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to look at the source? Jimbo's assertion that there was no source is incorrect: it was given in the subsequent section where the details of this claim were presented: Bell, Terry; Dumisa Buhle Ntsebeza (2003). Unfinished Business: South Africa, Apartheid, and Truth. Verso. p. 103. ISBN 1859845452. The discussion on pp. 101-102 is sufficient at least for the assertion that he was a spy (I don't see anything there about money-laundering, but then there are other parts of the book discussing Barraclough). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Nugent

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

This page has been the subject of vandalism by user Fexro. The change referenced below is irrelevant, inappropriate and deliberately provocative, containing a negative and crass implication about the subject and the nature of his relationship with his recently deceased wife. diff The user knows Michael Nugent personally and has been pursuing a vendetta against him for several years on various online fora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyderek (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• - After a quick look at the users additions to this biography left me thinking they could well be policy violating and were definitely controversial, I left the User:Fexro a note with a link to this report and a request to join in discussion here and to discuss and seek consensus prior to anymore contentious additions to the BLP. - Youreallycan (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• - I don't think he'll take you up on your offer. For the past two years or so, he has been pursuing a rather eccentric vendetta against the subject. It's largely been ignored as it amounted to little more than repeating the same irrelevant question and vague accusations on dozens of websites. See here for a prime example, (he posts as FXR). However, he's now making vicious personal attacks (albeit, rambling and idiotic ones) that cross a line. I don't believe he is dangerous but he certainly seems to be unhinged as can be seen from his "contributions". --Funkyderek (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi - At least I have pointed him in the direction of discussion and he is able to come here and explain his desired additions - if he replaces the disputed content without discussion I will be requesting his editing privileges are removed. Youreallycan (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yasmin Qureshi

• Yasmin Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just removed a couple of section from this rather short biography of a British MP. One of them was a completely gratuitous section on driving offences. The other seemed to be designed to make a connection between Qureshi, the first female Muslim MP, and the controversial leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel. While I do not wish to make any accusations, I note that the editor primarily responsible for those additions, User:Shakehandsman, is currently hard at work on Murder of Ross Parker, an article about a boy "stabbed to death and beaten with a hammer by a gang of Muslim Asian youths of Pakistani origin". I have outlined my reasons for removing the sections on the talk page, but I thought I would mention it here in case anyone wanted to look over either of those two articles (although the latter would likely be better suited to the NPOV noticeboard). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems clean now - I added quotation marks for "all-black shortlists" as it appears to have a specific meaning in British politics and is not obvious to everyone else. Collect (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If people actually examine the article history they'd see that the Raed Salah content was introduced by User:Twobells, and not myself. I simply restored it after a deletion by a SPA and added some balance to it by telling Qureshi's side of the story. I suppose I should have improved the heading but just because content is missing for other articles isn't' grounds for deletion. Talking of other politicians' articles, multiple driving offences resulting in a ban always merit a mention for everyone else so why not here? For example Chris Hulne's driving offences have a section and they're much less serious that Qureshi's (resulting in only a 3 month ban). Similalrly, Ed Balls has one single offence to his name and not even a ban but that gets a mention also. Perhaps the Qureshi content could be made a little more concise but other than that it's entirely consistent with every other article. As for my editing elsewhere, I have edited the bios of hundreds of MPs on Misplaced Pages of with Qureshi just happens to be one. Bringing up entirely unrelated articles in this discussion has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever and evening mentioning such points really isn't on at all and not at all appreciated. Comment on content and not contributors in future please--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The driving offence seems to have already been renmoved from Ed Balls' article. The one in Chris Huhne should likely be removed as well (as should statements like "In a May 2011 YouGov opinion poll, almost half the respondents thought that Huhne should resign over the allegations"). In that particular case, it may be involved in the larger issue of penalty points and should be merged into that sub-section, but I haven't looked into it. These really aren't the type of thing that belongs in a BLP unless they have a notable impact on the person, their career, or their life. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• - Shakehandsman and twobells have a degree of edit association on articles of women typically labour and typically feminist - Shakehandsman has a declared position in opposition to feminists - both of them were involved in strongly attempting to add pedophile allegations to H Harman and also reverted the others desired additions back into the article in that case - They have combined edits to - Harriet Harman - Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed - Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal - Jacqui Smith - Yasmin Qureshi - Youreallycan (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to engage with any of Off2riorob's/Youreallycan's comments about me due to previous incidents.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea great - if you refuse to edit the en wikipedia BLP project I will be even more satisfied. Youreallycan (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution