Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:44, 16 November 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.

• 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

Lawrence Biondi

Lawrence Biondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biographical entry on the president of Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, Father Lawrence Biondi, has been the subject of frequent editing in recent weeks and is serving as a forum for political grievances by faculty and students at SLU. These efforts have been the subject of social media pages such as http://www.facebook.com/NoConfidenceSLU, where modifications to Biondi's biography have been touted.

The article has, at times, contained almost no biographical information but rather a discussion of a recent vote of no confidence against Biondi. Edits to enter actual biographical information, such as regional and national boards on which Biondi has served are targeted. Impartial language, frequently with modifiers that are clear opinion, are being used by these editors.

While relevant critiques of Biondi's tenure are a part of his overall record, and fair and concise accounts of this history should remain, he is a public figure both in St. Louis community, higher education and the Catholic church, who has made many well-documented contributions. In addition, this page has been - and continues to be - at risk for vandalism. Review of this entry by Misplaced Pages editors is needed to ensure that it is adhering to the NPOV standards, particularly the section on due weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.149.19 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The recent changes about which the previous editor speaks are perfectly within the bounds of Misplaced Pages's "Biographies of Living Persons" standards. I note that the previous editor points to no actual violation of those standards. While Biondi has made many contributions, he is also a controversial figure. The recent votes of No Confidence are facts, and they have been reported in the local newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. These votes have happened. What a reader or editor thinks about them is another matter entirely.

I would ask the above editor to point to specific instances of "modifiers that are clear opinion." ("Impartial language," by the way, is what you want on a wikipedia page.)

HewsonEvans (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP allegations in the Lagarde list

Δρ.Κ.  13:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Article: Greek government-debt crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎ Our latest BLP-crisis regards the latest news witchhunt called the "Lagarde list". At issue is the following passage:

As the wife of the former Economic and Finance minister Yiannos Papantoniou (serving the office from 1994-2003) also appeared on the Lagarde list, a parliamentary committee also ordered this particular case to be investigated in full details on 8 November.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_08/11/2012_469163|title=Ex-minister to be probed |publisher=Kathimerini (English edition)|date=8 November 2012|accessdate=9 November 2012}}</ref>

The question is very simple. Does the wife of a ex-minister and her husband deserve this trial by allegation where anyone on that list is suspected of tax evasion? I say no and per WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLPCRIME and per the ethical thing to do, is wait until the witchhunt goes through the legal route and we get convictions, but not before. Your considered comments are welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another user has edit-warred to add this information citing WP:WELLKNOWN. However imo this does not apply to the wife of the ex-minister because she is not a public figure. For her, as an unknown, WP:BLPCRIME applies and this info should not be allowed in the article. Δρ.Κ.  19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that sounds like a reasonable objection. She's named only as his wife; the allegation is about him; probably if Greece is like other countries it's actually his money. The mere mention of the word "wife", required for accurate reporting, should not override WELLKNOWN. From what I read there, waiting for a proper investigation may be as problematic as the hypothetical prosecutions for the U.S. debt crisis. (note: this is a response to the above argument only - I haven't evaluated the overall reliability of the sourcing) Wnt (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The allegation is not about him. It is about his wife. She is alleged to be on the list, not him. Δρ.Κ.  20:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case even if WELLKNOWN applies we have to find multiple sources not just one. Per WP:WELLKNOWN: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I have reverted the latest addition because it relied on a single source. In my edit summary I added a request to find more sources: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Please find more sources. Thx. If as per policy multiple sources can be found I will not oppose this any longer. Otherwise it is a clear BLP policy violation. Δρ.Κ.  22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - Wnt (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I accept your second source because it provides extended coverage of the Papantoniou matter. But your first source only makes a fleeting mention that: "Former finance minister Yannos Papantoniou said the appearance of his wife’s name on the list did not correspond with reality." Do you think this qualifies as substantial coverage per policy quote: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented,"? Δρ.Κ.  23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It nonetheless is a confirmation; it's also useful for citing his response to the allegation. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your second reference also mentions something similar about Papantoniou's reaction. Both can be used to document Papantoniou's reaction, in a new version of the edit. If we could find a few more sources it should be policy-compliant. Δρ.Κ.  23:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I added the story line to the article, and now had time to chime in. We do not need additional sources to add the info in the article. We already have sufficient sources to back the story. Please note, that the story reported by my line to the article, is not about wether or not Papantoniou's wife is guilty of Tax Evasion. The main element of the story is, that a Parliament committee decided to order an investigation to check if the ex-minister Papantoniou might have used Tax Evasion tricks to build up his fortune. In Denmark and all around the Globe, it is a well-known problem that potentially people can use the so-called "wife-trick" to hide away their fortunes from the Tax Authoraties, and thus build up significant additional fortunes through Tax Evasion. In the context of the Greek government-debt crisis article, I think the essential info my reported story line added, was that the Greek parliament (contrary to many peoples opposite beliefs) in fact right now are taking the problem with potential political corruption very serious. And in fact already now have actively used the Lagarde list, to launch an investigation about a potential political corruption case. It does not matter to me (or to the story) wether or not Papantoniou is found guilty of charge. Because the story is, that the Parliament committee ordered an investigation to check if he might be guilty of the Tax Evasion charge, and by doing so the Greek Parliament acted in a good proper anti-corruptional way. The parliament did not cover up the case or reviewed the matter with closed eyes. My add of the story line is an addition to the article, to counter-weight the earlier info in the paragraph above, that seems to implicate/report that Greek polticians/authoraties did not in any way wanted to use the Lagarde list for combatting Tax Evasion, but instead only launched a legal case against the journalist printing the Lagarde list. This is not true. Danish Expert (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly the actual name of the minister does not matter. Therefore, if the only thing you want is to highlight that the system has reacted to the allegations, I will remove the name and leave only his title. In that case I agree with you. Δρ.Κ.  21:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on my argument and clarification above (and the fact that Wnt provided 2 additional references to proof the story), I will now re-add the line for the article. If anyone of you think the line should be reformulated, in order to better reflect my view-points above, you are welcome (if you can find proper references to back such an addition). The first version I added was based on a very short article by Kathimerini, but I want to emphasize it is one of the biggest newspapers in Greece, and thus a highly reliable source for the story. The reason why I did not at first add my view-points above into the uploaded line, is because the reference was so short that it did not really comment or put the spot-light on those more in-dept sides of the story, so it could unfortunately not be used as a proper source for all my viewpoints stated above. So consequently, I left the additional thinking and opportunity for the readers to draw up their own conclusions, and limitted my added line simply to report on the facts so far referenced. I think in a humble way, that my line is a good and fine contribution which extends the articles chapter about the Greek fight against "Tax Evasion and corruption" with valuable new interesting info. Thus the line should be kept in the article. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You make a very reasonable point. If you are ok with my modification, this matter is resolved. Δρ.Κ.  22:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I accept the modifications. Consensus has been reached and the matter resolved. Danish Expert (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Danish Expert. I'll mark this as resolved. Δρ.Κ.  13:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

McAlpine

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article, Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green, was moved to semi-protect about a week ago and a couple of days ago was rightly moved to full protect (with the talk page on semi-protect) after the internet speculation reached a fever pitch. Now that we've had the accusations acknowledged by McAlpine, retracted by the accused and forcing the resignation of the director general of the BBC the BLP policy does not seem to dictate that this affair should be unmentioned. Could we have the article page put on semi-protect again and the talk page unprotected? JASpencer (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In connection with this issue, I note that this edit was made earlier this evening. It may be pertinent to mention the second story regarding Newsnight, but perhaps not the first. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The concern was the first claim , given that BBC reports seemed to suggest the named party was already in consultation with their legal advisers over a number of unsubstantiated claims made.

Has anyone spoken with the WMF about this matter ?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think if not it should be brought to their attention. I've slightly amended the first entry to remove mention of a name, but the second seems to be reasonably ok. As this is being reported in the media I think it's fine for Misplaced Pages to mention it, though naming individuals in connection with the case is not such a good idea. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

An article on Alfred James McAlpine has now been created. Notability seems a bit marginal. Watch this space (or a different one, as he's dead). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Persons related to ongoing 'abuse' scandals

I note that the the entity mentioned in previous disscussions, is not the only named party in relation to various claims, Presumably Misplaced Pages has a higher standard than Newsnight is alleged to have? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been a number of contentious edits made to various biographical articles on WP that have since been reverted, deleted and page protections put in place. The standards we have are detailed in WP:BLP. While a number of politicians have been named on Twitter and in various blogs, it amounts to little more than gossip. Contentious material that is not backed up by good quality, reliable sources has no place on Misplaced Pages. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Which only leaves the question of whether the BBC is a "good quality, reliable source". Ho hum.--Scott Mac 15:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Elena Semikina

Elena Semikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography contains many issues.

• Elena herself has written the article.
• There is no evidence that she has ever been signed to an agency, and thusly must state she is an amateur model.
• There is no evidence that Semikina is a philanthropist. I researched her participation on boards, councils, and for directoships with philanthropic institutions and found nothing.
• If one views the article's history, it is noted that Elena has edited her year of birth from 1982 to 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheckr82 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

These are generally editorial issues that can be fixed by editors, but I note that a quick Google search revealed absolutely no publicly-available evidence that Semikina identifies herself as transgendered. This gives me reason to question the veracity of your other claims as well. polarscribe (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The above user rewrote the article with a number of dubious, unsourced changes and claims, with a tendentious edge and at least the appearance of bias against the article subject. polarscribe (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given Factcheckr82 a first and final warning for BLP violations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le and Cung Le

• UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cung Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I have some help over at UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le editors are continually adding in the Vietnamese flag against Cung Le's name, despite comments in the text, on the talk page asking for a WP:RS as WP:BLP applies. The best source to date is this one, but it would indicate he is indeed American. (there is a seprate debate going on at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts in relation to the whole issue of flags). Mtking 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone ? the flags have now been re-inserted in UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as UFC 148 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and UFC 139 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mtking 06:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Does BLP not apply to articles about MMA then ? The situation is now we have The US flag here and here but over at UFC 139 and List of current UFC fighters we have the Vietnamese flag and at one point UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le had both the US flag and South Vietnamese flag at the same time, some outside help would be good. Mtking 11:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Wallace

Eric Wallace (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vanity article, non-notable person

Rick Strawn deletion needs attention

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rick Strawn has been relisted due to lack of response. As I see it, there have been substantial BLP issues with this article from the start, and large chunks of material have been removed from the article at times over these concerns (an example diff). From what I can tell, the central problem is that a muckraking article in Legal Affairs used him as an exemplar for a particular dubious practice, and for whatever reason, instead of writing an article on that, someone chose to make him the subject instead, attracting a fishing expedition for more negative material. It's a classic BLP notability issue and I would invite others to examine this and get the AFD resolved expeditiously. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Alisher Usmanov

• Alisher Usmanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to today's Times, this article has been whitewashed by Mr Usmanov's PR consultants. The Times' story is behind a paywall but a summary is available for non-subscribers.  Roger Davies 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - the removal of a vacaed conviction is defensible under WP:BLP. Indeed, there are rumours that convictions ca. 1980 may not have been altogether on the up-and-up. When such a conviction is found invalid, it seems that WP:BLP requires that we make no claim which at all implies the crimes actually occurred. Collect (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV requires that we describe the complete process, at least if it is significant for the biography. Of course we cannot imply that the original conviction was justified, but we do not cut out significants parts of a life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Imagine a biography of OJ Simpson that failed to describe how he was not convicted of murdering his wife... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Cueto de Castille

Christopher Cueto de Castille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person (Christopher Cueto de Castille) is not notable enough (please verify). There are a lot more notable Filipino architects who do not even have their own page.

That's not a BLP issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Snoddy

Stephen Snoddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently raised some concerns about the inappropriate use of {{COI}} on Stephen Snoddy, having been reverted when I removed it; but it's still there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the BLP issue? Think WP:COIN would be an appropriate forum? JFHJr (㊟) 18:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Clash

Kevin Clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains reliably referenced allegations, but is the content appropriate or not? Gnome de plume (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From the source cited:

The organization described the relationship as personal and “unrelated to the workplace.” Its investigation found the allegation of underage conduct to be unsubstantiated. But it said Clash exercised “poor judgment” and was disciplined for violating company policy regarding Internet usage. It offered no details.

If the only source cited states that the allegations of underage conduct are 'unsubstantiated', it seems inappropriate to include them at this point. 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now he apparently admits to relations with the individual, but not when they were underaged. Someone added an LGBT category. Is this appropriate? The category suggests he has to "self-identify" as such. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the category appropriate? No - see WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

He has now self-identified as gay. Rob T Firefly (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion has occurred on the talk page, see "Talk:Kevin_Clash#lgbt".

IEEE fellowships automatically notable

Please note that the notability guideline for academics has included a very strange automatic conferral of notability: . Essentially, the claim is that IEEE Fellowships automatically make a person "notable" enough for a Misplaced Pages article. There are 6531 IEEE fellows alive as of 2011: http://www.ieee.org/documents/fellow_stats_summary_years.pdf and most of them have no independent sources written about them. They comprise a wide range of notable and not-notable academics. Making their fellowship status an automatic conferral of notoriety seems extremely problematic.

I started a discussion of these issues here:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#IEEE_Fellows_are_notable.3F

Junjunone (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisolette_Gilcrest

Lisolette Gilcrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not know this person but this is a vanity page created by a photographer who sells prints on etsy. The collection she lists is (being incredibly generous) minor within the art world and her other sources and citations make her far less noteworthy than thousands of (also non-noteworthy artists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.226.111 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ross mirkarimi is not a convicted batterer under california law.

Ross Mirkarimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

convicted batterer implies conviction of a violent crime. false imprisonment is specifically a non violent offense in california. an act of force like trespassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.246.171 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does our article state otherwise? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pinki Pramanik

Is it appropriate to refer to a male pseudo-hermaphrodite as "he" or "she?" There's been controversy and questionable editing in Pinki Pramanik since earlier this year, but it appears that definitive genetic testing has finally been done and analyzed. I'd hope something similar has already been discussed elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

However they self-identify is correct. In this case, it looks to be "she", but I may be mistaken. WilyD 11:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's my inclination as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What do WP:RS use? GiantSnowman 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a settled issue. Per MOS:IDENTITY (and basic human decency), genetic testing has nothing to do with pronouns. From the news stories it is clear she identifies as a woman, and therefore "she" is appropriate. Note also what our article about pseudohermaphroditism says about the term : "Use of the term "pseudohermaphroditism" can be problematic, and is now considered redundant". Maybe it is current in Indian English still, I don't know. Morwen (Talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

Moni Aizik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article and this users contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Romayan need additional eyes - - Youreallycan 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree that more certified Misplaced Pages users should watch this article. After I made it neutral and supplied it with a number of links, it has been vandalized. Surprisingly, a senior Misplaced Pages editor came and supported false claims by M.A.'s competitors targeting his reputation. I thought that Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to be neutral and non-biased. Romayan (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor is referring to you. You are adding blogs and forums as sources and removing anything critical. You also added the sentence "Through intensive research Aizik developed a very effective combat program, specifically designed for certain Special forces to Commando Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which is only sourced to an interview with him, which is not suitable for such a claim. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this, given I tried to help NPoV it about six months ago. From what I've seen, the article has veered back and forth from being an unfairly weighted smear, to a too-weakly sourced essay about Mr Aizik that would fit better on a non-encyclopedic webpage published elsewhere. However, I do agree with Romayan in that much of this seems to have been stirred up by Mr Aizik's business competitors and has been ongoing for years. Meanwhile the article has gone through three deletion discussions and keeps, so I think it's here to stay.

This said, the big worry I've always seen in the article has been editors of both stripes editing from a strong, non-neutral outlook from very weak sources which more often than not don't match up with WP:RS, with lots of original research, which isn't allowed here, thrown in. I'd like to go through the article myself, but firstly, I don't have much free time these days and secondly, since I already have some background editing the article, I'd rather not step back into it. Hopefully, someone with no background editing this topic can weed out the weak sources and text cited to them. That would also need to be done with any unflattering edits should they pop up again.

Romayan, vandalism has its own meaning on the English Misplaced Pages, please have a look at WP:Vandalism. I haven't seen any vandalism to the article (as defined here), but much of the article's contribution history is littered with undue weight, weak sourcing and OR which could be taken as being beyond the bounds of the Biography of Living Persons policy, which is a big deal on this website. Again, much of this seems to have been on-wiki fallout from a long-running business spat, most or all of which has not been carried by meaningful sources, hence so far as I can tell, that side of it may not even belong here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll tell you my issue, aside from the obvious. Romayan has uploaded a picture from a site related to the subject. If he does have the rights to upload it and give creative commons permission, then he has a COI. If he doesn't have the rights, then we need to address his uploading of pictures he has no rights to. Which is it? COI or copyvio? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

COI is allowed, but is much frowned upon because it can quickly lead to outcomes harmful to both the COI editor (often unforeseen by that editor) and the project. If Mr Aizik has been editing the article, I'd say that although he is allowed to do so, by far the most helpful and editorially safest thing he could do for himself would be to stop editing the article about himself. However, I'd also say he should feel free to post comments on the article talk page, or even ask for help from experienced editors and/or admins. The pith is, I do think he has been smeared and someone has (understandably) answered this by editing too far the other way, with very weak sources. This kind of thing happens all the time here. As for the photo, I think it's harmless and don't see any COI or copyvio by anyone having uploaded it in good faith, so far. Whether it should be carried in the article is wholly up to editor consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• an undisclosed COI is a problem, as well as promotional sounding edits. I'm not saying this is Aizik. Rather I strongly suspect it is someone who is cnnected to him in one form or another. Regardless, given the tone of the edits, I think the conflict is pretty evident. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• The editor has stated he is "in touch" with the subject, Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. What matters is that they very carefully abide by the policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

An undisclosed COI can indeed stir up problems, but it's allowed, so long as the editor follows the website's policies. As I've said many times before, en.WP is awash in COI, maybe even driven in some ways by sundry kinds of COI. The hitch is, some COI editors can be blatant, often don't bother to learn the policies (or shirk them) and wind up bringing themselves more editorial harm than help. Moreover they are often (but by no means always) special/single purpose accounts editing from a truly narrowed, unencyclopedic outlook and when they do stray from policy, knowingly or not, COI editors tend to be blocked more swiftly and for longer times, since a COI editor is seen by most admins and other experienced editors as a "higher threat" to the project. This is why, any COI editor, of any stripe, who has been editing this article, should stop now, unless they have a thorough understanding of policy and can make edits which a topic-neutral editor would have no worries about. Hard to do, because most topic-neutral editors here, when they get even a whiff of COI, tend to begin worrying even if the edits otherwise seem ok and strongly sourced, which is understandable. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Gwen, I really wish you'd stop repeating what is not needed. Where did I EVER say that an interested party is prohibited from editing? I haven't, so please stop telling me how it's allowed. I clearly stated than an undisclosed interest is problematic. Additonally, you keep saying a COI is allowed. Not really. If an intersted party is editing properly, then there is not conflict, the C in COI. The conflict occurs when the editors edits improperly. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The photo was provided by M.A. for this article, he has the copyright. Yes, I am helping him with edits, but my point is to make a fair and objective article. So far I see only outdated false facts brought in, while my edits, fixed inaccuracies and additional links (f.e. this, this and this) were erased without much explanation. Indeed, M.A.'s competitors did a lot in order to harm him. But why do you support their biased approach? Another question - the Advertising Standards Authority has taken down the claims, I can forward the relevant e-mail conversation to those interested, just tell me how. This is why the article about it has been removed from the ASA site. But you leave the whole passage there with an old link. Romayan (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• if you aren't the copyright holder, or the legal representative, then you can't upload the picture and give creative commons rights to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Romayan, WP:OTRS can easily help you handle any needed permissions on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen Gale! Previously Moni sent your team a declaration of consent so that I can use any of photos found at his site for Misplaced Pages edits. Why is the issue brought up again then? As for the rest, why are my efforts ignored? I don't want to create a promotional article about M.A., but a balanced one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romayan (talk • contribs)

• Why is it being brought up again? Because Aizik is the copyright holder, so he needs to release it. The way it reads now, it says you are the copyright holder. Now you are stating he gave you permission. Until recently, you weren't being very forthcoming about your relationship with him. Now that I think about it, Aizik likely isn't the copyright holder of the pic either. Who actually took the picture? In any case, I've suggested that you read WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:RS. Some of your responses make me question whether or not you've done it. BTW, that photo is used in a blog/magazine article here . Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

((od))My main concern has always been the sourcing (or at times lack of sourcing) of controversial claims. I've just reverted Romayan who removed a statement about an ASA adjudication, claiming that it had been removed from the Advertising Standards Association website and quoting a press release from Moni Aizik's site. In fact the Adjudication is still there, albeit with a new url, and there is no suggestion that the ASA has changed its mind. There have also been problems about poor sourcing for claims of Aizik's military background. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• The current link not only shows that the complaint wasn't "removed", but that the adjudication was against Aizik, which is pretty much the opposite of what this editor is claiming. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lally Weymouth

Lally Weymouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The false and libelous quotation about Andy Warhol attributed to Lally Weymouth has repeatedly been re-inserted by a user. This quotation is false and does not reflect the views of Lally Weymouth. She insists that this quotation remain off her Misplaced Pages page. The failure to block this person from adding it again will result in legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijou177 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have warned this editor about legal threats. The quote can also be found at (where it says "reportedly asked".) Besides removing material the editor added an unsourced claim about her degree. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems it has been indeed reported by Andy Warhol in his diaries: - see the entry dated "Thursday, September 25, 1980—Washington, D.C—New York" --Cyclopia 17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to come here to say that this claim is indeed in his diaries. However, this is what, third hand? Reagan told Kabler told Warhol who wrote it down. So even if true, this is essentially gossip, and I don't think it belongs in the article. Morwen (Talk) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Billy Idol

Billy Idol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Birth Name at beginning of article is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.121.226 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• An awful lot of internet sources seem to think it is. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "awful" is the right word for such research. Far better to point out that a specific proper source such as this one contains the same full name and date of birth as was in the article. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alan Jones is a hugely popular radio presenter of the "shock jock" variety. He aims for the "traditional values" market and is forceful in his comments. He strongly supports one side of politics and is widely seen to be rude or offensive to the other. As such, he irritates a good many people. Including me, it must be said. I'm more of an NPR sort of guy. Nevertheless, he is entitled to fair treatment at our hands.

In 2010, three Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan were charged over civilian deaths. In brief, they were trapped in a room they had just cleared when they were taken under automatic fire from a room they had yet to clear. They responded with grenades, discovering later that their attacker had fired from a room containing non-combatants and casualties had occurred.

The soldiers were charged under the military justice system for the civilian deaths and it is here that Jones got involved, making public comment on his popular radio show about the case and the actions of the soldiers, which he supported. In a civilian trial, this would constitute contempt of court, but under the military process, the court-martial had yet to be convened and there was therefore no court to be in contempt of. Jones was simply expressing his views on the matter, knowing that he was free to do so.

A popular television programme, "Media Watch", which explores the shortcomings of news and current affairs programmes, devoted an entire half-hour episode to Jones, saying (incorrectly) there are laws to stop Jones from doing this and the rules are the same whether it's a military or a criminal court.

Eventually the charges against the soldiers were dropped. There was no court convened and no trial held. The matter had been investigated along the lines Jones advocated and found not to be worth pursuing..

Our article, amongst many other attacks on Jones, contains a short section which repeats the baseless contempt of court allegations. I do not think that we need mention an incident in which Jones did nothing wrong. The WP:BLP#Persons_accused_of_crime section says A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Jones is well-known, but there was and is no possibility of contempt of court proceedings in this matter, and it is wrong of us to suggest that there might have been, especially when those making the allegation were not lawyers.

However, several editors, including some accounts that resemble socks to my perhaps jaded eyes, have been edit-warring and claiming consensus for their version. I would like to get more eyes - more experienced eyes - on this. --Pete (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

An important question to ask is whether we have sourcing for the assertion that the contempt of court accusations are baseless, or is that just your interpretation of things? Formerip (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The first articles mention this: The tribunal hearing these charges - comprising a panel of up to 5 army officers - has not yet been constituted. And until it is, there is no court for Alan to be in contempt of. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Standing up to official censorship can be a pivotal moment in the career of a broadcaster, even when the charge was baseless. I don't think it is right to omit something important like that provided that there are good sources for it and you accurately summarize what they say. That said, the source still says that he was within the law due to a "loophole". So from that source, it is only accurate to say something like that this particular show Mediawatch ran a piece saying that "his vicious personal attacks on Brigadier McDade are still quite disgraceful", pointing out that only by using a "loophole" in the law was he able to avoid the risk of contempt of court charges... Sitting here in the U.S., with the right to say whatever I feel like about McDade and the trial for or against whether the court is constituted or not, I'm not sympathetic to that opinion, but it can be recorded as an example of what a shock jock in Australia has to deal with. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As a few editors mentioned in discussion, this was actually routine for Jones, who regularly sails close to the wind when commenting on upcoming cases. He's been in court himself a few times on contempt charges, as per the article. On this occasion, however, he was within his rights. My point is that there was no possibility of charges being laid over this matter and by saying that Media Watch's opinion was that he was in contempt, we are giving the matter undue weight. --Pete (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the thing that worries me about that comment is that if Jones actually "regularly sails close to the wind when commenting on upcoming cases", we shouldn't expect readers to come read this discussion (or go somewhere else) to find that out. We should let them understand it somehow when they read the article. Which to me implies that detailing this incident is not undue weight, but rather a useful illustration of the legal obstacles he's sailing around. Wnt (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple instances already in the article, which of course you have read. I don't really have a problem with them, because he broke the law and was found to have done so. This instance, he acted within the law and we shouldn't imply otherwise. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Where commentators opine that something would be "contempt of court" but no such finding is made by any court, I would think the material is only usable as opinion of the commentators, and cited as their opinion only. Some editors appear to believe that a commentaor's ocpinion has some actual legal significance, and on that I agree with Pete entirely. The use of McDade in any of this is tangential at best, and does not belong in the Jones article at all. In the US the Court and only the Court decides what actually constitutes "contempt of court" and such charges are not levied by outside observers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Pete: You say above "Eventually the charges against the soldiers were dropped. There was no court convened and no trial held.". And, at the end of the paragraph you gave a reference, which includes:

"Last week in Sydney, the military's chief judge advocate dismissed the charges against two Australian commandos over the deaths of Afghan civilians. I hope his decision is taken seriously and that we never see such charges again. In October, when the charges of manslaughter by criminal negligence were laid against the army reservists, aspersions abounded.....What a profoundly disappointing contrast to the initial media scrum to see a solitary media representative in the courtroom on Friday for the duration of Brigadier Ian Westwood's decision to dismiss the charges."

Are you sure you meant to use that reference? Moriori (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, but though there may have been a courtroom, there was no court. Courts-martial are not convened until the trial itself, and this "hearing" was three months in advance of the trial date, as per the reference. --Pete (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the JA is like JAG in the US -- attorneys rather than judges in a courtroom. Collect (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC) .

Regarding the two soldiers involved, I have just read the report and it is truly interesting. Many people argued at the time they were innocent. The defendants successfully argued the charges were wrongly laid. The finding was not that they were not guilty but that they couldn't be guilty because their actions (being military) were not subject to duty of care. I don't think too many people would know this. Sorry to sidetrack. I just found it interesting. Moriori (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did offer an alternative version that (I felt) would not be seen as critical of jones by anyone @ this commentWotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert W. Harrell, Jr.

Robert W. Harrell, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The same repeated edits by Carolina cotton persist in which his self published blog is improperly used as a source on a WP:BLP page. Misplaced Pages's guidelines page regarding WP:BLP clearly states: "Never use self-published sources" and continues "'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that such post “must be removed immediately.”

Soon after these improperly sourced posts are removed, the same information is continually reinserted sourcing a self-published blog The Nerve' in an attempt to promote and drive traffic to his blog. Carolina cotton has previously been given a Final Warning by an Administrator for this exact same behavior, repeatedly using another self-published blog as an improper source. EricJ1995 (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, The Nerve is an arm of the South Carolina Policy Council (see its main page); neither organization strikes me as reliable enough to base WP:BLP content. The "coverage" there is crap. Also, I agree with your edits in that the "controversy" section is WP:UNDUE and should be excluded from the article altogether. No reliable source has stated there is a controversy, so it's original research to characterize events — even negative press — as a controversy when it's not described as such in reliable sources. If you'd like a second opinion on those sources, try WP:RSN.

As a separate issue, EricJ1995, your edit summaries here, here, here and here seem inaccurate: you did not actually remove a Wordpress URL on any occasion despite your edit summary to that effect. You also removed a cite to this source, which seems valid, and could in fact support neutrally worded, properly weighted encyclopedic prose. Please try to be more careful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike Duke- Wal-Mart CEO

Mike Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ha says he serves chicken when describing the boards he serves on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.60 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed "walmart1percent.org" as a source in the BLP - which fails WP:RS very quickly. Collect (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bob McDonald (journalist)

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

I would like to point out an error in this article. It states that Bob McDonald's nationality is Japenese . Bob McDonald's nationality is Canadian. Someone please correct this error. Thank you.

Lorne J. Shapiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.10.155 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. OhNoitsJamie 16:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gianluca D'Agostino

Gianluca D'Agostino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A largely-autobiographical article, lacking in third-party sources. Definitely needs attention, and whether D'Agostino meets Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Creative professionals seems questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Collect (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gianluca D'Agostino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Aruna Roy

Aruna Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need to leave in a few minutes; please could someone take a look at whatever this is about, and take any necessary action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

note - the subject appears to be clearly WP:Notable and the disputed content is not currently being published by Misplaced Pages - and the BLP is now WP:Full protection for the next six days ... so - plenty of time for discussion. Youreallycan 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a live discussion at Aruna Roy's talk page on the disputed nature of the said content. But the main editor involved is on a block for personal attacks/ harassment. Is the identity of the grieving editor established? _morelMW 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think its better to focus on content - deal with any content issues first, is there some disputed content you want to reinsert William? Youreallycan 08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a live discussion at Aruna Roy's talk page on the disputed nature of the said content. But the main editor involved is on a block for personal attacks/ harassment. Is the identity of the grieving editor established? _morelMW 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am directed to state as follows. Mrs Aruna Roy (member, National Advisory Council) is deeply distressed by recent unmoderated discussions taking place on "Talk pages" and "User pages" of this website pertaining to her private and personal matters which is accessible on the Internet within India. Such libelous talk is being further reproduced and circulated on several mailing lists and blogs within India as extracts from her Wikepedia article. We are therefore constrained, and on behalf of Mrs Aruna Roy, to urge that all data relating to or pertaining to Mrs. Aruna Roy is immediately expunged from Wikepedia computer servers irrespective of where they are located or the legal jurisdictions they fall under. India is a signatory to the United Nations Conventions on e-commerce, and has enacted an Information Technology Act (derived from the UN model law) which has extra-territorial jurisdiction extending to search and seizure of computer servers located within any co-signatory to the pact. Wikepdia has also blocked IP addresses of servers designated for use by the National Informatics Centre so Mrs. Aruna Roy cannot edit her account in person today till the block is lifted. B.K.Das (http://hub.nic.in)

1. Tad Nelson, Behind the lines. THE YAMAM and ISRAELI KAPAP/CQB TRAINING
2. History of Israeli martial arts, Central London School of Krav Maga
3. My Club Yael Arad's site, Hebrew

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution