Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:22, 19 January 2013

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• 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

Gary Burghoff

Gary Burghoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new account is editing Gary Burghoff (known as Radar O'Reilly from M*A*S*H to most of us) to change the middle name from Richard to Rich. Two sources (IMDB and TMZ, neither ideal but at least usable) use "Richard". The new account (Cartoonistguy47 (talk · contribs)) has changed it four times in the past two days, with reverts from myself and United States Man (talk · contribs), claiming both a personal relationship with Burghoff, and that Burghoff's book of poetry are sufficient to verify this. I read the first chapter online using the Amazon preview feature, the book does indeed state that Burghoff's mother's maiden name is Rich (the alleged source of the name) but says nothing about a) it being the source of his name or b) it actually being his name. Some assistance from the noticeboard would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest Gary R. Burghoff--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal communications are not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages purposes, see WP:RS. If Mr Burghoff wants this corrected, he should use the process set out at WP:BIOSELF to contact Misplaced Pages.--ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't edit BLPs very much, would the IMDB and TMZ be considered reliable for these purposes? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No - IMDB is a user-created source, like WIkipedia, and TMZ is an online tabloid.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

TMZ has been acceptable as a BLPN source in the past, for instance, when Michael Jackson's death was reported. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n85385961.html Library of Congress doesn't list a middle name, this other site: http://www.nndb.com/people/755/000022689/ states Rich. Should we include both and a footnote or just delete the middle name?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe NNDB is also user-generated and unreliable (all y'all probably know better than I). I am in favour of simply deleting the middle name. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the middle name pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's Rich, of course. IMDB isn't much more reliable than Misplaced Pages, so of course we wouldn't consult it in a situation like this where there is some dispute. Here's a newspaper article that explicitly says the middle name is Rich: . It's important to recognize that a lot of new sources that aren't careful with tihs are probably taking whatever is on IMDB, and it is easy to see how IMDB could get a detail like this wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

...I'm assuming that by clicking "edit", and then adding my text, I can jump in the fray. I suppose no middle name is better than a wrong one. But Gary is very proud of the "Rich" family name. I've contacted support at whatever link was posted for me, and will attempt no more edits until I can source a so-called reliable source, even though I felt I gave enough avenues for verification of what is, really, a very small and simple edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoonistguy47 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is standard practice to remove disputed material pending proper sources or OTRS action. The reason that this is not a "small and simple edit" is that there appears to be at least one reliable source that verifies "Richard", we have none (leaving aside your personal communications, which, as we have indicated, are not reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes) that support "Rich".--ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that says "Richard"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I don't know if Misplaced Pages:OTRS is the right venue to help. Misplaced Pages has a policy that many find strange. We don't always provide facts but are forced to provide information that other sources have published. It may be a pain, but Mr. Burghoff may wish to contact our source sites to correct their information. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may help as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider TMZ unreliable for something like this. "Rich" is of course short for Richard, but we don't know if it's actually a short form of a common name, or a unique name based on a family history. I'm still inclined to leave it out, pending more sources. Of the ones we have, the Toledo Blade article is the best, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk. More sources would definitely help. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A newspaper clearly stating someone's middle name—in the absence of any RS to the contrary—isn't enough? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is this a case where we can use a birth certificate being a primary document?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we have access to it? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

An editor claiming to be Burghoff's friend, isn't enough to keep his prefferd version. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Newspaper articles should be enough, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Done Done. Leave it out as contentious, trivial to the article content, waste of editing time, wait for sources, etc, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it contentious? Who thinks it's "Richard"? We have a newspaper confirming that it is "Rich". I'm trying to get some clarification on what the reliable source is that says it is "Richard"; can someone please include the citation here? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the only source a found for "Rich:" . I found these for "Richard:" , , , , . The problem with these, though, are that they are not reliable sources. So "Rich," since it came from a newspaper, seems like the best alternative. United States Man (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Toledo Blade article is sufficient. It is from 1985, and it seems that it draws directly from an interview with Burghoff. "Gary Burghoff: An Update", November 18, 1985. I think it is the best source for the question of middle name, in its humble way. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, looking further into it, I can see the Toledo Blade, printing a wire article taken from Knight News Service, got some things wrong, such as the birth year (1952 vs. 1943) and the small Wisconsin town for high school. The small town is not Delhaven, it is Delavan. Burghoff attended Delavan-Durien High School for three years, a fact that should be added to the bio. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ech...given the difficulty in sourcing this and the "dueling of basement sources" going on, I'm in favour of simply leaving it out. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the the Toledo Blade, TV Guide has also listed Burghoff's middle name as Rich. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for diligent searches. I changed it back to 'Rich' only. Although more sources differ, it seems consensus and the more reliable sources assert this name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

John W. Douglass

John W. Douglass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Political opponents vandalized General Douglass's wiki page to include manufactured controversies that were supported by non-journalistic/conservative blog citations without factual support or adequate context to support the characterizations. The section in question is now removed:

Controversy

Douglass came under fire during his campaign when he was found to be lying about his military service. Douglass led voters to believe that he had served in a combat role during the Vietnam War. After continued criticism from citizens about his false claims of combat duty, John Douglass’ campaign was forced to admit that Douglass in fact had never served in a combat role. Douglass again faced controversy when falsely attacking his opponent for having interest in a uranium mine in the district. It was later exposed that Douglass himself had solicited and accepted donations from executives at the United States Enrichment Corporation, the U.S.’s only uranium enrichment company.

References

1. "John Douglass: A question about military service and action".
2. "Concerns over military claim". Fauquier Times-Democrat.
3. "Douglass took uranium industry donations". Chatham Star-Tribune.
4. "While harping on Hurt, Douglass took uranium-industry money". The Daily Progress.

None of those sources seem particularly reliable to me, so I would have definitely endorsed the removal. §FreeRangeFrog 18:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Leo Trich

130.49.24.234 (talk · contribs) left a libelous comment at Talk:Leo Trich: . Seems like an oversight and block is in order.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is no one going to respond?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed the dumb addition, it's no longer there. I don't see that as requiring revdel, but if you feel it does post to WP:AN and request it from a sysop. §FreeRangeFrog 18:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

Foster made an speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards. In her speech (you can view it at YouTube), she said "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago in the stone age", also she said more things I didn't listen to because I watched the translated version. After this, multiple IPs started to add she came out as lesbian, a word she never used. The page is protected, and we are discussing this at Talk:Jodie Foster, but the current article has these two problems: User:Ernestsewell removed material without a reason, and User:Tx1987 added a category that frankly fails WP:BLPCAT. I really doubt this information should be retained in the article because, as now, there is no further evidence beyond that strange speech and the Mail Online (which seems unreliable). Can somebody give your thoughts here or that talk page, or if necessary take actions by removing that material off her biography per BLP. I know that BLPN is for "an extended period" content, but we need more eyes here. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Edit warring now in effect over the categories, which clearly fail WP:BLPCAT. Anyone who enjoys arguing is invited to the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact text of her speech fully supports describing and categorizing her as the nonspecific "LGBT" — the only thing it fails to do is to get more specific than that. Describing and subcategorizing her as specifically "lesbian" would be a BLP violation; describing and subcategorizing her as the general "LGBT" is not. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the part of her speech in which she calls herself "LGBT" or states that she is bisexual or a lesbian. Categories relating to sexuality are assigned based on what the subject says about themselves, not on your inferences. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As our article on coming out makes clear, "coming out" is all about LGBT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, she didn't said anything specific about her sexual orientation, so she can't be categorized as "LGBT".--В и к и T 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst 'coming out' speech ever for not actually saying what she is coming out as. Maybe a furry, who knows, she didnt say. So we cant either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

While I would argue that realistically she wasn't coming out as a potato peeler or supporting the culling of the Western Spotted Marmot, there is not enough there to classify her as LGBT. A note should be made about what she said in the speech, using NPOV wording. Maybe in a few months she'll give an actual interview or something like that that will completely eliminate any doubt as to her sexual orientation, and then the category can be added. §FreeRangeFrog 18:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Loud and proud", "coming out", "my female partner" - Our policy does not say "They must use the words 'I am gay'". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Loud and proud" automatically means gay now? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think she does specifically have to say - interpreting the meaning of a speech is WP:OR. GiantSnowman 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom

Could somebody take a look at Godfrey Bloom, please? This article is about a politician. I think there are two overlapping problems:

• Sometimes a little unduly-promotional content gets added to the article;
• There has been some controversy over things that Bloom recently said (or didn't say), which also involves claims about another living person, and sourcing isn't great.

I think that accusations of shouting nazi slogans in the European parliament should be properly sourced, and handled carefully... bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

Editorializing and WP:UNDUE in the wake of the Aaron Swartz tragedy, I'm out the door for today, a few extra eyes there would be appreciated. --j⚛e decker 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted a few minor unhelpful edits. Doesn't look like the vandalism storm I rather expected, but we'll see. In my watchlist now. §FreeRangeFrog 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. As an update, I've seen three or more BLP violations in the past three hours and have put in a temporary semi-protect, requested review of that protection at WP:RFPP, and have indicated that at this point I'll walk away from the article. --j⚛e decker 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a removal of pertinent information by User:Canoe1967 and a restoration of the same by me. So you know. -Mardus (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's recentism and undue and it should be removed until consensus has been reached on the talk page as to what should actually appear. You're doing it wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. -Mardus (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Viriditas, you ought to discuss your additions first as this is a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So should Viriditas. -Mardus (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected the undue attack content to Aaron Swartz where it belongs. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a whitewash. -Mardus (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's policy. Please actually read BLP and show that you understand it. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:AaronSw

Attacks on and accusations against Ortiz have been made by editors (and restored by one editor) at the Swartz memorial page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Charley Reese

Charley Reese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article includes quotes from the subject. The final quote listed ("Members of a Christian cult that supports the Zionist state simply demonstrate to the world their ignorance of Christianity and Judaism, as well as their pathetic naïveté."" is NOT from Charley Reese, but is from Jared Levy, in Antiwar.com on May 13, 2007.

The quote should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billpage3 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting us know about this - do be aware that you can remove such clear errors yourself if you wish.

For watchers here, that article seems to have a whole host of other unreferenced or poorly referenced potentially negative material; it could do with a tidy up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Janicello

• Mark Janicello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A monumental puff pastry of an article, which per talk page notice appears to have begun as an autobiography, and been expanded by COI accounts. I've begun to copy edit, removing bad links, unacceptable references and promotional content, though I'm still leaving way too much unsourced filler. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that perhaps the most notable endeavor, aside from multiple bit parts in musicals on and off Broadway and a nice 1993 NYTimes piece , was the winning of a KFC $15,000 talent contest. I'd appreciate further thoughts, which could curtail unnecessary time and effort trying to repair this, especially if it's a candidate for deletion. Perhaps most of the article can be removed, while retaining content connected to the Times mentions and KFC contest. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A veritable marshmallow of a BLP. I was editing when the IP beat me to some of the editing <g> but the seeming list of every performance was over the top so I deleted it as well. Collect (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please have a go at it. I think I was far too generous, and am increasingly inclined to think that the article can be cut to a few paragraphs. Nothing about the artwork or gallery, for instance, appears notable. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacqueline Hassink

An editor who alleges to be an associate of the BLP subject, has objected to having this photo in the BLP saying: " In my opinion, choosing a single photo (this one or another) to define an artist that has been working for numerous years is absurd. Why would one project trump another? How is it possible to quantify a photo's importance over the others? Even if the text underneath the photos explains the project perfectly well, it's still very restraining towards her whole body of work. I think that without the photo there would be no debate as to which photos of her works should be seen on Misplaced Pages. If the viewer/researcher wants to go further and see more photos, he or she is more than welcome to browse the official website. Plus, if we look at some other wikipedia pages of living artists (http://en.wikipedia.org/Rineke_Dijkstra, http://en.wikipedia.org/Taryn_Simon, http://en.wikipedia.org/Roni_Horn etc), the editors also chose to not upload a photo on the article." I am not familiar with the protocol for this. Any comments, insights or suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just a content disagreement. To include or not include an existing (free use, from the looks of it) image in an article is up to the editor(s) involved with the content. If there is consensus about using or not using the image, then great. Otherwise it can be discussed, and I see that's been done in the talk page. There's no BLP issue here, since the photograph is not being used in a way that would disparage the subject. That she or her friends think it shouldn't be included is, again, a matter of taste and/or content. In fact, if they indeed have control over the copyright of images related to this person's work, I'd invite them to upload an actual photograph to grace the bio, plus more images to create a gallery or something. The more, the merrier. §FreeRangeFrog 23:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

False information in a User's sandbox

User:Halloween3100/sandbox contains false information about Nicki Minaj. The user, User:Halloween3100, is on their final warning for repeatedly falsifying information about Nicki Minaj in article space. Should the false information be removed from their sandbox? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a procedure to deal with information on users' sandboxes and subpages, but this is not really a problem until and unless that information gets inserted into the actual article. If that happens and reverting the additions doesn't work, don't get into an edit war, but just please report it here, or request that the page be protected over at WP:RFPP. §FreeRangeFrog 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Clash

Edit war (of which I am a participant) over what should be included in the lead. Basically if we should be vague and say "alleged Sexual misconduct", or further identify that the specific sexual misconduct was "alleged sexual relationships with underage boys". Other eyes/opinions welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I replaced it with 'minors', which is specific enough but eliminates the gender issue, although as he has identified as being gay doesn't strike me as particularly onerous or damaging. But it is a bit weasel-y. Also, the lede has no footnotes whatsoever. That should be a higher priority than other semantics, especially since the references to that issue are already in the article. §FreeRangeFrog 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Jodi Arias

Jodi Arias is accused of the Murder of Travis Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At issue here is the inclusion of the List of people executed in Arizona in the "See also" section of the article. The accused is not related to the List of people executed in Arizona because she has not been convicted yet. Associating her to that list, even indirectly, is a violation of her BLP. This is my opinion. I would welcome the opinions of the participants here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  00:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the entire See Also section. That link is contentious at best since she has not been convicted of anything, let alone executed. Also the way the link was worded was misleading. §FreeRangeFrog 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a death penalty case in Arizona. That is no secret. That is a matter of public record. And that has been extensively covered by the media and reliable sources. As such, I have added to the "see also" section a link for Capital punishment in Arizona. Another editor has removed it, indicating that it is prejudicial to the case. The editor's edit summary says, in part, "Have you prejudged the outcome of the case? If so it is a WP:BLP violation". I took it to the Talk Page to seek consensus. The other editor stated: "This is a misleading link. It directs to List of people executed in Arizona. She has not been judged yet, let alone executed. This is a prejudicial link to the outcome of the case and violates BLP." My reply was: "Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "Capital punishment in XYZ state". Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "List of people executed in XYZ state". Some have both. (See the "nav box" / template below.)" Because this is a death penalty case in Arizona, I feel that this is an appropriate (and relevant) link for the "see also" list. Furthermore, I don't understand the accusation that a Misplaced Pages "see also" list can "prejudice" a case. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @FreeRangeFrog: Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me (A) how a link to "capital punishment in Arizona" is not relevant to a case that is a capital punishment case in the state of Arizona? And, (B) how a Misplaced Pages "see also" link can possibly "prejudice" a case? And, (C) how user FreeRangeFrog can unilaterally make a decision about an item on which consensus is being sought at the Talk Page, without his/her even participating? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Murder of Travis Alexander article currently also contains a link to Capital punishment in the United States. Is this also a BLP violation? Must this also be removed? If so, why? If not, how is a link entitled "Capital punishment in the United States" any different than a link entitled "Capital punishment in Arizona"? Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue here - the editor didn't mean that the link would prejudice the outcome, but that it was unacceptably implying she will be executed, before the actual decision is sent down. Moreover, the List of people executed in Arizona article is just that - a list of people executed, and to a reader clicking the link it would appear as if we were trying to suggest that Arias was imminently going to be added to that list. Now, if the article List of people executed in Arizona included a substantial discussion of the capital punishment process and history in the state of Arizona, that would be different. Also, in the majority of cases there are either two articles, or the one article is Capital punishment in foo (cf. Capital punishment in Nebraska) and the list redirects to it. The link to Capital punishment in the US is acceptable by your own reasoning, because it is a capital punishment case. Intelligentsium 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. Δρ.Κ.  01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because you linked the Arizona one to the list of the actual people executed and not to an article talking about the Capital punishment process. These are two different things. Δρ.Κ.  01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am creating an article entitled "Capital punishment in Arizona" (similar to Capital punishment in Nebraska). And we all agree that that is an acceptable "see also" link? Or no? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be no problem imo. Δρ.Κ.  01:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Joseph: I removed the template from here since we all know what it refers to. The problem is that a) You are linking to a List of people executed by the state of Arizona while wording the link as Capital punishment in Arizona. That in and of itself is misleading. And b) This has nothing whatsoever to do with capital punishment. That the prosecutors will or won't seek the death penalty is irrelevant, since the trial just started. She could cop a deal and get life in prison for all we know. The trial just started. No one has been convicted of anything, let alone executed. When and if she is convicted and sentenced to death, you are free to add a link to an article about the death penalty, and when and if she is executed, you are free to add her to the list of people executed by the State of Arizona. Until that series of events come to pass, your additions are just unwarranted speculation, which have no place in an article that refers even obliquely to a living person. §FreeRangeFrog 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points. Δρ.Κ.  01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not excellent points at all. Unless I am misreading or misunderstanding you. The prosecutor already has sought the death penalty. So, this is a capital punishment/death penalty case right now, regardless of any future developments. Future developments (such as those you cite) in no way are relevant to where the case stands right now, at this moment. It is, right now, a death penalty case. We don't need to wait for a conviction or an execution to mention (and to link to) the concept of death penalty/capital punishment. That notion is absurd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if you saw my reply above but I said that it may be ok to link to an article about the death penalty if you create one from scratch. Δρ.Κ.  01:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I did see that, thanks. My post (immediately above) is a reply to User:FreeRangeFrog's post immediately above that. Unless I misunderstand his/her post, that notion is absurd (that we have to wait for a conviction or an execution to even mention/link to the concept of death penalty/capital punishment). There is no speculation whatsoever. She is, as we speak, being tried in a death penalty case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:FreeRangeFrog made some excellent and lucid points. Now the detail if the death penalty should link or not is a matter of taste.I tend to agree with FreeRangeFrog's points but for the sake of consensus I can see your side too. Δρ.Κ.  01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but now we're back to the basics of the death penalty, when the initial problem was your addition of a misleading 'See also' link. Yes, it is perfectly valid to include something about the death penalty if there are sources that back up the fact that the prosecution is seeking it. I leave it to you to figure out what that is - as far as I can tell there's no Category:Death penalty cases in the United States or anything that resembles it. Everything else you've argued about including is speculatory in nature, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about at all. I am not in any way talking about a "category" (such as Category:Death penalty cases in the United States). I am referring to the link/article entitled Capital punishment in the United States (as I mentioned above). And I am also referring to the link/article Capital punishment in Arizona (similar to Capital punishment in Nebraska) (as I also mentioned above). I don't see how, as you put it, "everything that I've argued about including is speculatory". And, I also don't see how my proposed links/articles are, as you put it, "unsuitable for inclusion". Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that once you create "Capital punishment in Arizona" the issue will be resolved and you can link to it from the article. Δρ.Κ.  02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, FreeRangeFrog's post (immediately above) seems to contradict the agreement that you and I have. And, FreeRangeFrog has demonstrated that he/she will unilaterally remove/delete something with which he does not agree. So, I am asking him to clarify a point he made that I do not understand and that makes no sense (in the context of the above discussion). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The origin of the dispute was your addition of a 'See also' link that was both misleading and incorrect. If you create that article, I have no problem with including a link to it from this one, especially since I see Dr.K. agrees as well. Also, in the future please use only one colon ':' per indentation level, rather than multiple ones. It makes the discussion harder to follow. §FreeRangeFrog 02:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you FreeRangeFrog for your comments. It was very nice talking to you. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, your reply here directly contradicts your preceding reply above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:FreeRangeFrog has already accepted a link of the newly-created article as have I. So there is nothing more to resolve here. Talking about this in more detail will not accomplish anything different because the matter is resolved. I don't think further analysing or discussing any statements already made will help in any way. Perhaps we should all just move on. Δρ.Κ.  17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did move on. You are the one extending this dialogue. My prior comment was a factual statement to make FreeRangeFrog aware of the fact that his/her two replies contradicted one another. I was not asking for any resolution to anything. I said that I would create the new article, and I did so. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not extending anything. You cannot just make a "factual statement" which points to a perceived contradiction in the points made by a user and not expect that someone may reply to your point. After consensus is reached, pointing to a contradiction invites a counter-reply and it just unduly prolongs a discussion. You, also telling me that I prolonged the discussion was uncalled for so I had to reply to you. This should settle the matter. If however you feel like having the last word please do. Just don't accuse me of anything unfair so that I don't have to reply to you. Thanks. Δρ.Κ.  21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We both agree that this issue has been settled. We all agreed that I would create a new link (Capital punishment in Arizona) and that that link would be acceptable in the article. I did that. So, we can all move on. Nonetheless, FreeRangeFrog's two most recent repies contradicted each other, so I pointed that out to him/her. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they did not, especially since it was you who started moving the goalposts, first claiming that your link to a listing of people executed by Arizona was factual and correct, and then doing a 180 and saying that you were going to write your own article and link to it instead. I objected to the first one (and so did Mr.K.), and I said the second one was fine, because it did not introduce a negative bias or preconceived notion of the person's eventual fate. Are we done? §FreeRangeFrog 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope so. Δρ.Κ.  22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your exact words were, quote: "Everything else you've argued about including is speculatory in nature, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion", unquote. This comment by you was well into the "depths" of the conversation; it was not way up "at the top" (i.e., beginning) of the discussion. You will note that you used the word "everything". So, yes, your replies were indeed contradictions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, please realise that analysing past comments for inconsistencies serves no practical purpose other than to antagonise other editors and make them want to reply. This noticeboard served its stated purpose by assisting everyone involved to reach consensus on the matter. There is no need for further rounds of criticism and rebuttal. I would hope no further discussion takes place. Let's all please move on. I expect no reply to this comment. Δρ.Κ.  23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that not hypocritical? You two keep replying (i.e., keeping this thread going) ... and then chastise me for replying back? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I supposed to reply to your reply? I guess better not, otherwise I run the risk of keeping the thread going. I'm not sure how you managed to get an exemption from that but I won't ask any questions. :) Δρ.Κ.  03:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We have had something of a little tit-for-tat above. Some of it, I believe, in good humor. No harm intended. At the end of the day, we all resolved the problem at hand. And we were all happy with the "compromise", of sorts (i.e., my creation of the new link to replace the offending link). So, it all worked out well. Thanks for the discussion and for your help in resolving the problem. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and thank you for your kind comments. Thank you also for taking the time to create the article which resolved the issue and enriched the encyclopaedia at the same time. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Kristin Korb

"Internationally recognized vocalist and bass player currently residing in Denmark. Since moving to Los Angeles in 2002, she has performed all over not only LA, but all of North America. She still has time for the educational outreach and teaches at Azuza Pacific and University Southern California where she is coordinator of vocal jazz studies.

Has performed and recorded with such Jazz legends as Llew Mathews, Kim Richmond, Steve Barnes, and Ray Brown, Jeff Hamilton."

Not encyclopedia language used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.243.224.4 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really a BLP violation; just an easily corrected bit of bad writing. Bearcat (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Salman Khan

Does this edit reach level of RevDel? If so, please hide this. Thanks! Forgot to put name 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If the source was not reliable then your revert was perfectly valid under the BLP policy. Don't know if it merits a revdel since it is out there already, but the important thing is that it was removed. §FreeRangeFrog 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination)

This AfD completed its seven days a few hours ago. Because of its BLP connections and especially because its subject has been in contact regarding the AfD, I think we ought to close it, one way or another, as soon as possible. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin would take the time to take a look. Many thanks. I'm going to cross-post to AN --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as "delete". bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath

Can anyone who speaks German please verify the references used in this BLP please. I have removed unsourced and some sourced to primary & blogs but am unable to verify the rest. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the first four and they look fine to me. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Veer Gidwaney

Veer Gidwaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this really a notable person? His biography consists of a mention in a magazine and a few sentences. Sounds pretty NN to me.

First off, be sure to sign your posts using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Regarding the BLP's notability, an argument could be made either way. The article has WP:NPOV problems and needs more sources, and if you want to propose its deletion you should use AFD. Andrew 06:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Quinn Norton

Quinn Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please watch this BLP - recent undue addition sourced to some legal doc - relates to Aaron Swartz - Youreallycan 22:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomas J. Donahue

A recently deceased editor introduced a lot of defamatory material in this article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, he said he "fixed a typo" and marked it as minor. Yay. §FreeRangeFrog 03:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the BLP violations, which also violated NPOV and RS. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Still needs some sources. I fixed some really strange wording as well. Collect (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hartwell

Could someone take a look at this edit from a few months ago (only just noticed it). Someone claiming to be the subject's wife suggests that many of the facts in the article are wrong because of edits by (or facts attributed to, her argument isn't entirely clear) someone else involved in the events being discussed. AFAICT her edit was reverted and none of her complaints have been addressed - whether that's right or wrong I leave to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether she's his wife or not is irrelevant, but she does have a point - I am seeing the same story with the 'Marten' spelling. I'd move it except that there seem to be more Martin than Martens. I'll add a note about the spelling since it's supported by enough sources. §FreeRangeFrog 02:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Also created a redirect from alternate spelling, so hopefully that will be enough to satisfy the person who complained. §FreeRangeFrog 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

aspartame controversy

Aspartame controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Betty Martini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The statement that "Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature" is totally untrue. Please correct if possible. 68.9.187.198 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Arydberg (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Those claims are fully sourced in the article. If you wish to remove them, post in the talk page to gain consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 03:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fully sourced to about.com as far as I can see. Is that considered a thoroughly reliable source for statements about living persons like "Around the same time, one of many Usenet posts authored by Betty Martini was possibly slightly altered (but still largely identical with originals) and then widely circulated..." ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably the location of the footnote markers but this seems like a perfectly valid source to me. A search for 'Nancy Markle Betty Martini' returns enough hits to support the general idea of the paragraph. Perhaps it's badly structured, but I see no BLP problem there at all. §FreeRangeFrog 22:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this author really a good source?

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Michael+Newton%22

Arydberg (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Would someone please commit on the above question which relates to reference 8. From your rules I read, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

To me this is not a high quality source. Arydberg (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The author has had a book listed on the American Library Association's list of Outstanding Reference Sources (2006). The publisher, Infobase Publishing (imprint "Facts on File"), is sound.Novangelis (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the style and quantity of his output, I don't think one of his books having been listed as an outstanding reference source is much of a guarantee of anything. Also, from examining what's visible of this source on Google books, there is a distinct mismatch between the quality of the Introduction, and that of many of the entries - some of which appear to be little more than summaries of material from the internet. This is far from a solid source for BLP-problematic statements.

If the issue is caused by "the location of the footnote markers" then the best solution will be to remove the name of the living person until the footnotes can be fixed to provide multiple reliable sources establishing the "indisputable" nature of this person's exact actions. The page is still entirely coherent without the use of the name itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus consists of a few people that control the page while dozens of people come and go driven away by the difficulty of making any change whatsoever. Many are banned as i have been solely for preserving. I was told that i would not be banned if i was not impolite but that advice was wrong. I was also never told that after I have been banned I can be repeatedly banned with no chance to be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That last statement is not the case. You only need to be banned once; once you're banned, you stay banned until a decision is taken to unban you. Thus there is no need for you to be "repeatedly banned". WP:BAN has more information on this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I know is what i was told. I was topic banned for 3 months. Then it ended. I got back on and was topic banned for 1 year with no discussion. Then it ended. How do i find out my present status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we re-phrase it to: "A person claiming to be Betty Martini has been quoted as....." type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's actually "A person claiming to be Nancy Markle, who was later revealed to be Betty Martini..." Thus the problem. §FreeRangeFrog 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The description is accurate and sourced. TFD (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, the issue cannot be that she made these claims (which is indisputable)--I believe it is the characterization of those claims as "undocumented in the medical literature" that is under dispute.Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my exact point when I started this thread. To call her claims "undocumented in the medical literature" is not true. There is a wealth of documentation. Here is one example.

http://naturalsociety.com/aspartame-alert-diet-soda-destroys-kidney-function/Arydberg (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arydberg that after several decades of having Aspartame approved, there is STILL independent research showing adverse reactions. That's the controversy, and that's what the article should be about: reporting this controversy. There's no reliable source that states that Nancy Markle is Betty Martini. As a matter of fact (!), Betty Martini denies on her website to have been Nancy Markle. Immortale (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rae (Raphael) McGrath

Rae McGrath, born 5 November 1947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.46 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there something in particular you would like us to examine? We would be happy to do so, but first you need to provide us with a link to an article and an explanation of what you think needs attention. Andrew 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

aspartame controversy 2

In the aspartame controversy page the statement:

"critics such as activist Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature"

Is demonstrably untrue. please look into this or advise me what further to do. Arydberg (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

17 hours ago you were advised "Those claims are fully sourced in the article. If you wish to remove them, post in the talk page to gain consensus" when you asked this same question 2 threads up-screen. I advise that you read and follow the advice you were given. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about double posting. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan page

Dear Wiki Volunteers/Admins,

I'm Thilakan (user id: Thilakan_1980) and I've been using Misplaced Pages more of a user than a contributor. I have been using Wiki as a good source of information to learn about lot of things that are not otherwise readily accessible to me.

This (Kamal Haasan) is one page where I have made quite some contributions alongside several other users with correct, relevant, true and unbiased information. Me and all other contributors to this page got it to a point where this page was tagged as "Good Article".

However, I'm sad to note that in the last few days (little more than a week now) that there is a specific user (or specific set of users - namely - Title hero, Sweetrascal123, Ajith009, Rajani003) repeatedly making edits that are either incorrect and/or suspiciously with a malicious intent to bring down the quality of the already posted/verified information. Also, based on the actual edits made by these users, there is a clear pattern of those edits that it seems highly suspicious that either it could be the user with multiple id's or set of users making a co-ordinated set of edits despite being reverted back to the original content with reasons/comments by other users.

Hence I kindly request for the benefit of this page, if you could lock this page for at least couple of weeks by reverting back to the latest revert/change made by me. That would be greatly helpful to keep the quality of this page in chec. Thanks in advance for your help and consideration.

Regards, Thilakan

I've requested the page be semi-protected for now, and I'll open an SPI to see if the accounts are related. Either way, their contributions are disruptive and out of place. §FreeRangeFrog 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Page protected and SPI open. §FreeRangeFrog 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Zuma

Jacob Zuma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerns have been raised via OTRS regarding the Jacob Zuma article. The concerns are specifically related to the negative content in the following sections:

• Corruption charges
• Rape charges
• Continued support after corruption charges

I have explained that outright deletion of these sections is not possible, however the content should be reviewed to ensure that the sources meet WP:RS, that the sources support the content, and that any allegations made do not run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. I understand that this is a huge task, however, given the high profile of the subject, it would be extremely helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed and help at Michael Jackson and Joe Jackson (manager)

A user is trying to press for inclusion of information regarding a supposed extramarital affair. As yet, no scrupulously reliable source has been provided. No comments are needed here on this message board, but a discussion is going on at Talk:Michael Jackson which could use as much input as anyone has to give. Thanks. --Jayron32 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If the offended user would just follow the discussion this would have been over hours ago :\ §FreeRangeFrog 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenn Thomas

Kenn Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per comments in User talk:24.207.224.181, a user claiming to be Kenn Thomas is requesting that his birthdate, which can be found in a Library of Congress source, be stricken from the article. Not sure how this is normally handled, so I thought I would bring it here for further input. Thanks! Location (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is perfectly well sourced - it does not get any better than the Library of Congress. As per WP:BLPPRIVACY, the month/day can be omitted as a matter of courtesy and privacy, but the year is OK. It would be a very different situation if the source was not reliable, or dubious. However, it should be noted that the LOC authority information seems to rely on his book (Popular alienation). I don't see the problem with removing the year as a matter of courtesy, however it's impossible to ensure that it will remain removed forever, and if the subject (if that is him) claims he'd rather not have those details on the web, I'd remind him that it's extremely easy to find them anyway. I am not familiar with any precedents in this area, so it would be good for someone more experienced to chime in. §FreeRangeFrog 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - (as has been done) to remove the day and month as per a good faith request - the exact day and month of his birth are close to worthless to readers anyway. - Youreallycan 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

john bloom

• John Bloom (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe your editor Brandon has helped clear up many errors about John Bloom in the past.

As an old ex employee the latest revision is wrong especially regarding Bloom alleged lover, BLOOM NEVER WAS THE LOVER OF CHRISTINE HOLFORD. IT WAS PART OF THE DEFENSE IN THE BLUE GARDENIA MURDER CASE SO IT IS ONLY FAIR TO SAY IN 1962 BLOOM HAD AN ALLEGED LOVER. she also was never murdered after a tryst with Bloom.

The 1520 Theatre Restaurant were in many cities in The U.S.A. AND CLOSED IN 1977 NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIDEO PIRACY.

His mother did die of multiple scleroris, BUT THE WORD THOUGH IS NOT NEEDED AND IS DEROGATORY.

HE DID NOT OWN A VILLA ON THE FRENCH RIVIERA

I understand that you just quote from blogs and newspapers but they are not always right..

If your editor CJ1340 whO I see cleaned up the page would like to contact me I will give him the true facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2008 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed (or at least, changed to my satisfaction) all of this except the French Riviera villa part. I'd be grateful if someone else could check whether the reference given for that supports the claim (or consider whether it's worth including in the sentence at all). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• - Many thanks for your corrections I spoke to Mr Bloom tonight and he was very happy with your changes, he informed me that he did rent VILLA LA FIORENTINA ON CAP FERAT SOUTH OF FRANCE,and it was used as an incentive scheme to send salesman and their wives when they made nine sales a week for four weeks they received a weeks holiday at the villa. the story was featured in the Daily Express and other media at the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2008 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Matt Dallas

Matt Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor keeps adding Dallas to Category:Gay actors, ignoring WP:BLP, WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS#Sexuality and WP:NOR.

See also:

• User talk:Rusted AutoParts#Matt Dallas
• User talk:Edenc1#Reply

Edenc1 • Talk 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

His engagement to another man is probably just a PR stunt... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• note - per WP:BLPCAT, I have removed the cats and notified and linked the user to this discussion.
• also note - Users opinions such as the one above by User:Nomoskedasticity are also violations of WP:BLP - Youreallycan 21:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the irony/satire. Wait -- aren't you British?? Strange... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Please avoid moving to personal attacks - WP:NPA - I am not strange as you state - and your claimed irony/satire is not part of usual discussion - mark your comments as such or don't make them - better still , don't make them at all -Youreallycan 22:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither source used meets WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements - "twitter" is specifically not usable for contentious claims, and "AfterElton.com" appears also to be less than a reliable source. Collect (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

But these are claims about himself on his own Twitter feed. According to WP:BLP, "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if" several conditions are met, and I think they are. Most importantly, this claim isn't contentious. It's what Matt Dallas is saying about himself, about his identity (not, for example, an unusual claim about his own achievements). Is there a source of any kind that refutes this infomration, thus making it contentious? I believe Matt Dallas' own Twitter feed is a valid source for this information about Matt Dallas, per to WP:BLP. And yet, now, not only the category but the entirely statement about him being engaged has been removed from the article. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Editors insist on self-identification in this area, to conform with WP:BLPCAT -- so it is then perverse to disallow the sources subjects are likely to use to self-identify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, we can only categorize him as LGBT due to being in a relationship with another man and open about the fact; we can't categorize him as gay (rather than, for example, bisexual), since he hasn't made a statement about his actual sexual orientation. (It's not important for him to do so as far as society goes, but it's important for him to do so if we want to explicitly claim he fits into a certain category.) And we certainly should be able to state that he is engaged to his fiance and to identify that fiance.--DavidK93 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

it is far too easy for twits to be taken out of context. If there is no other more official documentation, we cannot use that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think an argument can be made (even if I don't agree with it) that we can't label him as "gay" - because he hasn't said so himself. But I think the guidelines are perfectly clear that information about himself that he included in his own Twitter feed (that he's marrying Blue Hamilton) can absolutely be included. RobInAspen (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolf Harris

Didnt particularly want to bring more attention to it, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far. There has been persistent attempts to put a particularly problematic (from a BLP point of view) piece of info both on the page (which is why its semi-protected) but also on the talkpage. IMO its bad enough that its not something that should stay visible at all even in the revision history. Firstly its sources is not even close to being reliable. (A really obscure website and a tweet from someone involved that has subsequently been removed.) No reputable source has named the person involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this cannot be allowed to remain on the talk page - BLP applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages as you know. You should request oversight and if the other users persist after due warnings, take it to WP:ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It may just need revdelete. I added a link to the IRC at the top of this page. They usually fix faster than email.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well oversight have been mailed. I might try IRC if it gets it done quicker. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue Angel (person)

Blue Angel (person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a rather heated discussion going on in Blue Angel (person) about whether or not a certain source in which Blue Angel describes herself as bisexual is reliable. We need more input from other editors. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we accept interviews from Youtube as RS because they can be doctored. This video should be the same case. Even if it isn't doctored she may have been confused by the question because Her english is not the best. She later states it was her only sexual encounter with a girl when she was a teenager and hasn't had any since. Just food for thought.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's a heated discussion; to be honest, I don't really even care about it that much anymore. Basically, one user doesn't agree with the source I added and is now trying to discredit my comments by accusing me of violating guidelines and essays that s/he is actually violating. Anyway, there really is no proof that Blue Angel's English isn't the best (although she does have a thick accent). And if she hasn't had any off-camera lesbian relationships since her first time, that's her choice; it doesn't necessarily mean she no longer identifies as bisexual (unless she explicitly states so, that is; see Jenna Jameson). My thing is, she clearly states in the interview that she is bisexual around the 2:20 mark. Erpert 08:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

With this edit I removed a thread that appears to me to be a BLP violation. In particular "alleged criminal" and " allegedly decide that he was above the law". Adding "alleged" does not defuse the comment, if anything it strengthens it in the second case, since it implies the view is shared by others. I would appreciate confirmation, or otherwise, that I am correct in considering this a BLP violation. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Good call, IMHO.--ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, multiple felony indictments were made, thus fully meeting BLP requirements for "alleged". I think you might have been overly sensitive here. Collect (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the information as per User:Collect, it would be useful to remember that the subject is deceased, so this is a matter of accuracy and NPOV, not BLP. §FreeRangeFrog 16:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We still have a duty of care with articles about people even after they are dead - we shouldn't stop caring just because they have died. BLP issues remain valid with deceased people - think of family, friends etc. GiantSnowman 16:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be true since he is recently deceased. §FreeRangeFrog 20:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is absolutely correct, and that principle is mentioned in WP:BLP itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the indictments were withdrawn after his death -- so it is no longer appropriate to refer to him in the present tense as an alleged criminal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In general death is the operative word - the indictments become moot, but are not "withdrawn" in the sense that an allegation is withdrawn. The allegation ("indictment")) remains. Collect (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The charges were dismissed because he was dead, not because they weren't applicable. It is completely appropriate to refer to him as an alleged criminal, because he was an alleged criminal. Ryan Vesey 18:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- was. Not "is". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm getting over a sickness and I read "it is no longer appropriate to refer to him in the present tense as an alleged criminal" as "it is no longer appropriate to refer to him in the past tense as an alleged criminal" obviously causing a significant misunderstanding of your statement on my part. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Ryan Vesey 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Trial of Binayak Sen and Binayak Sen

Binayak Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial Indian civil rights activist. Despite my efforts, the lead in his article says "He has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment" but doesn't mention that he is out on bail after a court released him on bail saying that the evidence showed no evidence for sedition. Trial of Binayak Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be a content fork of his article. It also doesn't mention what the court said when releasing him on bail. Half of this article is "the list of Punishments awarded to Binayak Sen". I'm not convinced this article should exist at all as there is more detail in his BLP on the trial then in the article, and will change it into a redirect. I suspect this will be reverted, as were my efforts at his BLP. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrie L. Lukas

There is no listing for a Carrie Lukas in the Harvard Alumni Directory. I do not know what the Misplaced Pages policy is, but it looks as if her MPP from the Kennedy School is not valid and should be removed from the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.107.83 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, her Forbes articles say she is a Kennedy grad,, and her book back cover says she is. So I think we'll need a bit more than "one of our editors couldn't find her listing". Maybe she asked not to be listed; maybe she's listed under a different name (maiden name, perhaps?); maybe there was a clerical error... --GRuban (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple notability templates on a BLP unseemly

I just edited this BLP to remove three templates: one was a standard lack of notability warning template and the other two were noting agreement with a proposed deletion. It seems unseemly to have multiple notability templates on a BLP as it is unnecessary and creates an impression of "piling on." It's understandable that some people become offended or confused when we say that the subject of a BLP is not notable so we should we do what we can to alleviate that (mistaken) impression while keeping firm to our principles and procedures. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted; these tags are all valid and should not be removed without dealing with the issues they raise. GiantSnowman 14:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just dealt with the issue of the proposed deletion, thus rendering all three PROD tags unnecessary. I'll leave the notability template there while interested parties decide whether or not to take the article to AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the orphan tag. GiantSnowman 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with the orphan tag from a BLP perspective (it indicates the article is an orphan, not that Manish Sharma is), although it does have the problem of being glowingly inaccurate (it says "no other articles link to it" which is not the case). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered the few= parameter for the orphan tag... GiantSnowman 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks right :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why it's necessary to have multiple templates that all address the same issue. And please be sure to do so in the context of BLP. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A PROD is something completely different from a notability warning template, that's why. The first proposes deletion and puts the article in the proposed deletion queue, the second simply warns editors who want to gauge the situation. This has nothing to do with BLP. --Cyclopia 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo already explained what it has to do with BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

But I disagree it's a BLP issue. --Cyclopia 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case you can either explain why you believe that statements about a living person are not covered by WP:BLP in this circumstance, or you can discuss it in whatever place you believe is appropriate for matters that are not BLP issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have huge concerns about having the prod and the notability template on an article; the point that they place the article into different categories is a compelling one although I think we might want to think about how to do this differently for BLPs so they don't have prod templates and warning templates that amount to the same thing.

Again, my concern here is that it discussing the notability of a BLP has to be done with some sensitivity and respect because we are - by definition - discussing another person. The discussion should definitely be held and it can be held to our standards while also being held with sensitivity and respect. Placing four templates on a BLP that all basically say the same thing is not in line with our policy or basic decency when they all say that the person we are discussing isn't important enough for Misplaced Pages. Surely one or two templates is enough especially when two of them are completely unnecessary and don't belong in article space in the first place? ElKevbo (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am honestly baffled by the fact that a notability tag is seen as problematic. Is being not "important enough for Misplaced Pages" an insult now? Did I miss some memo? By a quick calculation less than 0.01% of living people has a biography on Misplaced Pages -is it so insulting to belong to the other 99.99%? --Cyclopia 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We actually see plenty of individuals who want their articles deleted as they believe they are non-notable! GiantSnowman 16:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we should just delete our BLP policies because they're obviously not needed! Problem solved! ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're trying to be sarcastic but I don't get what you mean. --Cyclopia 16:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that "it only seems to affect a few people" is a specious argument. It may be true but that has little weight on how we understand and carry out our ethical obligations. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"My point is that "it only seems to affect a few people" is a specious argument." - Yes, but it's not my argument at all. Read again. My argument is that being "not important enough from Misplaced Pages" can't be seriously considered problematic because it doesn't imply anything reasonably negative, given that being on WP is a privilege (or curse) reserved to very few. --Cyclopia 16:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone having been born out of wedlock, or being gay, or being descended from slaves, aren't things that "imply anything reasonably negative" either, but when I see them added to a BLP for no good reason, I zap them with great speed. The bar to cross for a negative statement to be "something to do with BLP" is very, very, low, and it's going to stay that way. A statement doesn't need to be "insulting". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indexing BLP talk page archives

From Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disappointed in search results, it occurred to me there's a problem in that while we noindex BLP talk pages if they have an appropriate template (per Misplaced Pages:Controlling search engine indexing) but we don't generally do that for BLP talk page archive pages as they generally lack any such template. While archive pages should hopefully be less bad as the worst stuff should be deleted before it is archived, this situation still seems to be undesirable. One possibility is to add a template to BLP talk page archives, but this will be a maintenance nightmare if it needs to be done manually. We must already have a very large number of archive pages needing it, and more will arise since someone will need to add it each time a new archive page is created. (When the BLP template is no longer needed, removing this new template will also be annoying although that's a less pressing issue.) So really the only solution barring some fancy wikimedia change or achieving consensus to noindex either all article talk page or at least all article talk page archive would seem to be getting a bot which will automatically add and remove the noindex tag to any archive page belonging to a page with a noindex template. Anyone have some other proposal? Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Options:

1. This is an easy bot task, either someone will lap this up at WP:BOTREQ, or you can wait until I am allowed to do it, and give me a hoy.
2. Another way that is obvious to me would involve doing something I advocate anyway - moving persondata to a sub-page, then having the archive header (and possibly the normal BLP header) transclude and parse the /persondata (which is not that hard in theory, and could be tweaked to be easy) and add a noindex tag to the page if suitable conditions were met (living, dead < 5 years, no death date and born < 120 years ago)
3. Very clean but people might hate it: the BLP tag on the talk page of John Smith categorises the talk page in a (probably red-linked) category Category:John Smith living person. The archive header template noindexes selectively with something like {#ifexpr:{CATEGORYCOUNT:{BASEPAGENAME} living person}>0|_NOINDEX_}.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Talk:Discipline Global Mobile

There have been a number of BLP violations at Talk:Discipline Global Mobile, at the Village Pump, etc.: e.g.,

• "crass lack of professional competence by the webmaster and/or lawyer" by Andy Pigsonthewing, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting prior discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No individual is named in that statement. Perhaps there are others.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than Keifer's ad hominem comments on me; no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rumors of divorce

Is it appropriate to cover, in a stand alone section, Mahira_Khan#Family_problems, coverage of a rumored divorce? One of the "sources" used to validate the the fact that there are rumors, contains the subject " Mahira Khan has shrugged off these baseless divorce rumors and have said that she can never imagine leaving her husband Ali Askari" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So you two, it is a bit to me suspicious, on article of Mahira, there have been involved several IPs addresses from Karachi, Lahore and UK to remove subsection "Family Problems". Problem is that how the user Demiurge1000 come to know for editing that subject of area, especially "that subject", first IP from London, then Demiurge1000 and then you RedPen removed the subsection without discussing. I consider that were "authority-based removals". You know "technology is very fast by email, sms or mobiles"?. You both demanded more reliable sources, that are provided, I made the passage accurate,but RedPen rejected saying unreliable sources, I changed passage with another reliable sources in Urdu from multiple mainstream newspapers. Five sources state "Mahira has asked for divorce, only one source which RedPen has rejected as unreliable source, and now he is claiming of "rumor coverage". It is pure nonsense, Pakistani media is not irresponsible,if one or two, we can may be think that, but not multiple newspapers publishing rumors to give her unnecessary publicity. With those reliable sources, there is no any question of due or undue weight.Justice007 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::: Illegitimate removal of the subsection without discussion by User:Canoe1967, surprises me, while undue tag clearly states after discussion tag can be removed, but that did not happen?.Justice007 (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is supposed to present issues that have arisen on a page so that other editors uninvolved in the article can give their views. My starting point for this topic is that articles for BLPs have to have strong reliable sourcing. Unconfirmed reports of rumours wouldn't meet that standard. There is also the WP:CRYSTAL policy that wikipedia should reflect things that have happened, not things that might. Until a divorce occurs, or at least there are quotes from the parties which indicate that it might, then the existence of rumours somewhere does not merit inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it as contentious as per blp undue, not news, not a tabloid, consensus, RS, etc, etc. If you can get consensus to add it back then that is a different story. We are not in a hurry here. If readers want tabloid news they should go to tabloid sites.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Of the 5 sources provided, 4 state 'family sources say' and the 5th is the denial article by the LP. I don't think wp respects sources that have vague and un-substantiated sources themselves. I did use google to translate. The four sources may just be sourcing each other. The one source of the LP denial is the only one that mentions a name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Problem is that how the user Demiurge1000 come to know"

You say this is a problem for you, so let me solve that problem right now. You'll see here that some IP came to WP:BLPN with some sort of a problem. I watchlist WP:BLPN and I saw that indeed there seemed to be some sort of a problem. Have a nice day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases

I haven't got time to look at this in detail, but I noticed there is a list of individual cases. I checked one at random and both links are dead for me 1 and 2. I rather think there are BLP implications here. Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

 Done Fixed one reference to the same site but different URL, and replaced the second one with a valid ref. §FreeRangeFrog 00:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution