Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 16 August 2014

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• 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

Celebrity sex tape

Celebrity sex tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Myself and another editor are locked in a bit of a debate over 2 issues on this list, one that has direct bearing on BLP . The Editor is claiming that one of these entries is a BLP violation, but there is no person is clearly identified to apply the BLP issue to. There are sources attributing the existence of video (film or digital format) of the celebrities engaged in sexual activities, but for the video in question the opposing editor claims that a violation has occurred because of who it could be, not because of who is actually identified. Specifically this is in regard to the Johnny Carson sex video and that one of the women in it may or may not be one of his ex-wives. Is this a legit removal of sourced material? I am not sure what the rest of the claimed BLP problems are.

As for the second issue, the Editor keep removing material citing a non-sourced definition of the material on the list or possibly just his own very narrow interpretation. Discussion about a definition was attempted here, without any consensus or progress.

Input please, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say it's a legit removal regarding Johnny Carson. The cited article says that he had 4 wives. That is a sufficiently small group that WP:BLPGROUP applies. Further, the sourcing is weak. The cited source is from the gossip section of the New York Daily News which cites another weak source, TMZ. We're an encyclopedia; not a gossip column. (I note that there are other entries in this diff which I did not examine.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to BLPGROUP, but I am unsure as to how that applies. It seems that it would only apply to an organization or some other formal or semi-formal group. While Carson's ex-wives may know each other, I doubt they are "organized" in any way. I found a Fox News story about the take if that helps your source concerns. As for TMZ, granted they are plenty salacious, but I don't know that they are not factually accurate, and this is a list of celebrity sex tapes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have to side with removal. The fact that it's really not solidly confirmed makes me lean that way. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. A Quest for Knowledge pretty much nails the BLP issues related to the purported Carson tape; I'd add only that Carson's third wife (the only one who fits well into the reported time frame) has denied the report. As for the other tapes (as well as the Carson tape), none of them have been made available to the public, as I noted on the article talk page. The article lede says, clearly and expressly, that its subject covers only tapes made available to the public. What more needs to be said? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

How about explaining you version of "made available to the public"? Granted I'm not hindered by the UK ISP filters that stop a lot of porn, but when I see screen captures of a video and I'm also able to find all or portions of the "alleged" sex tape online, I consider that publicly available. What do you not get about "publicly available"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Why don't you provide some RS-satisfying sources on that point, since there weren't any in the article. There are still a lot of people who say they've seen an Alyson Hannigan sex tape online, but no reliable sources (pretty much because there isn't one). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do sources clearly state that Marco Rubio belongs in the category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? The BLP evinces no such sources. It does have a source where a person has the opinion that he is a "crown prince of the TPm" and "Tea Party Pretty Boy" but that is scarcely enough to link a person who is not listed as a member of any Tea Party organization or caucus, and where the person does not clearly self-identify as being "associated" with the TPm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If he doesn't self-identify or caucus with them, I'd say no. But if it can be shown that he is taking funds from them, I'd accept it too. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• "One of the top Tea-Party-backed fundraisers, Florida Republican Marco Rubio..."- MrX 01:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If he's taking their money, it's hard to deny it. I'd avoid things like "standard bearer", "champion" etc. Those are pretty POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he is widely regarded as one of the TP standard bearers, along with folks like Rick Scott. For example, this source refers to him as a "tea party champion" and this one refers to him as a "one-time tea party darling". "Associated with" does not have to mean "card carrying member".- MrX 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems more like an issue of weight. As MrX has clearly demonstrated, I think, this person is associated with the Tea Party movement. Whether that's enough to include them in this category is a matter of debate among subject matter experts. Since I have never heard of this person before today, I am not qualified to say.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) I am temporarily crossing out my comment until I've had more time to research this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there are multiple sources for this information, it can be determined via consensus instead of via Collect's incipient edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me one single cite from Rubio saying "I am a member of the Tea Party." The cites given are akin to using allegations and editorial opinions as statements of fact which is precisely and absolutely a violation of WP:BLP. Having a person call a politician a "crown prince of the Tea Party" is pure opinion, and rhetorical opinion at that. I am aghast that any Misplaced Pages editor would use opinions as fact in any article whatsoever. The snarky claim that following the clear requirements of WP:BLP is "incipient edit-warring" is unwarranted and a violation of WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As much as I am not a fan of Rubio or the Tea Party, in the absence of anything like a membership roll with his name on it, I don't think we should positively identify him as such unless he self-identifies. It might be better to note that some pundits and analysts have drawn the link, but without presenting that as fact. Lankiveil 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

We don't require "self-identification" to state that someone is associated with a political party. We have multiple sources making the association very clear. If I have missed something in the BLP policy that says otherwise, kindly point it out to me so that I can correct myself.- MrX 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources, not that we really need them:

1. "Rubio, a dynamic Tea Party candidate..."
2. " "He understands the plight of the common man a lot better than most because of his background," said Jason Hoyt, the director of the Central Florida Tea Party Council, who embraced Rubio early. "That really resonates with tea party folks." "
3. "The senator who was elected as part of the Tea Party wave in the 2010 midterms, said he and his wife train at the shooting range two or three times a year."
4. "His political history also explains Rubio's special bond with the GOP's tea party faction."
5. "Rubio is renewing his outreach to tea party supporters and his advocacy for GOP causes as he struggles to repair his image as a conservative standard-bearer."
6. "Rubio, like some other Latino Republicans who have had high profiles in the last year, is a Tea Party conservative, and that – not his ethnicity – is what shapes Latinos’ view of him, political experts say."
7. "For months, Rubio, a Tea Party Republican from Florida, sent several daily press releases and appeared weekly on television news shows pleading the cause of immigration reform."
8. "And one other Tea Party senator, Florida’s Marco Rubio, is being hailed as a “savior” for the GOP as he moves to the center and negotiates an immigration reform deal."
9. "...Tea Party-backed lawmaker Sen. Marco Rubio..."
10. "Rubio was one of the first big wins for the Tea Party..."
11. "Then a rising GOP star emerges from the Tea Party ranks and makes his mark in Congress. In his first Sunday show interview, Senator Marco Rubio talks about the debt crisis and his political future." ... "A Tea Party favorite, people are already asking whether he might run for president or vice president next year."

- MrX 14:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, you can show that Tea Party folks supported him -- but not that he supported the Tea Party nor that he considers himself "associated with the Tea Party." . In the 1950s, if the Communist Party "supported" a candidate, would you then have said the person was "associated with the Communist Party"?

By the way, the quote mining exercise above should recognize that one of your sources (Neshoba Democrat) states Rubio, a 2016 Republican presidential contender, has the ability to bring Tea Party Republicans and traditional Republicans together. Which is hardly supportive of your claim that the source says he is a Tea Party member in any way. Misuse of a source is not impressing me one iota. The use of the other sources is not a lot better if one reads them in their entirety. Collect (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No. What I can do (and have done) is show that Rubio is widely-regarded as the "crown prince", "darling", "champion", "rising star", "favorite" and "candidate" of the Tea Party, according to a preponderance of sources. Rubio didn't seem to mind Mike Chris Wallace introducing him as "A Tea Party favorite" in 2011.- MrX 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You have shown nothing of the sort. The use of contentious categories requires strong sourcing -- and I showed one source you gave said he was a link with the regular Republican party - which rather belies your claim. And the silly claim that "he didn't object when Mike Wallace called him a 'Tea Party favorite'" proves exactly and precisely nothing at all. Again -- if a person in the 1950s has "Communist support" or was described as "a favorite of the Communists" I trust you, to be consistent, would have labeled them as "associated with the Communist Party" as a result. I would not. Cheers -- WP:BLP sets a high bar indeed for contentious labelling of people. Collect (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You're exhausting my ability to assume good faith here Collect. I reject the premise that being associated with the Tea Party is somehow contentious, or that the sources are not "strong". It is very obvious that there are politicians who are members of the GOP and who are also associated with Tea Party, championing the Tea Party's causes. The parties are not mutually exclusive. You can elect not to believe that Rubio is associated with the Tea Party if you like, but our reliable sources are absolutely clear that you are mistaken.- MrX 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect is evidently in a mood not to be persuaded no matter how persuasive the arguments are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

Trial of Oscar Pistorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate some more eyes on this article. I have tried to avoid editing on the progress of the trial as I think it is a minefield, and have generally only intervened in that section on potential BLP and copyvio issues. I have now been asked to "stay out of this article" and accused of "trying to control this article" and not being neutral. I would prefer to stay out of it altogether but animosity related to the article has chased most other editors away. HelenOnline 06:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: I've left a note on the talk page of the article and watchlisted it. As for the content, I am not exactly sure what the dispute is aside from the unsourced OR which they later rectified by providing adequate sources. I'll take a detailed look at the tone and content a bit later. Regards,  NQ  talk 08:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NQ HelenOnline 08:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for three weeks; after that time anybody can edit. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bearian. It seems to be for only one week. I will let you know if there is still a problem after that. HelenOnline 11:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

List of politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement

Contains members of the "Tea Party Caucus" etc. which is reasonable, but a great many are people who were simply "endorsed" by a Tea Party group which, IMHO, is insufficient to assert affiliation. What say others on this? Collect (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If they publicly disclaimed the endorsement, then it would be reasonable to remove them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is insufficient. "Affiliated with" implies a two-way connection. "Endorsed by" does not, especially since we are talking about a loose collection of endorsing groups, all under the Tea Party banner.--agr (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity. If the Tea Party endorses them and they are politicians, then an affiliation exists. I see that Marco Rubio is not on the list, so that needs to be fixed.- MrX 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(EC)BHO was "publically endorsed" by the CPUSA in 2012, so therefore we should list BHO as "affiliated with the Communist Party"? Nope. (and he did not apparently publicly disavow that endorsement) Browder of the CPUSA endorsed FDR's election thus "affiliating" FDR with the CPUSA? Sorry -- "publicly disclaiming an endorsement" has nothing to do with whether we should assert someone is "affiliated with" any group at all in Misplaced Pages's voice. How many more examples do you need to show that "endorsed by" means damn little and does not make anyone "affiliated with" any group. Collect (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...Merriam-Webster defines "affiliated" as "closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position <the university and its affiliated medical school>" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another definition.- MrX 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

AQFK, that an interesting definition. I accept it as an example, of usage, but I'm stunned they imply that it is typically a subordinate position. For example, it is common to speak of a doctor who is affiliated with a particular hospital, but they would take affront at the suggestion they are subordinate. I don't think my usage example is that rare.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Collect: If you can find plenty of independent sources that satisfy WP:DUE, then yes. This was implicit in my previous comment as well.- MrX 17:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd start with User:Nomoskedasticityagr's suggestion, but modify it to require affirmative acceptance. As Nomo agr suggests, being endorsed is not enough, however, there are plenty of examples where a politician may make the reasonable decision not to even mention a party, so failure to disavow should not be required.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "being endorsed is not enough" (wtf?), and I think "failure to disavow" is likely significant depending on what sort of benefit the politician has been happy to quietly accept. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I elided your response and that of agr. My bad.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it is not a formal organization, but a movement, and there is disagreement over who is or is not part of it, it is a POV/OR nightmare to have this category. TFD (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur, and "affiliated" is such a fuzzy term anyway, it could mean anything or nothing. Lets hope that Justin Bieber doesn't endorse Rubio, lest he gets described as "Bieber-affiliated", which would be a truly horrific BLP violation ;-). Lankiveil 13:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

Censorship_by_Google#European_Union

Several names of non-notable persons are included. Administrator action is requested. RR 2014 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I edited the article to remove the names. I don't think that the names were important to the article. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. RR 2014 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Frank/Kellie Maloney

I happened to be looking at this in the light of recent events, and there is one section that is a bit of a mess. I have made a comment on the talk page here: ] The problem seems to be dead links and WP:SYNTH. Could anybody interested have a quick look and check it out. Thanks.- MishMich - Talk - 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Raymond F. Cannata

Appears to be a conflict of interest (vanity) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why? --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The creator of the page, User:HungryJack, has been around for five years. He has a somewhat limited editing history, seemingly focused on Presbyterian Church articles, but also edited Slow Movement. Nothing unusual here. Please see WP:AGF. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Kim Walker (bassoonist)

• Kim Walker (bassoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a few eyes on this - seems to have been edit warred over by the subject and anonymous folk trying to document a "controversy" that seems to have dissipated and probably does not rise the the level of inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I gave a level 1 notice at User talk:108.6.182.233. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of large number of unsourced names in a template

A few weeks ago I was editing an article that included {{Opposition to NRMs}}. Realizing that it had a large number of names without sourcing, I removed them. I was reverted by Zambelo with the claim that ...these are know anti-cultists, even if they don't have an article yet. Large numbers of redlinks are discouraged in templates, but beyond that, I'm concerned we have what is essentially an unsourced list of people's names, in a rather contentious topic area, which would violate both the absolute requirement to source the categorization of people in the encyclopedia, and the verifiability requirements. I am however unsure if this is something that is routinely accepted in templates, so I'm looking for some second opinions before trying other avenues to permanently remove the names if at all. §FreeRangeFrog 23:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Valerie Red-Horse

Valerie Red-Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've had this article on my watchlist for years; I can't remember how or why it's there. While removing the names of unsourced and non-notable family members from the lead this morning I scanned the rest of the article and definitely have some concerns regarding the content. Most of the material regarding her film activites is unsourced, but relatively uncontroversial. There is however a large amount of contentious information in the article that appears to be sourced only to primary documents contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm hoping that a fresh set of eyes could take a look at the article and its sources with an eye to ensuring the sources and the material they support are above board.--Jezebel'sPonyo 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I tagged an unreferenced section, but it could use a lot more editing. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed some unsourced content from the page. Meatsgains (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Alejandro Betancourt López

An edit that was both biased and inaccurate was sneaked in just as the BLP for Alejandro Betancourt López was been protected from edit warring. 116.193.159.36 sneaked in the edit 2 minutes before, as the page was been blocked by an administrator. One minute before this edit another very similar edit by 116.193.159.36 was reverted by the administrator at Derwick Associates. The administrator warned the user that both pages were about to be blocked, and he managed to sneak it in right before it got blocked. View Derwick's history and view BLP's history
The edit changed an NPOV paragraph that was citing the two conflicting versions citing their respective primary sources into a biased paragraph that stated opinions as facts and used biased language, for example changed "preliminary investigations" for "criminal investigations". 116.193.159.36 mentioned directly the BLP as been involved in a criminal investigation, but even the primary source in the article "people familiar with the matter" mention only Derwick Associates as been under preliminary investigations. No where is it mentioned that the BLP is directly under any kind of preliminary investigation. 116.193.159.36 also inserted the incorrect and misleading information a second time at the top of the page. Click here to see. I ask that the last edit made by 116.193.159.36 be undone as soon as posible as I think is clear that it states as fact a serious and unsourced accusation in a BLP --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Look Im not objecting that circumventing admins is wrong, but Crystallizedcarbon's opinion cant be the only one considered here. This user, along with others, has been attempting to water down what a Wall Street Journal article had to say about Betancourt and the company he runs, Derwick Associates. The piece is about a criminal investigation into his and Derwick's activities. It is in the Wall Street Journal, not some conspiracy theory blog. The information added was not incorrect or misleading. It was the main topic covered in a Wall Street Journal article. Crystallizedcarbon and others editors wanted to add lesser details from the piece about Derwick's attorney's denying the allegations. The present info is notable, relevant, RS, and does not violate WP:BLP. Please consider this before any action. Righteousskills (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue has already been settled by an administrator Click to see. Thank you for the fast response.Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Erica Parsons

Disappearance of Erica Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article is a BLP nightmare that needs urgent review. I don't have time to do it at the moment. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I unlinked the External Link. That itself had multiple issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

But yeah, there still sure are a lot of locally significant people having their laundry aired internationally here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Multiple WP:BLP violations - asserting allegations as fact, for a start. And then there is the way it cites a Daily Mail piece on the results of a Dr. Phil polygraph test as if it was something more than psedoscientific bollocks produced for entertainment value. Utterly clueless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This should be stubbed or deleted ASAP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Alice Cooper

the Alice Cooper band relocated to well north of Detroit. North of Pontiac even. That area is now known as Orion Township. I live in northern Oakland County and know where the house was at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.49.123 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I grew up in the Detroit area and saw Alice Cooper perform in Saugatuck, Michigan in 1969, at the very beginning of their success. So, I am in favor of accuracy in Alice Cooper articles. But you haven't pointed to the exact area where you see a problem. And we need a reliable published source for any change you propose. Neither your memory (nor mine) are reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul Gauguin

We could use input on Paul Gauguin and Talk:Paul Gauguin. I made a major edit which is entirely sourced; essentially maintains the previous info while sourcing it and adding additional content. It has been reverted a couple of times by Coldcreation and Modernist despite no real concerns, these two users are reverting to an edit that they have both contributed substantially to, which is mostly OR. I have also been collaborative with their subsequent edits of adding info, before it was nonetheless reverted again. I am only trying to improve content and source it so that the bio is not such incomplete OR -Nonc01 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nonc01. Since Paul Gauguin (whose work I love) has been dead for 111 years, can you please explain why this content dispute is a matter for the Biographies of LIVING People Noticeboard? Cullen Let's discuss it 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, Gauguin has been dead for 111 years - beyond the scope of WP:BLPN by any stretch of the imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

HAHA my apologies, of course. If you might remain helpful, what noticeboard would this be appropriate on to attain discussion; aside from his Talk? Thank you. EDIT: I have found dispute resolution and will utilize it if it becomes clear that collaboration is impossible. Nonc01 (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicky Hager

Nicky Hager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Political author publishes inflammatory book during election campaign; trolls and POV pushing IPs descend on his article. Request pending at RPP. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected by Diannaa for a period of 3 days.  NQ  talk 06:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rena Owen

Rena Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous noticeboard discussion here. I trimmed down the article a bit and added various sources - from this to this version. The user 'Polywood' (see Special:Diff/284324608 and User:Polywood/sandbox) has been persistent in adding their POV version. The latest version breaks every syntax and adds more fluff. Instead of reverting again, I'm bringing it here. The article is in dire need of a major cleanup.  NQ  talk 07:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also no mention in the current article of the time she spent in jail fro drugs see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11198715 http://www.nzonscreen.com/person/rena-owen/biography http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/film/21974/rena-owen-returns-rural-roots for reliable sources on that. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and left a message in their talk page. The lack of communication by the editor is worrying, and I hope it doesn't get bad enough that we'll have to block them. But that kind of plainly disruptive editing is not going to fly. §FreeRangeFrog 07:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, that article, that editor--yes. There is more to it, I just noticed: User:Polywood/sandbox. I never sent any email, of course, and then we have the usual charges of someone singling out someone else for mysterious reasons. If Polywood is indeed Owen's publicist, she should get a new one--one who understand the platform she's working in and its guidelines, and who can at least attempt to communicate with editors. As for my "interest", I didn't realize who Rena Owen was until after this edit--I remember being surprised after clicking "Save" (I made that edit, of course, because of the usual fluffy "award-winning", which we don't put in opening lines). Once Were Warriors is one of my favorite movies of all time, and the main character/lead actress is fantastic, so I suppose I'm not disinterested. If Polywood is indeed Owen, as is suggested here, then I suggest that she leave the Misplaced Pages editing to us and do what she does better than any of us on this website. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Yeah, It's been mentioned in almost all the sources I cited on that page, how she battled her addiction and served jail time. Notice how 'Polywood' conveniently forgets to include that in the so called "updated bio" they keep changing. Ah, good PR.  NQ  talk 05:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With remarkable timing, I also snapped Simsmi in NZ On Screen articles (here). The editing style is completely different, otherwise I'd be suspecting socks. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edwin Hunt (waterman)

I am Major Edwin Hunt MVO one time Bargemaster to H.M The Queen. I was not born in the London Borough of Camden. I was born in the London Borough of West Ham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.233.62 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Problem is, that's not what this book says. If you have any evidence you can show us, please do. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Can you find a valid source to prove it?, article, book, etc. in which your birth place is mentioned? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  A copy of Edwin Hunt's birth certificate can be found online, here for instance, clearly stating that he was born in West Ham. But in 1920 West Ham wasn't a London borough, it was a county borough, so there was no "London Borough of West Ham" then. Eric Corbett 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here. GiantSnowman 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, thanks. We accept that site, and such records, as sources for this kind of information? If so, please feel free to edit the article accordingly, and maybe you can do some more of your editorial magic: I'm sure Mr. Hunt will appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  This is why I generally avoid BLPs. The policy cited by GS above clearly says "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth ...", which on the face of it rules out a birth certificate unless someone else has checked it and included their findings in a published book. Makes no sense to me. Eric Corbett 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, it makes no sense to me either (I used to use that website all the time until I was informed otherwise!) but them's the rules... GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• At best, I think we should remove the birthplace. Sure, it is sourced but I'd argue that it is not in fact reliably sourced: the book in question is taking its info from oral history projects etc and it looks to me like the specific interview was possibly not with the subject of our article. Basically, we're relying on gossip and the memories of what are in many cases quite elderly people. That doesn't seem like a great idea to me. In between times, I'll see what I can dig up. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I found a record for Edwin Hunt, allegedly born June 1920, West Ham, Essex, Suffolk. The link to the actual record (birth index second quarter of 1920 Apr-May-Jun) revealed that it was Edwin Toop, born in West Ham. Edwin Hunt (immediately above- for some reason the record was by first name) was born in Presect. This is off Ancestry- it looks like the Find My Past info is from the same faulty transcription. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea what Presect means- but it's what was printed! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Prescot, I think. Can you see any born in Camden? I can't, using FMP or Ancestry. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry! I read the records wrong- the ordering is by surname, hence there are two Edwin Hunts born in that quarter, the one born in West Ham has a mother whose maiden name is Toop (presumably the other was a child of a single mother). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, none born in Camden in 1920 (there's an Edwin C. Hunt born March in Bethnal Green). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew you'd read the records wrong but I'm in enough arguments at the moment without getting involved in another ;) So, we have a possible hit in West Ham and none in Camden. As I said earlier, I don't think the cited source is as reliable as might appear at first glance. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with removing the birth place entirely until this matter is resolved with a reliable source. GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rules are rules I suppose. One thing is certain though, that even Edwin Hunt isn't a reliable source for Edwin Hunt, as there was no London Borough of West Ham when he was born in 1920. Eric Corbett 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's likely just an anachronism thing. It happens all the time, eg: with people who were born in the old princely states of India but nowadays say they were born in some area of Haryana, for example; or those who say they were born in Chennai when the place was not known by that name then. The other issue that arise is where one is born and where the birth is registered, which isn't even capable of resolution if he sends in his birth certificate because that shows residence and registration, not birthplace, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have commented out the PoB until the sourcing can be resolved.--ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is still no "London Borough of West Ham", and there never has been; the County Borough of West Ham became part of the London Borough of Newham in 1965. And what on earth is the reference above to "West Ham, Essex, Suffolk"? Essex and Suffolk are separate, neighbouring counties, and no place can be in both. West Ham was in Essex, but is far from Suffolk. ֻֻֻֻRolandR (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

James Knowles III, Mayor of Ferguson, Missouri

I would like more eyes on these articles, which have been in the media lately, and the articles are out of date. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight at Charles D. Baker, Jr.

Three of the four paragraphs in the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign section of Charles D. Baker, Jr. were about a recently-passed gun control law . The section not only unduly made this seem like the biggest issue in the campaign, is non-neutral (i. e. "the proposed law changed that to make your second amendment rights to be at the hands of an individual police chiefs beliefs"), poorly written, and mostly unreferenced. I have removed it, but did the editor who added the NPOV content has reverted it once already. Rather than engage in an edit war, I hope to reach some consensus on the matter here. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of removing the sourced material, somebody could expand the "2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign" section to include other issues in the campaign. Only one paragraph isn't sourced, which could probably be removed. The section really isn't long enough to cite WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of removing factually accurate sourced information. If it is poorly written in your opinion, fix the issue. blanking the whole subject of sourced information is not the way to handle this. Also you really should be getting consensus from the article's talk page. as i previously mentioned..or at least notify the editor.. myself you are complaining elsewhere so I can give my two cents. thanks. btw. I cited the unsourced paragraph for you. An opinion on a constitutional issue is definitely a legitimate topic and does not warrent blanking. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to make it more neutral and remove the part that was being used to make a point about a tangential subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph W. Westphal

Joseph W. Westphal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joseph W. Westphal is poorly sourced and reads like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article.

Potential sources found:

• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579184011128412586 | On ambassador appointment
• http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-saudi-arabia-who-is-joseph-westphal-140427?news=853012 | General info and history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.151.27 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Working on a rewrite now.  NQ  talk 06:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Needs to be checked for grammar, tone and style. Left out much detail as I couldn't find secondary sources to support them.  NQ  talk 08:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

1805 articles marked as unsourced BLPs

A few years back there was a concerted effort to source or remove all unsourced BLPs. Just wondering if there was any continuing effort to do the same as there is now quite a large list of articles tagged as being unsourced. Hack (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You are thinking of Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, which is not currently active. I go do a few every now and then for old times sake, but that backlog is a problem for sure. If you're interested in digging in, I would be happy to provide some protips for working through that list efficiently. --j⚛e decker 04:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Julian Fellowes

When I was adding to the info box that Fellowes party is Conservative Party (UK), I somehow messed up the info box so that it does not display itself in the usual way. Please fix this so that the info box will display itself properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgoth (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done -  NQ  talk 06:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

People trying to categorize Robin Williams as a living people

Hours ago I changed the Template:BLP to Template:BLPO at Talk:Robin Williams because Williams died 4 days ago. Moments ago I received the notification that I was reverted by @Aoidh: stating that "It is still a BLP article per WP:BDP. "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article" is inaccurate." The problems with Aoidh's revert, and those insisting Williams himself should be treated as a "living person" is that Williams is legally death; and WP:BLP is an in-Misplaced Pages rule.

The main problem is Template:BLP adds articles to the Category:Biography articles of living people automatically, and it is a totally inaccurate statement to label him as such. According to WP:BDP, BLP " people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." This specific fragment is problematic, for many reasons. Back in early 2013, BDP stated "Material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, or notable suicides, is covered by this policy." In other words, while in 2013 it was considered that the suicide or murder of somebody would affect living people (concerning personal details of family and friend, which could be published by media), the next month it was reworded to mean that "material that affects a dead person still being jurisdiction of BLP, indeterminately (up to two years)". I have several questions about this. The consensus (if any) even included an specific notation about it: "Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people." But somehow it was transformed into "Contentious or questionable material that affects recently deceased people should be treated in the same way as material about living people." As such, anyone can remove anything questionable about a death person as long as it is considered a "recent death", regardless the sources.

About Williams' case I have also other questions. Why would Williams be the only exception? None of the most recent deaths, or the deaths in 2013 and deaths in 2012 contain the BLP template in either, main space or talk page (although may include the Template:BLPO, because certainly some of them may have information about living people), so why the Template:BLP is not added to them as well? If the problems are the templates, these have to be reworded, but clasify someone as something he is not, in this case a legally deceased person as a living one, is in fact inaccurate and disrespectful. I hope someone can help me to answer these questions. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 10:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's useful to contemplate whether an issue is so important that a battle is warranted. Let's say everyone else is totally wrong—is that really so terrible? Why don't you take the issue up again in a fortnight? Is there an actual problem rather than a potential problem? Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that harm may be caused easily to living persons where suicides etc. are involved - thus Misplaced Pages seeks to use conservative standards in articles involving any such material. It does not say Williams is still alive, only than Misplaced Pages policies still apply, and at less than the one week mark, your cavil is premature. Collect (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

All categories and tags should be altered appropriately once the subject has died. These are organizational aspects of the encyclopedia, and their presence or lack thereof does not affect whether BLP applies or not. BLP applies everywhere, under all circumstances and at all times. §FreeRangeFrog 16:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:BLPO is the wrong template right now. That temlpate says that the BLP policy doesn't apply to the subject, which is false at the moment for this article, as this is clearly a case where "recently died" still applies. Williams is not the only exception, many high profile/traffic pages are treated with BLP applying until there is clearer consensus that it doesn't. If more than one person is disagreeing with you, then it's not time to change it yet.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that there is a difference between BLP applying even if there's no notification of it, and a banner at the top of the talk page specifically saying that BLP doesn't apply to the subject when it does. - Aoidh (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tbhotch, it's a BLP article per WP:BDP. If the issue is that the template is adding it to a category, that is a problem with the template, but we can't say the article doesn't fall under WP:BLP when it does, and we can't have the talk page say "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article" when Misplaced Pages policy very explicitly says otherwise. Between a category hidden down on the talk page and a notice at the top of the page saying that BLP doesn't apply, I'd rather have the category and fix it, given that the other is completely contrary to the WP:BLP policy, especially given the number of readers that are going to the page; that WP:BLP applies is a rather important note. That's why I reverted it, because where WP:BLP is concerned, especially an article with this much traffic, we need to get it right, and changing the blp parameter to "no" isn't right because it then displays false information on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve Cohen (magician)

Steve Cohen (magician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) What's the best way to resolve a dispute about the repeated addition of religous/ethnic labels unwanted by the subject? I've reverted once before, and user Chambermagic (who seems to be either the subject or someone acting for him) has reverted three times. Continuing to remove the unsourced material feels like an edit war, but no one's talking, and the folks adding this are unregistered. This seems to violate WP:BLPCAT, but then that is for categories. Advice, please? It's my first dispute. Kjtobo (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The religious labels are unsourced correct? If so, continue removing the content. This material deserves inclusion to the page if it is supported with a RS. Meatsgains (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do per WP:BLPREMOVE. At what point is a request for WP:SEMI-PRO or WP:PEND appropriate? Kjtobo (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Submit a WP:SEMI-PRO request if they restore their content once more. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - it's worth waiting for a response to my second request for discussion, since the first talk section didn't explicitly request it. Do folks ever insert comments (visible when editing) at the relevant points in the article referring would-be editors to the talk page? Kjtobo (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in your edit summary you can say something along the lines of, "Removed unsourced material, see talk page". You can also include a link to the talk page so the IP users can easily be directed to it. Hope this helps. Meatsgains (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob Beers (Las Vegas City Councilman)

15 Aug 2014 - Since announcing that I will run against US Senator Harry Reid in 2016, my page has experienced ongoing edits by partisan Misplaced Pages users. Currently, I hold one of seven seats on the non-partisan elected Las Vegas City Council.Bob Beers 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Two days ago, the partisan moved the article from "Bob Beers (Las Vegas City Councilman)" to "Bob Beers (Nevada Politician)". I moved it back for two reasons: first, because this creates ambiguity - there have been two separate people with my name seek and win elected office in my state. Second, the term "politician" is an evocative label these days - so evocative that it has been removed from Harry Reid's Misplaced Pages page by other partisan editors.

The next day, the same partisan made the change again, setting off an "editing war" and this entry into the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. The partisan editor this time listed his reason as "if he loses election, he will no longer hold that title but will go back to being a Nevada Politician." This statement is false - I lost reelection in 2008 and went back to being a CPA for a living, for the next three years, with no political activity whatsoever.

So I would like the community's help either by "protecting" the page about me from partisan markup, or to have my page removed from Misplaced Pages altogether so I no longer have to monitor it for such partisan vandalism.

Thanks for the administrator community's consideration.Bob Beers 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)bobbeers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs)

Mr. Beers, please familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies on assuming good faith and editing with a conflict of interest. I am not a "partisan editor" so please do not go throwing around things like that just because someone moves your page.

The article should be at Bob Beers (Nevada politician) or Bob Beers (politician). There is no ambiguity as the "other Bob Beers" doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article. Articles that need disambiguating are not listed according to the person's current job. So, for example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is at Scott Walker (politician) and not Scott Walker (Governor). Likewise, Chris Murphy (politician), John Walsh (U.S. politician), Jack Reed (politician), Tim Johnson (South Dakota politician), Mike Lee (U.S. politician) and Ron Johnson (U.S. politician). As for what Harry Reid's page says, that is not relevant to this article.

Articles aren't moved around based on the person's job. If he stays on the city council he should still be at Bob Beers (politician), if he gets voted out of office, still at Bob Beers (politician) and if he's elected to some other office, he should still be at Bob Beers (politician). The article wouldn't be moved to Bob Beers (CPA) or Bob Beers (State Senator). Tiller54 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, admin community. I did not realize this contributor (Tiller) had cut and paste his comments on my article's talk page to this page. Is it adequate to reference my responses, which I wrote and posted on my article's talk page, or should I cut and paste them here?Bob Beers 01:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs)

I have copy edited and wikilinked the biography, and also reached out to Bobbeers on the article's talk page and his own talk page. The issue of the article title presents a true conundrum, and a real challenge in disambiguation. In short, there are two Bob Beers. Both are from Nevada. Both are from Las Vegas. Both have served in the state legislature. Both are Republicans. I do not believe that they are related. So, that issue has no easy answer, and geniuses are invited to comment. I ain't one. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER gives a little guidance, while saying that it's still down to editor discretion. The case of two poker players with the same name was ultimately settled with the parenthetical addition of birth years, (usually discouraged). It also says to Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term. and Try to avoid using ... anything capitalised... which combined with WP:CONCISE could also suggest (city councillor) instead of the more ornate (Las Vegas City Councilman). __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've suggested on the talk page, we could move Bob L. Beers to "Bob Beers (politician, born 1951)" and this article to "Bob Beers (politician, born 1959)", which avoids anything capitlised and uses only a single, recognisable and highly-applicable term. Tiller54 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ailes

I'm a bit worried that parts of this article have become a WP:COATRACK. In particular, Roger Ailes#Newspaper ownership seems to be a poorly veiled criticism of the man. Please understand, I do NOT have a dog in this fight (I really don't care either way), I am simply bringing something to light that may be a problem. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrick B. Moran

I do not believe this article meets general notability guidelines. Patrick Moran is not notable except as pertaining to his role in a vote fraud scandal in his father's campaign, which is already covered in detail in the Jim Moran article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.151.4 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I PROD'd the article as per WP:BLP1E. Subject is non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Joni Ernst

An RFC is being conducted at Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? about the appropriateness of including critical material about the subject of the article which is present in the reliable sources used in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The RfC as written completely mis-represents the dispute and violates the guidelines for neutrality when creating an WP:RFC.CFredkin (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" include editorial opinions connecting Ernst indirectly with segregationists and slavery supporters for backing "nullification" in any way. Clearly the opinions of that nature must be regarded as statements of opinionand not as statements of objective fact here. Collect (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

dual survival cody lundin

to say cody lundin slowed the duo down due to bare feet is subjective on one hand , and incorrect on another - cody lundin stated numerous times in the show that to be aware and alert was the reasoning behind moving at a certain speed , with conservation of calories and hydration also a factor -- as written it is derogatory and false .

Please provide context and maybe a link to what you're referring to. What you wrote makes no sense.- MrX 16:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Rick Perry article

Clearly MrX and Cwobeel are engaging in an edit war with any editor that attempts to remove information that violates BLP on the Rick Perry article. There is no justification to name the worst potential penalties for yesterday's indictment and remove information where even well-know Democrats and liberals believe that the indictment is weak and has not support. That information is supported by a reliable source and they both have removed that information without discussion--just reverting in a blatant edit war manner.--NK (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution