Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LittleHarv (talk | contribs) at 05:35, 26 December 2012 (→alex cejka- professional golfer- URGENT: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Andrew Mitchell

Please can someone semi-protect the Andrew Mitchell article? There are all sorts of allegations being put about -- it's important that Misplaced Pages be very careful to keep its reporting to just careful reporting of what is being said by third party reliable sources, without any attempt at drawing its own conclusions or endorsing any particular point of view, to avoid BLP problems. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed something but I can't quite see shere the allegations are. The four IP edits that have been made in the last two days include two spelling corrections, one essentially accurate (if in need of wikification) account of the CCTV footage and a link to the Channel 4 News account of the CCTV. JASpencer (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jame Blake Miller

I'd appreciate it if some other editors better versed in BLP policy than I am would have a look at James Blake Miller.

The article seems like massive overkill to me, considering that the only reason anybody's ever heard of him is due to a single, widely published photo. While the famous photo probably creates sufficient notability for an article, one has to wonder at what point WP:ONEEVENT kicks in. There's definitely a whole lot more than just the pertinent details surrounding the photograph.

I offer that the article needs to be slimmed down, a lot, to comply with our policies. Thoughts? Belchfire-TALK 10:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Main problem is that it was almost entirely a copyvio - editors should at least reword LATimes articles - some was too bad to save IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I still think we need to trim it. The article says he's estranged from his family and running with a motorcycle gang, even though that information is 5+ years old. All we really need is (most of) the lead and the two paragraphs about the photo. Belchfire-TALK 13:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Josh Payne‎

Making you aware of the Josh Payne‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) situation - we have a young professional sportsman who has been fired following a criminal conviction. Editors and IPs who claim to be relatives are removing the sourced info as they believe it is "damaging." Further eyes appreciated. GiantSnowman 10:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Marjo-Riikka Makela

Marjo-Riikka Makela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The disenchantment (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place, this is generally for dealing with serious issues affecting living persons, such as libel, defamation, etc. If you wish to see that article deleted, you may wish to review the material at WP:AFD. As regards notability, before nominating an article, I'd suggest rereading WP:GNG and performing a search for sources. Best, --j⚛e decker 16:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration

Transportation Security Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a section in this article that I've been concerned with for quite a while. It's the Incidents section and is a list of incidents involving TSA agents. It's mostly been edited by 97.81.124.40 (talk · contribs) who originally was putting any negative incident that involved a current or former TSA agent regardless of whether it happened on or off the job. I believe the IP is using this as a "naughty" list to hammer the TSA. Earlier this year we had a mini edit war over a single positive incident. That information is in the article but not in the incident list, keeping it purely negative.

Entries in the list mention people by name and allegations of the action. The vast majority of these people are, I feel, non-notable. Personally, I'd like to pull the entire list and note where appropriate that TSA agents have been caught committing various crimes with refs. Incidents that get significant attention may end up being pointed out but what we've got now is just ugly. I'm anything but a fan of the TSA but this is just a hit piece to me. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

At least pull the non-notable BLP names (both TSA agents *and* victims) The rest is still overly much, but I can imagine the refs being used to create a summary of that information to say something a little more encyclopedic. --j⚛e decker 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

martin berkofsky

Martin Berkofsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently it was noticed that two strange banners were added to the top of this article. The banners claimed faults with the article but did not explain what the supposed faults were or how to fix them. Could the person "ROSTOVDON"(?) who inserted these banners please explain in detail what was or is on his/her mind so that the "faults" can be corrected? Sincerely,

Martin Berkofsky— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.109.27 (talk • contribs)

Take a look at the following pages: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Original research and (for the third template that I just added), WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:Cite.--ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks-but you do not specifically explain what seems to bother you. Can you list lines, words, sentences, etc., which seem out of order? Can you make some substantive suggestions for specific improvements, or are you just complaining so that you can be a complainer? BE SPECIFIC AND BE HELPFUL! Martin Berkofsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.109.27 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all you need to assume good faith, this is a collaborative project and without good faith between editors, we might as well pack it all in and metaphorically go home. Second, as you are the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly encouraged NOT to edit the article, but to use its talk page to request changes, providing reliable sources to support your request. Third, the article does not cite any sources - it has a list of external links that may or may not specifically support what is stated in the article -- see referencing for beginners for more assistance. Fourth, and this is linked to item 3, without citations it is nigh on impossible to determine whether the content has been covered by secondary sources or is original research. Does that help?--ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Crandall

Richard Crandall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Today, two editors have edited the article to assert that Crandall died today. Neither cited any reliable source, and I haven't been able to find anything myself to support the claim. Does anyone know whether it's correct? Deltahedron (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

At least one source confirming his death has been added to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's sad. The Reed Magazine reference there now is most likely correct. --j⚛e decker 03:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sadly it seems to be correct. At the time of originally posting there were no sources. Deltahedron (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Haruka Ayase

• Haruka Ayase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is adding this person's presumed "real name" to the article without a source. The "real name" in question is just gossip and there is certainly no reliable source. I reverted twice and brought up on the talk page, but the editor insisted on adding it again, also using the user-generated content on IMDb as a "reference". JoshuSasori (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason that having the "real name" is objectionable beyond the lack of a better source? I'm not suggesting that it should stay if it's not objectionable -- we should have a good source for it. I'm just wondering how much of a problem it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The person has chosen not to reveal her "real name". If she has chosen not to reveal the name, I don't see what business Misplaced Pages has repeating gossip about what it might be. I don't know why she doesn't want the real name to be known, but since she doesn't, why are we putting it in the article? I'm quite uncomfortable about being asked to speculate about why she might not publish her name. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Misplaced Pages has a notice not to add her real name because it is not public, and previous versions of the article that violated this policy have been deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The name appears to be authentic. We still shouldn't add it unless some reliable source linked to the subject can be found. The only results I found were blogs with some rather stalkerish suggestions of checking the alleged name in the Hiroshima phone book, so it seems unlikely. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can you stop this "name appears to be authentic"? It's possible to find directions to Momoe Yamaguchi's house on the internet, but that doesn't mean wikipedia should publish it. JoshuSasori (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is that IMDB is not a reliable source, so unless a reliable source is found we should not even think about adding the name to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ukexpat: I agree completely. That's why I made this edit and pointed the offending user to the specific policy point that bans use of IMDb as a source. (And JoshuSasori: I will word my opposition to the inclusion of this information however I like, thank you very much. It should be obvious to anyone who understands Misplaced Pages policy that what matters here is not whether the information is accurate but whether reliable sources exist.) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case

Please can we get some extra eyes - and thoughts - on 2012 Delhi gang rape case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is apparently a hot topic in India right now, but we have an article where we're giving the full names, locations, and occupations of people who are only related to the suspects (and indeed full names of most of the suspects themselves, though that's arguably more justifiable). All of these are living people right now; I wouldn't want that to end up changing purely because of information unwisely parroted by Misplaced Pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pruned it a little and reworded the lead to more natural English. I have also requested temporary semi-protection.--ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Park Geun-hye

Some more eyes would be useful at Park Geun-hye. Most of this stayed in the article for more than an hour. I would semiprotect the page, but I know nothing about South Korean politicians, so I don't want to be responsible for locking things up. (There may be additional vandalism that has slipped through.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld

Jay Westerveld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs the help of some experienced BLP editors. Please see (the bickering on) Talk:Jay Westerveld and the rules of engagement I've laid out--more importantly, please edit the article so it's no longer an embarrassment and fodder for edit-warring. I've set protection for Pending changes given its history. Your help is greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've made substantial edits to the article. I've also left a note at talk about my concerns on a stand-alone biography. I've begun an RfC regarding a merger proposal to Greenwashing. The discussion is at the Greenwashing talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jake Adelstein

"False claims about crime in Japan" and other libelous materials including repeated references to a National Geographic lawsuit, which was settled out of court, keep being repeated without substantiation while reference articles to work done by the author with documentation keep being deleted. A personal grudge against the author appears to be the cause of the repeated corrections. As far as the National Geographic Channel, numerous issues with their practices have been cited elsewhere http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hutterites-want-apology-natgeo-television-show-201854965.html and NGC is owned by NewsCorp which has engaged in wire tapping of phone and other illegal activities. Perhaps that should be reference as well. http://societymatters.org contains a litany of documentation on questionable practices at NGC, which the reader should certainly have as reference in making any decisions. Whether those other complaints against NGC are warranted or not, the reader can decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.126.48 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, the usual BLP shit where the subject plus friends and enemies have it out with each other in the fluffy article. I've gone through and trimmed the article some; perhaps this warrants longterm semi-protection if this nonsense by these IP editors continues. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Some BLP violations in this - and use of "wikiyakuza" for GoTo's BLP was improper. Looks like a bit of puffery for this author, who seems to have minimal credentials, alas. Collect (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Suzy Favor-Hamilton

Could someone take a look at the Suzy Favor-Hamilton article? My first impression is that there are balance and neutrality issues there, particularly in the lead, which currently reads a bit like an attack piece. Nsk92 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add we have a complaint about the version of the lead that included her being a prostitute, and the complaint seems to be from an academic unrelated to her who mentions her article as an example of misogyny and sexism in our articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor changes to the article, but am unsure whether or not the material about her escort work should be kept. It's well-sourced and she's fairly high-profile, but I'm not sure whether its likely to be useful information for many readers. Other opinions would be welcome. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

From a post I made on the subject's article Talk page:

"...Indeed, I think all of those editing this article should review and thoughtfully consider WP:BLP (Misplaced Pages:biographies of living persons) and refer to it for guidance on how to proceed with this matter. Of special concern, in my view, given some of the comments on this page, is the following quote from ¶ 3 of WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment..."

I must confess that at this point, I am in favor of deleting the section on her sex-work experience. If, at some later time, an editor can supply a convincing justification for restoring this section, well, so be it. Until then, I do not see that it has value sufficient to outweigh the presumption that I think we are supposed to have against inclusion. NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath

There is a section appeared called "Turn in new reporting" which seems to be a mixture of dubiously sourced material and editor comments. The discussion on the talk page isn't any more enlightening either. The subject is apparently quite a high profile person in Germany currently. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of other serious issues with the article and the TP too: Inexperienced editors vs. POV-pushing editor, Edit-war, uncivil language on TP (even in a para-header!), rather poor language skills, misuse of edit summary for PAs, ...) - In essence, a foolish and obstructive quarrel between some single-minded german contributors spreading here. --46.115.53.63 (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael Peter Ritter

A friend was wondering if this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article. On parole for a US$270 million ponzi/pyramid thing. Google search has details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mi Pueblo Food Center

Mi Pueblo Food Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was brought to my attention via OTRS. There appears to be some rather contentious material regarding a specific individual with many statements lacking citations and possible POV and UNDUE concerns. I'm hoping someone could take a look at the article with an eye towards ensuring any BLP-violating material is cleaned-up? --Jezebel'sPonyo 00:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

An internet search showed that there does exist a probably noteworthy controversy. I've improved the sourcing and trimmed back the content. The photo gallery was also an issue, but I'm not sure what the best thing is there. I've restricted it to one photo for now. I also removed some content which was favourable towards the store, because it was sourced in the same way as the negative content. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ay-yi-yi. I'll keep this one on my watchlist because there's a store near me and I like it. I'll try to keep the article fair and neutral. The Oakland Tribune article is negative but it should be represented with two sentences. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm not looking for a whitewash by any means, but it certainly needed a good BLP/POV scrub. --Jezebel'sPonyo 02:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionable removal of well researched and verifiable information...

Danny Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misplaced Pages states that contributors must only add verifiable and factual information, rather than personal views and opinions.

Recently Dianna (and other administrators) removed, even before enough time had passed to properly ready/study the contribution; contributions I made to the Danny Green webpage. It appears they did not check or understand the material they removed, and then justified these bulk deletes by wrongly and falsely accusing me that they were poorly sourced.

I have on many occasions requested Dianna to explain and justify this claim, and to also explain why, if the material I provided was inaccurate, she didn't explain which parts were and simply remove those.

Dianna, in conflict with Misplaced Pages' ethos has ignored these requests and my request to edit the webpage; whilst locking it.

The contribution I made removed the bulk of propaganda that existed on the page and they provided many, many citations and references; verifying that the provided material was accurate, checkable and factual.

The material clarified many aspects of Danny Green's achievements. Prior to the changes the webpage was clearly being used to promote and advertise Danny Green. In addition to that, it was largely unreferenced. These characteristics conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies.

Regardless of this and the fact that the information we provided was clearly researched, extremely well referenced (from very reliable industry sources) and the fact the existing page at the time was not. .. .

Dianna simply deleted all our contribution without reading/checking it.

Reverted the page back to the original which was inaccurate, largely unreferenced and essentially promotional material for Danny Green.

When we tried to return our contribution (which complied with Misplaced Pages policies) and get Dianna to explain why she was showing preference for bias material and bulk-deleting all our contribution; we received no clear indication from her.

Dianna then claimed our work was poorly sourced.

Since our work was well researched, we then asked her to explain where the poor sources were. We received no response. Meanwhile we followed Misplaced Pages policy and requested to edit the page.

That request was ignored repetitively as well.

We appreciate that our contribution may not embellish Danny Green's webpage. However, many facts (and many other Misplaced Pages pages that contain facts and the truth, and are verifiable) sometimes don't embellish the subject either. That is the nature of the truth, and that is also why the web-page in question - prior to our well researched contribution - was grossly inaccurate.

It should be noted that on many occasions Dianna simply deleted all our work and reverted the webpage back to the propaganda it previously was; whilst accusing us to justify her actions, all as she failed to explain where our contribution was poorly sourced and inaccurate.

We believe Dianna has a conflict of interest with this matter because she has erred in judgment and been caught bulk deleting material because someone - most likely those whom originally provided the un-referenced material in the start - probably asked her to respond. We say this with confidence as the material we contributed (and Dianna deleted) was verifiable, contained many references and completely clarified many aspects of Danny Green's career that have been exaggerated and used as promotional material. We say this with confidence also as it is virtually impossible for Dianna to have known about the subject and then justified deleting the entirety of our contribution; even if she did have the time to read and check it all before it was deleted.

We believe this kind of "Administrator" conduct - where accurate, well referenced/researched contributions are entirely deleted so less accurate versions can be given preference; particularly those involving accusations on the administrator's part (to justify the conduct) that the contribution is poorly sourced, that are not explained; have no place in Misplaced Pages.

Finally, if the Danny Green webpage can't accommodate truthful, verifiable and well researched information, just because it reveals precisely how bias and incorrect the previously existing information was; then we would like to know why. As there are many, many Misplaced Pages pages that describe death, horror and circumstances and events that have much more impact than the truth we have provided.

We suggest that Dianna's actions would have been better spent on the material that was unverified and inaccurate; rather than deleting the information that was clearly researched, extremely well referenced (from very reliable industry sources) and accurate.

Can someone please explain Dianna's accusations and why the elements of our contribution that are said to be inaccurate and poorly sourced have not been highlighted to us (as we have requested) so we can;

1) See that Dianna has not simply deleted without checking. 2) See that Dianna has not simply falsely accused us of poorly sourced material. 3) Change the inaccuracies whilst that which is accurate remains. 4) Ensure Misplaced Pages readers can learn about Danny Green's real record and actions accurately and in a manner that is verifiable. 5) Understand Dianna's actions better and why she removed material based on her unsubstantiated guesses about its accuracy and whether we have a connection to Danny Green (we don't but we know enough people in the boxing industry to easily source correct and accurate information).

We are prepared to substantiate any of the information we have provided, so the real question is why can't is be published and why had Dianna falsely accused us as justification for her actions - which appear in conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.100.243 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The material added was deleted because it was unsourced, or poorly sourced at best. I'd suggest that it could also be described as POV-pushing, editorialising, full of original research, and otherwise in direct contravention of multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard - I'm sure that this will help ensure that such material is prevented from being added again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that boxingscene.com meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for what we consider to be a reliable source. Try to use mainstream sources such as Sports Illustrated or ESPN. BTW, don't write such long posts. Nobody wants to read a long, wall of text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the IP reads WP:TLDR - huge screeds of text (here and on the talk page) do not enhance the points you are trying to make. Please be succinct.--ukexpat (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Boxing scene is actually one of the better sources of boxing information? Sports illustrated and Fox source their boxing info from Boxing scene. In any regard, there were many, many other references from other well respected and reliable sources? You have overlooked many of the sources I have provided. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.79 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious you have no idea of where accurate boxing information can be sourced from. Please check my references and information again and tell me, in detail, which ones you believe are not well sourced.

As it is now you are simply being defensive - I am asking you to explain which parts of my contribution are not accurate and why? If you cant do that then I am beginning to see why you guys are not getting paid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.79 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles must be written according to Misplaced Pages policy - your contributions weren't. They were reverted accordingly. And just out of interest, are you being paid to contribute to Misplaced Pages? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa's page protection was in response to my request. I acknowledge that the Danny Green article is in need of attention, and I have committed to working hard to improve it. I've gone through the article and removed the worst of the transgressions – so that what's left is (largely) non-controversial and event-based. As mentioned on the article's talk page, that is only the first stage, and I have committed to working to improve the article until every piece of text is supported by reliable sources. You can see the level I would like to achieve by the standard to which I have lifted the Green versus Briggs/Controversy section. I understand that the current article falls below what is required in a BLP, however I would ask for a little leeway so that I can lift the rest of the article to that standard (which might take a fair chunk of the rest of the year).

In response to the extraordinary amounts of (repetitive) text being deposited by an IP, all I can say is that I hope that IP can contribute constructively (and within WP's policies) after the article has been improved. Until now, all I have witnessed is poorly-written text that is riddled with original research and unencyclopaedic language. I have offered to help the IP, however no request for that help has been received (so far).

GFHandel ♬  06:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone added a controversy section to the article, apparently because it "needed" one. I reverted, but it was re-added. The editor, without logging in, left me nasty comments on my talk page, but no matter. It would be good if more editors could look at the material. It is possible that some of the material should be included in the article, although preferably not in a controversy section.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved that to the talk page and suggested that it be broken up and the information added to appropriate sections per guidelines. This is a BLP and to include a controversy sections seems POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not finding a specific prohibition regarding controversy sections in BLP articles. That it "seems POV" is a bit vague... could someone point out where this is forbidden? I'd also note that the material, while unflattering to Feinstein, appears at first glance to be reasonably sourced. Jusdafax 00:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

List of British Iranians

A minor one this, but can someone take a look at List of British Iranians. First User:Tabarish, and then an IP have been adding a local poltician to the list: a Sharan Tabari who was a Labour member of Westminster council for a few years. This is unsourced, but from what I can find on Google, Tabari seems not to have attracted any real attention - consequently, per WP:POLITICIAN guidelines, the individual wouldn't merit an article, and therefore shouldn't be included on the list. I'll notify the IP and User:Tabarish (evidently the individual concerned) of this thread, but I'd like some input from others too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Stienstra

Hey can you look over this article and vet it? I want to make sure it isn't violating WP:UNDUE and can not be considered libelous or defamatory. I'm pretty confident it's not but I've been contacted via email from this person publisher and they naturally don't like bad publicity. Either way I just want to make sure our bases are covered. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ali Ahmad Kurd

Please help at Ali Ahmad Kurd article. User:Sitush is repeatedly inserting unsourced defamatory material about Gen. Musharraf, a former head of state and and is also making improperly sourced claims of the context of Ali Ahmed Kurd's arrest. I had deleted the material and requested him not to reinsert without proper sources and proper discussion. But the material has been reinserted without proper sources and discussion and I am being attacked as if I am destroying articles by removing unsourced and improperly sourced defamatory material from BLP. Please help.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the part that was actually unsourced. But you deleted material that was sourced, and I would advise you to stop doing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not give those reasons for removal, you removed sourced content, and you removed easily verifiable content. I am concerned about the lack of a cited source for the alleged second arrest but there are plenty of potential sources & it can be fixed in the next 24 hours or so. You are being heavy-handed elsewhere also and your hasty report here concerns me. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The "sourced" part which I had removed is not properly sourced. The given source does not say anything about Bugti or incitement by Kurd. It also does not say anything about his release or date of arrest. I do not think it is proper to say anything about arrest without a properly sourced description of context of arrest.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, the source you provided does not say anything at all about Musharraf ordering the arrest of Kurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor did the article. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is easily fixed stuff. Oranges is spending more time ripping up and arguing than it would take to fix, & is doing so on several articles. My bet is the YouTube clips they deleted at Kurd supported some of the statements but I'm deaf and so am using other srcs. Coming here w/out proper discussion is a ridiculous state of affairs. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Nor did the article"?? Here's (part of) what you added/restored: "Musharraf again ordered the arrest of Kurd". It's not in the source. It's probably true -- but if you want it in the article, then it's on you to provide a source for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to fix this appalling destruction using a smartphone. I reinstated the deletions to fix but it takes a few minutes. Is everyone happy now? I can't believe the lack of good faith here, not to mention the lack of initiative. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sitush should not have added the line about the order to arrest with that source being cited. If there is a reliable source, I am sure they will provide it or they will refrain from adding that content back. As a BLP issue, I see no reason to wait for 24 hrs if that means leaving the information and I don't think in this instance OrangesRyellow was being heavy handed. But lets all assume good faith and move forward from here with reliable sources for any such contentious claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I had brought this here because Sitush seems to have some kind of terrible urgency about reinserting the defamatory content even if it meant reinserting without proper sourcing and because it is difficult to interact with him. He keeps on saying insulting things again and again and everywhere even when he himself is reinserting info without proper sourcing and when I was only deleting unsourced or improperly sourced content from BLP. I do not see the reason for the fanatical urgency to reinsert. I appreciate the help in interacting with him.

The newly inserted source

I don't want to discuss any conduct issues really. This is not the proper venue. I understand it can be frustrating. The source is best discussed through the Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Lets try to be patient with each other. I know it isn't always easy, but we should at least try to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists

This category is highly populated with living persons - many of whom are not the "theorists" but have been noted by someone as believing in a "conspiracy theory." As this is a subjective matter for most of those listed (those who actually initiate a conspiracy theory, noted as such by reliable sources beyong simply being controversial opinion may belong in this category), many of those listed ase listed simply as a "crackpot badge" in Misplaced Pages's voice. And being grouped with Adolf Hitler does seem to be a "crackpot badge". I consider the label "conspiracy theorist" to be a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP, requiring specific relaible sourcing as "fact", and ask if others agree. Collect (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In principle, sure. But I note that you removed the category from Glenn Beck despite a plethora of sources for it, so I'm wondering what this is really about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He is not per se a person who has created any conspiracy theories, nor are there any strong RS sources ascribing theorising - thus the removal. I would note, further, that Christian leaders who appear to believe in the Book of Revelation are called "conspiracy theorists", along with folks like L. Ron Hubbard, and a slew of others - many of whom conveniently are not reliably sourced as such. Such such a term be applied without strong sourcing? In the case of Beck, we have "critics contend" which is not really strong sourcing, is it? Media Matters for America is not a good source for factual claims of this nature. Really. Collect (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have read the lede but not the rest of the article. Really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, you don't have to create conspiracy theories to be a conspiracy theorist, you simply have to promote them. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

But my chief point is that labelling a person with the term is "contentious" per WP:BLP, thus requiring specific strong sourcing. Columns in Salon, HuffPo, etc. are not strong enough to all a person any pejorative name in Misplaced Pages's voice - so this term also should not be assigned in Misplaced Pages's voice either ("categories" are in "Misplaced Pages's voice" IMHO. Collect (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored this. Opinions might differ about "strong" sources, but the opinion that they are weak is a minority one here. In this instance it is not a matter of only leftists -- the article makes it clear that people from across the political spectrum identify him as a conspiracy theorist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The category is "conspiracy theorists," not "creators of conspiracy theories." The latter would be empty, as most conspiracy theories are ultimately elaborations of the anti-Semitic Blood libel, the Witch hunts in Early Modern Europe, and maybe John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy (if that's not a secular version of "the godless are gonna overturn our Church and State" belief of the witch hunts). One thing that might help is distinguishing between the types of conspiracy theories the folks in that category believe in, but I doubt most sources would explicitly do that enough for us to avoid OR (and many would still be in a general "yeah, that probably believe that too" category). As for sourcing and BLP, Huffpost is considered as at least as reliable as Fox News. That he has been documented advocating beliefs that only conspiracy theorists advocate, and that this documentation is in secondary sources that meet WP:RS is enough. Just because Huffpost isn't right-wing doesn't matter. "Conspiracy theorist" is contentious and should not be used without a source, but reliable sources are provided, so there's no problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Ian Thomson here. Yes, such a claim must have good reliable sources, absolutely: but if they're provided, then it's good to go. --Cyclopia 18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is clearly a conspiracy to pretend that Glenn Beck is not a conspiracy theorist. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  There is no conspiracy. You are conspiracy theorist, shame on you :)--В и к и T 21:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

David Simpson (British politician)

I am not reporting a BLP violation but seeking views on a radical edit to an article on the basis of a supposed violation.

David Simpson is a Member of Parliament and a prominent Democratic Unionist Party politician in Northern Ireland. His long-serving election agent, speechwriter and chief aide, David McConaghie, is a minister in the Free Presbyterian Church and was the press officer of one of Northern Ireland's leading evangelical Christian creationist pressure groups, the Caleb Foundation - he was thus a public figure in his own right.

Simpson's bio article had the following paragraph added, all factually accurate, neutrally worded and double-sourced from reliable media:

====Constituency office incident====

On 25 September 2012 Simpson contacted police following the discovery of a hidden camera in the toilet of his constituency office in Portadown. Simpson's election agent and constituency assistant, David McConaghie, who had played a key role in Simpson's 2005 election victory, was arrested, and was released pending further inquiries. When the matter became public in November 2012, Simpson stated "The police are currently investigating issues pertaining to an individual brought to their attention by myself. I no longer employ this individual and he does not hold any office in the party."

One editor objected to the inclusion of this paragraph on the grounds that it was "not news", having earlier argued that it somehow implied guilt on the part of Simpson. I argued for its retention on the grounds that it most certainly was news and, in the final version quoted above, focused on Simpson without in any way defaming him. It does not defame McConaghie either, even in the peculiarly strict legal regimes applying in the four UK and Irish legal jurisdictions, in that it simply states the uncontested facts that he was arrested, released and is no longer employed by Simpson. These facts have been widely reported in the mass media - two sources were given in the article but many others can be added.

A third opinion was sought, whereupon User:TransporterMan intervened and immediately not only cut the entire passage from the Simpson article, but edited relevant details out of the talk page exchanges between me and the other editor. He alleged that the material "violate WP:BLPCRIME and cannot be included in Misplaced Pages until the criminal charges are resolved". He also indicated - contrary to normal protocol - that he was unwilling to discuss this directly and wanted any objection to his summary edit to be taken here. I request views on whether (a) the whole passage should stand, on the basis that McConaghie falls within the WP:WELLKNOWN category; or (b) the material does in fact violate WP:BLPCRIME so that the passage should be reworded without naming McConaghie until the matter is resolved in the courts. Brocach (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the passage in question as the sole purpose in including it seemed to be to introduce negativity into a politician's BLP through a bit of guilt by association. I can't think of any other politicians article in which a significant section of the article is devoted to alleged wrongdoing by a third party, who hasn't even been convicted, making the material questionable on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP grounds. Additionally all the news stories on this event occurred the day after it happened, there doesn't seem to be any lasting impact to suggest it is an exception to WP:NOTNEWS. Brocach claims that McConaghie is a well known figure, yet if all the news stories about this one event are stripped away, there's hardly anything on him in reliable sources and certainly not enough to sustain an article on someone who would fail WP:GNG. Brocach is clearly quite determined to include this material regardless, ignoring WP:BRD and even violating the WP:1RR which applies to such articles under the Troubles arbitration case with 2 reverts to the Simpson article on 6 December. Brocach now appears to be attempting to circumvent this discussion, having created an article on David_McConaghie which may later be used to simply readd the BLP violations in some form. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the original edit to the Simpson article suggests guilt by association, especially since it starts with the statement that it was Simpson who called in the law. However I also fail to see what it adds to the article in question. As for the article on the alleged perp, I agree that he seems not truly notable. Btw, anybody familiar with the Flann O'Brien play Faustus Kelly?TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A one sentence mention should be sufficient and there is no reason to mention the accused who probably does not meet BLP for having his own article. TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke

Matthew VanDyke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have noticed that this article keeps being edited by editors who must not be aware of the controversy surrounding Joel Simon's blog accusations. Due to the controversy, these accusations should not appear in the article nor should the blog be cited as a source. This matter has been previously discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive165#Matthew_VanDyke. Including accusations made in someone's blog in a BLP not only puts the credibility of this Misplaced Pages article into question, but the whole Misplaced Pages project as well. When you add in these additional factors: that the accusations are highly suspect given the possible personal motives of the blog author in attacking the subject, that the accusations have been disputed by the subject in a lengthy and detailed fashion in which more than enough evidence was presented to cast doubt on the validity of the accusations, and the fact that the accusations made in the blog have been reported in the press as being possibly untrue, then it is clear that no mention of the blog or the accusations belongs in this Misplaced Pages article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HST799 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a consenus from that very short discussion and off wiki complaints ( as mentioned in that other discussion) on Facebook do not seem relevant here. As Uncle G mentions, there is an additional RS for this information. Use of the "blog" being cited seems to meet RS. This is not a personal blog, but part of a journalist site that has editorial oversite and a reputation for fact checking and reliably published (this is not a self published blog). Committee to Protect Journalists - Joel Simon is the current executive director and a journalist. The "blog" is not a personal blog and should be no issues using this as a primary source.

Per our BLP policy: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." This seems to fall directly into to that category. I see no reason this material cannot return, however I would add the RS provided by Uncle G at the very least.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also a little concerned with what looks like campaigning from David Gerard and possible stealth canvassing by posting on the facebook complaint by the subject in a manner that seems less than neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I will add (as I forgot to mention above) that the content as originally written was properly attributed as opinion from the "News blog" (as this does constitute such) but could use some balance as clearly the subject denies the information and there is sure to be a RS with equal prominence.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Dankof

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

My attempts to edit the article entitled, "Mark Dankof," have been removed. The material removed includes Dankof's response to the AIM and ADL characterizations of either himself or Press TV/Iran, and is found at "Mark Dankof to Howard Phillips," and "Mark Dankof Responds to the ADL Hit Piece on Press TV Iran."

My attempt to add my "Mark Dankof's America at Wordpress" site to External Links has also been removed for reasons not understood.

I sincerely hope this is an honest mistake, and unrelated to issues presented by the following:

Zionist Online Activists Promote Pro-Israel Misplaced Pages Image

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News (Israel) 

"Misplaced Pages has become the new battleground for Israel's PR image. The Yisrael Sheli (My Israel) movement and the Yesha Council, which represents Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, have joined together for a new public relations initiative. Together they will soon offer a special course for volunteers who wish to write and edit English entries on Misplaced Pages, the online encyclopedia. Ayelet Shaked, who is heading the project, was interviewed on Monday on Arutz 7 Radio, and said that she was surprised at the large number of individuals who have gotten in touch with her so far and are interested in joining the course."

There is one more issue that needs clarification: Who posted the original article, "Mark Dankof" at Misplaced Pages? What is the name/names of the person/persons involved? Since the Assistant Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Anti Defamation League of B'nai Brith in New York has been publicly shown to have been anonymously posting materials related to me and other American activists on a site known as JHate, I believe the question about who and what is behind the "Mark Dankof" article on Misplaced Pages to be a fair one.

Thanks,

Kramf (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Mark DankofKramf (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The BLP issues

The stuff about Zionist editing conspiracies should be dealt with elsewhere. The BLP issues on Mark Dankof are serious enough though. The sources are crap, and the entire article is a hit job. I've started to cull it. One question is whether PressTV is a reliable source. Dankof's efforts (described just above) to add blogspot sources don't help. I suspect this one will get sorted out only through semi-protection -- but even that might not do it as there is at least one autoconfirmed editor contributing to the mess there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra Peterson AKA Elvira

The one problem I know of for sure is it claims her to be an American Born Actress, this is false. She is of Canadian Birth and that should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.64.108 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No it should not be altered. She was born in Kansas. . Please dont edit with stuff you "know". Verify the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Death of Sean Kennedy

• Death of Sean Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A the Help Desk, an IP (claiming to be the person who pled guilty to crime) has complained about the article, on the basis that the article incorrectly states the killing was a hate crime (the person also made a legal threat, which will have to be dealt with seperately). BLP is triggered here, as the victim's killer is still alive, and labeling them a hate-crime killer incorrectly should be avoided.

There's no doubt that many public figures have viewed this killing as a hate-crime, and have used it as the basis of creating new laws and legislation. However, given the plea bargain deal in the case, I don't think it can actually be labeled as a hate-crime. I believe the sources speculate that it is a hate crime, but that is as far they go. So if the sources cannot say that it was a hate-crime, I think the article should be revised to avoid BLP violations. Singularity42 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

But the article does not state that the killing was a hate crime, nor does it label the killer a "hate-crime killer". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is in a hate crime category. The article quotes the warrant for the person's arrest that states it was a hate crime. It talks about the victim's parents being invited to the White House ceremony for the signing of the Hate Crime Prevention Act. Perhaps the hate crime category should be removed as a start... Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is there a quote in the article saying that it was a hate crime? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The quote from the warrant is: "...result of the defendant (Moller) not liking the sexual identity of the victim" Singularity42 (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah -- so it doesn't say it was a hate crime?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(E/C)I fact tagged that part. The article looks like it could use some attention to be sure it complies with NPOV and proper reliable sourcing ect, but doesn't look too "bad". Since the killer, or what ever one is called who is convicted or pleads guilt to man slaughter is called, is named in the article, the usuall blp concerns should be applied. --Malerooster (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but, what? You have a random IP editor with no proof of identity whatsoever, who makes clear legal threats ("We have a pretty heavy law suit going on now for slander and i was asked to contact the publishers or the publishers site and ask for it to be removed before further action is taken"), my first reaction is suspicion. This IP should be blocked per WP:NLT and instructed to make user of the OTRS system for further communication, THEN we will see if this is at all genuine. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tarc, I actually don't care who the IP is, but do of course care about NLT and would have no problem with doing what have you with him or her. Now that the article has been "brought" to this board, it should be looked at and dealt with as we would any blp concern it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As a "non-interested party", I took a look at the article, and if there is any merit to the claimant's assertions (e.g.: the video), then the article certainly lacks balance. There certainly is an implication of "hate-crime" associated with the perpetrator. ~Just my 2¢, ~E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc: The IP's post was definitely suspicious (hence why I said the IP "claimed" to be the other party). However, just because we may have issues with the IP does not mean that there were a few valid BLP concerns with the article, which is why I brought it up here. Once I get a chance, I will add some references to this news article which shows that at the sentencing, the killer disputed that he had prior knowledge of the victim's sexual orientation, but that eyewitnesses contradicted that assertion. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As the OP on this thread, I think the major issues have been dealt with. The hate crime category has been removed, some of the more controversial parts have been referenced, and I think there's now a nice balance between the public's perception of the incident and BLP guidelines.. Unless there are any additional issues (either because other editors think more needs to be done, or editors think the changes go too far), I would have no issue with this thread closing. Singularity42 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There is one line that is a direct quote in the article, but is actually paraphrased from the source , re: voicemail. - I'm not sure what (if anything) to do with this. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed more unsourced material. There are still a number of dead links. Also, is the actually "incident" written in the best way? Also, should the seanlastwish site be used as a source? The article still looks like it could use attention, better witting and sourcing. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Christine Paolilla and Kip Kinkel - Rename to reflect crimes?

• Christine Paolilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kip Kinkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After looking at the article, Christine Paolilla was only known for committing the murder, and there was one other perpetrator who had killed himself. Shouldn't the article be renamed after the murder?

Also, should the article on Kip Kinkel be renamed to reflect the crime he was committed for? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

These questions are best asked on the talkpage of the articles, however I see no reason to move the article for Christine Paolilla, while the article for Kip Kinkel does appear to be more about the incident than the figure. This is a consensus issue, not a BLP issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Moshe Friedman please

I've just discovered this content and I'm rather concerned about it, but it's late here and I don't have time to go through it now.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There is not enough information to comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

The entry for Jeb Bush is clearly false and needs to be corrected. Unfortunately, I do not have facts to do is myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.38.255 (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There is not enough information to comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thalía

I believe this article should be semi-protected because people keep undoing my improvement to the article, Thalía. I have removed unsourced material, corrected grammar, and made article statements that more accurately represent the provided references. Someone with the following IP address keeps reverting to improper versions of the article: 37.32.165.144 An administrator should give this editor a warning to stop undoing my good faith edits. Zz2zz (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Not a BLP issue. Content disputes should use Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Request for administrative intervention should be made through Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

alex cejka- professional golfer- URGENT

alyssa harvey is not my manager or represent me in any way. Please delete or i will take further action-

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution