Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tenebrae (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 23 June 2014 (→Names of non-notable children of various garden-variety celebrities. Ginnifer Goodwin, Kelly Clarkson, Josh Dallas: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:56, 23 June 2014 by Tenebrae (talk | contribs) (→Names of non-notable children of various garden-variety celebrities. Ginnifer Goodwin, Kelly Clarkson, Josh Dallas: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

    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.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Didier Manaud (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 9 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion

    Rick Santorum

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

    Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in The Netherlands are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and to FactCheck.org, these claims are bogus. Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands.}}

    Has been proposed as an edit. My personal response is that:

    This gives UNDUE weight to a single speech by Santorum and an extensive rebuttal of points made in the single speech. It uses the word "claimed" which is a "word to avoid." It includes "according to Santorum" which is argumentation in Misplaced Pages's voice. The "backlash in the Netherlands" is opinion and not particularly relevant to a BLP. The extended use of opinion columns to make "points" in a BLP is problematic considering NPOV requirements, and the avoidance of any other sources making different claims. And the fact that Santorum believes in the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is not all that amazing considering that it is well established in the article that he is, indeed, a Roman Catholic . Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

    , , , etc. appear to offer a somewhat more nuanced view of what was a single speech. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

    References

    1. Kessler, Glenn (02/22/2012). "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics". The Washington Post. There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    2. "Santorum's Bogus Euthanasia Claims". FactCheck.org. February 22, 2012. Retrieved June 13, 2014. But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    3. Jones, Melanie (February 20, 2012). "Rick Santorum's 'Involuntary Euthanasia' Claim Outrages Dutch". International Business Times. Retrieved June 13, 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    4. Forbes.com
    5. National Review Online
    6. Daily Caller

    IMHO, sections in BLPs should primarily refer to the general opinions of the person on the topic, and be broader in scope than a single speech and many rebuttals to that single speech. Collect (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

    (Note that discussion is ongoing at Talk:Rick Santorum). Would the latter objection be solved by incorporating this material into another, more general section, as opposed to a stand-alone section? As for a "more nuanced" view, you appear to be suggesting that we "balance" news pieces from high-quality reliable sources such as the Washington Post, FactCheck.org, and the International Business Times with partisan editorials from the conservative press. I don't think that's particularly consistent with WP:BLP, nor with our basic obligation to use the best available sources in all scenarios. MastCell  17:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    Glad to note you find Forbes to be irredeemably "partisan" while the Washington Post is a paragon of non-partisanship <g>. Makes one note how you weigh sources to reach NPOV where only one side is given any credence. We use sources of all flavours in Misplaced Pages, not just those we like on any topic.
    And any section should primarily be about the person, and not make a straw man argument debunking based on a single speech.
    Present all of his views in a neutrally worded manner, although I suspect that saying he believes things which are part of the Roman Catholic "Magisterium" is pretty useless, any more than adding "this person believes adults should be baptized" is really useful when we note a person is a Baptist. Collect (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    Collect, from the above it is not clear to me what your complaint is. Is it your position that Santorum never claimed what is alleged? Or that he did but some sources say he was perfectly justified and this is being ignored? Or that the claims were made and they were wrong, but they are not significant enough to mention in the article? Formerip (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sections in a BLP should be of encyclopedic value. If we are discussing Santorum's view on a topic (euthanasia) then the section should be on that topic and not primarily of folks debunking statements from a single speech. Instead it is several sentences specifically attacking his statements in a single speech, which is the epitome of "UNDUE." As his position appears to be quite based on the Roman Catholic Magisterium, and he is a Roman Catholic, the bit about stressing his views on a clear teaching within that church seems UNDUE ab initio - we do not generally say that a Baptist believes in adult baptism, or that a Jew believes Moses led people out of Egypt, or that a Hindu believes in the Vedas, or that a Buddhist follows the Tripitaka - it is part and parcel of what one expects a person who is a member of that religion believes. It is bullshit to claim I have the position that "Santorum never claimed what is alleged" and that is basically a very disparaging way of treating my points. My point is that his beliefs are not of sufficient import to be given sections in the BLP, and that debunking his beliefs or statements from a single speech at length in a BLP is UNDUE. Is this quite clear? Collect (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't say you held a position that "Santorum never claimed what is alleged", I asked you if this was your position.
    If Santorum has claimed that 10% of deaths in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia, provided there is no evidence he was just making some sort of embarrassing but unnoteworthy slip-up, then that is a startling claim and it would seem very strange to me to suppose it is not worthy of inclusion in his article. I don't think his Roman Catholic faith has much to do with it, because it is not part of Roman Catholic doctrine, AFAIK, to make up weird statistics about the Netherlands. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    You mean that an editor asking "Is it your position that George Gnarph is an idiot who committed a hundred murders?" is not implying in any way that such may be the position of another editor? Opposition to euthanasia is, in fact, part of Roman Catholic teachings, and I am surprised you would imply otherwise. In fact, that particular claim is well-surced, but I can add others: , , , , as nauseum. Including encyclicals, reports of Vatican II, books on euthanasia etc. Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law Margaret Otlowski; Clarendon Press seems on point:
    The opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to euthanasia dates back to the time of St. Augustine. At various times in the history of the Catholic Church, official church pronouncements have condemned euthanasia (see Kelly, Medico-Moral Problems, above Ch. 3 n. 203, at 115-18) including the recent Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) released in 1995. Note also the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia ( 1980)
    I think this is a tad dispositive of your opinion about what is and is not a church doctrine. Collect (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    As indicated elsewhere, I am seriously concerned about your ability to edit BLPs appropriately. Your view appears to be that since Santorum is a Catholic (something established by sources) he therefore must believe in Church teachings e.g. about euthanasia and there's no need for a specific source about his opposition to euthanasia. This is of course inappropriate. Reflect if you will on the data regarding the number of Catholics who use condoms and other forms of birth control, or attitudes about whether priests should be able to get married. It does appear to the the case that there is a source regarding his opposition to euthanasia -- but your view that one isn't actually needed is wildly off base. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Um -- what I am saying is that it not really "big news" that a Roman Catholic actually believes in the teachings of that church. In fact, it might well be notable that a Roman Catholic did not believe in the teachings of that church. Your strange asides about condoms and birth control do not make any sense here whatsoever, nor is your apparent belief that I am odd in thinking that a religious Jew believes Moses existed, or that a Muslim is quite likely to believe the Qu'ran is the inspired work of Allah. And I would note that you supported a claim "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" but insisted that it was SYNTH for me to use "Santorum opposes euthanasia
    As I remember, this was a major "gaffe" on Santorum's part during his last presidential run, was well-covered by news. That he caused an international controversy with his speeches on the subject is significant, and hardly inappropriate to mention. Adam Cuerden 02:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see anything UNDUE in reporting well covered aspects of a politician, in particular if it provides useful information about their views and beliefs, as these are part and parcel of his or her notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

    Jason Hawke

    Jason Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Jason Hawke is NOT affiliated with Dark Alley Media. That is Owen Hawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.193.175 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

    Aaron gilmore

    Aaron Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    My name is Aaron Gilmore I and others have tried more than once to remove inaccurate and imbalances in your article on me both current and historic.

    Your article contains lies and media speculation that are very inaccurate about my life and has had removed large parts of it.

    These changes were most recently last evening by someone. I was not aware of the material until recently. All the changes last evening have been removed despite references to highly reputable articles and changes to reflect my life. I am not a politician nor have I been for quite a while. If these changes made last night is not reversed I will consider what options are available.

    Regards,

    Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.66.108 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

    Can you be more specific about what you consider inappropriate? It's hard to tell from edits yesterday what was done by you and therefore what you consider problematic. You make references to lies and speculation, but there are apparently some things you have admitted to (e.g. ). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    The whoop-de-do news that you called a waiter a name per an "allegation" is basically a splendid example of why "allegations" make for bad BLPs. No charges of any crime whatsoever, and the epithet was one which would not raise an eyebrow for most people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you know what the word "allegation" means. When someone has admitted it ('Mr Gilmore admitted to being "a bully that night" and calling the waiter a "dickhead"'), allegation isn't the right word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    There seems to be adequate sourcing that it's not "alleged", but I'm having a lot of trouble imagining this deserves two paragraphs out of ten in a biography. Anyone want to argue otherwise? --j⚛e decker 15:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Unless this was part of a Rob Ford-like pattern of bad behaviour, it's not a good idea. If it's the start, time will tell.--Auric talk 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    The emails seem to be the only actually important enough stuff to be in a BLP IMO. Collect (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

    New article on 2016 US presidential campaign too early?

    Consensus to redirect was achieved in article talk page: Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Survey

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I welcome broader input at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Hillary 2016 campaign article already created regarding the new Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

    Too early indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Why should there be an article about Hillary's 2016 campaign? Because our RSs say thats what it is.
    There is precedent (HRC's 2008 campaign page, for instance, was created 5 months ahead of even her exploratory committee. So were others.) and the citations are solid. Were beat reporters being assigned to cover the Jeb Bush Campaign, were newspapers referring to it as the Jeb Bush Campaign team, were Jeb Bush events being called Jeb Bush Campaign events by the press, were Jeb Bush to have PACs, parties and delegates speaking of Jeb Bush's Campaign, then yes! There should be an article about the Jeb Bush Campaign. But at the moment they're not.
    Maybe there should be another word in the title (presumptive? planning?) but the timing is not unusual (3 months ahead of 2008's schedule, looking back. Sounds about right with the media coverage.) and the sources back it up. Juno (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    I redirected the initial Hillary 2016 campaign article as I was not impressed by the quality of material there. Granted, there is a massive amount of interest and speculation on Clinton's run in 2016, but that does not mean that there is the need for an article as yet, per WP:NOTNEWS - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    I can see that my redirect was reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    I can't fight you on the quality of material (there is definitely still work to be done), I think that things are good enough now for it to be its own article, thought I could be wrong about that. I am weary and WP:NOTNEWS and I think this clears it: there are a preponderance of events/media appearances, there are the interworking PACs (I don't think we have ever seen anything like that before) and I would love for someone more knowledgeable than I to write about the personnel involved. Juno (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Senfronia Thompson

    Senfronia Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am listed with a middle name but I do not have a middle name. How can this be corredted?

    Senfronia Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.79.11 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

     Done GiantSnowman 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

    2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal

    2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article in total clearly lacks neutral point of view and my case is already at the NPOV board:

    Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article

    The main editor of this article is User:LardoBalsamico. I have been trying to deal with both the article and the user since February. You can see the summary of my situation with the user and the article here:

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_and_the_user_User:LardoBalsamico

    The reason I am contacting you from this noticeboard is; his last edit clearly violets the WP:LIVE policy.

    As you can see, he shared a phone conversation from the investigation but all the involved parties were cleared of all charges. This is really incriminating for all the involved parties. Also, if you read it there is no clear sign of match-fixing and like all the article, it is just there to make Fenerbahce look bad.

    If you read the whole article you will see the violation of this rule everywhere.

    So,please help me resolve this issue. Thanks for taking the time to read my request.Rivaner (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

    My removal of that part is reverted by calling it vandalism and as usual the above mentioned user posted a warning on my talk page as well.

    2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal#Basketball_clubs_involved

    Rivaner (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

    Paula Franzese

    Paula Franzese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Just basically an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.52.53 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

    checkY Pruned and stubified. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

    Stingray phone tracker

    Stingray phone tracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The Stingray phone tracker article listed the names of the president of the company that makes the controversial devices and the person in charge of the division. I removed the names per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SYN, since there are no secondary sources that tie these individuals to the controversy about the devices, only sources that list their position in the company. Another editor has restored the names. I realize this is not as clear cut a BLPNAME issue as some, as the individual do have important positions in the company, but there seems to be no purpose in naming them in the article that I can see other than some form of outing. I'd welcome other opinions.--agr (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

    I don't think a strong case can be made for removing the names of top executives of major corporations like this. I wouldn't be surprised if they met our notability standards and someone wrote separate articles on them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    I agree it is not an easy call, but the implication in the article is that these people are responsible for an evil product. Shouldn't that require at least a quality secondary source that make this claim, even if the people mentioned did have Misplaced Pages articles about them? Is it ok for one of our editors to research the org chart of controversial organizations and place in the articles the names of the people that editor concludes are responsible? Would it be ok for an article about a hospital that provides abortions to include the name of the chief of the gynecological service based on our editors' research?--agr (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with agr, that these facts are true but should not be included. It feels like an attempt to paint "someone associated with a controversial item" as part of the controversy himself. Without secondary sources, the unit head of a public corporation is just a business person who might (or might not) have the power to control what products are (or are not) made or used in various ways, and certainly not independently or based on his moral stance on them. Note also that the article asserts this company is one of the manufacturers, so it's undue-weight detail (Harris's CEO is surely unrelated to any other competitor!). DMacks (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Agr, too. I have removed the names, as they relied on company profiles. It looks like activists are trying to connect the executives to a civil rights controversy, a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. They're already properly listed at Harris Corporation, and I'm not sure they're relevant to a cell phone technology if no reliable secondary source connects them to such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    There are many articles citing that Harris Corp is the primary designer, manufacturer and seller of the devices. The devices are made by the Government Communications Group (this is verified by multiple sources - including the company website, SEC filings, annual reports and news articles). The two individuals who are in charge of the Government Communications Group are sourced by the company and SEC filings. Important: The SEC filing sourced clearly states that these two individuals are in charge of manufacturing ALL THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES. So this is not in violation of WP:SYNTH. It is a direct source. Additionally, both individuals are public figures with profiles in Forbes, Businessweek and news articles. These are not private individuals. This is not an attempt to paint anyone as anything. The people making the devices are relevant. It would be activism to delete their names. I restored the names. If you would like additional sources, there are SEC filings every quarter for the past 4 years with their names and stated responsibilities for the government communications products. Sorry for not posting this comment here correctly. Pepsifree11 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    Names of individuals related to the company are not relevant to an article on a product unless they are notable for actually designing the product or personally financing the product, neither appears to be the case here. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    I'm unclear on the last point. Is that a rule here? By that standard, Steve Jobs is not relevant to an article on the iPad.Pepsifree11 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I think there are two mixed issues here (i'm new here so appreciate your patience). Is it relevant? And is it appropriately sourced? I think the first is much more clear. Who designed, manufactured and brought these devices into widespread use for the first time is relevant. Like Steve Jobs for the iPhone (not a great analogy but you get the point). The second question I thought was sufficiently answered but that seems to be the point of most disagreement. First, these are not private individuals. So the standard is not the same. And there are pretty good sources for who is running this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepsifree11 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    The problem is that these are not the people who actually did the design themselves (that's not how management vs labor works) or are even known to have been supervising those who did (wasn't this thing designed about 15 years ago?). Nor (as I noted before) is it clear that they actually decided to do so (vs merely approving or delegating others' requirements), or that they could change course once the contracts were signed and the controversy came to light. DMacks (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I oppose this edit which adds a gratuitous "which is overseen by..." mention in an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to express displeasure regarding the device. Which particular policy applies is not of great concern as articles are not available for name-and-shame. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    The main issue is not who designed the device. It's a pretty basic piece of technology. That is not the "who" that is relevant to the article. The relevant "who" is who has deployed them widely within the USA for the first time. That happened in the past 3-4 years and that is the key action for the entire article. And that is why management matters. Because is is management that takes a device from the lab to being deployed in hundreds of places around the country. Who did that is very important. It is not a matter of whether it is a good or a bad thing (I have a mixed opinion of this). What matters is how it happened. I think there are solid points made on appropriate sourcing here. But I think the relevance of key people is clear. If one tobacco company quadruples its sales to young adults in Georgia in 2-3 years (which would be controversial), the question would not be who invented the cigarette. Or who financed the tobacco company. Or which global tobacco company operating in 200 countries is it. The key question would be who was in charge of sales in Georgia during that period.Pepsifree11 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    • I agree with those above saying this information shouldn't be included on the product's page. I see this as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to say essentially 'these bad men are linked to this bad product.' Also concerning is that a single purpose account is the one pushing this. Calidum 21:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    Kate Mulgrew

    Hello - I would like to provide notice regarding a correction that is needed for the Misplaced Pages articles for actress Kate Mulgrew and politician Tim Hagan. Their entries both currently list them as still married to each other, which is outdated. The couple divorced in 2012. Unfortunately, the source information available online only provides indirect confirmation that does not typically meet Misplaced Pages standards for citing a source. However, I don't believe Misplaced Pages should continue to condone incorrect information in the articles for both Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan simply because we lack a "perfect" source that meets Misplaced Pages standards. The information in the below sources corroborate the fact that they are divorced:

    Confirmation From Official Facebook Account - Ms. Mulgrew's official Facebook page noted in a comment that Tim Hagan and Kate Mulgrew are divorced, when Ms. Mulgrew made anecdotal comments about her "boyfriend" in an interview that was linked on her Facebook page.

    London Star Trek Convention Comments - At the 2012 Destination: London Star Trek convention, Ms. Mulgrew made a statement that she "was" married to a politician, referring to Tim Hagan. While she doesn't refer to him by name, she was referring to their marriage in the past tense.

    Orange Is The New Black Interview in 2013 - Ms. Mulgrew refers to her "boyfriend" in this 2013 interview about her role in Orange Is The New Black. This was the article listed on her Facebook page that resulted in the comment confirming her divorce.

    The fact that they are divorced is not in question. The only question is whether or not the sources available are of a quality that meets Misplaced Pages standards. However, there is sufficient material available to confirm their marital status as divorced and failure to update their entries means that Misplaced Pages will potentially propogate incorrect information about Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan, since many people will use Misplaced Pages as a source of information. We should not let Misplaced Pages guidelines become a barrier that prevents the correction of information on articles we know for a fact to be incorrect.

    If there are no objections from Misplaced Pages editors, I would like to make the updates. --Fumetsu (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

    Here are three articles from 2014 that say they are still married. . --GRuban (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    I have to challenge the validity of these sources as they are contradictory to the statements made indicating specifically that she is divorced. The first and second sources you cite are the same article, but only lists a single out-of-context quote about how she found love after her first marriage ended in divorce. That doesn't indicate that she is, in fact, still married to Tim Hagan (it is a fact that she is not). The link I posted to her official Facebook page has a response from her Facebook maintainer that indicates specifically "Kate Mulgrew and Tim Hagan are divorced.". The third source you quoted refers to her marriage to Tim Hagan but is an article that uses her marriage to Mr. Hagan to criticize her political leanings. It does not indicate that the author has any personal knowledge of her current relationship with Tim Hagan or had any contact with Ms. Mulgrew. For all we know, he could have used Misplaced Pages as his source of information on her martial status when penning the article. That is what I am worried about by continuing to list her as married to Tim Hagan when this is no longer the case. Fumetsu (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm, sorry about that dup link, I think that was intended to be this: ; here is a fourth: . All are from 2014. Mind that I have no personal knowledge of Ms. Mulgrew's marital status, but I do think we need better sources for something as important as this than offhand lines that could be interpreted a dozen ways, and one line from who knows whom halfway down a Facebook page. --GRuban (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    These are all third-party articles that refer to her as being married, but none are statements from Ms. Mulgrew herself. Her divorce to Tim Hagan was not public, which is why there arent any online news sources that reference their divorce. Another Misplaced Pages user referenced the case number for her divorce that was filed in NY Supreme Court on her Talk page, but that update was denied because NY marital/divorce cases are not made available online. The statement on Facebook is from her official Facebook account, which is updated by the person who maintains her official website and online presence that maintains communication with Ms. Mulgrew herself. It is specific about her marital status - "Kate Mulgrew and Tim Hagan are divorced.", because the article that was posted quotes Ms. Mulgrew talking about her boyfriend, not her husband. In the YouTube video I linked, she refers to her marriage in the past tense. None of the articles from 2014 contain statements from Ms. Mulgrew herself that indicate she is still married to Tim Hagan. The fact that her Misplaced Pages entry is incorrect is likely contributing to online articles incorrectly assuming she is still married. In essence, the incorrect information on Misplaced Pages is being used as a source in online articles/news stories about Ms. Mulgrew which incorrectly state she is still married to Tim Hagan. In turn. those articles are then being cited by Misplaced Pages to confirm her marital status. All of this is ignoring statements by the actress herself, and confirmation from her official account. Unless someone corrects her Misplaced Pages page, this cycle of erroneous information will continue. This is why I'm eager to correct it. Fumetsu (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Note that if you are signed into Facebook you also can see her note that she is divorced here. (I see Hagan article has him both married and divorced, by the way.) The solution for now may be to add a tag to info about their being married so that journalists might actually do the work of verifying it themselves. {{Verify source|date=June 2014}} Should do the job. Send her a message so she can confirm to the Wikipowers that be what the facts are. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Watchlist request: Ram Bahadur Bomjon

    Allegations of sexual abuse were added to Ram Bahadur Bomjon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Obviously this is a serious accusation and I request editors help me with keeping unsourced allegations off the article. Shii (tock) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)\

    Quite a bit more of the controversies section should come out too - it takes up more than half of the article.--ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I cleaned up about half of it. I noticed that the remaining content relies heavily on articles by Diwakar Bhandari of the The Himalayan and at least a couple articles I looked at were written in an attack-style, op-ed language. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

    State Bar of Texas

    The article State Bar of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being used to attack DA for Travis County Rosemary Lehmberg using synthesis and original research. Rosemary Lehmberg does not have a Misplaced Pages article but the text inserted mentions her using WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and without providing any reliable source:

    Furthermore, even though the State Bar takes a very strict view towards Bar applicants entering alcohol rehabilitation even voluntarily within the past 10 years of his or her application,<ref></ref> the bar refuses to reprimand attorneys actually convicted of driving under the influence, like Rosemary Lehmberg, successor to Ronnie Earle.

    The bolded text is pure original research without any reliable source making such a connection while the sentence starting with "Furthermore" is a personal conclusion from a WP:PRIMARY source. I have removed the BLP-violation but more eyes are needed because the edit-warring editor keeps adding it using also personal attacks in his/her edit-summaries, including meatpuppetry and calling his/her opponents "liberals". Δρ.Κ.  07:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

    Seeing that I commented at the user's talk, I had better watch the article. I had not seen the edit in question before this report—it's a shocker! There really needs to be some way of short-circuiting this kind of nonsense to avoid so much time wasting. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Trimmed the fat -- and that entire section is pretty useless, as is the list of "sections" as well. Was there any reason for the SYNTH really related to the Bar? Collect (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    The only reason I could come up with was finding a way to attack Lehmberg (upcoming election in Nov 2014) and the Bar. The edits were in general poor and the original editor kept trying to push them in without discussion despite multiple attempts to get them to talk. If they continue to push it in, I'm going to take this to EWN for edit-warring over BLP violations. Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Thank you all for your comments and action. I agree completely with Johnuniq's comment about short-circuiting this type of blatant OR/SYNTH. For me, one way to do this is to announce such edits at BLPN where, most of the time, editors help out with the problems at the BLP. To answer Collect, I think the lower-half of the section was SYNTHesised for the conclusion on Rosemary Lehmberg where she was arbitrarily used as an example. And I fully agree with Collect's edit-summaries at the BLP about the use of "However" and " Furthemore" as sure indicators of the presence of SYNTH. Δρ.Κ.  16:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

    Yank Barry

    Yank Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A lawsuit appears to have been filed regarding the Yank Barry Misplaced Pages article. Please see Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against Wikipedians. Please also see the recent prior discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank Barry. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    I blanked the section per WP:OUTING and common sense regarding an ongoing legal proceeding. Any admins watching; is this an appropriate use for RevDel? VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    As one of the people involved in the lawsuit, I consider deleting revisions inappropriate. Some of that material is going to be evidence in court. Please don't revdel anything without clearance from Wikimedia Legal. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Please also see the following additional archived recent discussions:

    —BarrelProof (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    I've restored the section that OP had linked to as I'm contesting it with the given notice that it's been linked by AN and BLPN (in this entry) and is needed for context. Tutelary (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Please note that a discussion has also begun at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yank Barry, legal threat. Suing for $10,000,000. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    I recommend merging this discussion there as this isn't as much a BLP issue as it is a WP:LEGALTHREAT. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    I have no problem with that. It needed to be on AN/I because the issue affects some admins (they may be drawn into the lawsuit) but it doesn't need to be discussed further there. John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Lawsuit Filing

    For reference, here is the filing in it's entirety. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Shouldn't we fully protect the article?
    Given the lawsuit, and the listing of Does as defendants, isn't anyone who now edits the article potentially a defendant? While I do not think much of the lawsuit, I think we owe it to editors to let them know they might be part of a lawsuit if they edit, and preclude accidental editing, by someone not aware of the issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    It may be a good idea to protect the article, as it is the result of a long process of cleanup, research and extensive discussions on the use the sources available, but OTOH protection may preclude additional improvements and goes against the project aims. I'd leave it to more experienced editors/admins to make a determination if protection is needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    I believe, if an editor is trying to improve the article in a positive, factual manner, using sourced and cited facts, and following WP:NPOV, then there is not much to worry about. After reading the lawsuit, and the comment the first day I came upon the Yank Barry article, what struck me, and I don't remember without looking which editor said it, was the comment to the effect of, "Don't kid yourselves, we are threatening his livelihood." I have no idea what it means in a court room setting, but that comment always struck me as meaning those editors know what they are doing and they are hurting this man in real life. Perhaps, I misinterpreted the intent, but the comment IS in the lawsuit. Of all the things I read in the lawsuit, that seems to be the one comment, whichever editor it was, would probably like to have back. I found it fascinating to read that lawsuit and see what was and was not mentioned. There is plenty of negative comments on the talk page that were not included in the lawsuit. This is very interesting, if nothing else. As far as editing, I think if you are following policy, and trying to improve the article in a positive and factual way, following WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, then there is nothing to worry about.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    There is nothing to worry about, period, and frivolous lawsuits will not stifle free speech (note that IANAL). A discussion on a talk page is about opinions, not facts. Just wait until one of the defendants files an anti-SLAPP. They plaintiffs filed in California, which has very strong anti-SLAPP laws. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Has the Foundation's Legal Department been made aware of the lawsuit?--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, according to a remark by Cullen328 at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Legal threats against Wikipedians —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Another discussion begun:

    —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    G. K. Vasan

    G. K. Vasan has been repeatedly subject to addition of a long block of unsourced text by the same editor, who has been warned and blocked in the past. I don't know if blocking this editor or semi-protecting the page is the right answer, or if there is another appropriate response. I leave this situation in your capable hands. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    I've had a look, and the text is usually persistently added every couple of months, and very quickly reverted. This has been happening over a lengthy period of time. The block of text completely unsourced and hagiographic in nature, so I've placed the article on indefinite semi-protection. Lankiveil 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC).
    Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Jeanette Winterson

    Author Jeanette Winterson killed a rabbit from her garden and ate it, then tweeted about it and received some blowback. The incident got a bit of coverage in the British press. A version of the story, sourced to the Daily Mail, has now been added and removed twice and then restored a third time. Does it belong in our article (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) and if so, does the current version conform with WP:NPOV? Comments are invited at Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    I've already responded to this at the NPOV noticeboard. Might it be a good idea to have one discussion in one place, either there or here? Formerip (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    As above, I've suggested responses should go to the article talk page (Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, OK. Formerip (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Semi'd for a week. That should not be in the article at all. §FreeRangeFrog 00:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    John Anthony Brooks

    John Anthony Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An editor on John Anthony Brooks is refusing to allow Mr. Brooks' nationality to be mentioned in the lede of his BLP. Mr. Brooks is a German-American (born and raised in Germany with an American military father). The editor will only allow mention that Mr. Brooks is an American. The editor claims that the WikiProject Football MOS prevails here and that it states that the country the player is playing for is to be used. However, in reviewing that Projects various and sundry MOS, the one on players didn't seem to preclude mention of the nationality, in fact, it seems to use it here. For reference here are the other footy project MOS.

    The editor who is refusing to allow this stated in a reply to another editor questioning this, that: Nationality is warranted. But in the case of a footballer, the football project is clear: the team that they are representing internationally is what should be mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC

    Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but he seems to be saying that if Mr. Brooks next plays for Brazil, his BLP will call him a Brazilian? That doesn’t seem like something that should be allowed in a BLP. But you are the experts.

    The BLP MOS states this. There is currently an RfC on this question on the talk page here. I only got there by the RfC bot notice, but it seems to me that since this is a BLP it might well be a violation not to correctly identify Mr. Brooks' nationality. If this is not the best venue for this, please let me know and I will withdraw the request. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for skewing opinion. The football project has consistently excluded listing both nationalities of players who have dual nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    And for the record, I'm not refusing anything. I have stated what I did here and stated that it's a violation of WP:OPENPARA and WP:BLP. I also stated that it could be mentioned in the lede somewhere but not in the first sentence as a hyphenated nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    Agree with Walter Görlitz on this one. First of all the first edit should be neutral but SW3 5 DL is clearly POV pushing as he has accused others of doing. Secondly football project always list players by their FIFA nationality, that is the team they are playing for. If he plays for american he is "american footballer", of course his dual citizenship is to be mentioned but not there in the lead. QED237 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC):
    I also agree with Gorlitz on this. It appears that SW35DL does not even understand how international football works, with his question, "if Mr. Brooks next plays for Brazil, his BLP will call him a Brazilian?" Once you have been capped as a senior team player for one side (in Brooks' case, the U.S.A.), you aren't allowed to switch. Additionally, you can only "pick" what national team to play for if you have a legitimate claim of dual citizenship. In other words, the silly "Brazilian" hypothetical presented has, quite literally, no chance of EVER presenting itself. Lithistman (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well that should settle it then. He's an "American soccer player. . ." I will change my ivote on the RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    Celeda

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

    The picture you have posted is of Danny Tenaglia, NOT Celeda you can find many pictures of me all over the web to correct this, sincerely Victoria Sharpe AKA CELEDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C539:E60:C898:D690:10EF:D7E6 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

    There doesn't appear to be any picture on our article for Celeda. Where did you see the picture you are talking about? Formerip (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    Google search results more than likely. Google shows the lede for an article's subject and then goes off and picks an image at random, people think it's our fault. §FreeRangeFrog 07:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Military Order of the Purple Heart

    Military Order of the Purple Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a number of allegations against a man named Smith which seem very badly sourced, can someone please take a look? I ran into this tracing down some conspiracy theory sources being used in articles but I'd rather not also delete this myself. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    That whole paragraph needs better sources or these allegations should be removed. I tried to search the website of the Boston Globe but couldn't find anything related to this particular Mr. Smith. Stolen Valor is quoted though and imo that seems to be a reliable source. If someone has access to that book, please consider having a look at it to improve the references in the article. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    Just noticed that Stolen Valor is self-published so maybe it's not so reliable after all? De728631 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    A bit of a mess -- I trimmed the "controversies" section as making specific allegations falling under BLP and also making claims in Misplaced Pages's voice. On -- "Stolen Valor" is "self=published" and not usable for very much at all. I left in the gist - that the organization made donation to other recognized charities, but think the allegations that it is a "conflict of interest" to hire a person connected to a charity this organization funds to be weak on its face. It is fairly common for family members to work in related charities, and that is not exactly a "conflict of interest" in the sense of any possibility of improper enrichment is concerned. Collect (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    P. J. Louis

    P. J. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    We have an editor, Researchgeektoo, trying to turn this article into a resume. More eyes would be welcomed. --NeilN 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Experienced editors have taken the article in hand. Thanks. --NeilN 12:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Names of non-notable children of various garden-variety celebrities. Ginnifer Goodwin, Kelly Clarkson, Josh Dallas

    There's a bit of an edit-war over whether to exercise editorial discretion at these articles to avoid directly naming the non-notable children of these celebrities. There's no policy that necessarily demands nor prohibits their inclusion, so it's probably a matter of where editors find consensus. I generally think there should be a higher bar than just whether the names were once released by the parents. I suppose it's a question of whether there's an encyclopedic value that would outweigh any BLP concern for the specific children involved. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Hmm it looks like the Goodwin/Dallas baby name wasn't actually released by the parents, but resulted from TMZ reporting the birth certificate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    WP:BLPNAME - IMHO the names of non-notable children, particularly minors, should be removed irrespective of how well they are sourced. Including them serves no encyclopedic purpose.--ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    See WP:NPF as well. §FreeRangeFrog 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well, it looks like the childrens' names are in again. Are there any previous discussions where this was hashed out? It seems like the kind of thing that would have come up before.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Speaking as a professional journalist who has written countless biographical articles, I can say without hesitation that the names of immediate family members are essential to any biography. No responsible biographer of a public figure would deliberately leave out that information, whether it's the author of a hardcover book or even the lowly obituary writer at a small-town newspaper. To suggest that Misplaced Pages keep secret Kim Kardashian's child North or Gwyneth Paltrow's child Apple, when this information is readily available to literally millions of readers/viewers of RS magazines, newspapers and entertainment-news TV shows seems, at the very least, futile and a bit silly.
    That said, an encyclopedia has higher standards than a tabloid. If the parents themselves aren't announcing it, perhaps we shouldn't either. But when celebrity parents proudly announce their children in a multitude of responsbile mainstream media, burying our heads in the sand and plugging up our ears hardly seems encyclopedic or useful.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Sara Flounders

    Sara Flounders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed unsourced material, although I wasn't sure whether it promoted the writer's views or was intended to denounce them. On an article about a controversial political writer, it should be possible to include only referenced material. Came to the article because of a post on WP:RSN which questions whether her work can be used for sourcing articles on Yugoslavia. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Ingrid Parewijck

    Ingrid Parewijck

    Kindly remove content stating she was caught at the airport. This is irrelevant to her person and most of all harms her career. We all have done stupid things in our lives once but it`s of no point to keep such information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgajules (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    She is non-notable except for the single event -- PRODded for that reason. Collect (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Luis von Ahn

    Luis von Ahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is an edit war involving multiple IPs and the lead-in's claim that Luis von Ahn is a Twitter thief with an unreliable source. I have been reverting edits that maintain this claim. I warned the initial party with a Level 2 Vandalism warning, which in retrospect should have been a more precise BLP warning; that party had already reverted another user's attempt. Then, I noted on the second party's talk page that I wished to discuss in article's talk page given their edit summary, since I realized I had not assumed good faith in the beginning. This new revert is without explanation and did not provide a reliable source despite a prior mention. 75.37.21.202 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

    Thank you for reporting this. The first part of the edit is obviously inappropriate. I've warned the IP, hopefully they'll stop. If not, they'll be blocked. §FreeRangeFrog 18:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Categories: