Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 14 June 2012

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Mark Zuckerberg Jewish?

Discussion. Influential Jew, marriage commentary, RS?. The question is whether or not enough evidence exists supporting Zuckerberg being included as an American Jew as categories or Jewish as ethnicity in the infobox. Some editors invoke BLPCAT. Thoughts? Wikifan 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that Wikifan come here as the consensus at the Talk page seems to be running against his position. It's very long thread on the Talk page, although there is a fair amount of repetition of people's views. I'll quickly summarize some of it, hopefully, fairly. I think everyone agrees that Zuckerberg was born to Jewish parents and raised Jewish. Everyone also agrees that he self-identifies as an atheist. I believe, although not as certainly, that everyone agrees that he has not self-identified as a Jew, either from a religious or cultural (what Wikipedians often call ethnic) standpoint. All of this, except the last point (as it's an absence of something), is articulated in the body of the article. The question is pretty much as Wikifan states it above. Part of the problem - and this is nothing new - comes from the ambiguity in our own policies and categories about Jews, as well as the fact that Jews are not monolithic in their belief systems. Some identify as Jewish by religion, and some identify as Jewish by culture and heritage. And, of course, some identify as Jewish by all of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly he's a person of Jewish descent - that is the WP:BLP. take care as to reporting as if fact about living people - position simple really- move along, - Bbb23 is right, our Jew issues categories in this sector are vague/disruptive (disruptive as we have many unresolved and unsatisfactory discussions/outcomes that need clarifying, especially about living people but not solely) - If users want to add that someone is a mother line Jew then the cat should clearly state that - Matriarchal Jew - Youreallycan 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with this redline of "self-identified" as a Jew. I guess it could be inferred since he was raised Jews, and had a bar mitzvah. It seems pretty excessive to expect individuals to go out and say, verbatim - "I'm a Jew" when a laundry list of reliable sources explicitly identify Zuckerberg as a Jew. Not of "Jewish descent." I do not believe blpcat applies because this is ethnicity, not religion. Do we expect individuals to self-identify as African Americans or Native Americans? I hope to see uninvolved, third party weigh in on this discussion because it could have serious ramifications for other Jewish BLPs that possess half the sources supporting Zuckerberg's status as a Jew. Wikifan 23:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the specific WP:BLP issue that vague comments fail to mention or differentiate the connection between ethnicity and religion. - Youreallycan 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside Misplaced Pages policy for the moment and approaching this as a commonsense matter, the article body does a good job of explaining who Zuckerberg is from a religious/cultural perspective. The infobox and cats would destroy that good work and label him in a misleading fashion. Wikifan believes (I think) that Zuckerberg inherits his Jewish characteristics, whatever they might be, from his parents. I strongly disagree that just because one is born Jewish, one is a Jew. Some characteristics of human beings are genetic. I am unaware of any Jewish gene.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How would it be misleading? Plenty of info on Jewish "genes" - Genetic studies on Jews. "I strongly disagree that just because one is born Jewish, one is a Jew." This kind of thinking is problematic as editors should only contribute based on policy and sources. If Zuckerberg's parents are Jewish, and he was raised Jewish, and he is described as one of the world's most influential Jews by an RS, there shouldn't be any serious disagreement as to whether or not Zuckerberg is Jewish. Jewishness is an ethnicity, as are Native Americans and African-Americans. Wikifan 23:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do hope we get an answer to the question, how would it be misleading. I think we've got a case here that suggests that the approach some people have been taking to this issue is not so convincing. For one thing, it means that whether someone is identified here as Jewish is a question being addressed in ways different from that used for other ethnicities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We will never get an answer on this. We never have before. Why should now be different? I believe there is a difference between having certain genetic characteristics (like the cases cited by Wikifan) and identifying with a culture or a heritage, and the WP article pointed to by Wikifan about Jews and genes is hardly conclusive; most of those kinds of articles are not. I also don't want to get into a discussion about African-Americans and what exactly that means to different people because that would really create a messy tangential argument. I've stated, rather succinctly I believe, why it is misleading in Zuckerberg's case, and I don't want to open this up to a global discussion. That belongs in another forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The question ("How would it be misleading") was posed by Wikifan in relation to Zuckerburg. You have asserted that editing the infobox and cats in the way Wikifan proposes would be misleading, but you haven't indicated how it would be misleading -- hence the question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The infobox would be misleading because it makes it sound like Zuckerberg is an ethnic Jew when there's no evidence he is (remember, I don't accept that cultural Judaism is inherited), and the cat would be even more misleading as it makes no distinction religious and cultural Jews, but, even if it means "or", it would be misleading in the same way the infobox would be. Everything flows from the initial premises, and Wikifan and I disagree on the premises.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Errm do you have a different definition of "ethnic"from me - I always believed it was (and quoting our article) "a group of people who identify with each other through a common heritage, consisting of a common culture" So how can you differentiate cultural when cultural is the key element of ethnic? I assume you are looking for biological or something similar - for those cases the "of Jewish Descent" category is more appropriate but it's not the case for Zuckerberg who you seem to admit was raised culturally Jewish before choosing Atheism as a philosophical viewpoint. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the purpose of Misplaced Pages, I accept our definition. My point is that there is no evidence that Zuckerberg identifies with the Jewish culture.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in BLPCAT requiring self-identification with ethnicity/culture. The available sources on the matter are quite clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I've mostly stayed out of this issue, I have to say, for the record, both Newsweek ("Ashkenazi Jews are one of the most coherent genetic groups that exist") and The New York Times ("The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population") and every other scholarly source support Jews being an ethnic group (or a "genetic" group, as Bbb23 says). I also am beginning to view Bbb23 as highly disruptive. Previously, he stated that people shouldn't be categorized as "Jewish" per "BLPcat" because the category does not differentiate between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity. Now, his opinion has shifted further towards whichever direction, in that people can't be described as being "ethnically" Jewish either! (because your ethnicity is not inherited from your parents? I hate to break it to you, but your parents are the only ones who transmit your ethnicity to you. There is no other way to become a member of an ethnic group. That's kind of how it works. "Identifying" with this culture or that does not make you a member of an ethnicity, nor does not identifying with it make you a non-member. Hence the term "ethnically Jewish" and not "culturally Jewish", two different things). Now, I don't know if Bbb23 is my fifth cousin or not, but he doesn't seem to understand the issues here; in fact, more and more so with every passing year since his position is more extreme now than it was a year ago. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, remarkably constructive, AHW. As far as I know, my position on these issues is just as "highly disruptive" as it was before. The only thing that's "changed" is my promise to myself not to let myself get sucked in too deeply to these discussions. I've broken that promise, unfortunately. Zuckerberg will no doubt survive whatever consensus is reached, although I seriously doubt there will be one.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's more extreme. Given that Zuckerberg had "Ethnicity:Jewish" in his infobox for a long time (which I found a little strange, but ok) and you seemed to have no problem with it until now. I proposed this as a compromise between the two feuding sides on this issue - but you reverted it out of the article, even though you said that, even in your opinion, it didn't violate BLPcat. Now, if you hadn't reverted it, the discussion would have been over, since most editors seemed satisfied with that idea. Therefore, I think it's fair to view your actions as disruptive, and yourself by extension. Misplaced Pages has gotten more extreme on this issue in general. I remember when I was starting out, people were having debates about whether to describe people born to Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers as Jewish, and storylines of that sort. I can't recall any debates about whether people born to two Jewish parents, and who do not practice a faith other than Judaism, can be described as Jewish. That seemed, understandably, a given. Now, such debates are commonplace, thanks in part to you (but not exclusively to you). What a strange shift, and how wasteful to time, energy, and common sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're forcing me to do a lot of work looking back at the history of the Zuckerberg article. In spot-checking the last 6 months, you are correct that Jewish ethnicity was in the infobox. The Jewish-related cats have undergone many shifts, but I didn't check who did what when (except see below). As for removal of Jewish ethnicity from the infobox after the period of "stability", that was not done by me. It was done by another editor on May 10 here. Without laboriously looking at the complete history, what triggered the tortured discussion on the Zuckerberg Talk page happened many days later when Wikifan added the Jewish cat (not the ethnicity), and I did in fact revert. That discussion then expanded into the ethnicity issue, causing me to focus on it again. How you can call any of this "highly disruptive" on my part is beyond me, but whatever, you've said in the past we almost never agree on anything, so it shouldn't surprise me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you didn't remove the ethnicity thing in early May. That was someone else. But you removed it twice now, even though my strong sense was that it would have neutralized the discussion (Wikifan seemed pleased with it, for one). We almost never agree on anything? Well, we did agree on something in August 2010, when your opinion on this "issue" seemed rational and fact-based. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've removed it since because of the discussion, but I don't think my views have changed, although they may have refined a bit as I've learned more about Misplaced Pages's rules. As for the Goldwyn discussion, that was about cats, not about ethnicity in the infobox. As for not agreeing, it's something I vaguely recall your saying a long time ago when we butted heads over something. I ain't looking for it as it's really not all that important. I just wish you'd stick to substance without resorting to characterizing my conduct, but you're not the only editor who does this.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your personal views on this issue are relevant, since you keep citing them ("Some characteristics of human beings are genetic. I am unaware of any Jewish gene"). I cite Newsweek and The New York Times, and you cite... yourself. There is a difference. Are we talking about the infobox now or the categories? If it's the infobox, why are we here, considering you admitted that even under your own interpretation of it, BLPcat wouldn't effect "Ethnicity" in infobox. My main point is that if you hadn't reverted the compromise addition, the discussion would have likely already ended, since Wikifan seemed satisfied with the compromise and you hadn't touched that part of the infobox either, previously. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your "main point" got a bit lost in your attack on me. Your point about personal views is too complicated for me to respond to, or at least I don't have the energy or the will. I've said everything I have to say here and on the Zuckerberg Talk page. Consensus will be reached or it won't. The article will be whatever the last edit to it is, even in the absence of consensus. Whatever happens, this won't be the last time the subject comes up for this article or for others. I'm going to very belatedly keep my promise to myself and suck myself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you really mean that last part, then that's something else we can both jointly endorse. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, so we're agreed that Zuckerberg can include an American Jew/Jewish atheist cat or Jewish as ethnicity? Wikifan 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not agreed that this is a candidate for the American Jew category. Zuckerburg is a living person and has said he is an atheist. --John (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

John—why not just abide by what reliable sources say? They all say that Mark Zuckerberg is a Jew. And not one source says that he is not a Jew. Shouldn't that settle it, for Misplaced Pages purposes? You mention that Zuckerberg is an "atheist" but what does that have to do with him being a Jew? We have an article Jewish atheism. Believing in God is not essential to being a Jew. Do you happen to have a source that might support a notion that being an atheist somehow disqualifies one from being a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

John is entitled to his beliefs but editors are obligated to include information reported by an RS. Zuckerberg is an American Jew, he is an ethnic Jew. He doesn't practice Judaism, neither does Natalie Portman and millions of other Jews worldwide. This whole "Jewish descent" fascination is getting quite old and is not supported by BLPCAT. Wikifan 10:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT requires self-identification. Having a reliable source which says that he is a Jew doesn't mean that you are allowed to put him in a category of Jews. You'll need to find a source where he calls himself one. Furthermore, we may only use the category if being a Jew is related to his notability, which it isn't. And editors are not obliged to include information from a reliable source; a reliable source is necessary for inclusion, but it's not always sufficient. Something may be in a reliable source and still have to be excluded for other reasons. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken Arromdee—I think there is an underlying illogic. Note that for instance in this edit the individual is being removed from Category:American Jews and being placed in Category:Jewish atheists. Wouldn't the same logic be applicable to those two categories? What logic would argue for him being in one and not the other? Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken - reliable sources have identified Zuckerberg as being one of the world's most influential Jews. Since it's quite clear blpcat doesn't apply to ethnicities, the argument of "self-identification" is invalid. Wikifan 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The rationale for BLPCAT is that category names don't contain disclaimers or modifiers. If the category can be either an ethnicity or a religion, the rationale described in BLPCAT would be true: the category name doesn't contain a modifier stating that it only refers to ethnicity. So BLPCAT's rationale would apply, and it would fall under BLPCAT. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT does not apply to ethnicity or race, as indicated here. We've already gone through these same identical arguments, multiple times. Wikifan 21:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A plea from Jimbo Wales and me

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

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_106, Section title "Plea", right near the bottom, where JW would have me bring this matter to you. He has, see the talk page of the articles in question and the JW talk page archives, seems to express concern that this is an important and difficult issue in need of the attention of informed BLP editors. What should we do? Let me know if you would like me to repeat this plea again here or whether, as I would hope, this word to the wise is enough. Chrisrus (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It would really help if you would clarify what you think are the BLP problems in the article. Even after reading the short discussion at JW's Talk page, I don't understand your complaint. I've reworded a few parts of the article, but thus far I haven't seen anything egregious other than lots of apparently unresolved lawsuits about who did what to whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, we need someone to read something:

1. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html
2. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html
3. http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/

This is a Forbes Magazine cover story with sidebars and two short follow-up articles. That's it! Just read some articles. It's kinda interesting; you will enjoy reading it. We need you to read a magazine article and two short follow-ups. Please.

Later on, after you have read that, the next step is to read Talk:NXIVM#Press, subsection “draft”. It is a description of the Forbes reading material, written by a fan, and intended for the mainspace.

The question is this: Is the “draft” subsection of Talk:NXIVM#Press ok for transfer to the mainspace of the article as is, or might some adjustment be in order? The intention is for it to replace NXIVM#Bronfman_case.

Even if you don't want to get involved in the process after "Later on,..." just above, please read the Forbes material. That way, at least you could participate in the discussion about it, but if nothing else you'll have read an interesting magazine article.

Thank you for reading the Forbes magazine material. Again here:

1. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html
2. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html
3. http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/
4. Also, the original paper magazine had artwork with words. Here is the cover: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp2.jpg,
5. And with the article there was this: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp3.jpg. Forbes doesn't have this artwork on the website that I can find.

@Bbb23, hello and thank you for kind attention. I sorry to be cryptic, but please do read the Forbes magazine links above first: it's better that I not prejudice you with background information or my personal take on it. You see, that way you'll be influenced by only what it says and not anything I might say. Then, look at the draft summary slated for transfer to the article NXIVM which can be found on it's associated talk page section 28, "Forbes Coverage", subsection "draft". At any moment, this draft may replace NXIVM#Bronfman_case in the mainspace, and it's important and may not be easy to "get it right," as JW says. Feel free to edit that draft. It's ok, I know we don't normally edit text written by others on talk pages, but you'll see it's clearly marked and set aside as feel-free-to-edit text.

I hope that you don't know anything about NXIVM or it's founder before reading it because that way you it will be impossible for you to be prejudiced.

We need appropriate people on this ASAP. You might want to talk to Jimbo Wales about this matter, but for reasons that aren't too hard to understand he has to refrain from commenting too directly. He's left a message on the NXIVM talk page, but I think he'd agree that we've got to include major stuff like the Forbes first before worrying about what a local paper like the Albany Times Union has to say about it. It's a long and complicated story and background will just prejudice you. Please understand, right now the urgent matter is the pending transfer to the mainspace of information about the Forbes in our best encyclopedic matter-of-fact style and it's best if you or whoever know nothing about it that they haven't read in Forbes magazine. Later we can worry about the TU coverage. Please understand that both JW and I need to refrain from getting too involved in improving the NXIVM cluster of articles but agree it's important others do.

Also, don't worry about biting off more than you can chew, if you know what I mean: "Geez this looks like a big project and I don't know if I want to get involved" type of thing. Right now I'm just asking you to do something millions do for fun and interest, read a magazine article and look at a proposed draft which describes the article.

Which brings me to my final point, that although I have addresses this post to USER:Bbb23, the same plea goes out to all good Wikipedians who might be reading these words. Chrisrus (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell

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

A bit of an argument going on at Talk:Malcolm_Gladwell#.27Blatant_corruption.27 over a continuing edit war -- I think that the section title suggests what it's about. Rather to my surprise, there are now experienced editors on both sides of the argument. Oh well ... let's have a few more experienced editors, and then perhaps the matter will be settled, one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong of course, but I think the issue has been dealt with at Talk:Malcolm_Gladwell#.27Blatant_corruption.27. Hoary, do you have any more reasons for blocking the changes? Speak now or forever hold your peace, friend.

Peace & Fucking. Believe,

√Dontletthemwin (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong, of course. The issue is being dealt with at "Blatant corruption". (Incidentally, we all already believe in peace and fucking; no need to harp on the matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem like the type to get much of either, my dear friend Hoary. But one of these days...

And what the hell is up with your attitude? I was polite to you and there are being all rude, telling me how I'm "wrong, of course"--meaning that I'm wrong by default? Doesn't seem like you want to work with others...and to be honest I don't see you working constructively to arrive at a solution, just rudeness and obstructionism is what you contribute. You are the only person on the page with a problem. No one supports your position. Please stop standing in the way of a good edit.

Peace & Fucking. Believe,

√Dontletthemwin (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ponnala Lakshmaiah

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

Can someone take a look at this one, it needs editing with a chainsaw. Section headings like As Icon of Inspiration, Man OF Integrity & Passion, Life of the Sparkling Star show where the BLP issue lies. This is an article about a politician, so some COI editing seems to be going on. 109.77.113.165 (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed one of the most hilarious bios I've seen. Reduce to two or so sourced sentences, or send to AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was previously bad, but not embarrassingly/hilariously so. I've reverted a lot of edits to restore it to its previously (bad) state. This is not satisfactory (and neither of course is it hilarious). Hoary (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Lintott

 Done

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

Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this; the[REDACTED] page dealing with me shows an out of date affiliation and job title which is causing problems. I've posted a note on the relevant talk page (Talk:Chris Lintott) but would appreciate it if someone could make the update or let me know if more information is needed. Thanks Chrislintott (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hope it meets with your approval. --GRuban (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson Affair

Craig Thomson affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - BLP - Craig_Thomson_(politician)

I have discovered that this borderline attack page on a Member of Parliament (under voluntary suspension from the Australian Labor Party) is being edited by at least one member of the Liberal Party of Australia. Thus there is a huge WP:COI. WP:BLP is being totally ignored; unreliable sources which border on the edge of defamation (under Australian law) are being cited and then added to the Misplaced Pages article in a libelous manner. Please also note that the staff of the Liberal Party of Australia have been involved in the malicious editing of Misplaced Pages before, when they held government. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a WP:COI for a member of one political party to edit an article concerning a member of another. It is quite possible for editors to put their own political (and other) views aside and write neutrally. The best advice is to look calmly at the sources and writing to make sure that they are reliable and being approached neutrally, taking into account the whole of the article. Seeking to use an editor's affiliations as a way of attacking their edits is certainly deprecated, and I doubt that a five year old news story has much direct relevance here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I had a look and undue was my primary issue - The issue is already massively covered/duplicated in our biography of him - see Craig_Thomson_(politician)#Use_of_credit_cards - so imo according to[REDACTED] policy and guidelines, deletion of the Craig Thomson Affair article or removal or if its kept then deletion of the undue coverage in the BLP is the way to improve. Youreallycan 22:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Australian editor here. The journalist(?) behind the sources some here are trying to use to show up the subject of the article in a negative light, Andrew Bolt, is a clever but divisive and inflammatory writer for what are largely right wing outlets in this country. Not long ago he was found guilty of lying and of racial slander in some material he published. He is paid to be controversial. That is self acknowledged, public knowledge. It's actually quite stupid of those pushing the anti Craig Thomson POV to insist on using Bolt, because it shows a lack of perspective and understanding of what Bolt is. Because of Bolt's divisive image, it's actually unhelpful for Misplaced Pages to use him at all. They claim they only want to use him for "facts". My argument is that if those "facts" cannot be alternatively sourced to someone with a less controversial image, they probably aren't facts at all.

it would really help, HiLo, if you actually read the source to which you so strongly object, Bolt's article is used solely as a vehicle for the email from Thomson, which is in turn sourced from a strongly pro-Thomson blog. Not one word of Bolt's is used. Other journalists use the same material, but not in its entirety, and they are referenced as well, in a selection from a long list including the newspapers of about a hundred Australian towns and cities. I note that one editor has removed the material, along with further material sourced from ABC News concerning the money paid by Thomson to settle the case, claiming it as vandalism! That sort of behaviour doesn't help constructive editing at all. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide this bolt source for further investigation please - Youreallycan 17:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have done so at Talk:Craig Thomson affair - it heads a reflist to follow the four sources provided. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I too have wondered why the article Craig Thomson affair exists at all. Such an "affair" is all about the opponents of the governing party trying to denigrate a political opponent of theirs, and even to bypass normal legal processes. There are matters before the courts relating to this "affair" and those aggressively opposing Thomson don't care how much they corrupt the proper legal processes here. Winning politically is all that matters to them. The article serves no other real purpose. It should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the lead and first para, the affair is of crucial importance to the survival of the Gillard government. Read the sources there - top-notch political journalists such as Grattan and Kelly with decades of experience. As an Australian political scandal, one which has been front-page material for a year or so, it is beyond question as notable. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• An admin/s attention on Talk:Craig_Thomson_affair would be good - there is tension rising - and partisan/conflicted WP:COI users - If experienced contributors could also have a look at the article - there are imo clear BLP issues - The biography has also still since last months creation of the spin off article , unduly large coverage considering there is now a main article and requires summarizing to at least half in the BLP imo - asking for volunteers for that - for which I have opened a discussion section. - Talk:Craig_Thomson_(politician)#Craig_thompson_affairYoureallycan 14:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren (Talk page comments)

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

I'm concerned about what I see as BLP violations on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. It may be though that I'm being oversensitive, so I'm seeking outside opinion, Within this section Talk:Elizabeth_Warren#Undue_Weight_and_Coatrack_in_Senate_run_section. we have the use of pejoritive terms that have been used by certian opinion columnists. i.e. "Liawatha". I feel these should be redacted and not repeated unless it's specifically about a suggested inclusion. My opinion has been disputed by a 3rd editor.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)edited to fix spelling error pointed out by 24dot

I edit-conflicted with you at Talk:Elizabeth Warren in leaving this warning. The upshot is that there's a line between a serious discussion of reliably sourced criticism on one hand, and abusing an article talk page as a platform to vent one's personal animosity and contempt for the article subject on the other. That line is repeatedly being crossed on Talk:Elizabeth Warren.

I've elected to leave a general reminder as a start, but would welcome some outside administrative opinions. I think this page is likely to be sort of a test case for how we handle high-profile political biographies, and politically motivated editing and commentary, in an election season. Hopefully things will be smoother than in 2008. MastCell  17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not introduce the so-called "perjoritive" , but I opined in the thread that the Misplaced Pages editor who did use it was merely repeating what nationally-syndicated columnist George Will calls an 'earned sobriquet'. The editor who mentioned "Liawatha" (get it, Liar watha–Hiawatha) did so in Talk space and was obviously paraphrasing from a wide variety of source commentary; George Will explicitly used the terms "kerfuffle", "blond", and "victimhood". I both quoted from and linked to the source (again, here) before this complaint was created here. No one is arguing that WP:BLP isn't a great guideline, but it seems obvious that an editor is allowed to quote and paraphrase sources without other editors threatening him making an issue of it. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lieawatha has an "e", you know. I can see the logic of either spelling, but the reality is that most columnists are inserting the e (google compare).

I hope that wasn't the spelling error you "fixed"! 66.105.218.38 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a Senate campaign, whether you like it or not, the controversies of a campaign are fair game. The sobriquets "Lie-awatha" and "Faux-cahontas" are in extensive use throughout the State, and local radio talk shows have sponsored contests to find the best Elizabeth Warren "Indian" names. They all refer to the the controversy included in the page, are in wide use, and are relevant to the campaign, in the sense that when a stumble becomes so bad that it is a constant source of water-cooler talk, it at some level affects the race. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be inappropriate for anyone to use the terms in passing in the article (e.g. "Lieawatha now claims that...") but there should at least be a line or two POINTING OUT that the names are in such use. Even without the cute portmanteaus, the actual names "Hiawatha", "Geronimo" etc are also being slapped on her. Including combined forms like "Hiawatha Liz", "Geronimo Warren" etc. 66.105.218.23 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Political meme I guess the question comes down to whether these have become a/some political meme(s) in a Senate race, in which case they are absolutely valid inclusions. Obviously a casual insult does not warrant inclusion, but a meme does. Memes, to head off the next argument, are seldom kind, but their effectiveness is related to how well they bring attention to an issue. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If talk radio is any indication, they certainly seem like they've made it to meme status. Even her sympathizers/defenders are cracking wise about it as they do.

I guess one measure would be: how much are Leno/Letterman/Colbert/etc making jokes about this? 66.105.218.13 (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Owers

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

I believe the article is autobiographical. See comment at ] Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article appears to be an autobiography based on her website and a website she created about the subject of her book. The article is positive but imo not overly so. No reliable secondary source is mentioned so there might also be notability problems.Coaster92 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Prodded, after a check via findsources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Kemberling

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

I hope the page I just created is in complience for NPOV, BLP and notability. I would appreciate some of you Smart People looking at and if need be editing my work. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Its nice your article but currently doesn't assert independent - WP:Notability as it has no independent sources talking about the person and for that reason it is in danger of deletion - If you want it to survive you should add some independent reliable sources WP:RS that discuss or report about the subject - Regards - Youreallycan 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thankyouverymuch. As Rachel Maddow mentioned this guy on her show the other day, that ought to check that box. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

David Attenborough

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

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

You have David Attenborough listed as the younger brother of Richard Attenborough. Not so. he is 86, his brother is 79 - Joseph Berlinger - I can't figure out how to edit. You have made the procedure extraordinarily difficult — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.81.134 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your report - if you have WP:RS reliable support for your claims that would be helpful - I had a look and both DOBirths appeared uncited so I tagged then with citation required and informed users will likely attempt to provide reliable support for the DOB claims and then we will resolve this - thanks - Youreallycan 18:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• - This article in the mail from last year- has David at 85 and Richard at 87 and refers to Richard as his older brother - making our articles correct and your claim unsupported. - Youreallycan 18:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Mail does occasionally print what is true, but it's hardly a reliable source for anything. But the Encyclopædia Britannica is more reliable. They also give the details for Richard and David which confirms the dates of birth given here and shows that Richard is the elder brother -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Steve - Youreallycan 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Erik Spoelstra

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

It wouldn't hurt to get some more eyes on Erik Spoelstra. A recent piece of vandalism was reported by Forbes.com, and if his team loses tonight, things are going to get worse. A similar edit stayed up today for over thirty minutes. The article doesn't even have thirty people watching it yet, so any help would be appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

All looks OK right now.Coaster92 (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani

• Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, can an editor follow the developments in this page, It appears to me that someone is inserting bias material into the page, with no source. I have added "citation needed" for various claims, and tried to complete it by adding referenced material to the site, but much of the material has been removed and replaced by unreferenced material.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi313a (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of editors have removed some unsourced material. I have removed even more. I have also revised the lead, but the most important thing that should be in a lead is not there. What is he?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some extraordinary claims in this biography (I'll raise it at FTN also, a claim to have discovered "the Will of the Prophet Muhammed" is pretty fringe). A number of fact tags added in the last few days. I've removed some stuff but would like a less cynical eye on it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for input on Jeffrey Docking

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

There have been some IP blankings at Jeffrey Docking, removing material about a football firing controversy. herehere and at a related article here. As far as I can tell, everything there seems to be compliant with BLP policy, but I'd like some input on that. All of the material there is right out of reliable sources, is cited to death, and the sources are archived. I don't even think the material is all that controverisal, but someone out there disagrees. I just want to head off any issues. The IPs seem to be sourced to the college. --GrapedApe (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On first inspection - It looks a bit weakly cited and also undue coverage of a minor issue - soapboxing of a personal issue to his bio - totally undue coverage imo - likely added by someone involved personally. Youreallycan 05:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was me who added it. It isn't weakly cited: every single sentence is cited to a reliable source. I tried in good faith to cover events of his tenure, and this incident dominated news coverage of it. Perhaps it is over-kill coverage of 1 event. Anyone else have any thoughts? --GrapedApe (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok - when I said It was wealky cited I was a bit vague, I didn't mean any of it was uncited but rather that it appears to only be supported by two posts/stories to an obscure ((to me) online LOCAL web news site, no nationwide coverage?Youreallycan 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• - http://www.lenconnect.com/sports/collegesports/x730414566/BREAKING-NEWS-Docking-breaks-silence-on-Lyall-firing
• - http://www.lenconnect.com/sports/x356301659/Adrian-College-football-alums-unhappy-with-Lyalls-firing
  • • No, it is a DIII school, so I bet that it never gets national coverage on anything. It was covered by the relevant local newspaper of general circulation, which is just about as strong as you would ever get.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Juan Vargas

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

Someone removed info that I added that was referenced and accurate:

As a Senator he did not vote in favor of SB 810, a legislation that would have supported universal comprehensive healthcare to all Californians, which is part of the California State Democratic Party Platform

I have replaced. Why was it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.2.142 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Although we link to sites that do, Misplaced Pages doesn't track individual voting records of politicians, unless there is coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Neither reference you provided is independent of the subject, and since they are not third-party, fail to show that that vote has been worthy of attention. Your wording also didn't discuss why. Did he vote against it? Is he on a medical leave? Did he say it didn't go far enough in some area, or is unenforceable, or likely to be found unconstitutional? This is the kind of objective analysis independent coverage might provide. The user who removed it didn't provide an edit summary, but neither did you when you put it back in, and neither of you have discussed it with each other on the article talk page or elsewhere. Dru of Id (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

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

I'm very sorry to have to raise this again, but recent news articles about the events surrounding Ian Thorson's death seem to have triggered a new bunch of non-NPOV edits to the Michael Roach[REDACTED] page. Since one of the people doing these edits has accused me of COI, I would appreciate it if someone here who is actually neutral could look at the last few edits to the article and see what you think. Abhayakara (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article on Roach should refrain from going into details about the lives of other people -- but reliable sources are writing about the connection between Roach and Thorson's death, and there's no problem in having our article here briefly mention that connection, and I think we should do it given the attention it has received. My attempt here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In a section about his marriage, you talk about the death of his ex-wife's husband several years later. If there were a section about the retreat, it might make sense to have something about Ian's death, but it doesn't make sense in context. By adding the text you have added, you imply that Ian died as a result of Michael Roach's actions, but in fact the source material says nothing of the kind. Furthermore, you've added text that talks about their marriage ending that suggests that he dumped her and went clubbing, when the source clearly states that she left him and then married Ian. The text you've added seems to very deliberately imply that he discarded her and went looking for someone new, but again this isn't sustained by the source material. If you didn't intend to imply that, you ought to change the text so that a disinterested reader wouldn't take that implication from it. Abhayakara (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't implied anything of the sort. I welcome discussion of these issues (perhaps in the section of the article talk page that I started, with no contribution from you yet) -- but I think you're on the wrong track here, particularly given that your edits recently have consisted of deleting text and references, despite an acknowledged COI on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is why I would appreciate some input from someone who is actually neutral about this. You appear to me to be pushing a viewpoint, but as you say, I am not a neutral party, so I would appreciate it if someone who has never heard of Michael Roach could review your edits. Abhayakara (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and good -- except for the implication that I'm not "actually neutral about this". I had never heard of Roach myself before you brought him to this noticeboard last week. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I can believe that you believe that you are unbiased. I can also believe that you never heard of Geshe Michael before last week, and that your entire knowledge of him is based on reading the citations in the Misplaced Pages article that are not in books, which you would have had to purchase or find in a library. However, I _am_ saying that your viewpoint here is biased. How it became biased is not important. Whether you have good intentions or not is not important, and FWIW I am willing to assume that you do. What is important is that you appear to me to be biased: you are pushing a non-neutral viewpoint. And yet while I really do try to be neutral here, you raise a good point when you say that my personal knowledge of the topic could lead to non-neutral edits on my part. It is because of this that I am requesting review from a neutral third party. To be clear, I mean someone other than you, since it is your edits I am objecting to. As an alternative, you could respond to my criticism on the Talk:Michael Roach page with something other than contradiction and accusations of non-NPOV and COI. Abhayakara (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

COI-afflicted editors are not great judges of whether someone else is non-neutral. That's sort of the point. It's not hard to see that for you "neutral" = agrees with you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've accused me of bias several times now. I think we get it. The reason I raised this issue here is because I think your edits are biased, and would like a neutral third party (that is to say, not you) to evaluate the question. Are you going to once again repeat what you have already said numerous times in the embarrassingly long exchange above, or can we be silent now and wait for someone who is not either you or I to look into the question? Abhayakara (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't feel it should be included. If a BLP 'splits up' with a partner we don't include information on the partner's life after the split. That would go on the partner's page. Fred divorced Jane in August and Jane was killed in a car accident in September would be wrong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I get that as a general principle. But if Jane's car accident comes on the way home from a party where Fred threw her out for shagging Ralph in Fred's guest room -- and if this confluence of events was being reported in the world's most widely-read newspapers -- we can reasonably come to a different conclusion about what's appropriate. To return to Roach -- the article here will survive without it, but these are the issues for which Roach has been receiving ongoing coverage in recent years. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It's perhaps worth noting that the disputed text says "Roach divorced McNally in 2010 and began going to clubs in New York." We've been arguing about the text about Ian's death, but I removed that a while back because it had already been removed as the result of a previous BLP dispute, and User:Nomoskedasticity hasn't added it back. The reason I wanted people to look at the disputed text is that it seems inaccurate, and also implies something that's not sustained by the sources. One source says "Last summer Christie left Geshe Michael for another man." The other source says "Mr. Thorson and Ms. McNally, 39, married on Oct. 3, 2010, by the sea in Montauk, N.Y., almost three months before they left for the retreat and a month after Mr. Roach had filed for divorce from her."
    • So it seems to me that the bit about clubbing should be removed—it's a phrase that, when placed next to "Roach divorced McNally," leads the reader to draw a conclusion that could not be stated explicitly, because it's not present in the cited sources. It seems to me that it would be more consistent with both sources to simply say "Roach and McNally divorced in 2010." Abhayakara (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the lack of response above, I used my judgment to edit the article. User:Nomoskedasticity is now engaging in an edit war over on the Michael Roach page and is making accusations of sockpuppetry in addition to his previous accusations of non-NPOV. Some neutral analysis would _really_ be appreciated. Abhayakara (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI here. Note that Abhayakara (under two different accounts, now?) continues to edit the article in defiance of COI guidelines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Until the SPI is concluded, that's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Arkon (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the editor continues to ignore COI guidelines is not irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think that COI means I should never edit the article. This is not the case. COI means I should be careful to maintain NPOV when editing the article, which I claim to have done. You claim otherwise, yet persist in making non-NPOV edits yourself. I would like nothing more than to be able to stop engaging in this ridiculous dispute with you, but not at the expense of leaving the Michael Roach article looking like a refugee from a gossip column. Abhayakara (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, a COI editor is not the right person to make judgments about the edits of a non-COI editor -- certainly not to the point of edit-warring on the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't had the luxury of a neutral editor to resolve the issue, so I've used my judgment. I have told you explicitly and in detail why I think your edits are non-NPOV. You have not responded, even once, to what I have said—you just keep repeating your assertion that I shouldn't edit the article _at all_ because of COI. I think my response thus far is pretty much the only one I could have given other than to just let you have your way with the article. Just because I have an acknowledged interest in the subject doesn't mean that I am a mindless zombie who cannot make NPOV edits. Abhayakara (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hal Erickson (author)

Hal Erickson (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this BLP notable enough for a standalone article? The only bio info I have is minimal from 2005 at google books. Google search is hard to do on him because he is quoted so much. I started a user space page on him: User:Canoe1967/Hal Erickson (author)--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Found sources, moved to main space.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Billie Jean King

Billie Jean King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article begins with a section on her "personality" and features 6 paragraph long, block quotes. I find this grossly inappropriate and would like to remove all of the quotes. Any thoughts, suggestions, opinions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the quotations give a very descriptive idea of Billie Jean's personality. But they do seem to be overused here per WP:QUOTEFARM and, with some consideration, could be replaced with a more summary style. Imo the information they contain is helpful and appropriate in this article so I don't think the information should be deleted in its entirety, just summarized.Coaster92 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@Kiethbob - I agree it is excessive - and likely a bit of possible copyright violation - trim away - Youreallycan 05:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomislav Nikolić

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

The newly elected right-wing president of Serbia. I'm not fan of him (on the contrary, but that's not relevant here). The problem is that article has giant "controversies" section (about 40-50% of the article). Out of the 11 total sections (excluding References and External links) 7 sections are controversies. My main concern is "Accusations of war crimes" section, which is partially referenced to primary sources (press releases actually). There was never any indictment against him for war crimes, so I think this is the case where WP:BLPCRIME should be applied. There are other problematic sections like "University degree" also, but my primary concern is "Accusations of war crimes" section.--В и к и T 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that WP:CRIME refers to "people who are relatively unknown" saying that editors should consider not including mention of unconvicted crimes in those bios. As the president of Serbia, imo he is not relatively unknown. But the accusers and allegations in the article seem vague and speculative as written, particularly considering that the investigation was requested in 2005 and no actions have been confirmed in seven years. Perhaps a more summary version that focuses on his actions in relation to his action against Nataša Kandić would be more appropriate.Coaster92 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, and also notice that accusations are referenced to press releases published on NGO website. Since there was no indictment, and even no investigation, I think the inclusion of the accusations is violation of WP:UNDUE. First sentence of WP:BLPCRIME applies to everyone, not just "people who are relatively unknown". But, i agree with your proposed solution.--В и к и T 08:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page - but the use of editorial commentary as fact is troubling, as well as obvious misuse of some of the sources to make allegations which would not remotely be allowed were they in English and more easily checked. Collect (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear WP:BLPCRIME applies generally, Buku, but I did notice the limiting language that I quoted. Is there another section I have missed? Thanks.Coaster92 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ali Khalid

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

He is of Pakistani decent. The article claimed his father was Pakistani and that his mother was Gilgiti. Gilgit is in Pakistan. Therefore, I must question the need for the info about his mother being from Gilgit relevant, unless Gilgitis specifically see themselves as drastically separate ethnically, which I could not seem to find evidence to support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonCastle (talk • contribs) 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Limited independent notability, imo - sent for discussion to - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ali Khalid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve Jones (biologist)

Steve Jones (biologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an interesting discussion at Talk:Steve Jones (biologist); briefly, Jones is known (as the article title would suggest) as a biologist but recently made some comments about global warming. Another editor wishes to add something like "It is not known what his credentials are to say this" to the article which I think is somewhat inappropriate. I would prefer any criticism of Jones to be reliably sourced and neutrally worded. Other opinions please? --John (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly he can not add such an unsourced claim, Main problem (which is causing the desire to add this disclaimer) is the undue soapboxing through the massively excessive quotes of the subject in that section , I would consider such large quoting also creates a possible copyright violation issue - You could and we should remove said quotes and rewrite to a couple of sentences. I removed them and reverted back to this edit of yours - diff _Youreallycan 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno / Mike McQueary / Penn State sex abuse scandal

 Resolved: Page no longer contains BLP-Violating material.

I am a volunteer mediator at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. During a recent mediation I recently became aware of an ongoing pattern of BLP violations going on at Joe Paterno. See here and here for details. This involves the Penn State sex abuse scandal. The main BLP violation is continued unsourced accusations in Misplaced Pages's voice that assistant coach Mike McQueary failed to report the abuse to the police.

Another possible BLP violation (I am less sure of this one) involves head coach Joe Paterno. He is also accused in Misplaced Pages's voice of failing to report the abuse to the state police without qualifying the accusation with the fact that he did report it to the head of the University police. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, "Paterno claims" still fall under BLP as they definitely impact living people - and any claims which can have balancing additions should include the balance, no matter what the article is about. You are on solid ground. Collect (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the material per WP:BLPREMOVE. BLP-violating editors are edit warring, but no action is required on that. If they keep it up they will reach 4RR. (Per WP:NOT3RR, edits that remove unsourced contentious material that violates WP:BLP are not counted as reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR.) See Talk:Joe Paterno#WP:BLP Violation and User talk:Guy Macon#DRN Paterno - McQueary. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What you failed to say in this thread is that there were 5 citations. It was cited and as such not a BLP violation as you continue to assert. As such, I plan on making a report to ANI when i get home for continuous misrepresentation of BLP and misuse of warning templates.JOJ 20:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no citation for the claim -- in Misplaced Pages's voice -- that Mike McQueary failed to call the police. What we have citations for are:

McQueary claims to have talked to police.

Campus and borough police say they have no record of that.

The grand jury that charged the other two with failure to report found McQueary's testimony to credible and did not charge him withfailure to report.

I invited the editors who kept re-inserting the accusation in Misplaced Pages's voice to report at least A and B above, but they declined and insisted on retaining a clear BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy-Macon, it does appear that you are misusing the BLP passage about removing unsourced negative information to justify removal of sourced negative information. I suggest that you reconsider. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point. Another editor who felt the same way has edited the page to re-insert one of the names and I told him on the talk page that I strongly approved. I consider this to be WP:BRD at work - keeping out the BLP violation while undoing what I now agree was me cutting too much. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Now what should we do about your misuse of warning templates and your inappropriate removal of talk page comments?--JOJ 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What "we" can do is to encourage you to post your complaints in an appropriate forum instead of posting material having nothing to do with BLPs on the BLP noticeboard (one would think that after 30,000 edits you would have figured out where to post a complaint), inform you that you were properly warned for your violation of WP:BLP, and Apologize for the accidental deletion that I made at 20:52 and immediately attempted to revert, only to discover that a sharp-eyed editor had undone my error at 20:55. I apologize for delaying your post by three minutes. I assure you that it was not intentional and that it won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental? Now I've heard everything. You left a detailed edit summery. That's no accident, its disruptive. What you need to do is stop acting like everyone is doing something wrong but you. Noone agreed with you on those edits. You deliberately lied on this thread about the reliable sources, and your "warnings" were nothing more than using talk page warnings to win a revert war, since there was never a violation of BLP, since there were 5 reliable sources. Your edit summaries were telling as well. From your first edit, it was obvious that you were intending to edit war as much as you wanted to by attempting to "remind" other editors that reverting BLP is exempt from 3RR, despite the fact that there was no BLP violation. You were even "keeping score" and . All signs of a tendentious editor.--JOJ 03:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF while I WP:IAD.

Re: your claim that "there were 5 reliable sources" (the only part of the above that belongs here) are you claiming that five reliable sources support the claim that Mike McQueary failed to call the police (the specific BLP-violating edit you were warned for)? Evidence, please. Please quote the exact wording where even one of those sources supports that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the sources in question here, but I do want to comment on what Nomoskedasticity said above. If what Guy Macon says is correct — and I'm not saying that it is or is not — then the sources stop just short of what is being specifically asserted in the article. WP:BLPREMOVE does not merely prohibit unsourced contentious allegations about living persons, it says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." (Emphasis added.) If Guy's analysis is correct, his position on this is in no way a misuse of WP policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that although I have not looked at everything Guy and others said in this overly contentious discussion, most of what I saw supported Guy's views. The sourcing for the material in the Paterno article was non-existent last time I checked. Sticking in a source that doesn't support the assertion doesn't make the assertion sourced. My favorite argument in favor of including the negative material was it was sourced elsewhere in the article, although it was never clear where that was. A whole lot of WP:SYNTHESIS and misrepresentations going on.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in the article was that no one on the staff contacted police. Apparently McQuery is the subject that was "allegedly" the under the BLP violation because, according to Guy, none of the sources supported the statement that he did not contact police. But this article was one of the sources, and although McQuery "says" he contacted police, it clearly says they according to police, McQuery did not contact them. So therefore not BLP as it was sourced.--JOJ 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"According to the police, he didn't contact them" is not a source for "he didn't contact the police", since in this case whether the word of the police is accurate is disputed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a related question about BLP policy. The disputed passage now says "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, Paterno did not notify state police", which is fully supported by the sources. However, there is now a string of citations (45 through 49) at the end of that sentence citation, some of which are unrelated to the text they are attached to.

Cite 45 ("Police official: Paterno didn't do enough to stop abuse") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 46 ("JoePa: A look back at the sex abuse scandal") fully supports the statement is attached to.

Cite 47 ("Former Penn State coach Joe Paterno's full grand jury testimony on Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case read into the record at hearing") does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. It does say that he did the right thing by alerting his superiors, which sort of implies that he didn't alert the police, but we already have cites 45 and 46 directly saying that.

Cite 48 ("Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions") also does not actually say that Paterno did not call the police. Instead it has the Attorney General praising Paterno for doing the right thing by reporting it without specifying who he reported it to.

Cite 49 ("Questions mount about Mike McQueary's account of the locker room sexual assault") Does not mention Paterno except in passing ("scandal that cost Joe Paterno job").

Given the rather severe WP:OWNERSHIP shown by Jojhutton, I expect all hell breaking loose if I remove any of those cites. Is it worth it, or do orphan cites cause so little harm that the issue is best ignored? --Guy Macon (talk)

Chip Rogers (3)

shows a revert of a failed attempt to make the content of a section NPOV - it has the edit summary of "NPOV -- avoiding overemphasis on what Rogers says himself" which I consider a strange position considering what the actual claims ascribed to him are, and what the implicit claims in Misplaced Pages's voice are. Please look. Collect (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do look. Collect keeps insisting that Rogers claims he was an actor in an "ad" or an "infomercial", when Rogers himself says he worked for a "national sports television show" (and no source in play uses ad or infomercial at all). The right approach here is to report what is in the sources, including Rogers' response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Folks here can read the talk page discussion well enough - your position is that we should stress that he was a "handicapper", while I suggest we should use his actual words rather than leave that as being in Misplaced Pages's voice. Cheers. BTW, my edit last did not use "ad" or "infomercial" at all. Collect (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article should say that he was a sports handicapper because that's what the (multiple) reliable sources say. We should also include his denial that he was a handicapper -- as the article currently does. This is not a difficult issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your reliable source boils down to an Atlanta blogger -- we do not have any source which says he ever handicapped a single game - only that he was hired to appear in the "show." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tara Palmer-Tomkinson BBC Profile - * BBC profile

This link is stated as Tara Palmer-Tomkinson's 'BBC Profile' but it simply leads you to an article (not a profile) that is nearly 10 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaH82 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Jim1138 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi seems to be subject of an edit war and attack by people trying to damage his reputation. Allegations of voyeurism, sexual assault, and plagiarism being added. References are in Chinese and difficult to understand. I have not left any notices of this posting to any editors as I am not sure who should be notified. This article likely needs an expert. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This appeal falsely claims that some people intend to smear Fang Zhouzi. Fang's voyeurism allegations come from a professor at Guizhou Normal University and are reported in official news media including Qianzhong Morning newspaper. The wiki addition simply reflects those allegations and their official news report. Some close allies of Fang Zhouzi intend to suppress freedom of speech. An expert wiki editor should be involved before the addition is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuoyeben (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, this being the English Misplaced Pages, only a small subset of our editors can read the references to verify the assertions. Is there a particular reason this was posted here and not the noticeboard for biographies of living people? —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance. Should it be moved? Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ask Chinese Misplaced Pages for help? 218.22.21.3 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have someone working on the article. Jim1138 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Britney Spears

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

The personal life section keeps getting deleted & put back in her career. It really needs to stay in its own section so readers don't have to read her whole career just to find out what happened in her personal life. Stoopsklan (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at it. What a huge section. IMHO it should be split. Is there a policy or guideline for seperating it? If a section is too large it should be split the same as an article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Randeep Hooda - biased, uninformative

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

The Misplaced Pages page of a person by name Randeep Hooda is written by a person/persons in an obviously biased and opinionated manner. The page is meant for information on the person, and not meant to be an author's biography or personal opinion. Please flag the article as inappropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.194.170.230 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A good deal of information on the page is reliably cited, however it could probably use some additional references to sources other than film databases. Mdechris (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Souray

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

Previous discussion at BLPN

Can someone please take a look at the article and the recent battle over his marital history? I've run out of reverts. I did start a topic on the Talk page, little good it's done so far. Also, same IP is editing the Angelica Bridges article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

YRC helped (thanks), but the IP reverted again. The IP is now blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. We'll see what happens when the block expires (of if they hop).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sonalika bhadoria

• Sonarika Bhadoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mentioning she did not deserve the part for the role of Goddess Parvati is entirely wrong as mentioned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.227.157 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Herb Caen

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

Should the subject be called an American or SF based writer in the lede. Please see talk page for discussion. Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Herb Caen is, unfortunately, not a living person. Abhayakara (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Opps, you are correct, sorry about that. Should I remove this thread? The talk page is decidely against calling Caen anything other than SF-based journalist, but people there might be too "involved". Thank you, --Mollskman (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the protocol is for correcting mistakes, but probably if we just stop talking about Herb here, the topic will get vacuumed up automatically. Abhayakara (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

vacuumed up? lol. I am not going to revert the article again. --Mollskman (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I added his nationality after the SF-based part since people wanted that. Hopefully this ends that discussion. --Mollskman (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikos Alefantos

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

Article contains very few sources and potentially defamatory material. This person isn't popular outside of a targeted niche in one country. Article generally misses sources and citations, because there are none to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnF30 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the notability section should be cited. I could find no actual references to his publications, although this section says he's published them in two volumes. I did clean up the grammar in this section, but citations are badly needed Mdechris (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Roger Pearson

Roger Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It is rather well documented that Pearson has founded and been active in several antisemitic, neo-nazi, and racialist organizations through his life time - described in various books. An editor feels that mentioning this biases the article against Pearson and removes this sourced information, citing WP:UNDUE. I think some third and fourth opinions could be good - I have reverted the removal but honestly I am not sure about how best to cover this kind of thing. Pearson is a controversial person and has received lots of negative publicity mostly for his political work, his academic work is not comparably well known. But it is true that it not exactly flattering to have this stuff in you BLP, and that it does pose some policy relevant questions. IF anyone can chip n at the talk page I'd be happy. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the Wiki article on the Northern League (United Kingdom) says the organization was neo-nazi and was founded by him. IMO if the information is based on reliable secondary sources, and was not an isolated incident in his life (which it does not seem to be), then it is appropriate in the article. The other editor can focus on providing information on his academic work.Coaster92 (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Badshah Munir Bukhari

Hello everone. I am having difficulties keeping this page Badshah Munir Bukhari in keeping with WP:BLP guidelines, particularly their three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR). In terms of verifiability, one editor (IP 121.52.147.11) keeps inserting information that contradicts the neutral (third-party) source in the article: a university departmental webpage. For example, the website calls Bukhari "Mr" (in a dept which lists Drs and Professors) and identifies him having master's level quals, not a PhD. Yet "PhD" keeps reurning to the page. On the Talk Page there is also an accusation from another editor that these unhelpful edits are being made by Badshah Munir Bukhari himself. On that I cannot comment. I do not know. Please have a look. Thank you.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I will be grateful if you will please also have a look at the issue of notability. I have used both notability and deletion recommendation templates, but the aforementioned editor has repeatedly removed them without comment. Thank you.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian Settipani

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

I am having difficulty with an edit of a biography of Christian Settipani who has done some research in early medieval history and prosopography. Mr. Settipani is popular in some quarters and some other editors had written the article in a way that attracted a determination that there were problems of neutrality, the reason why he was notable and adequate citation. I added some materials to explain his notability but at first only cited a source (Halfond) who was critical of one of Settipani's publications. Halfond is a minor academic who does not exercise much influence in this field but I felt for the sake of neutrality and relevance it was a good citation. Pmanderson objected that I could not have derived any of the positive statements made regarding Settipani's reception by historical academia based on Halfond's article. I made some objections and explanations but left the section deleted and went about searching for the specific citations necessary to support anything I would later want to add again. Before I had completed this, another editor (with whom I have no connection) apparently found Pmanderson's action capricious or abusive and reinserted the deleted portion. Whatever I felt about that I recognized the deficiency of the original contribution and quickly added about a half dozen citations to the primary researchers in the field and their take on Settipani's work. I put Halfond's review back into context and I think anwswered the few of Pmanderson's objections that were the most meritorious. Then yesterday, Bobrayner objected to the lack of support for some aspect of Mr. Settipani's employment (a completely different section than I am working on and having nothing whatever to do with it) and summarily deleted the corrected section that I had just worked on because apparently he could not see why the other editor had put it back. He clearly had not reviewed the corrective changes. Having in fact already born the burden I was obliged to and made extensive changes, I reinstated the disputed language with a lengthy note on the talk page. Bobrayner deleted again citing again the designation he had placed on the unrelated entry (which in fact I do not think he has deleted). I have reposted the material and asked nicely again that he raise his objections to the extensive sources some of which I quoted at length and some of which, I think in fact most of which are accessible on line and for which I provided the URLs, and that he leave the material intact until he has explained why citation to the leading academics' in this field comments on the subject of the article are irrelevant. I have gone to considerable length to explain the changes in the appropriate place and would regard further deletion without taking up the sufficiency of the changes to be abusive. Please adviseGradyEdwardLoy (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

While not currently at issue, am I correct that you were previously User:GradyELoy? Dru of Id (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is me. Is there any way to combine the two accounts? I probably generated a superfluous account when I was getting started. I only need to be known under one name. Presently I am under GradyEdwardLoy and that is the one I prefer going forward. To the best of my knowledge I am not in trouble under any name. This is the first dispute that has troubled me enough to seek resolution. Normally if there is a comment or correction I talk to the editor and either meet their requirements for whatever or work things out in some responsible and compliant way. This is my first experience with problem editors. I suppose it is naive to hope it is my last.GradyEdwardLoy (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to establish how far back this goes. In order to establish that a fact is irrelevent, it's helpful to know that it is a fact. This seems to be a content dispute for Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or resolution at the article's talk page, as your recent posting there was within the last 24 hours, although re-inserting disputed material before editors have enough time to respond can be Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Dru of Id (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I will stop reposting but would like some assistance by a neutral editor. I can make no sense of the two editors I have had to deal with. (and I am an attorney in international practice so I am used to reaching sensible conclusions to disputes with people who see things in a different way than I do). If I am required to provide a certain level and quality of support for posted material, so be it. But when editors then come in, literally pay no attention at all to the support, even to explain why it might not be adequate and delete for no apparent reason, I suspect your problem at Misplaced Pages may be shifting from overeager and biased posters to people that get a rush out of being abusive. I suspect from seeing at least one rogue editor rap sheet that you need more regulation but for the life of me I do not know how that would be effectively done. Well anyway I hope this works. If I reposted when I should have just called for arbitration I apologize. I do observe that the deletor's stated reason did not pertain as it should to the material deletedbut other unrelated material. No meaningful reason for the actual deletion was ever given except that he did not understand why some third party had reposted. Since he clearly did not take the time to observe that the reposted material had been improved I think the action was at best irresponsible. We all, responsible posters and editors both, work hard trying to fit the standards and work with our own added material and that provided by others that may be useful to people who really need to know. We really do not need editors for whom this is all just a power trip.GradyEdwardLoy (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Harpole

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

The article appears to be written by the subject. Page contains very few citations; however there is a note at the bottom instructing any reader who needs citations: "it is up to them to do the research to get that". All other references are within the text, such as: "Reference the college catalogues of each university for citation "proof" of these jobs held", although not cited properly and not available. A paragraph, also likely written by the subject, at the bottom of the page questions Misplaced Pages's citation policy. The subject seems to be under the impression that this is his personal website, as opposed to a qualified source. Mdechris (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup. It's already survived AfD. My guess is that most of what's there can be sourced, and I don't see anything contentious. Could use further improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

With the removal of that paragraph and the other personal commentary, it looks much more objective. I have no doubt that the subject is noteworthy. Hopefully additional citations can be found. Mdechris (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

multiple articles

Huge numbers of people who are Mormons who served in any foreign countries for any length of time are now being categorrized as "American expartiates in (country)". This includes people both living and dead in vast profusion (Brigham Young, Jr. was listed for 8 countries!). is typical of this strange set of edits. was the one which led me to this trail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is simply unacceptable behaviour and shows a basic misunderstanding of the definition of the word. Arzel (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Michael Jingozian biography

In June, a biography of a living person, Michael Jingozian, was tagged with the following three objections:

--“This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification.” --“It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.” --“It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject.”

I’ve relied on these objections to rewrite the biography of Mr. Jingozian. My goal is to ensure that the biography meets all of Misplaced Pages’s standards.

The rewritten biography was posted on Misplaced Pages in early August; however the same three objections are still listed.

The URL is: Michael Jingozian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you kindly let me know if the rewritten biography has been reviewed, and whether the biography requires further editing to satisfy any Misplaced Pages objections?

Thank you for your assistance.

Alan Lohner

50.53.73.223 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tags have been removed by another editor.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from WP:Requests_for_comment/Request_board Coastside (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

valerie sinason

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

I would like comment on the Sinason biography with a view to deleting it entirely. Right now the bio treats Sinason as a crank.

The problem is Sinason's record of her treatment of people who report a history of satanic ritual abuse. Misplaced Pages has determined that SRA is a fringe view. As such Sinason's involvement in the issue means that she must be treated as a crank because to do otherwise might appear to validate SRA as not fringe. I don't think it is fair to use Sinason's bio to advance the Misplaced Pages judgement that SRA is fringe. The entry for SRA does a lengthy enough job of making the fringe argument. The Sinason bio should be deleted. As it stands it is a kind of witchhunt. 86.162.221.34 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Moved from WP:Requests_for_comment/Request_board Coastside (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

N Not done What portion of the content is ill-sourced or mis-written? She passes WP:BIO as far as notability is concerned, so deletion's a non-starter. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

Some of the talk page may be against BLP. I put a big bold section at the top that may help. It is a long read. Warning:it deals with a recent murder investigation and is rather graphic in places. I haven't read the article much, but it seems okay.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution