Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

"Religion:none" and "Religion:atheism"[edit]

Forgive me if this issue has been discussed before (I suspect it has but can't track down specifics), but I am having a problem with new User:SocialistDemocrat100, who is insisting on changing wording in BLP infoboxes from 'Religion: none (atheist)' - or similar - to 'Religion: Atheism'. This has arisen at Heinz Fischer, Demetris Christofias, and elsewhere. My strong view is that atheism, agnosticism, etc., are not religions, and that 'Religion: none' is the appropriate wording in such cases. "The off switch on the TV is not a different channel." If I'm right, I need help in convincing the new editor, who has not responded on his talk page and keeps making the same edits (with irritatingly inaccurate edit summaries). If I'm wrong, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think we should leave that parameter blank rather than "none" - "none" isn't a religion either.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
How some articles do it is that they put 'None (atheist) in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be delighted if the parameter were left blank. The point at issue is that the other editor is repeatedly changing 'Religion: None (atheist)' - which is OK with me - to 'Religion: Atheism' - which, to me, is patently wrong. If the consensus is that the other editor is in the wrong, I'd better take it to WP:AN/I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own. "Religion: none" implies, however, that the person does not care about any sort of religion at all. So we'd better keep these two entries separated. If in doubt, leave it blank. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
De728631 wrote "Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own." This could not be more mistaken. Atheism is not "defined as denying" anything. It is the absence or lack of belief. Every child is born an atheist since it is born lacking a belief in "deities, higher beings and whatnot"; it is not an atheist because it "denies" them. To deny something is an act of volition. No such act is necessary to lack a belief in Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor or any other claimed god. The actual definition of atheism is easily deduced from the word "theism" -- the belief in a god or gods -- and the prefix "a", which simply means "without" in ancient Greek, from whence the word comes. Occam's Shaver (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Any text in that field needs a solid source. The question is thus reduced to what does the source say? Unless there is a source, leave it empty. If the source says something that we don't think is a religion, the source wins. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't get to opine that people are atheists in the absence of positive information to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if a person is an atheist, that parameter should be empty (and possibly removed per Two kinds of pork below).--ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Like any religion - Wikipedia is best served by using self-identification in any such cases. If no such self identification is made, we well ought to use the "blank" as the default. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd go one step more and remove the field when the value is blank.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Religion: Atheist" implies the person congregates with other atheists for the purpose of discussing atheism, which has a slightly different context than "Religion: none (atheist)" Kind of like in politics when someone says they're independent vs. in the American Independent Party. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that there's no such thing as a reliable source for what goes on in X's head, the only meaning that can be reasonably ascribed is that of congregation or outwardly stated beliefs. To my thinking only direct statements of the "I think Z" type should suffice, but I doubt that will find consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
We must do what sources tell us, but it is very unlikely that a source will tell us somebody's religion is atheism.
There may be a field in the infobox, but we don't always have to fill every field. Shabratha (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take the words out at Heinz Fischer and elsewhere, see what happens, and report back.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is the slight issue that "religion: none" by itself could include non-religious theism or deism. With just "religion: none," Ben Franklin and Richard Dawkins would be classified as the same irreligion despite having completely opposite views towards religion and theism. Theism =/= religion, as evidenced by Buddhism, Jainism, and Raëlism. Atheism =/= irreligion.
Religion fields should not be incorporated unless there are good sources documenting a particular label. "I have no religion" would be "religion: none," while "I am an atheist" would indeed be "religion: atheism." "Beliefs about religion" would be a more accurate title for the field, but it's also too long for such a field. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Atheism is not a religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But irreligion is not inherently atheism, and atheism is not always irreligious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, atheism is not a religion, making your earlier suggestion that "I am an atheist" would justify "religion: atheism" in the infobox incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine, how about "Religion: none (atheist)"...? Or do you have an actual solution? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"Religion: none" is more than sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This line of arguing suggests that we should change "Religion" in the infobox to "Belief system:" or something that "atheism" would fit into, and where "none" (in which the people has specifically stated they do not hold any beliefs) would fit as well. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We go with that the RS say, as always. GiantSnowman 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:CAT/R, we go by self-identification alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As sort of indicated above, some religions can be described as atheistic, which can complicate things here. New Atheism, Strong agnosticism; and Weak agnosticism complicates things even further. Personally, in these cases, I think it makes sense to leave it blank or "none declared" without an unambiguous declaration from the subject. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The other, seemingly undiscussed issue is whether a subject's religion, or lack thereof, is relevant to why that person has an article. In the vast majority of cases, it's no more relevant than the colour of their eyes, and should be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Its undiscussed because because that is idiotic. I am a deletionist, minimalist, but any well written bio would include mention of how a person was "raised" and religious affliations, ect. We are not saying that their religion is why they are notable unless that is the case. --Malerooster (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, for better or worse, up until the last 150 years or so, it was in many or most areas a topic related to sometimes extreme divisionsin society. And didn't end there. In Nazi Germany, Cristero War Mexico, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, one's religius beliefs and affiliations had major impact, although, admittedly not so much in the West since WW II. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true Johne. Maybe my "vast majority" descriptor was a bit off beam. Unfortunately however, our recentism problem means that we have a huge number of articles on recent sports stars and filme and media personalities. Religion is irrelevant for most of them. In my country, Australia, religion is irrelevant for most people. And Malerooster, while religion may be part of a bio for a lot of (but certainly not all) people, where it's not a major factor in why we have an article on them, it shouldn't be in the Infobox. That's for important stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I would say that in 99%+ of bios, religion in NOT the reason for having an article or the reason for the subject's notability. That said, we still include it in most well written bios because it does have biographical relevance unlike eye color as the example you used, especially for, say, US Presidents. Should famous tennis players or actors have it included? I would defer to editors or writers of biograpghys. A certain editor, not to be named, has "jammed" the factoid that subjects are Jewish, into every bio of Jewish athletes. Its done in a really, awkward, no context fasion, and is quite annoying, but it continues. In those cases, I agree that it shouldn't be include, since it seems gratuitous(sp). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm from Australia. Religion here is now a pretty low key thing for most people, even for most of the claimed 7% who attend church regularly. I understand about US Presidents. The claims of Obama being an evil Muslim even reach here. And that our present PM once trained for the Catholic priesthood does get brought up. But most Australians wouldn't be able to tell you the religions of our past several PMs. Yes, religion goes in a good biography if it was a big part of a person growing up, but rarely in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, specifically for some living people who aren't covered in "Who's Who"-type sources which almost always include a "religion" line I would agree with you. Unfortunately, if those generally short biographies include a 1- or 2-word religious description, it can be hard to argue we should omit something those shorter articles include. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. In all honesty these infoboxes would be significantly more useful in many or most if the religion and ethnicity parameters did not link to the main article but to a "foo by country" article. If I were to ask the tasteless quasi-joke "Can you find a living atheist in Iran or Afghanistan" (tasteless answer - not for long) it might be much more informative to link to Atheism in Iran than the main atheism article. Such regional subarticles can also include some information on many of the characteristics included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles#Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices where such information is available. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the solution is to remove all infoboxs from BLP's.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It Probably is better to go with Religion: none (atheist) or Religion: Atheism. You could have no religion but Believe in a God. Religion: none does not indicate atheism well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There are also religions that explicity deny the existence of deities yet are still religions (even being officially recognized as such by governments), such as Scientology and Creativity. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark Aldrich[edit]

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

Suggested or supposed real name is clearly not well known even if it is real - the chat is here

the story taken down is -

writer is using these Internet links - - - pp 6-8) - Brown Alumni webzine:

the take down editor has suggested a trolling issue and wrote this - According to documentation here (, Clark Aldrich's birth surname was indeed Aldrich. Further, according to the same genealogy report, he is the 11th great grandson of both Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley. This is consistent with his bio here: At this point, insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak is best characterized as libelous. User:Intrepid French Learner

I do not understand so well the rules here - please assist, comment - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mosfetfaser: What do the majority of reliable sources call him? Aldrich? Then that's what we should be calling him, period. I see discussions in the talk page around rather unreliable sources ("genealogy trees" no less) which we know are not acceptable on any BLP. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are also not acceptable. Just call him what everyone calls him. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources, and there aren't that many, use a confusing variety of names and the diversity is not limited to the surname. There is diversity. This is a fact. A generic response without a detailed examination of the reliable sources isn't going to be useful in this instance. If it were that easy it would have been resolved already. Wikipedia editors obviously don't have the freedom to ignore reliably sourced information like Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University. Any policy based solution is going to have to deal with the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article? Judging from the comments by Intrepid French Learner there, it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that, then it's irrelevant. It is as simple as that: We call him what the majority of sources we have call him. If you feel so strongly about this then go ahead and open an RFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?" what I wrote again. Of course it isn't "as simple as that". Of course reliable sources are not irrelevant. No one is talking about renaming the article. Of course I don't make content decisions based on 'feelings'. "it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that"...sure, he may have changed his name, and the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that. Information in reliable sources does not go away by repeating the mantra 'it is as simple as that'. Diversity and inconsistencies between reliable sources are common are our job is to reflect the diversity, not bury it. So the question is how to do that. If you don't have an answer to that question in this instance you can't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that ...I think you need to go read WP:SYNTH. As to the level of help I can provide, I can provide nothing more than my knowledge of policy. If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
FreeRangeFrog wrote "So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?" "Conduit" is not "a magazine put out by CompSci students", as you put it; it's a publication of the Department of Computer Sciences; i.e., the faculty. If you don't understand the difference between a university department and a group of some of its students, you have no business discussing the subject. Also, AFAICT, no one is suggesting that the article be changed to "Clark Wezniak"; merely that the lede contain a mention of his birth surname, as is typical with those who have changed their names (cf. Ralph Lauren). Next, those "sixteen sources" you mention are actually not sixteen sources. For example, source #1 never even mentions Aldrich, source #2 is no "source" at all; it's merely a quote by someone calling themselves "Clark Aldrich" which states "Our industry's equivalent of the Oscars. --CLARK ALDRICH", source #3 is an abstract from a 2011 article in Computer Weekly News that mentions Clark Aldrich, and so on. Significantly, none of the sources provided predate 2003. If Aldrich changed his name in the '90s, none of those sources -- even if they do mention Aldrich by that name -- would negate earlier records of him under a different name. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
His previous name is not well known, is it? does he use the name at all? is there any notability to his previous name? is his notability connected in any way to his previous name? is it important at all here to scour the Internet to publish his birth name when he appears to not use it or reference it at all? Your comparison to Ralph Lauren fails - Lauren is a high profile public figure, Aldrich is not - he is almost not worthy of a story and deserves a bit of personal privacy as this wp:blp directs us to provide - that is my interpretation of this story, you may get support for another interpretation but just having link a dinks does not auto qualify publishing your story with wiki Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Mosfetfaser -- Aldrich has himself made the subject of his ancestry (and hence, his name) relevant. For whatever purpose, the bio he wrote and posted on his business website includes this: "(Aldrich) is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." His wife, Muffy Aldrich (AKA Lisa Aldrich, née Eastwood) is far more widely-known a public figure than is he. She has a website called "The Daily Prep" which likewise has far more traffic than her husband's site. On 26 July 2012, she posted this on her website: "Muffy Aldrich is not a nom de plume. For better or worse, the name Muffy Aldrich is real, in as much as 'Muffy' was a nickname foisted upon me decades ago and used by many friends; Aldrich is my husband’s family name" (emphasis added).source More recently, on 18 June 2014, she posted this: "...for a birthday present years back, my mother-in-law gave my husband Clark membership into a genealogical society. While many want to join a society using an ancestor of the same surname, the professional genealogist that she hired suggested that instead of using his direct ancestor George Aldrich (father's name/side)..."source (emphasis added). So the issue of Clark Aldrich's surname is one that she had been promoting before anyone questioned if it was the one with which he had been born. Indeed, both of them have used the "Aldrich" surname as a promotional device for him. That's the crux of the matter. It matters very little whether or not Aldrich's profile is high or low; it seems to be high enough to warrant a Wiki and thus, the facts about his identity are relevant. To claim that they are not would have a chilling effect upon any article about a living person and would require editors to try to guess whether or not factual material they were adding met some vague standards set by you or others. He and his wife have promoted his surname as relevant. That makes his surname (or surnames) noteworthy in the context of this article. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had. Without those significant external reliable sources, we literally can't write anything. What has been dug up are genealogy web sites, blogs, vague alleged public records and so forth. Our policy on biographies specifically and explicitly excludes any such content from the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not a repository of every alleged fact about every person ever. It is an edited encyclopedia, and our editorial policies permit us to choose which information to include and exclude. Editing is not censorship and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof -- In the article, Aldrich (or whoever the WP editor was who added his educational background) makes the claim that he earned a degree from Brown University. Elsewhere (e.g., his Linkedin page) he states that he graduated in 1989. However, there are no sources provided in the article to demonstrate that this claim is true. As you well know, WP requires reliable sources for all claims -- particularly for contested ones. You wrote "There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had." That's simply not the case; one significant external source does indeed comment on a name he may not have formerly had: The 1989 graduation program published by Brown, of which I have a copy and which may be seen on-line. It certainly qualifies as a "significant external source". It lists all of the graduates' names, but there is no one named "Aldrich" amongst them. There is, however, a "Clark Bennett Wezniak". You can't have it both ways. Either claims will be reliably sourced and may stay, or if they cannot be sourced, they must be removed; no amount of handwaving can make that go away. As Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Aldrich can only claim to have received his degree from Brown if he can demonstrate that he did. I'm calling him (or the editor who added the claim) out for adding false information. The evidence clearly shows that "Clark Aldrich" was not a graduate of the 1989 Brown class. The onus is on him (or other editors) to prove otherwise. Occam's Shaver (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It would appear that this is an attempt to import an off-wiki battle or debate into the encyclopedia content. There are no significant reliable sources provided that suggest any reason as to why we would need to discuss this in his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Occam's Shaver: I think I am halfway capable of determining if a source is appropriate in context, and in this context, not only is it not appropriate, it's actually completely inappropriate, because you are attempting to use it to arrive at a synthesis conclusion. Let's step back for a second: Do you have a reliable source that plainly states X changed his name to Y? No? Then all that stays off the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Hearne[edit]

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

I just saw that there is no Kevin Hearne page, the log says it was repeatedly deleted basically because this author isn't significant. I don't understand how having 7 novels published by a major publisher, and writing several short stories and novellas, does not make someone significant. There are several articles about his books on this Wikipedia, for example The Iron Druid Chronicles for the whole series or Hounded for one book. Yet, the author's bio was deleted (even in 2014 when he had 6 novels published), and is now protected… we can't edit it.

Could someone unprotected the Kevin Hearne article, and maybe ask the people deleting and locking it to cool it off a little?

--Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to create an article for a subject that has been repeatedly deleted, I suggest going through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. That way, an article can be reviewed and problems ironed out before it gets posted in article space. That doesn't guarantee that it won't get deleted, but it should clear the most likely problems. Having said that, you're going to need more to establish his notability than that he has published novels; that is what a novelist does, and being a novelist doesn't make one inherently notable in Wikipedia's eyes. See WP:AUTHOR for our basic standards for notability for writers. Really, if you can find a couple of independent, third-party articles about him and his work in significant places, or some good awards or even nominations, you should have it well in-hand.
The folks that have been deleting the article have been doing what they're supposed to do, it looks like, so no need to ask them to cool off. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well beside the WP:AUTHOR rules being stupid (which is somewhat ok, IAR is there for these kinds of things), maybe a vague passing notion of book publishing would allow anyone to guess that if Del Rey has published 7 of someone novels, there's 2 reviews about some of these books out there. I mean, can someone point to any author published 5 or 6 times by such a publisher that does not have at least 2 independent book review? Ever?
Not 2 seconds of Google gives one and two. There, requirements met. Add another second on Google and get three, four, five, six, seven, eight and so on.
I would suggest you go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation to discover that it doesn't work for locked article.
So, now that I spent way too much time dealing with rule lawyers who don't read their own rules, maybe those incredibly smart deletionist could write said article for me? Well for everyone else really, I don't care that much more, I personally don't need it. Nice, thanks. --Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You can introduce it via the AFC process by creating it as a draft in your userspace (say, User:Jérémie Bouillon/Kevin Hearne. Then, as the AFC article notes "To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page." It would probably be best to note on the article's talk page that this is an attempt to get a properly sourced and supported article into place for one that was deleted in the past, so it isn't assumed that you're just trying to resubmit the same content which had been previously deleted (as people sometimes do at AFD). --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the article looked like, but it seems that it probably shouldn't have been deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#A7, which only applies to people with no credible claim given for importance of any kind at all, whether sourced or unsourced. Was the article less than a stub? If it had other issues it should have gone to discussion before deleting. At this point, this is a NYT bestselling author, which I would think would warrant a stub at least.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion log, it was nominated for A7 speedy deletion because of "concerns over notability" and "lack of independent sources". This is not what A7 speedy deletion covers, and those are bad reasons for an A7. It looks like it must have failed a PROD in February 2014, which means it should have gone to a broader discussion, not a speedy deletion with less discussion. I think User:JzG took the wrong step here. I have no idea what the original article looked like or what kind of deficiencies it (or fellow contributors) had, so I'm assuming good faith all round, but I don't think it should have been speedily deleted. If the original article can't be looked at, it should be revived as a stub now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall the specifics but it was IIRC related to spam / COI edits and no claim of notability other than "he wrote some books". I could easily have been wrong, feel free to do whatever seems good. I don't have bandwidth right now, just spotted an email, so let any othe radmin know I am completely cool with undoing any admin action I took. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for responding, Guy. I understand COI problems, and if that was the only people working on the article then it would be unhelpfully spammy. But this author was on a national bestseller list this week, so maybe people might be looking on Wikipedia for him at some point, regardless of whatever happened in the past. The page is still administrator-only protected, so if someone could unsalt it, I can commit to making a stub article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All good, and a better article too. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Silvio Berlusconi prostitute sex scandal (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Title is false and smearing the guy..Court overturned the case. He is not guilty.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on guilt or not needed here - but the case is in limbo, so word changed to "trial" as being quite neutral. It may not be a perfect solution, but it seems to work IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops -- already renamed "sex scandal" by another editor although I think that may also have problems as a title. Collect (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
OP says he was found innocent, but the current page says guilty. In either case "trial" rather than "scandal" would be more neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that all sources point to a scandal, regardless of the outcome of the court case. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
in the header - and on July 18, 2014, an appeals court overturned Berlusconi's conviction, thus making him once again eligible to hold elected office. - imh-opinion trial would be better, he has been proven innocent of the allegations, so there is defacto no scandal to speak of. Silvio Berlusconi proven innocent of prostitute sex allegations would be a more blp following story title - it is clear to me to follow blp is important and as he is now innocent I have moved the story to Silvio Berlusconi prostitute trialMosfetfaser (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Although this conviction has been overturned, Berlusconi is still carrying out free work at a hospice following his conviction in an unrelated fraud case, and is therefore not eligible to hold elected office. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You may well be correct. I translated the web page used to write this story - thus making him once again eligible to hold elected office - and it was not verified so I took it down Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Does overturning his conviction=proven innocent? Or does it mean he wasn't proven guilty? Just asking. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A person who has been acquitted of a crime - I do get the point though, lol - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

David Tillinghast Multiple Inaccuracies[edit]

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

The following article contains major inaccuracies:

David Tillinghast

It appears that someone has combined multiple biographies and artwork from the web into a single article. This has recently caused embarrassment when this wiki article was used by conference organizers to present a biography and artwork to introduce me as a keynote speaker at a national conference.

Below is a comprehensive biography of mine for comparison:

“David Tillinghast graduated from Art Center College of Design in 1985 with a BFA in Illustration, Awarded With Distinction.

He has been a regular contributor to many of the major newspapers and magazines around the United States, and his work has appeared within the marketing materials for corporations such as Visa, Freddie Mac, and Harvard University. In a highly prolific twenty-nine year career, he has worked extensively in most major markets within the Illustration industry, including Advertising, Editorial, Book Publishing, Design Collateral, and Corporate Illustration.

His work has been selected for inclusion in industry publications including Communication Arts Illustration, Graphis Design, Graphis Logo, HOW Self-Promotion, Print's Best Booklets and Brochures, Print's Best Illustration and Photography, Print Regional Design Annual, Society of Illustrators Los Angeles, Society of Illustrators New York, and Step-By-Step Graphics. He has also appeared in galleries around Los Angeles. He is currently an Associate Professor and lead advisor for the Art Center College of Design’s Illustration department.

His association with Designmatters, Art Center’s social impact department, has taken him to the United Nations as a delegate for a project supporting the Millennium Development Goals, and their most recent collaboration, Uncool: The Anti-Gun Violence project, produced a series of children’s books that were adopted into local Public Libraries.

He is the recipient of numerous awards, most recently for Art Direction from the AIGA for Mark and the Jellybean Monster by Ariel Lee, which was selected as one of the fifty best books of 2012.

Partial List of Clients: Time, Inc., Business Week, Fortune Magazine, Texas Monthly, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Bantam Publishing, Viking/Penguin, Harper/Collins, McGraw-Hill Inc, 3COM, IBM, Freddie Mac, Hewlett-Packard, Visa, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Nortel, Solectron, Xerox Corporation, Harvard Business School, Vanderbilt University.” Just a further head’s up: I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and lived in New Zealand for a time as a child. I have been a resident of the greater Los Angeles area since 1982. I have no children. I was married for nearly twenty years, but my late wife passed away in 2011 from breast cancer. My mother is one of the last surviving Air Force Service Pilots, whom received the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.

Can someone correct this article?

David Tillinghast Los Angeles, Ca

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Dtillinghast, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

At wikipedia we try to ensure that article content is supported by reliably published sources and so I have believe I have removed many of the items that you claimed were inaccurate because they lacked such sourcing. However in doing so, it appears that David Tillinghast may not meet the basic requirements for having a stand alone article - namely that third parties have discussed the subject in a significant manner. Perhaps you can you point the way to any professional reviews of the work? or any major awards that can be verified by sources that are not affiliated with Tillinghast ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion on Hema Malini[edit]

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

Editor raised questions on Hema Malini about the person's religion. Not clear cut and I have concerns about the sources and wanted a second opinion from someone more familiar with BLP policies. Please see Talk:Hema_Malini#Religion.3F. If this is the wrong place for this request, please let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate scientists generally and Michael Mann Specifically[edit]

I've tried to remove some harmful material, believing it to be case of what I call "stealth libel". My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN.

Article Name: Public opinion on global warming

Figure and Text I attempted to remove read:

Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 adults in the USA conducted 29–30 July 2011[1]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[2]
  • This poll, of course, is directly measuring the impact of media coverage of Climategate.
  • In the long-running froo fa fa, various people said things about Dr. Michael Mann that prompted Mann to file defamation lawsuits.
  1. In US Fed District Court for DC, there is this one which reached a procedural matter which defendants lost. They appealed, and that appeal is now pending. If affirmed, the case will be sent back to the trial court for the discovery phase.
  2. In British Columbia, there is also a suit against Timothy Ball, which last I heard is in the discovery phase.

Although the poll wording at issue here is vague with respect to specific individual name, the 2011 poll came after two years of fairly intensive media coverage of the controversy . In my view, the sly wording of the poll is being exploited to do by the backdoor what can not be done directly - mount a BLP / defamation-esque / libel-esque attack on climate scientists generally, and Michael Mann specifically.

The example I used at the article talk page is this

Said X to media- Mr. Y raped my daughter.
Media newscast- X says Y raped X's daughter
Poll- Do you think anyone raped X's daughter?
Defamation lawsuit filed
Statute of limitations would have expired if suit had not been filed

With investigations finding no evidence of any rape at all, and with the defamation lawsuit pending, it's not appropriate for wikipedia to facilitate the spread of gossip by reporting "The poll reported 80% of the townsfolk think the girl was raped" ("by whom" being slyly implied with plausible deniability).

What say ya'll? Was my revert justified? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, your revert was not justified at all. Where in the text are any names even mentioned? This is not even a BLP issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPGROUP "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis." In addition, anyone with the even a modest familiarity with the issue immediately knows this is about the Climategate emails including specifically the plaintiff in these lawsuits, Dr Michael Mann. Does sly omission of a name that is obviously implied allow backdoor BLP ? That's not the way my Momma raise me, anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The content does not mention any groups either, you are just making shit up to remove something you do not like. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Research climate scientists are a group; nothing in the BLP policy says such a group must have a formal name. Plus, as I said, an honest person with a bare familiarity with the 2009 Climategate and the two years of media hype knows the 2011 Rasmussen report was asking about the scientists involved in that flap, at which Mann was a central member. In my view, you're defending assassination by innuendoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The removal is completely justified. The intend of the poll (and its addition to the article) is clearly the defamation of those involved in the so-called "Climategate", since proven to be complete bollocks. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And were exactly in the content is climategate mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is obviously insinuated. This "some scientists have falsified global warming research" leaves little room to pretend it might be referring to anything else. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not insinuated at all, it does not mention names, nor groups. There are no BLP issues with the content. It is a poll reporting on what people think. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. "it does not mention names, nor groups", that's why it's called an innuendo. "There are no BLP issues with the content", debatable. I disagree with you. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If you follow the link to the report provided below it clearly indicates that the poll was prompted by a NASA study that the deniers used to their advantage. It has nothing to do with the East Anglia emails that I can find. Can you point to something specific that does mention them? -- (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say it was "prompted", it comments on a NASA report being purposely misinterpreted by a group of deniers (which happens quite often). The title of the poll (69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research) leaves little room for interpreting it as not being related to the so-called "climategate" fiasco. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that Rasmussen is biased for the deniers because they asked people what they thought about the possibility of scientists fabricating climate research, or are you saying that Rasmussen is biased against the deniers by pointing out how the deniers purposely misrepresented the NASA report? The poll clearly mentions the NASA report when explaining the background for the poll. I don't see East Anglia emails mentioned at all. So again do you have anything of substance to link them or is the link pure conjecture on your part? -- (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a violation of BLP or "stealth libel". This is an article about the Public opinion on global warming. It would seem extremely strange that we cannot cover the topic of the public opinion on global warming in an article about the public opinion on global warming? I don't even understand how this is a BLP issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(A) Suppose the article was Public opinion on NewsAndEventsGuy's pedophile status and the poll said "In order to support his own plausible deniability, how likely do you think it is NAEG only looked at child porn on his computer without downloadingsaving it?"
(B) The actual ultra-leading question was "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?"
(C) If you haven't read Climategate you may not get the context, and may not know about the subsequent 2-3 years of frequent media hype that led up to this poll.
(D) The ultra-leading poll question is obviously tied to the climategate hype, which has spun off data-falsification claims that are now being litigated as defamation. The Fed Dist Court (DC) ruled on a procedural matter in Mann v National Review saying

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

(E) Your point is very well taken that results from a non-leading poll question on this subject, produced by an organization with a much better rep for neutrality than c, would be a great.... no, make that awesome... addition to the article. But the ultra-leading Rasmussen poll question generated the results they sought and really looks like stealth assassination of the group being asked about (climate research scientists). We should not aide and abet the BLP attack on this group. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I know who Michael Mann is and I'm aware of the context. Even side-stepping the issue of whether there's an identifiable person here (I don't think that there is), there is a world of difference between saying "it is at least somewhat likely scientists have falsified global warming research" and saying that "69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research." If you have a reliable source saying that the poll question is misleading, then that certainly can be included in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not really too complicated: the poll is unscientific and demonstrates the success of the fossil fuel lobby in sowing, in the public, a doubt which does not exist in the relevant scientific community. It's a useful illustration of how political interests have influenced public opinion and created an illusion of doubt. It stands alongside the work of the tobacco industry as an example of the way that vested interests can put off decisive action which is desperately necessary but not in their financial interest, and it can e presented in that context because there are many sources that support this. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, see Push poll; this particular poll had just 6 questions. I only just learned that term or would have linked to that article in my initial edit summary at the articleNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Push poll indeed, with confirmation bias to boot. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone remind me why we bother citing Rasmussen Reports at all, for anything? Aren't they fresh off predicting a Romney landslide in 2012? MastCell Talk 23:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott Hirsch[edit]

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

Article was brought to my attention as a "why does he get an article and my client doesn't?" It's actually a legitimate question. Most of the references are just random pages, primary sources or broken links to articles that do not mention the article-subject. A few quick searches bring up no sources of significance, except for a paragraph in TIME about being a spammer. Article appears to be primarily edited by SPAs.

I am not sure if there may be some remote conceivable COI in this case, so rather than AfD, I thought I would post it here. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

True, the current links in the article aren't very good, so I looked around before nominating it for deletion. Turns out there are a few reasonable articles about Scott Hirsch out there. For example: Sun-Sentinel InformationWeek Sun-Sentinel again. All together I think he does have sufficient coverage; also, I admit I am intrigued by someone who can promote boxing on the one hand, and software on the other, it's not a common combination. --GRuban (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There's some kind of wishy-washy thing going on there, one of the citations flat out calls him a spammer, yet it's used in a different context. And as far as I can see the significant coverage refers to that apps thing rather than everything else. I'd say we should have an article about the company/product and not the CEO. Smells like a curated vanity bio. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Augie Wolf[edit]

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

Awolf99 appears to be the biographical subject of Augie Wolf. He appears to take offense at content that I believe accurately summarizes a Los Angeles Times article. He contends that the article had factual inaccuracies. Ordinarily, I would revert with a mention of WP:TRUTH. What consideration should we give to the WP:BLP. According to Talk:Augie_Wolf#Content_removal_discussion, there was some discussion about this bio in Novmeber 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - How widely has this "material" been covered? Can we find other sources or citations? I would err on the side of caution, especially if we are relying on only one source or citation. Just my .02$. I did some minor copy editing as well. --Malerooster (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Malerooster. I think it would be worth it to try to find another source, given the nature of the claims. The subject's argument that "no official documentation exists" is irrelevant because whatever that is would likely be a primary source anyway, but with things like these in a bio I feel we could be more diligent in finding citations to more than one source. Journalists have been known to get things wrong, and media have been known to ignore requests for revisions or retractions unless accompanied by a legal threat. Additional sources would mean the information is significantly more verifiable. Otherwise, I'd say just keep it off. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find another source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Beninati[edit]

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

IP user is repeatedly adding information copied verbatim from what appears to be a slam blog. I have reverted and asked them to stop several times.HtownCat (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to the IP. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
ThanksHtownCat (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nivedita Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Requesting some eyes at Nivedita Bhattacharya where a COI editor has basically overturned the article into essentially a puff piece, written like an advertisement.. Connormah (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little copy editing, but needs better help. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary of New Zealand Biography[edit]

Not living people, but I figured since this was where all the people who understood biography policies are, it was the best place for a good-faith notice of doing something novel. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is the national biography of New Zealand. More than a decade ago there was a concerted effort to balance it for race, gender and class. Some of these people left few if any secondary sources as to their lives, resulting in encyclopaedia articles built entirely from primary sources. Some time ago I did a major push to get DNZB articles into wikipedia. Some of these balancing people are pretty borderline notability and quite a few got nominated at AfD. The overwhelming majority passed. There are a few problematic ones. In a (novel?) solution to this problem I've created a new section in the DNZB and am redirecting these very problematic ones to subsections there, but using persondata and cats on the redirect. See Barbara Weldon and Jessie Finnie. I'd appreciate feedback on this approach. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest either a list article, or just outright removal. I don't think a Representative Entries section is correct, since surely Jessie Finnie - who doesn't seem in any way different from no doubt hundreds if not thousands of others - isn't representative of the typical entries in the dictionary, which presumably include prime ministers, movie stars, and other more distinct and notable characters. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I need a better intro to the section. These entries are not representative of the entries in the DNZB, but representative of the population of New Zealand being covered. I need to make that clearer. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to try to include them in one or more pages in Category:Lists of New Zealand people? John Carter (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Lists of New Zealand people are by-and-large only for notable people, and the root of the issue is that these are people who may not be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
List of people executed in New Zealand is a noteworthy counterexample. So something like List of people in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography perhaps? A sentence for each, and links for those with Wikipedia articles, which, should, hopefully, be a significant percentage. --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
List of people in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography would be >3000 people long, rather than the handful of those with questionable notability. That seems like overkill. I believe that all of the people on List of people executed in New Zealand are notable, I just haven't got around to writing stubs for them yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that they have those entries, and I think it's better not to lose them, but a Wikipedia article probably shouldn't have a sentence directly explaining and referencing Wikipedia rules. The article is about the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, not Wikipedia. I also think it's OR to say that these are somehow "added", "extra", or "less-real" biographies. I think the assumption should be that the editors of the project added all bios they thought worth adding of people they thought worthy of study and note, and not an assumption that they added things they didn't fully believe in. I don't like the second-guessing of a reliable source with the idea that someone with no grounding in New Zealand history would write the reliable source differently. I think that these people were added to the original source text helps define them as noted, and should support inclusion of them somewhere.
There are masses of biographies that were taken from things like the Catholic Encyclopedia and many others in Category:Wikipedia sources. Most of these articles have few or no secondary sources beyond inclusion in the reference work, if that reference is generally seen as a reliable source. Basically these people were the subject of scholarly study, and according to the source had some notability in their lifetimes: And, from about 1870, the West Coast Times court reporters became rather fond of publishing items about Barbara Weldon 'the notorious'.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The West Coast Times reporting the scandalous details of the life of the local prostitute is covered by WP:NOT in the section on 'Scandal mongering' and in no way amounts to a secondary source. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We're not talking about a situation where it's only the West Coast Times reporting; it's the West Coast Times and the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. We have plenty of biographies about characters who first became known to historians from reports in tiny local papers (for example, so many minor American Wild West outlaws/farmers). It is the historians who gather primary or weaker sources that are our RS, not the sources the historians use. The section on scandal-mongering has nothing to do with this, as I don't see an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography as being simple "gossip" heard on the grapevine. If a better reliable source thinks a historical criminal is worth talking about, that's what we should reflect. People like Martin Cash are mainly sourced to the Dictionaries of Biography of New Zealand and Australia and that's not scandal-mongering just because it's about some basic criminal behavior. It's reporting what historians have gathered.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall[edit]

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

This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

William Bastone[edit]

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

A single purpose account is repeatedly adding unsourced negative material to the William Bastone article [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and other articles, where they claim the subject endorses child prostitution. [6] At no point have any sources been added to support these accusations. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Article semi-protected, dubious usernames blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lindsey Doe[edit]

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

I came across an edit to Lindsey Doe on Huggle where the creator removed the notability tag and on the talk page has declared that it satisfies the BLP policy because she has x number of subscribers on Youtube based on WP:N#ENT. Does 130,000 Youtube subscribers count as notable? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm the author. I just wanted to note that I'm using that number heuristically and that I don't have a precedent for that number.TopherDobson (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The policy is very ambiguous. It says 'large followers'/'cult following'. While the article in question may satisfy the BLP or Notability policies, I'm more interested in determining what minimum number gives credibility. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In my view, topic specific notability guidelines are just useful and generally-accepted rules of thumb that can be used quickly to decide that it is likely that a topic is notable. They are not policy. Given the nature of YouTube, I do not think that X number of subscribers guarantee notability, as subscribing is free and takes only a click. We still need to see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay. that sounds good. I guess, this needs to be discussed a little more in depth? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


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

I have created this wiki page for A popular Hindi Television Actor, It is not poorly sourced, when I add sources/references they also get deleted. Why is Wikipedia behaving this way?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You should always log in to your account before editing here. In addition to other problems, you may run into trouble otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to this edit? Those are not sources. They are what the user who reverted them called, "spam". Meatsgains (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Lewis[edit]

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

A person or persons are continuously and repeatedly altering the Clyde Lewis page by inserting words such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" to describe this person in an attempt to defame his character. I have repeatedly removed the offensive, opinionated material as it detracts from the intended fact-based purpose of wikipedia. People read the articles on wikipedia to learn facts about the subject matter, not to read the opinions being inserted by vindictive persons with an agenda to malign the character of a person referenced in a wikipedia article. However, every time I remove the inappropriate content it is reinserted just a short time later. This has happened over and over again despite my ongoing efforts to keep the inappropriate material out of the article. "Bizarre" and "farfetched" are opinions, not facts, and have no place in a wikipedia article that had previously been 100% fact-based. The wording being inserted into this article is clearly done in a deliberate effort to portray Clyde Lewis as crazy. The article should contain facts, not opinions. If Clyde Lewis is crazy than the facts of the article will make that clear to the reader. Inserting opinions into this long-standing article for the sole purpose of defaming the subject of the article is not appropriate and devalues wikipedia as a whole. If the persons who have been altering the article feel so strongly about Clyde Lewis then they need to find a more appropriate website or other venue to make their opinions known, but wikipedia is not that place. I should not have to edit out the offensive material on a nearly daily basis just to keep the article objective and unbiased. This has gotten absurd and needs to come to an end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subglobal (talkcontribs)

This person above (subglobal) uses the excuse of the word "bizarre" to vandalize the text by deleting hundreds of words because she/he wants the page to be an advertisement. I deleted "bizarre" and "farfetched" and left the facts--which probably won't satisfy the fans and followers.Localemediamonitor (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Lewis

User:Localemediamonitor is writing stuff like this - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. " Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.) - rubbish verification imo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have had to take down a replacement of the disputed content added without any chat at all by User: Bearian - sorry to see such an experienced wiki writer as User: Bearian edit warring this poorly sourced disputed story back into the wiki - Mosfetfaser (talk)

there is some warring going on to rep[lace this disputed content - User:/Roberticus has turned up to replace the disputed stony - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes User: Mosfetfaser is deleting entire sections that have verification and citations. I think experienced wiki writer User: Bearian was right on this one. User: Mosfetfaser is also issuing warnings to me, what's up with that? Is User: Mosfetfaser working with vandal User: Subglobal (who also is vandaling my user page?) in order to make the whole entry into an advertisement because they are fans? - unsigned by User:Localemediamonitor
Nothing there in your chat of any value then - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"User:Localemediamonitor is attempting to war the story into the article again - - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser is the warring editor who is ignoring experienced users and deleting perfectly fine citations and verification. What wiki guidelines say you can do that? Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

again to go to the story write - WP:PRIMARY and a you tube link that is removed because of copyright violation - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced blp:Primary and a you tube link - - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. " Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.) - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well-sourced information should be kept. I attempted to fix the article, and was rebuffed. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You User:Bearian did not attempt to fix anything at all - you simply revert warred without any attempt at discussion at all - It is not well sourced content in any way is it - User:Bearians total contribution without a single discussion was this revert - - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
you Mosfetfaser did not attempt to fix anything either, you just deleted entire sections, which is why you have been overruled by everybody. Localemediamonitor (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the material in question per my comments @ the article talkpage, and WP:SELFSOURCE to support the inclusion of the sourcing from the Ground Zero website. Let's try to build a consensus here. Is there any doubt that is published by Lewis? If not, the primary sourcing should stand. I do agree modifiers such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" were appropriately edited out by User:Localemediamonitor. It is fair though to say he discusses these sorts of ideas when he clearly publishes it. I also feel the secondary sourcing is acceptable. Roberticus talk 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mosfetfaser is now engaging in personal attacks against Bearian [7] and The Magnificent Clean-keeper [8] [9] Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Goodman[edit]

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

RED SLASH and Breawycker keep changing entry to include libelous material. RED SLASH has been contacted twice and refused to remove. Please see copy received earlier this evening from KOMO 4 News--showing that it is recognized that an error was made. They have corrected the libelous statement accordingly, therefore, any changes to reflect otherwise are considered intentional. I will be sending a copy of this message to both wiki editors. THANKS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Grohn (talkcontribs)

A few minutes ago, KOMO changed the offending sentence in the text version of our story about the PAC funding ads against the Roger Goodman campaign to read:
“I asked Carns if it was fair to quote divorce documents in the Goodman ad.”
The videos we post to our website are cut from our aired newscast and thus cannot be edited after the fact. The video has been removed.
Kelly Just
Executive Producer, Problem Solvers Unit
140 4th Ave. N – Suite 370
Seattle, WA 98109
Desk: (206) 404-4235
04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn
I have reformatted the above posting by User:Liv Grohn so that it appears in the correct place. Looking at the article quickly it seems a fairly explosive sort of claim made by someone who apparently has a history of, to put it kindly, "hoaxes", and the sentence in question probably needs toning down somewhat. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
I just came here to post a message about the same article. There is some information at User talk:Liv Grohn#Roger Goodman Background, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Roger Goodman and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Roger Goodman Edit-Thanks.. Based on the first message I removed this and based on the second I have removed it all. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I agree with what User:CambridgeBayWeather has done in removing that content altogether; basically we have he said/she said with a rather defamatory undertone, there's nothing of actual substance to repeat here yet, just a whole bunch of dirty accusations. Wikipedia generally, and a BLP especially, should not be the venue for that kind of sleazy rumour mongering. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

benjamin netanyahu[edit]

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

Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first Israeli prime minister born in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin was born in Israel and was prime minister before Netanyahu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmonch (talkcontribs)

Without looking at the details, here's my guess: Rabin was surely born before 1948, thus before there was a State of Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Rabin was born in Mandatory Palestine. The question of whether that 'counts' as Israel, is subjective and really depends on one's definition. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

Chris Alexander (editor)[edit]

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

I'm coming here because of information on the page Chris Alexander (editor) and a discussion on the talk page that has grown somewhat heated. The article has a little history behind it and some of it can be seen at the AfD for the page. Knowing the history is somewhat important here, as Alexander himself is participating in the talk page. When the article was up for deletion, Alexander was concerned that the article was submitted to AfD out of malice. On July 16th a controversy section was added to the article that discussed a piece written for Fangoria by "Ben Cortman". (For the sake of diplomacy I'm not going to refer to it as either a review or an article, due to the nature of the discussion on the talk page.) The section stated that Alexander wrote the piece as a review with the intention to promote the film without stating that he was writing under a pseudonym. It was sourced via a site that Wikipedia would not consider to be a RS. I re-wrote the section since I felt that it wasn't really enough to warrant a separate section and I used a Bloody Disgusting article to back up the re-written information. It was the only RS I could really find that discussed the piece. This concerned me and I was also somewhat worried that it was a bit WP:UNDUE weight in Alexander's article, and voiced on a talk page that it would probably have been better in an overall controversy section on the Fangoria page if we could find enough information for a controversy section, as just about every major magazine has them. Alexander has come on to the article's talk page and argued that the piece was not supposed to be a review and that it was supposed to be a joke article. He also stated that the information in the BD article (which is an interview) was incorrect. The information has been removed and replaced several times. User:NinjaRobotPirate has been somewhat more involved with the discussion in the last few days since I went on vacation and was unable to get onto Wikipedia until today.

The question here is basically whether the information should be kept or removed. Some discussion will likely be necessary on the article's talk page, as that's where most of the discussion took place. I can see both side's argument, as I can see where it'd be interesting to add to Wikipedia and we do have the one source, but I can also see the argument that we should remove the information because we only have the one source. I do see BD as a RS but it's still only one source. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 00:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • There's a bit more to this but I want to write this as diplomatically as possible so I encourage reading the talk page. To sum it up in a very basic one sentence summary: Alexander is arguing that this is a personal attack by him by a former writer, Dave Pace, and Pace is arguing from basically a censorship angle. I say "basically" since he has not expressly said censorship. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem, I think, is that the Bloody Disgusting article explicitly states that the interview has not been edited in any way and has been posted verbatim; this runs contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I (and two other editors) have restored the content when it was removed over concerns that the removal was vandalism, but the latest content restoration was by an involved party, one of the IP editors who believe it to be relevant. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as the article history makes it look, but I think an edit war is beginning to simmer. I agree that there are policy-based arguments to make on both sides, but everything thus far has been based on WP:THETRUTH. If someone can locate a secondary source, I'd be happy to say that it should stay; since nobody has yet found one, I'm inclined to believe that it's undue. I'd go with whatever consensus is reached here, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, the dispute is primarily regarding this edit and whether this interview is a BLP compliant source for contentious information. With an interview, the secondary source that typically has editorial control is passively passing on information from a non-reliable source, however, in this case the actual reporter, not the person he was interviewing, does say "who was caught reviewing his own movie under the pen name Ben Cortman". If this author "BigJ" is a professional journalist than his statements should be reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to make sure it's understood that outside my blog (which I contend adheres strongly to high journalistic standards but concede lacks editorial oversight) I do work as film journalist. Fangoria published thousands of my words for 3 years on their website and I have also appeared in the print magazine. Now, in addition to my blog work I also freelance for Rue Morgue magazine starting in the August issue. I am, by the standards of the industry, a professional journalist. I have a professional reputation at stake when I run these stories and I am very careful in my approach. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. This "BigJ" author is using my work as his source for that information about the whole Chris Alexander/Ben Cortman affair as is the subject of the interview. If there is editorial oversight over BigJ at Bloody Disgusting, and there is, then you could argue it is a valid secondary source. Editors at BD wouldn't have vetted Fisher's statements but they should have vetted BigJ's statements because he speaks for BD, they risk liability otherwise. I think that's a valid argument in favor of allowing the information to be included but I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy, I'm just offering my 2 cents. (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Dave Pace

High journalistic standards. The standards of one person. An ex-FANGORIA blogger on an obsessive revenge trip against the editor who he believes wronged him.

Like this latest, thoughtful, "feature":

Or this classic:

Nope. I see nothing personal there. Just high-quality journalistic standards. Inspiring!

And now, Mr. Pace has managed to find work as a freelancer with MY ex-employer and closest competitor, Rue Morgue:

Oh, the scandal!

I'll say my own 2 cents: Dave Pace grooves on scandal. By his own admission. And if he can't find any, he'll create some that suits his agenda. I've said before, after wasting SO much time arguing with this ex-blogger-o-mine on his awesome blog, that I would never address him again in a public forum because it is exactly what he wants and frankly, I think feelings were hurt on both sides. Not interested such things. And, as I've said, if the Wiki brain-trusts deem him and the erroneous Bloody Disgusting interview quote that stemmed from his blog, a valuable addition to my bio that they have created and maintain, I won't waste another word here. As Pace has said earlier here, Wiki is not my Twitter feed and I cannot control its contents.

But regardless of the outcome, I'm fully expecting and look forward the next Pace blog news item, in which he painstakingly details his triumphant battle with me on the back pages of Wikipedia, complete with screen grabs and IP address reveals. He'll share that link on his Facebook page. He'll share that link on a few horror message board forums. He'll say I'm a terrible, awful person and get a few high-fives from his fans. He'll sleep well.

High journalistic standards indeed!

-Chris Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I think it's highly inappropriate of you to carry on like this in this forum. We've both been told very clearly by the people who manage this community that this isn't the place to feud or air personal grievances. Get some control over yourself. If you can accept having "fans" and collecting accolades as a public figure you need to accept having critics and your truly ugly attempts to bully me and other critics into submission is not something I'm prepared to surrender to. Out of respect for the request of the volunteers who manage this incredible resource I have nothing more to say except to note that not once did I make any personal attack against you other than report on your actions after giving you every opportunity to provide your side of the story. If you think I've said anything untrue or defamatory about you should consult a lawyer and do something about it or kindly refrain from calling me a liar. If you think I'm compromising my ethics maybe you ought to write an article about it. You have your own magazine to do that with.
A quick edit to note that at no time did I say anything to you about Wikipedia not being your Twitter feed. That was another Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest you pay attention to who is talking and really think about being more considerate of your surroundings. (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Dave Pace

You confuse bullying with your own "truths", Dave. All I have done here is re-link to your own blog entries. You have a pattern of attack, spelled out over an entire year on your blog, literally right up until 2 days ago, it seems with that confusing "news" item about my new record label. All to perpetuate more fabricated scandal and position yourself as, what? Morally righteous? Some kind of crusader? 90% of your content is about FANGORIA, the only place that ever published you!It's mind-blowing and really, really strange. You came to Wikipedia to attach yourself to my personal bio, but you're a bit off-base if you think I'm not going to be explicitly clear about who you are, your past, your patterns and your motives, with the staff of Wikipedia.

And again, we both know this entire exchange will end up on yet another axe-grinding blog, a twitter post, a Facebook blast, a forum bell-ringing. Another tired public cry/challenge for me to "lawyer up". It's what you do. It's all you do. I'll NEVER try to silence you. I could care less what games you play with yourself on your blog. But, if pressed publicly, I WILL always be crystal clear about who you are in relation to me and to FANGORIA.

Good luck with Rue Morgue. Hope that works out for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what BigJ's real name is, so that we could review his/her qualifications as a reliable source, and/or know more about this publication? CorporateM (Talk) 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Bloody Disgusting is a pretty big deal in the world of horror films. They produced a few films, including V/H/S and V/H/S/2. They're not some minor, fly-by-night website run by fanboys. It's generally not too difficult to find the real names of the contributors, as they usually link to more formal, non-pseudonymous websites, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. However, I have no clue who BigJ is, and I can't say that I've ever seen his name before. Maybe I just never noticed it before. When the controversy erupted on the talk page, I tried poking around to see if I could find any details on BigJ, but I didn't see anything. Most of these guys have official Twitter accounts, though, and I've found that useful to track down real names for when I cite them on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I wrote that previous reply when I was pretty tired. I'm surprised that it's so coherent. Anyway, I tried again now that I'm more awake, and I didn't see anything on Google. He seems to contribute mainly to comics-oriented news, which is maybe why I haven't seen his name before. I would probably tone down the language used to describe the controversy; we don't need to make the controversy sound so dramatic as "he was caught writing a review". I would suggest: "Bloody Disgusting wrote that he reviewed his own film in Fangoria under a pseudonym." I think that's a bit more neutral and moves the claim that it was a review over to Bloody Disgusting, since Alexander disputes that it was a review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Writing your own review is a pretty bad behavior (illegal actually) and definitely something that is "covert", so I think "caught" is neutral. However, I am not confident-enough regarding whether it is actually true to support inclusion. First, there seems to be some conflict of interest type issues, where the person lodging the allegation is from a competing magazine. Second I was not able to find any other, better sources that corraborated the allegation. Third, and most importantly, I cannot confirm whether the author is actually part of the newspaper's staff and not a "guest post" of some kind. That's not to say that it is or isn't a reliable source for sure, but BLP suggests that we errr on the side of caution to avoid mistakenly tarnishing someone's reputation (in the event that it is not actually true). Since there is no way for us to identify the author and confirm if they work for the magazine, I suggest we err on the side of caution and remove it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

tepai moera[edit]

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

played his junior rugby league at Colyton Colts JRLFC from under 6 to under 10 before going to St Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you telling us this and wanting it included in his page? Meatsgains (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Website Find my Past[edit]

There is a website England & Wales Births 1837-2006 (which I refer to as "Find my past") where one can look up certain information about births registered in England and Wales.

Some people - including Trillionstarz (talk · contribs) and (talk) - are using this website to give references for full names, full dates of birth, and place of birth. Unfortunately, none of those is given with 100% accuracy. Full names may be shortened, by abbreviating all the given names except the first; dates of birth are given no more accurately than a particular quarter of the year; and the place that is shown in the column headed "District" is not the actual place of birth, but the place where the birth was registered.

I have verified this by checking out around thirty members of my own extended family - only in about 75% of the cases does the district tally with the known place of birth. Two of my cousins, for example, who were born in Blackburn, have the district shown as Clitheroe, a town a few miles to the north: my uncle worked in Clitheroe at the time, and commuted there from Blackburn - he most probably found it easier to get to the Clitheroe registry office rather than the Blackburn one within office hours. Some of the other information has errors - when I looked up my own entry, it's not just truncated my second given name (the one by which I am usually known) to a single letter, but it's also got my mother's last name wrong - it's just a typo on one letter, but this shows that errors exist on that site. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You haven't verified anything. What is recorded on findmypast (official birth records!) is what is written on peoples birth certificates. Presumably where your relatives were born didn't technically come under Blackburn. It's funny, that most people manage to use the service properly - all my relatives are properly recorded where they actually were born and it also confirms accurately other peoples birth details. (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I rather suspect that Blackburn Royal Infirmary is in Blackburn. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here; and yes, where the birth was registered is not the same place as where the birth actually occured. GiantSnowman 11:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson and Somaly Mam[edit]

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

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

There is absolutely no connection between these two people, but an editor keeps adding each of them to a "see also" section for the other in an attempt to tar them with the same brush. It has been admitted on talk that doing this in the text of the articles would violate the coatrack policy, but it is still being done as a See Also. Jonathunder (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've commented critically on this attempt at Talk:Greg Mortenson. Norton's going to have to get consensus and at the moment he doesn't have it. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thane Rosenbaum[edit]

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

The issue here concerns Rosenbaum's recent WSJ article. Another editor added the paragraph a few days ago. "Roozee" deleted it and I've twice restored it. My explanation (from the Talk page): "My rationale for doing so was that this is a writing of the subject's that has generated controversy and attention. Indeed, as someone who closely follows the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I was unaware of who he was until he wrote the column in question. I did soften the language as the editing record shows. The contention of Roozee ... seems to be that the article is either insignificant given the volume of the subject's output and/or that the article has been misinterpreted. I think I've countered the former claim; for the latter claim, rather than deleting the reference, I think it'd be better to further massage the reference to assure NPOV."

Here's a diff page

Aemathisphd (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have some outside source pointing to that article as particular significant regarding the subject of Rosenbaum and selecting that quote as the important one, then you should put that forth. Otherwise, it seems to be you picking and choosing a quote because of what you think is important, and that doesn't fit well with balance. You may have countered a claim by making a counterclaim; you did not do it by presenting any evidence that I can see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't choose the quote. Read the history page. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Irrespective of any current controv, the article is quite overblown & well-larded with complementary quotes etc. Needs attention from experienced editors to depuff. (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani[edit]

Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani contains a section called "Supporting Terrorism" which contains very presumptuous material, and offers little neutrality. It needs to be reviewed very carefully to form a less biased approach to the issue and offer a fairer characterization of the issue. Labeling multiple political groups as "terrorist organizations" is not helpful either, and it should not be so blatantly biased on a Wikipedia page. Such groups have their pros and cons which is for the reader to decide on their own respective time; we don't need to turn such controversial topics into 'facts' when there are many differing opinions on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section was poorly supported, with a significant number of polemic and unreliable sources and it contained numerous untenable violations of the neutral point of view policy. The subject appears to be something that should be discussed in his biography, but it needs to be completely rewritten and sourced.
I have removed the section and invited the editor who added it to open a dialogue on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry[edit]

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

The Yank Barry lawsuit, now dismissed/withdrawn, is mentioned in the article Yank Barry#Court cases. When it was first brought up Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit, there were BLP objections, and they were ignored, and I brought it up again (under an erroneous section title) Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against WMF in the article?. I find the discussion has been pretty lame, sometimes utterly ridiculous. So far as I can tell, its mention in the article is a clearcut violation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (one third-party reference only) and WP:BLPPRIMARY (not cited in the article, but part of the talk page "proof" that this is supposed to be "significant", and later, to justify providing "balance" regarding the closure of the lawsuit, so far). Some of the posters explicitly stated that its presence makes sense in light of YB's pattern of behavior regarding filing silly lawsuits in general, as if that were relevant. One extremely experienced editor stated point-blank that since lawsuits typically involve lots of money, any lawsuit is of course significant. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There are now two RS, so this is entirely moot. Choor monster (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and Donald Trump[edit]

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

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

Have an edit warrior insisting that are "associated with the Tea Party Movement" based in one case on a speech given by Trump in front of a group which had some Tea Party members, as well as many non-members, and in the other case by Cheney saying the TPM was a "positive" for the Republican Party. No sources have been given making any greater links than those, which are prima facie insufficient for the contentious claim that they "support the Tea {Party" or are "associated with the Tea Party". Appropriate requests for a self-revert and pointers to WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:BLP have been given repeatedly. I am en vacance and would like someone to keep an eye on those BLPs please. Collect (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the source the user is providing to support these claims? Also, if there is only one source used for support, then it does not deserve to keep on the page. Meatsgains (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Roy Stuart[edit]

Roy Stuart (photographer) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The Roy Stuart photographer page is often vandalized. The vandal consistently posts incorrect birthrates in order to make him appear to be older, posts other defamatory false information. The page needs to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carldecanada (talkcontribs)

Protection seems like overkill, but there is a different board for that.--Malerooster (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I nominated it for deletion. It's got no sources at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)