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)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


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)

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. 70.25.97.35 (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": http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/fangoria-musick-presents-the-music-of-chris-alexander-editor-of-fangoria/

Or this classic: http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/charles-band-launches-delerium-magazine-chris-alexander-announced-as-eic/

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:

http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/rue-morgue-magazine-completes-transparency-survey/

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 184.151.61.206 (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. 24.36.85.150 (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 184.151.61.206 (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)

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. 94.193.14.28 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. One should avoid simply picking a quote that is of interest to the editor from the article's subject and treating it, through it's inclusion, as particularly indicative of that person's place in the world.... and when that concern has been raised, one should avoid repeatedly reinserting it with that concern being addressed. It's better to find a significant source talking about the article's subject and see what statements they focus on. I may think "Whenever I get that sad, depressed feeling, I go out and kill a policeman" to be the most interesting P.G. Wodehouse quote, but if I choice that of my own taste to be how we present Wodehouse, I am inserting my own POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 26 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 66.108.239.157 (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)
The mention of the cost of lawsuits, was a parenthetical (literally) explaining why lawsuits against WP editors are so rare. Indeed, although one of my bots had it's IP address subpoenaed, I am not aware of any that have come to court in the US. I am astounded that my comment should have been interpreted in this way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough07:28, 30 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)


The sources are (later ones were added by one editor but do not, IMO, strengthen his claims) :

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/12/cruz-and-paul-greeted-by-cheers-at-tea-partys-2016-warm-up/ (article on a AfP/Citizens United gathering it appears and not specifically a "Tea Party" gathering at all
  2. http://www.c-span.org/video/?318743-2/donald-trump-freedom-summit video of speech
  3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/16/trump-bashes-boasts-and-curses-in-first-major-tea-party-speech/ video of Presidential campaign speech
  4. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-believer-tea-party/2013/10/10/id/530486/ Newsmax article which also includes: Trump said that Boehner, Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have the country's best interests at heart, but have different beliefs on how to achieve it. And one of Obama's problems is that he's not a natural deal-maker. Which rather makes him sort of a Harry Reid supporter as well.
  5. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/7/donald-trump-says-hes-a-tea-party-member/ using a headline for the claim which is not in the body of the article I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,” Mr. Trump answered. “When I speak to the Tea Party, they have the biggest crowd of anybody.” What he says is the TPm members like him, and he likes them, but that is a far cry from being a TPm member himself.
  6. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/04/trump-on-the-today-show-im-with-the-tea-party.html Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. What's going on in this country — the way we're spending money like drunken sailors — we are absolutely, we're going to destroy our own freedom." which appears to refers to issues he agrees with rather than any actual "association" with any "tea party."

As far as I can tell the sources do establish that he supports some specific ideals of the "tea party" and that he spoke before an audience which included members of the "tea party", and that in his Presidential campaign he spoke before at least one Tea Party group, as well as libertarians and others not associated with the "tea party" but is quite insufficient to say he is specifically a "person associated with the Tea Party movement" per se. Collect (talk) 15:49, 27 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)

Max Bennett (actor)[edit]

Max Bennett (actor) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This is an unbalanced article which has been repeatedly edited by the PR for the actor. It continually is edited to embellish the actor's CV by multiple anonymous sources. It takes film roles which constitute nothing but 'extra' work and pretends that these are substantial speaking roles. The article has been consistently abused to enhance the largely unknown actor's profile.

Wikipedia should consider deleting this article. There is no sense in having such an embellished CV online for a unknown theatre actor when several more established actors have very little written about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingliars (talkcontribs) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph A. Kechichian[edit]

Joseph A. Kéchichian (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Thank you for keeping a page on me but there are a few blatant errors in it and I am not sure where the author/s fished them.

What is correct is the intro: Joseph A. Kéchichian is an American scholar of Armenian descent, a renowned[1] historian and political scientist specializing on the Persian Gulf region, focusing in the domestic and regional concerns of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. He [was] an Adjunct Professor of U.S.-Middle East Relations at UCLA and Pepperdine University, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation in California , and is now a Senior Fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The next sentence is pure fabrication as I never attended Vanderbilt University, Duke University, or Georgetown University. Instead, I earned my PhD from the University of Virginia in 1985 [Department of Government and Foreign affairs]. Let me know if you need details about BA and MA and I will gladly provide them.


While the list of my books are accurate, you may want to update them:


The Al Sa‘ud Consigliere: Shaykh Youssef Yassin of Sa‘udi Arabia [forthcoming]

‘Iffat Al Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.

Legal and Political Reforms in Saudi Arabia, London and New York: Routledge, November 2012 (January 2013 for the paperback edition).

Power and Succession in Arab Monarchies, Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008 [translated into Arabic as Al-Sultah wa-Ta‘aqub al-Hukm fil-Mamalikah al-‘Arabiyyah, 2 volumes, Beirut and London: Riad El-Rayyes Books, 2012].

Faysal: Saudi Arabia’s King for All Seasons, Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 2008 [translated into Arabic as Faysal: Al-Malik wal-Dawlah, Beirut: Dar al-‘Arabiyyah lil-Mawsu‘at, 2012].

Extremism & Opposition Movements on the Arabian Peninsula, New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2006.

Political Participation and Stability in the Sultanate of Oman, Dubai: Gulf Research Center, 2005 [translated into Arabic as Al-Musharakah al-Siyasiyyah wal-Istikrar fi Sultanat ‘Uman, Dubai: Gulf Research Center, 2005].

The Just Prince: A Manual of Leadership (with R. Hrair Dekmejian), London: Saqi Books, 2003 [translated into Turkish as Adil Hükümdar, Istanbul: Kirmizi Kedi Yayenevi, 2009].

Succession in Saudi Arabia, [New York: Palgrave (2001) [translated into Arabic as Al-Khilafah fil-‘Arabiyyah al-Su‘udiyyah, Beirut and London: Dar Al Saqi, 2003].

Iran, Iraq, and the Arab Gulf States, editor, New York: Palgrave, 2001.

A Century in Thirty Years: Shaykh Zayed and the United Arab Emirates, editor, Washington, D.C.: The Middle East Policy Council, 2000.

Oman and the World: The Emergence of an Independent Foreign Policy, Santa Monica: RAND, 1995.

Political Dynamics and Security in the Arabian Peninsula through the 1990s, MR-167- AF/A, Santa Monica: RAND, 1993.


A simple Amazon search or a Google search would have provided these details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.129.76 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the unsourced educational history. I have not added any information, nor expanded the bibliography; the entry is already mostly bibliography, I'm not sure we need a complete bibliography for the subject, and I don't feel like determining a source for what stays and what goes. (The addition seems to have been a change by an IP user whose sole edits were alterations to people's educational histories, unsourced and uncommented. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I have now undone all of that IP editors edits which were not already undone, except for one changing capitalization and one which merely used the more common name for the proper university. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Michael French[edit]

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

According to this article, French doesn't talk to tabloids, like London Evening Standard and The Mirror. As for the bio information, I don't think sources are trustworthy. But what can I do? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: I don't see any contentious or controversial material there. Tabloids are not necessarily reliable sources, so of there is any material there that is disputed, per WP:BLP you can remove it as the burden is on the editor(s) that want the material included. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This article of a actress named Maria Vacratsis[edit]

Dealt with at the Help Desk.--ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Since I put in the article she voiced the Queen_Metallia in the English dub of Sailor Moon; though many people don't know her for anime role very well. Should there a be reference to that statement? Is it a policy of Wikipedia to have a Citation_needed? Venustar84 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


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


timothy mcknight[edit]

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.147.56.4 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any Timothy McKnight. Is it Tim above? --Malerooster (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ira Casson[edit]

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

The newly created BLP Ira Casson appears to exist solely to present the controversial aspects of the subject. There is nothing positive in the article. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It says he was the former co-chair of the NFL, that's not negative. Saying he was involved with research isn't intrinsically negative, either. The solution here is probably to add more biographical context, as the article is the article is otherwise generally sourced from good RS, currently. His connection with head injury research seems to be a major part of his overall notability, so I don't see that (or well-sourced assessments of his history) being removed, but it could be put in greater overall context. Otherwise, there could be a case for the article to be merged with Concussions in American football.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the article. He wasn't co-chair of the NFL (the position does not exist. The NFL has a commissioner). He was a co-chair of an ad hoc committee created by the NFL to study the effect of concussions. No statements as to the other aspects of the complaints about the article, but the article incorrectly represented what was in the sources, and I have fixed that. --Jayron32 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I fixed it a bit more , I moved it to the committee title - it was an attack page, total negative story about a single issue - not a biography of a notable person at all - deletion would fix it even more Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you editors for changing this article. You editors have convinced me to agree with what you were saying. His research was notable, but it would be better to have more biographical content to make an article on him. Making an article on the committee itself would be much better. Robert4565 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) (the creator of the original article)

I didn't intend to give this guy a bad reputation, I was just just trying to add notable research to an encyclopedia. Robert4565 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the page and removed the statement, "The NFL Players Association wanted to get him fired for being "biased" by criticizing a useful study" because I could not find it in any of the sources provided. That isn't to say that it's not true. Feel free to add it back if you can provide a RS. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Sebring[edit]

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

The Dan Sebring article does not show the notability of the subject. In addition, some of the material is copy/pasted from a source, one of the "sources" is Sebring's Facebook page, among other issues. The anonymous editors 107.209.244.18 and 69.131.98.54 have only edited on this article, specifically replacing poorly sourced material that has been removed by other Wikipedia member editors. Please let me know if there is some other action I should take aside from posting here (I am somewhat new at Wikipedia). Thanks! Seen a Mike (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SaM: Always good to have new folks aboard and asking questions. You could really help by lending a hand on that article. You have basically three good choices of what to do:
  • If you think that Dan Sebring is notable, and the article just isn't covering why, then edit the article to add some information about what makes him notable (with references, naturally.)
  • If you're not sure whether he's notable, edit it to put <code>{{notability|Biographies}}</code> at the top of the page. This will display a banner noting that the notability is questioned, and encouraging people to add content establishing notability if they can. (You may want to add a message on the talk page describing why you feel the subject isn't shown to be notable.)
  • If you're pretty sure he's not notable enough, you can start a deletion discussion using the process described here.
And meanwhile, if there is stuff that is just copied from elsewhere, edit the file to delete it, and note in the edit summary box that you're doing so due to copyright concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of plagiarism by John Walsh (U.S. politician)[edit]

John Walsh (U.S. politician) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The NY Times recently reported that they had uncovered what they allege is evidence that Senator Walsh plagiarized up to 2/3 of his 2007 master's thesis at the U.S. Army War College . The Times' allegations, Senator Walsh's responses (claiming variously that he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, that it was or was not explained by PTSD, and/or that it was unintentional) and news that the War College is investigating have been widely and extensively covered by numerous reliable sources including CBS News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Fox News and others.

Currently any mention of this is buried in 4 3 bland sentences (after Montanabw just reverted one of them) in a section titled 2014 election near the very end of article. When Presbyterian1 tried to move it into an earlier section on education, Montanabw reverted with the edit remark, "Drop the effing stick, Presbyterian1 before we have you blocked."

In discussion on the talk page at Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Plagiarism allegation, Montanabw opposes additional coverage arguing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM and that we should wait until the War College makes a decision. Wehwalt also opposes, arguing WP:BLP. Billmckern argues that the coverage should be one place but does not appear to oppose a more in-depth treatment.

It appears to me WP:UNDUE does not apply insofar as this is certainly not about a minority or "fringe" theory, nor does WP:RECENTISM apply insofar as this is not a story of "flimsy, transient merits". And while this is indeed a WP:BLP, Senator Walsh is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, meaning that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

My concern is with what appears to be a case of whitewashing by editors who may/may not be completely WP:NPOV and whose behavior may be overly and inappropriately protective of the subject. May I request additional opinions, please? Msnicki (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that plagiarism is unlikely to fit recentism. When a prominent figure is accused of plagiarism in the NYT or WAPO or similar is tends to stick forever. (e.g. Joe Biden, Steve Ambrose). This should be in the article. It is not undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously it should be in the article. However, an in-depth treatment is premature. We are a trailing indicator and the election's not for three months. I doubt there will be long to wait before we hear something authoritative.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It IS in the article, My position on the matter is that we have the incident mentioned, it is sourced, and that it is mentioned in an neutral, encyclopedic tone (someone else's "4 bland sentences"), that fits WP:NPOV as well as BLP and UNDUE. It is currently in the campaign section because that is the appropriate place until or unless the War College does something or additional things develop that might warrant placing it elsewhere. To obsess about it until the story develops further is WP:SYNTH and runs the risk of putting a bias in the opposite direction. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It belongs in the Education section; it has nothing to do with "2014 campaign". I agree with keeping it brief -- but it's clearly an issue connected with his education, not with the campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it has to be one or the other, at least until the War College is heard from again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It belongs in the campaign section -- for now. Until the sources coalesce around his thesis being the result of plagiarism, we should leave it out. Just as we treat people who are accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty, Walsh should be afforded the same treatment. Please keep in mind that Walsh could be in considerable jeopardy legally speaking, as this thesis was done on the taxpayers dime. Most of the coverage of this relates to his cmpagin, so this seems the natural place to put it util the dust settles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talkcontribs)
Perhaps the coverage is happening at the same time as coverage of his campaign. But it's really quite obviously an "Education" issue, not a campaign issue. I really don't understand the desire to see it otherwise. Montanabw didn't provide a reason for this view at all (simply said "it's the appropriate place" without providing a reason), and even the notion that it's being covered during the time when other campaign issues are being covered is far from persuasive. Alleged plagiarism in the context of a degree is relevant to education. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That was an accurate recap of my position. Of course the allegation that Walsh plagiarized his War College work needs to be included on the page. Of course it needs updated as more details become available. My specific argument was that one particular contributor wanted to include it in more than one place on the page, complete with incorrectly formatted references. I thought my placement of the allegation was OK -- a separate paragraph at the end of the page, with a link under "education" to tie his War College education and the plagiarism allegation together. But for me, where the plagiarism topic ends up on the page and how much detail is included are less relevant than the point that it doesn't need to show up three times -- once is enough. Repetition doesn't add anything to the discussion.User:Billmckern (User talk:Billmckern)

(od) At this point, it is well past "allegation" as the use of unattributed material is freely admitted by that Senator. It belongs in two places - under his education and under his career, as it is intrinsically directly applicable to each for different reasons. (The first reason being directly related to his academic history, the second for the possible loss of rank in the Army, being separate issues) The kidnapping of verbiage for at least 1/4 of his entire thesis is well documented at this point - vide [1] and [2] which has The Army War College, in Pennsylvania, said it has found preliminary evidence of plagiarism and asked a review board to investigate. The school may revoke Walsh's degree if it finds he intentionally presented the work of others as his own. which clearly states it is past the "allegation" stage. None of these sources appears t have any partisan bias against Walsh. A single mention that the problem exists should be as brief as possible in the lead primarily because readers will expect to find it noted in at least five words there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talkcontribs)

The lead?? Don't be ridiculous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get it -- he's a Democrat… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
His party is not relevant -- and the sources given are decidedly not making charges "because he is a Democrat" for sure. That sort of aside about sources is not reasonable at all. And if readers expect to find a short sentence in the lead, then that is what Wikipedia should do. Lynn-Jones (who had several pages of his work used verbatim sans credit) stated He probably shouldn’t count on any campaign contributions from me.. The HuffPo, clearly also a GOP rag, says Since The New York Times revealed Wednesday that Walsh plagiarized at least a quarter of his master’s thesis without citations for his degree from from the United States Army War College, he’s been criticized by veterans upset over his bringing PTSD into the discussion. Neither source shows any sign of singling Walsh out for being a Democrat. I have absolutely zero political opinion about him -- only a belief that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and that the claims of plagiarism appear very strongly sourced at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand -- it's apparent that you'd like it in the lead because he's a Democrat. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
IOW you are making a claim that I deliberately make edits on a political basis - which is grotesquely untrue and a personal attack for which I ask a retraction. Such personal attacks are uncivil and not likely to make anyone respect your posts here. My position on Alex Sink is exactly the position I have here and on every single BLP on which I edit. Contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and where they are strongly sourced, then they can be placed in BLPs. Period. So have a gallon of tea or something - your snark is not going to help this project one whit. Collect (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Folks, this is in part an NPOV issue and part a SYNTH, and the only reason it is here at all is due to a question of relative weight and placement; I think what we maybe need here are some folks from outside the USA to take an objective look that transcends party politics. If this devolves into a GOP-vs-Dems situation, that's a no-win. Right now, what we know is a) Something like 70% of a 14 page term paper (JMO but since when is a 14 page paper a "thesis" anyway? I wrote stuff that long as an undergrad...) was either copied or closely paraphrased without proper attribution. b) Walsh's campaign has said he was suffering from PTSD and other assorted difficulties at the time and he didn't mean to do so. c) The War College is looking into the matter. End. Of. Story until further developments. Really, four sentences is plenty, and at the moment, it's a campaign issue more than anything else. When the War College weighs in, and the various news and punditocracy analyze, then we will need to reassess and see what else to add. Until then, that's all there is. Accusing each other of party bias isn't going to help. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Another assertion of "campaign issue" without any supporting argument attempting to persuade us on the point... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It's an issue that needs discussion in the article even if Walsh announces this afternoon that he's decided not to run. Calling it a "campaign issue" sounds a little too much to me like a thinly-veiled attempt to bury the issue until after the election. I also think it needs a lot more than 4 sentences to discuss what specific evidence the NY Times alleges they've discovered, the various responses Walsh has made and the reactions. Msnicki (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, the issue does belong in the article, but certainly not in the lead. I'd be inclined to move it under the personal section, or the education as a second choice. It's not really suited for the campaign section. I will admit that I was on the fence over the recentism of it, but since Walsh is conceding that there could be some sort of issue, I'm leaning toward inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It has to go in. That's simply a matter of policy, given he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the allegations have been reported by multiple reliable sources. At most, there's a content question of how much column space is appropriate. But notice that a lot of the article is based on minor local papers like Billings Gazette with a circulation of 45,000 and the Missoulian with a circulation of 66,700 and various WP:SPS sources like the Kiwanis. Yet we're getting objections to including material from the NY Times (with a circulation of 1.8M) and other major sources. Frankly, I'm appalled that we would have a long hagiographic article extolling his military career and other wonderfulness like helping to fight wildfires but suppress what is likely to be the most noteworthy and most reliably and extensively reported information we have on him, especially when these allegations are the only reason most anyone living outside Montana might even know his name. If he didn't want his life picked apart, he shouldn't have become a senator. He chose that and as a public figure, he is not entitled to the usual protections of a WP:BLP. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Having already said I think the issue belongs in, I have to disagree with some of your reasoning. Just because something gets reported on doesn't mean it automatically merits inclusion. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that most newsworthy events don't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Second, your notion that bigger is better is wrong. Just because the NYT is bigger than the one in Billings doesn't lessen the reliability of the Billings paper. Big ones screw up too. Jayson Blair didn't work in Billings, it was the NYT. Jack Kelley was with USA Today, not the Missoulian. Janet Cook at the WAPO. No, circulation size isn't the standard we use. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that Wehwalt protected the page on July 25, citing "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy". It doesn't appear to me that there have been any violations whatsoever. It looks a lot like an abuse of his admin status simply to get the content outcome he wants. He's a participant in the discussion, not an unbiased admin. Here again, what I think what we're seeing is an attempt at whitewashing by his supporters. (And, btw, in case anyone's wondering, I'm a Democrat myself and would not be happy to see his seat go to the Republicans. But my personal agenda simply doesn't belong here and neither does that of any other editor, even if he is an admin.) Msnicki (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
We are now talking in circles. I've explained the situation and provided several reasons, but no one else is listening because everyone seems to have their own agenda. We seem to have folks with both GOP and Democratic bias accusing each other or being biased, and that is just a waste of time. If no one noticed until now that Wehwalt protected the article, then CLEARLY, no one has been paying much attention to content. The issue is, at present, something that has arisen during the course and scope of the 2014 campaign, hence its current location. The election isn't until November, there is no whitewashing, it's just due weight while the story develops. Plenty of time to figure out what the pundits have to say in the long run. We cannot engage in WP:SYNTH. So time to let go of the partisan bickering. The issue is in the article, I agree it needs to be in the article, and the rest is relative weighting and content. For now, let's just drop it and see what happens. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The protection is only semi, so it's really not a matter of Wehwalt using admin tools to get the content he wants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Nor have I edited the article. I have no connection to the article. Nor have I have been as assertive on the BLP issue as many people are.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The only one I see doing any WP:SYNTH is you, with your claims that this is about the election. That's not in any of the articles I've seen in the NYT or anywhere else. That is YOU combining things and you've been repeatedly told not just by me but by others as well that the plagiarism allegations have ZERO to do with the election. Reporting exactly what the reliable sources state as the allegations, Walsh's responses and the reactions is not WP:SYNTH, it's not WP:UNDUE and it's not WP:RECENTISM. It is simply doing what the guidelines at WP:PUBLICFIGURE tell us we are supposed to do with allegations that are reported by multiple reliable sources.
More to the point, it is now pretty clear that you and Wehwalt are the only ones trying to sanitize the article by minimizing this to just 3 sentences and burying it at the end of the article. You are in the minority and it's time for you to step back and allow this section to be written without any new edit warring and without any new threats that you're going to seek a block against anyone seeking to include something you don't like about a candidate you do like. I haven't made any edits yet to this article because I could see that both of you were treating the article like you owned it and I first wanted to hear other opinions. I think I've heard them and they don't support you. You should hear that, too. So far as I can tell, they simply support using good editorial judgment and keeping the discussion brief. No one, so far as I can see, is proposing to turn this into an attack piece. No one is proposing to turn the whole article into a discussion of these allegations. But what reliable sources say is what the article is going to report, it'll report it in the section on education, it'll meticulously follow the sources, it will be more 3 sentences and you and Wehwalt are simply going to have to make your peace with that. Msnicki (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Added: The reason no one noticed the article was protected (or at least, the reason I didn't) is because Wehwalt didn't put a protection tag on it (meaning, there was no lock at the top) and because the obvious edit warring behavior, I had no intention to even try editting the article without discussing first (meaning I never saw the warning you get when you try to edit.) I first noticed it was protected when Tbhotch placed a {{pp-vandalism}} tag at the top earlier today. There being no evidence I could see of vandalism, which has a very particular meaning here on WP, I replaced that with a generic {{pp-protected}} tag. Msnicki (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You do realize there is such a thing as consensus? There is no voting in the true sense. And it is usual for such discussion to take place on the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do realize. And you don't have one supporting your protective behavior. Tomorrow, I'll take a cut at this, making a good faith effort to treat it in an WP:NPOV manner. And if you don't like what I do (which I expect is likely), you can discuss your objections with me on the talk page and, if need be, we can come back here for more opinions. I trust you will do that rather than edit war me. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I will vigorously oppose any sort of bombastic treatment of this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I intend to give you zero reasonable cause for that objection. I will report succinctly, fairly, precisely what the sources actually say and I will cite meticulously. But it will be in a section on education and it will be more than 3 sentences. Msnicki (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing, though. You expect this to be opposed. The normal way, then, is to propose something on the talk page and gain consensus for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. I expect two editors to oppose it. But then again, I think those two editors would likely oppose anything longer than 3 sentences. I think I can satisfy most people and based on what I regard as the reasonable views you've expressed, I expect to satisfy you. Msnicki (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, when you act this arrogant and cast aspersions on others, you do come across as biased. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. Feel free to complain, but I think I did this correctly and fairly. Msnicki (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Surprise. I can live with the last round of edits—though I still think that the move to education is debatable, the edits do not make the same mistake as the original problem editor. That person's problem was a repeated long drawn-out poor set of edits that was of undue weight. As I have said all along, we watch and update as the story unfolds. Interesting that the Army itself is taking over the investigation from the War College. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that is a pleasant surprise. Thank you. I guess we each misjudged the other. I apologize for my part in that and hope we can put this in the past. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Aparently, I spoke too soon. I see you've now cut out a lot of material and made other changes I simply don't agree with in this edit. I especially disagree with this portion of your edit remark, "quotes taken out of context, correct material misattributed". I think I was very careful and I that my quotes are supported by the citations. At minimum, I was really hoping you would discuss your objections, first, rather start reverting it piece-by-piece.
May I request that others review, please? I refuse to edit war, but I stand by my edit and I ask that it be reinstated. Msnicki (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the other person's edit was yours; you quoted too much stuff and were very wordy, plus you were a bit too selective in stating nly the negative, not the full context of a couple of things. But mostly, it was just messy and repetitive. I kept most of your substantive content, actually, but chopped redundant material, fixed one bit where you misattributed material, and then as I went through the article, found other stuff that was very poorly written and did some cleanup - and not just your stuff (I wish that other editor would learn to use the citation templates and clean up his older work!). I have over 15 featured articles to my credit, I know how to write for wiki, though I'm not saying this was my best prose, either - I still think this article needs a lot of work, but it is not one of my priorities. (IMHO, the campaign was doomed from the outset even before this stuff anyway.) I really didn't feel like taking three hours of my time to clean up everyone else's work, but as it sits now, the article's space is 1456 words, and over 450 of them (i.e more than 25% of the article) are devoted to assorted "scandals" which I still think is undue weight, but I'm leaving most of it in. Montanabw(talk) 06:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Fernandez[edit]

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

There's been ongoing disputes about the subject of the articles date of birth. [[3]] had dates of birth that was a combination of sources. Two sources gave a month and a day but no year, one of which was a twitter source, the third was a source with just a year. I removed them because to my view it's original research we can not take the sources add them together and get a full DOB as this qualifies as WP:OR. One editor has disagreed with my assessment of the sources and requirement. It's been discussion and no edit wars so no issues with User:Bollyjeff I thought this just might be a good way for a BLP consensus for DOB as this issue has been onging for more then a year by the talkpage. Dear lord why are Bollywood articles DOB BLP info crazy? Lol thanks folks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's just one of the sections [[4]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, I can give a dozen sources that have the entire date if you want, for example: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. The trouble is that these are lower quality sources than what have been provided, and there are also some lower quality sources that give a different date of her DOB. Therefore, I thought it best to use the highest quality sources, including here own twitter and video accounts to provide the best reliable information. If you remove it totally, some IP will just add it back the next day anyway, and probably with a lower quality source, and maybe the wrong date. There is no policy saying that the month, day and year must all come from the same source. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Bollyjeff, There absolutely is, it's called Original Research or WP:OR, if you read this subsection WP:SYNTHESIS. It states quite explicitly, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay then, lets just wait and see what others here have to say. Would it be preferred to give just her month and day of birth with one source, and no year; or give just her year of birth with another source, and no month and day? Wait, how about month and day in one section with source a, and year in another section with source b? See how silly it sounds when you put it that way? BollyJeff | talk 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a wait and see thing though. The only thing I would say to include is the year of birth only, You are right that it would be super silly just to do the days. Sadly Bollywood articles seem to have particular issues with the DOB, we would prefer to not source it at all if we can't fin multiple reliable sources that agree. The main person I know that work BLP in Bollywood is User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I've pinged him to get his opinion, I highly respect his knowledge and he's very fair in regards to sourcing, if it's good or bad they will let you know regardless how you feel. I think it's important to intimate again though to I'm not upset with BollyJeff and I don't think he's upset with me, just a difference in policy interpretation and this has already stretched since 03/13 lol! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer that you do not call in editors that think like you to take your side. I know this editor, and have not had good experiences with them. Can a random BLP expert or two please chime in here? BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
When in doubt, use the reliable source that has at least a year. If in doubt, go to WP:RSN to get reliable source info. And keep researching. It's out there somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. To prove one of my points above, someone just added a bogus birthdate. It was pretty stable for a while, before my previous sources were removed. BollyJeff | talk 02:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Flávio Kenup[edit]

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

Can someone help with a source check to see whether "a.k.a. Viola Kenup" is legimate unsourced comment or not. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Call sign Viola - appears official and agrees with the first part so ... the aka has some legs http://www.jiujitsutampa.com/index.php/programs/82-instructors/75-flavio-bio Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nico Rosberg[edit]

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

An IP has been adding their own commentary at Nico Rosberg despite being told not to do so on multiple occasions. I've reverted three times and I'm unsure on what to do next. Can someone take a look? Thanks.  NQ  talk 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given the IP one more warning on their talk page - if it occurs again, report it at WP:3RRN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Guth[edit]

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

Can someone take a quick look and tell me if talk page edits like this and this, describing the subject of the page as a "fraud," requires intervention? I'm not conversant with the latest BLP rules and practices and I am in disputes with the editor in question on other fronts (original research, civility, editing and discussion practices, etc), so I think I'm the wrong person to even try to make the call. Thanks for taking a look.. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, saying that the subject of a BLP "looks like a fraud" is way over the top. I left a warning at User talk:Holybeef#July 2014 2. There is a related discussion at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

nick burdi[edit]

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

The wiki biography for nick has been trolled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.218.2 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism has been dealt with. WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the better noticeboard for issues like this. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Curt Clawson[edit]

Curt Clawson (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)- I wanted to get some uninvolved input on this discussion. This new congressman has been in office for about a month. Last week, he made a public speaking faux pas in which he mistakenly thought 2 US govt. employees appearing at a committee were from India rather than Indian-American. There is no dispute that the incident took place. What is being disputed is the merit of including it.
I contend this is textbook WP:RECENTISM, nothing more than a minor incident that got some coverage during the news cycle and quickly drops to obscurity. Including it is giving it UNDUE weight. Arguments for inclusion have been:

  1. ) "the only notable thing that Clawson has done since assuming office". As I said, he's been in office for a month. Inserting this for lack of anything else is a poor reason to include it.
  2. ) It has 4,000 sources. Yes, there are 4,000 GHITS, but we know that alone doesn't mean anything. Fact is, of those nearly 4000 sources, 6 were from the 27th and 5 from the 28th. All the rest were in the first two days. 11 out of 4000 made it past 2 days. That strongly indicates that my position of this being recentism is correct. The essay suggests a '10 year test'. This incident isn't passing a 10 week test.
  3. ) WP:BURDEN has been met.: Again, nobody disputes that it happened. But WP:NOTNEWS tells us "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It also tells us that " While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " This is, in my view, one of those events that gets some attention for being funny and then quickly falls into obscurity because it really has no enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point it looks undue and definitely does not need a full quote of his mistaken words. I don't think it should be included at this time. That might change in the future. If the gaffe has long term secondary effects on his political prospects, as evidenced and covered by future reliable sources, then it should be referenced at that time. Essentially, if future sources treat it as a one-time flub and don't mention it again, keep leaving it out. If people later write that it made a significant change to his future, it should be included in that context (for instance, it soured a working relationship, made a law harder to pass, long term became a thing he was known for like Todd Atkin, hurt an election bid like Rick Perry's speaking flub, he flubs the exact same way multiple times and shows a pattern, etc.) Right now it looks like an ugly faux pas, but I'd leave it out until future sources weigh the longer term impact, if any.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Shorter version: Leave out now if the only news is about the event and it's confined to a couple days around the event. Insert later if reliable sources write that there was a significant consequence resulting from the event. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This user was unhappy that three other editors disagreed on having that material deleted, so he posted here to seek additional input. The discussion is at Talk:Curt Clawson - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • You keep yapping about forum shopping, but clearly never read the policy that talks about the issue. This is exactly why this noticeboard exists. It was brought to ONE noticeboard, the most applicable one. Bringing it to a noticeboard is RECOMMENDED by the policy. So get over it. The discussion is now here Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite his uncivil response, the worst of which I've redacted struck, Niteshift is correct, bringing it to this board was an appropriate step to take. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I've attempted to redact Niteshift's immature sniping, but he has insisted on edit warring regarding this issue. If you wish his comments to be removed, User:Cwobeel, please let me know on my personal talk page and I will take stronger action, but right now I don't feel like wasting anymore time on this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean you will ask someone else to take action? You are far to involved in this to be the one taking action. P.S. Love the hypocrisy of making uncivil remarks ("immature sniping") while complaining about some comments you want to remove because you consider the uncivil. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
"Yapping" and "sniping", you're both getting into a bit of a bunfight that will leave you both looking a little dirty. You should probably both step away for a bit and get some cookies or a glass of water instead.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Consider it done. You have my permission to remove or strike any comments I've made here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Posting at a number of noticeboards = "forum shopping". Posting at the single most applicable board != "forum shopping". Making accusations about the OP instead of dealing with the issues involved = (fill in the blank). Collect (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am disengaging from that page, as I abhor the snipping and heated heads. There are thousands of article out there. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that you've returned to the page twice since you posted this to make uncivil remarks. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Mtikila[edit]

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

I do not know if this article meets notability, but it is a highly critical, unsourced article. My first reaction was to nominate it for deletion, but I would like to hear any responses first. I know nothing about the subject, and came to the article after seeing him interviewed in a pbs documentary. TFD (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I see it has now been blanked, and nominated for speedy deletion deleted. Given the content and the complete lack of sources, this looks appropriate enough to me. If the individual concerned meets notability criteria (which will of course require sources), there will be nothing to prevent a new policy-compliant article being created. From what I can figure out, Mtikila is (or was) the leader of a minor Tanzanian political party, who has been involved in a long-running legal battle concerning restrictions on candidates in Tanzanian elections. [10] Whether there are enough sources to give appropriate coverage to any of this, I'm unsure - it originates in the early 1990s, and online sources are likely to be sparse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of book sources. That article only had a single problematic sentence, but it deleted before I could contest the speedy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I wish someone had checked Google books before that happened.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dylan Penn[edit]

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

Could some of the experts here please assist the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dylan_Penn on writing a BLP-compliant DYK hook for the main page?--184.147.144.166 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

George M. Church[edit]

There is a disagreement at George M. Church (see talk page for discussion) that concerns a BLP. Leprof 7272 insists on putting COI/POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the subject has not edited the article since 2007. His wife has edited the article more extensively, lastly in July 2013. The article has been edited in-between and since then by multiple other editors. I note that the simple fact that someone with a COI has edited an article does not necessitate a COI/POV tag, if that person has not edited in a POV manner. There are also "primary sources" and "original research" tags on the article. Despite repeated requests, Leprof 7272 has not given any concrete examples of POV or OR, just stating that these problems are present and resists removal of the tags. The opinions of editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)