Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive43

My name is Jeffrey Epstein, web developer and songwriter, and I am trying to disassociate myself from the Jeffrey Epstein who is the subject of this page. There are many other people in the world, even in New York City, named Jeffrey Epstein as well. At the very least, a disambiguation page of some sort is needed.

21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Jeep15603 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jeffrey. A disambig page is useful only when other "Jefferey Epsteins" are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you know of other notable individuals with that name, I will be happy to create a disambig page. Just ping me on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded to a note left on the talk page for this article here. I probably wasn't as diplomatic about it, but I wasn't rude either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki bio purports that Trace was "born a girl". There is no footnote to support this. Please remove it or provide a reference that will support the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracefan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim removed Soxred93 | talk bot 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to OTRS requests I would appreciate it if folks could keep an eye on this article, specifically the qualitative tone and opinionated statements. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been recently having BLP problems with the Amanda Baggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Some recent edits to the article have either added potentially damaging material using a blog as a source, or have added the non-notable blog to the external links section. [1] [2] [3]. I have also been concerned with some of the content that has been added to the talk page in the past few days [4] and I am not sure if some content on the talk page should be removed for BLP concerns. It seems to me that the talk page mentions too much of the poorly sourced, potentially damaging claims when discussing whether or not to include those claims in the article. However, I am involved in an ongoing discussion with someone about these things and I don't know if I should remove talk page content during an ongoing discussion. Someone has asked how to dispute the article and I don't know what I should do when/if the person tags the article if the only dispute is that information from an unreliable blog is not included. I also anticipate that this will be an ongoing dispute and that problems with this article for the next several days. Q0 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like my explanation was longer than expected. Here is a more brief description of my concern:

• Does any content on Talk:Amanda Baggs (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Amanda Baggs|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) need to be removed for BLP concerns?
• If someone puts a POV tag on an article because it excludes material that has been excluded because it violates BLP and is poorly sourced, what should be done?

Q0 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin eyes on Amanda Baggs and Donna Williams (author) would be helpful. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute is spilling over to Wiki, and one editor has attempted to out another's real life identity. There is potential for BLP violations on both articles, and there are WP:COI issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I am wondering if this person's article isn't an example of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. It is also concerning that her article is largely quotes by or about her, which suggests a lack of reliable sources and therefore possibly her real notability? --Slp1 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Murphy High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User insists on including information about a crime allegedly committed in August of 2007. The fact that the attack occured is cited, but there is no info available about a conviction/acquittal. I'm not sure how to handle this given the time passed since the attack and the lack of a conviction. Also, I'm not sure how unique an attack like this is and how that affects things. // Evil saltine (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the MHS article.Momento (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling case.

• Scarlett Keeling case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Egregious WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E violation. Should have been speedy deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Matt Biondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The final sentence of the introductory paragraph purports:

"He also has never had sex before, thus making him a virgin."

This assertion is not cited with a footnote and appears, at least superficially, to contradict the final sentence in the Biography section:

"They married in 1995, and their son, Nathaniel (Nate), was born in 1998." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.251.47 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple, I removed it, (you could have also), cited as unsourced. I will watch to see if it is put back. Jons63 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jani Allan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I strongly suspect that the biography page has been written by Jani Allan (Teetreaz) herself, as it refers to personal details about her life that few others would have access to. Many of the sources are also poor and come from extremely right-wing conspiracy theory websites. Another user and myself queried the neutral point of view of the entry, and our comments were removed from the discussion page (I have since put them up again). I also notice that the neutrality dispute notice was removed. The entry contains a tiresome amount of information about Allan, whose life in the public eye is remembered mainly for her alleged affair with right-wing AWB leader Eugene Terreblanche. It will not give anyone seeking information about her a balanced view of how she is perceived. Even if Allan does not like this perception, the Wiki entry is not the place for her to argue against this perception. In addition, the user "advertise" all of the columns/articles that she has managed to get published on right-wing websites. I suggest the entire entry be rewritten. Or that simply the opening paragraph is kept and the rest removed and that Teatreez be banned from writing material for the entry.EmjayE2 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Teatreez just tried to remove this entry - some eyes needed on that article I thinks... --Fredrick day (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to move the discussion over to the Jani Allan discussion page. But I'm a bit rusty on the editing rules, but have checked up some just now, and I was wrong to delete this and other things, I wholeheartedly apologise. For clarification, I am not Jani Allan. Any 'personal details about her life' have mainly been sourced from internet research. Yet I disagree that such great swathes should be deleted, I think perhaps we need to discuss which sources are reputable and those which are not. Things such as career information, the bomb blast, and more recent views are perfectly relevant. It was not my intention to advertise the more recent columns on 'right wing' news sites, the links just serve a purpose of explaining her views on issues. Although surely we cannot always be too picky when it comes to our ideal citations can we? I look forward to any contributions + specific pointers in the discussion box. Regards,

+On another note, when we are talking of public perceptions of Allan, much of it is slanderous and libellous. There are still legalities to consider regarding the libel case and I also take umbrage to people rubbishing someone's name because of a rumour they heard. If anything in the face of public misconceptions or lack of education on the subject, the article is very balanced. If I was totally against any public perception of Allan, then I would not have even mentioned an association with ET and the libel case. It seems that many would rather that there was only negative information on this person, well I'm afraid that in my book, that does not spell neutrality. Teatreez (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Along with other users, we have sought more neutrality today and many of the offending source websites have been removed. Teatreez (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Daniel Pipes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editors are continuing to reinsert defamatory material about Pipes from an article written by a writer with no apparent credentials whatever, in an opinion piece appearing in a highly partisan souce. There is already plenty of negative material on Pipes in the article, I don't think poorly-sourced potentially libellous stuff is necessary. Thoughts? IronDuke 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who has experience handling BLP blankings by article subjects please respond to this (now blocked) user and their concerns. They may be a troll, or they may legitimately be the person who is the subject of the article in question. Either way, it needs to be investigated given the nature of the problem:

• Langfordps (talk · contribs) is the user
• Peter Stickles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the article.

Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the sources, and Stickles acknowledged that he was gay in this interview and discussed it in this interview. Both interviews are more than six months old. I'm finding it a little implausible that the person who removed the information with the edit summary, "I am Peter Stickles. It is being posted that I am gay. I need this to be deleted from this site" is the same person who, six months ago, said "It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different" in relation to his coming-out. He was asked in December to clarify the difference between those interviews and his edits, and made no response. I normally am all about helping the subjects of biographies be made happy if at all possible, but I am very skeptical that User:Langfordps is really Peter Stickles. Of course, if it's really him and he's decided to go back into the closet, that's his business, but it isn't what the sources indicate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's also apparently a podcast in which he discusses his gayness in audio. Sorry I couldn't review it from work, but folks on the talk page seemed to find it believable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Francis Bok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bok was held as a slave in Sudan for ten years before escaping to the US. The primary sources on his experiences for the article are an autobiography he wrote (published by St. Martin's Press) and various interviews which have appeared in reliable newspapers and magazines. The basic question (which has been discussed some at his talk page already) is what material from his autobiograpy and these interviews can be cited in the article - for example, could the name of the man who was his owner as a slave be included? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes it can, since it has been published in a book by a major publisher and at least some of the interviews, I believe. It should probably be qualified as to 'According to Bok', perhaps. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my thoughts were similar, but I am not a BLP expert. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added three "according to Bok"'s to the article. Should more be placed? Dincher (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone with a dynamic ip keeps inserting the name of a person and claiming that she is the porn star, Tyla Wynn, under notable alumni. This information has not been verified by a reliable source, and I suspect that it may be original research by a former classmate. As the name is unverified, this may be libel if the "real name" is not Tyla Wynn, because there are people that seem to object to being misidentified as a pornographic actor. I would like to ask for a semi-protect of the article. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I also suspect that the person making the edits (with the dynamic ips) is User:King Mop based on his his prior edits. I'm assuming that he is resorting to editing outside his account to evade accountability. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected.--Doc^g 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sally Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Substitution [homosexuality is] in a direct quote is possibly inaccurate and certainly subject to interpretation. Another view is that it should be [homosexual agenda]. This other view is backed up by other references. Stststst41 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't adding such an emotionally loaded, negatively biased term to an article actually make it less compliant with WP:BLP? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Kevin B. MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, his subject matter and findings are controversial. Yes, the editor boodlesthecat dislikes them. Nevertheless, he and others should not violate wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons. There has been a history of inappropriate reversions, inserting of material purposely damaging the Macdonald, etc. The larger community needs to step in. Veritasailor (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Eckhart Tolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle states "Eckhart Tolle (born Germany, February 16, 1948 as Ulrich Tolle) is a contemporary spiritual teacher and writer on spirituality"

The only biographical sources listed (authors website, NY Times, Vancouver Sun) do not contain the information that Tolle's birth name was Ulrich.

This item should be removed until/unless verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.138.178 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Takashi Hirano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have added some comments to the page on Takashi Hirano. The Vancouer Whitecaps, who just signed Hirano, were badly embarassed recently because they relied on the information on this page in preparing a press release. The information provided on the aforementioned Wikipedia page is, to put it kindly, utter codswallop. The page provides a nickname for Hirano that is actually the nickname of a former teammate. It miscounts his actual number of NT caps, it claims in the body of the text that he has played more than 350 J.League matches, but then lists his number of J. League appearances as 311.

The only reason that I am even here, and making these comments, is that I had communications with Vancouver and was able to prevent them from embarassing themselves even further by providing inaccurate data to the Japanese press, which would quickly have been identified as inaccurate and thus harmed the Vancouver Whitecaps' reputation in the eyes of the Japanese press. Furthermore, I have noted that a large number of the English-language "stubs" on J.League players have been copied, almost verbatim, from my website -- The Rising Sun News (http://www.wldcup.com/Asia ) -- without providing any form of attribution.

Please have someone review all of your J.League-related information and either use quotation marks and attributions for information "borrowed" from my website, or delete these entries immediately.

I might also suggest that you find a contributor to write your so-called "information" on the J.League who does not make up facts out of thin air, and who doesnt plagarize other websites without providing attribution.

Ken Matsushima The Rising Sun News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.117.150.6 (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article can be edited by anyone, and we block no one from editing unless they first prove that they are not interested in conforming to policies and guidelines. We don't find contributors; they find us. Sometimes this works out well, and sometimes it doesn't. With regards to the quality of the information, Wikipedia is aware of the problems inherent in our construction model, and they are addressed in our "About Wikipedia" in the information box to the side of every screen. I am sorry that The Vancouver Whitecaps were embarrassed by false information. We really rely on people like you who encounter it to repair it, or to appeal for assistance at a related wikiproject or workgroup (which is a grouping of volunteers who have announced a desire to work on certain types of articles. In this case, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games seems to be the place.) As for copyright, when we find copyright violations, we handle them as swiftly as possible in one of two ways, either by marking them (if blatant and certain other conditions are met) for immediate deletion or replacing their contents with a copyright infringement notice and listing them for investigation. (Steps for doing both of those are set out at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions.) I'll try to see if I can find the copyright violations that you're concerned about and handle those. If I miss something (having absolutely no familiarity with J.League), please consider tagging them according to the link I provided above or asking for assistance at a location more specifically engineered to address those concerns, such as at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. This particular noticeboard is designed to address issues specifically related to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which deals more with concerns about libelous misinformation or invasions of privacy than standard misinformation. The volunteers who work here may be less familiar with copyright issues than contributors in a more targeted location. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have flipped through a number of the listings at Category:Japanese footballers and compared them to your page, but I have yet to encounter a problem. I think it will be far more helpful if you address copyright concerns through standard procedure or bring them up at the forum I mentioned above with a specific list of the articles that concern you. We want to protect your copyright, but it is very difficult not knowing which particular articles are at issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Andrea Macari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Complaint from subject. Both article and talk page need urgent attention and possible revision deletions. Subject asked for it to be deleted entirely - "My reputation is incredibly important in my field and I would hate for someone to damage it in an effort to malign me" - may warrant this too - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Click, click, gone.--Doc^g 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that was necessarily a good idea; there appeared to be decent versions that could be reverted it. Deleted revisions would have been a much better response. I'm not convinced that Macari meets WP:BIO though so I'm not going to make too much of a fuss. But really, just delete revisions, no need to kill the entire thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "oppose," but your comment doesn't read that way. Anyhow, I support. The non defamatory version was a CV with links to appearances, which had been unimproved for months. Nothing worth saving, and the defamation + non-notability make it a slam dunk. Cool Hand Luke 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There was enough of a claim in the earlier versions (judging by the google cache) that this wasn't A7 so we could have have just reverted to the non-A7able version and AfDed it. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What he wanted me to do was to spend time checking each version to selectively delete only the libellous ones, revert it back to one that was just totally unreferenced vanity, then send fill in the forms for afd, where he and others would have voted to delete it. I'd have spent a lot of time, people would wasted time debating it on afd, the outcome would have been the same, but heck, process is important. As it is, if anyone wants it, they are free to recreate a decent referenced article.--Doc^g 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, so no one was in favor of keeping this article beyond our individuals interested in engaging in serious BLP problems? That makes me feel somewhat better about it, but a more detailed explanation of your actions than "Click, click, gone" would have been useful. Remember that whole transparency and run by consensus thing? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Marian Vanghelie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Romanian politician. At the very least, the tone is condescending or hostile. Could someone look into this? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article, List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings is thoroughly well-sourced, and yet still alarming from a WP:BLP-perspective. Should Wikipedia have article listing alleged murderers, even if the allegations are sourced? Experienced responses appreciated. скоморохъ 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• George Grie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

George Grie - All material is unsourced.

Neutral point of view (NPOV),Verifiability and No original research violations are present.

All article statements in Intro, Style, Life and Work sections are not supported by credible third-party PUBLISHED sources in the field.

Exhibitions section:

1. Artnova gallery, Stockholm - no exhibition of the named artist took place in any gallery with such name in Sweden.
2. [5]"Pixel Perfect: The Digital Fine Art Exhibition, Agora gallery New York" does not have any final participating artists lists posted.

References section:

• Modern art surrealism: George Grie neosurrealism gallery, George Grie Biography.[6] - self-published source

External Links section:

• All provided website links are to self-published sources.
  

I respectfully request that the article and its Russian version are deleted from wikipedia.
Having being involved with the artist's career for over 18 years I am not willing to do it myself to avoid conflict of interest issues
TatianaGri (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. We are unable to delete the article from the Russian version. We are only able to delete the English version from this forum under certain limited circumstances wherein the article and its history constitute an attack. If you wish to propose that the article be deleted, please consider the "proposed deletion" process or "articles for deletion". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jim Davidson (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stakker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This page is being repeatedly vandalised and is libellous in its current state.

I cannot find any reports of Jim Davidson's death. The reference to the energy drink is also fictitious.

Could we have protection on this page?

79.70.14.140 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the vandal and semi-protected for 2 weeks. What I don't understand is why that vandalism only account wasn't blocked 6 months ago. But, good catch 79.90.14.140.--Doc^g 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Peter Caruana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have an OTRS ticket on this from media in Gibraltar reporting that the subject is extremely unhappy with the content of the article and considers some of it libellous.

Personally, I see an issue with more than half the article being a criticism section. I've read a number of the not-very-well cited sources which certainly appear to back up some of the criticism, but the article itself seems - in my opinion - unbalanced without expansion. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and I have removed material to allow opportunity for review. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dariusz Ratajczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dariusz Ratajczak is refered to in some media as a holocaust denier; he was sentenced for this by a Polish court in 2000 but acquitted after an appeal in 2002. Should he or shouldn't he be referred to as a holocaust denier, and is the Category:Holocaust deniers ok or not in his article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you specifics of the media making the accusation? A charge of this gravity can't be just attributed to 'some media'. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe its covered in the English refs; I did not write the article, just did a quick search and noted the fact that his appeal was successful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Change it to the supercat, Category:Holocaust denial. Relata refero (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See Joel Hayward for a comparable case. Relata refero (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• James Cone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Black theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On both of these pages, there has been an attempt to add a poorly sourced quote supposedly from Cone. The only real source is an opinion piece from the Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html The other sources provided are either blogs or opinion pieces that simply reference that first souce: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/obama-wright-an.html http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/7498/. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120568855824539755.html#WRIGHT

Even if the quote is real, it seems farfetched to suppose that it is an accurate representation of Cone's views on black theology, as it is presented in both articles.

The other issue is the controversy section in the James Cone article which simply lists some quotes from Cone's books and asserts a controversy surrounding them. This smacks of original research without any source to show a real controversy. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The first aspect has since been addressed. The issue of the controversy section in the James Cone article has not at this time. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate if a few people could set this article on their watchlists. There's currently an edit war between the subject of the article, SirBruce (talk · contribs) and someone else trying to insert negative info, Notsirbruce (talk · contribs). I created the article, as I do know the subject very casually through industry conferences and felt that he was notable enough for a bio. The article has also passed AfD. However, I was disappointed to see that after I created the article, he decided to take an active interest in editing it. I have told him repeatedly off-wiki to keep off of it, but he is not listening to my advice, and my impulse at this point, rather than getting dragged in to a messy COI edit war involving the subject, is just to wash my hands of the situation. Some neutral observers would be appreciated here. Thanks, Elonka 05:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is entering negative information without proper sourcing/context, then it is not inappropriate for the article subject to respond to that and remove it. Of course, we would prefer that they instead contact third parties to intervene. I will take a look. FCYTravis (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ricardo Montalban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per the Archive of American Television interview on YouTube, part 5 of 5, he is actually an American citizen. There is a line about not having taken out US citizenship that should be removed. Cspublishing (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Philip D. Zelikow#Complaint_from_subject, Philip D. Zelikow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Truthers vandalising article. Last problem account now blocked indefinitely, please watchlist this article. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Watched. FCYTravis (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Someone keeps adding to chav a photo of a person whom he snapped at a public event, labelled as a "chav". I'd say this is potentially insulting to this person. If someone could comment on the article talk page, I'd be grateful. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the question of labelling a person as a "chav" or whatever, doesn't the photographer have any obligation to the subject as to if and how the image of them is used? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, no - if you're in a public place, at least in the U.S., you have no expectation or right of privacy. However, we certainly can't have images of random persons defamed by calling them "chavs." FCYTravis (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: User Oldmanmike89 uploaded an image with the following summary:

"Me and my cousin had a bet where be both dressed up as chavs and took photos of ourselves; the loser having to upload his photo to the chav page of wikipedia! We bet on the six nations Ireland vs England match.."

(If that's the image which was meant ... ) — Athaenara ✉ 08:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not: see Talk:Chav#Pictures in re images uploaded by user SteveSims. — Athaenara ✉ 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is notification that I have blanked the article Jason Anthony Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, large unsourced section about controversy, three month old tags on the page relating to verifiability. Some of the older diffs aren't too nice either.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will ^(talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just semi-protect? There seems to be an identifiable problem section which could be removed. The rest of the article seems straightforward. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre/Will did blank the article, but the content other than the Blp-violation section was restored by other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin Angus (explorer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VRTS ticket # 2007030410010963, VRTS ticket # 2008021910001641

An external legal dispute exists. Tim Harvey (Galiano kayaker (talk · contribs) and some IPs) may not edit this article, but may comment here ina manner consistent with WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, provided his suggestions for changes are backed by reliable independent sources.

Please watchlist. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merle Terlesky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Merlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What do we do when an article subject objects to a (GFDL-licensed) picture of him in the article? Merle Terlesky is in the process of doing so right now. I've advised him to contact the Foundation office if he feels that the picture poses a threat to his safety, but I imagine they're closed until at least Monday. Should the picture be removed until then? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Does he have an alternate photo he would like to contribute? He doesn't seem to be the type of person who shrinks from publicity - apparently a public figure by the standard used here. Nesodak (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think his concern is that any photo of him endangers him, because it makes him the target of "communists and anarchists". I think it's a frivolous complaint; I'm just wondering how to best deal with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Here are the diffs of his messages: [7][8] (for that matter, is the latter blockable under WP:NLT?).

He's an inexperienced user so he should be warned rather than blocked. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article he was a recent candidate for city council and has run for public office on several occasions - so it's hard to see how he'd have an expectation of not having his picture published. Also, according to the image description the photo was taken at a "counter-protest" - he can't be that afraid of being seen by 'anarchists and communists' if he shows up in public, at their events, counter-demonstrating against them. If he just thinks it's an unflattering photo he can release a better one but his stated objections to the photo don't look very strong. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds frivolous to me. He's a politician, according to the article. Clearly a public figure; there's no basis to object to having a photo published. Send him to OTRS. No need to take it down in the meantime. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the proper OTRS address for this sort of thing? My only experience with OTRS is image-licensing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), which, despite the article title, is for where "There is a problem with an article about me or about someone I represent." TJRC (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely a claim of possible endangerment trumps the "need" of Wikipedia to display a photo. What harm is done if the photo is not displayed? There are many many articles in Wikipedia without photos. I'm deleting the photo. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim doesn't appears to be credible since he's run for public office and goes to public events. He's obviously not afraid of being seen by his enemies if he attends a counter-demonstration (that's where the photo was taken). Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you are in no stronger a position than I to judge how serious the concern is. The article talk page signals to me that high emotions are involved. It costs Wikipedia little if anything to take a cautious approach. I think the overall tone of the BLP policy is to take a cautious approach, though I realize this specific case is not dealt with. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just common sense, if you have serious concerns that your opponents will snap a picture of you then you don't go to their events and protest. If you don't want people to know what you look like you don't run for public office. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. However, you may be wrong.

The photo gets different exposure here than only the people who were at that event. Do we know what has happened since the photo was taken? Do we know the state-of-mind of the people involved? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are all good points for him to make in his formal complaint. But we shouldn't censor the wikipedia for every informal complaint (a nicer word than "whine") made, regardless of its credibility.TJRC (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the complaint was formal or informal doesn't come into it at present. The person who made the complaint made it by what might well be the only method they know. We AGF. As noted above, the office where a formal complaint might go may well be closed for Good Friday. The word "censor" does not apply here, IMHO. How about describe it as "respond to a concern expressed by the subject of an article."? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I took that photo. Many, maybe most people had cameras at the rallies. Here he is giving one of multiple on-camera interviews. He made no objections to taking photos. He welcomes attention. But he's associated wikipedia with people he thinks are his enemies, and wants to censor it. --Rob (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

He's also already got photos of himself up on the internet, see his campaign page for instance so his appearance is not some sort of secret. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, I'm thinking the complaint is silly. If he hasn't even removed photos of himself from his own website, then how can he complain that we also display a photo of him? I'll restore the photo to the article. Nesodak (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merle only wishes "communists and anarchists" pay any attention to him. Most of the people in the Communist Party have his e-mail set to auto delete, and most view him a a nut job and loner. Calgary ARA is busy with the Aryan Guard and most young people don't know who Merle is. Also, he is known to seek out contact with "communists" himself, and admitted this on the article's talk page. The last time he e-mailed me 6 years ago he sent me his picture in the e-mail (the one of him sneaking in to the picture with Manning), so his claim is frivolous. --Mista-X (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Article:

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

Single purpose accounts:

• Catholicstudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.60.131.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.88.153.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.3.73.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Christopher Cuddy appears to be autobiographical with no external primary sources. I have added {{notability}} a couple of times. These are merely removed by the "main editor". How should I proceed? Finavon (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The {{Uw-coi}} warnings on the user talk pages might help. — Athaenara ✉ 07:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{COI}} template to the article. — Athaenara ✉ 09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tina Tinio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something weird going on with this article about a Filipino socialite. To be honest, I don't know if she meets the notability criteria (though there are lots of sources given); irregardless, her article seems to the target of a coordinated attack. There is a reference on the article talk page to an off-wiki campaign. Nesodak (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Unfortunately, she seems notable enough as a cosmetics executive with at least two major profiles in reliable sources. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In dealing with a recent "in the news" BLP (Ashley Alexandra Dupré), it's come to my attention that the Post Chronicle is not remotely close to being a reliable source. Despite the name (which sounds like a reputable newspaper), the site appears to be a mashup of bits from a variety of places, including random gossip, and its management specifically disclaims any responsibility to ensure that its content is accurate. The Post Chronicle accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion.

That signals, to me, that we cannot consider it a reliable source and should carefully examine everywhere where it is linked as a source to ensure its usefulness. Especially where it might be used as a source in a biography of a living person. FCYTravis (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any reputable source establishing the bona fides of this publication (and I've looked). I don't think it can be relied on for any potentially controversial information. Nesodak (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Apparently about this site) It is not wise to post libelous and or slanderous discernment regarding any company. It is not in WP's best interest. Smokefan2007 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing which is libelous or slanderous about discussing the suitability of a Web site to serve as a reliable source for matters of biographical sensitivity. FCYTravis (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Smokefan, for admitting to being the site owner, we can now proceed with the business of cleaning up your linkspamming. Your site disclaimer disqualifies your site for use as a source and also means that we cannot link to you per our copyright policy. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." (Wikipedia:Reliable sources adds "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.") Reliable sources stand behind their stories. A source that will not is likely questionable under Wikipedia's definition and is at least dubious and hence unusable as a source of material about living persons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In earlier discussion above (section titled Merle Terlesky picture), a concern about safety was noted, discussed, and then dismissed as "stated objections to the photo don't look very strong", "silly", and "frivolous" (three times).

I was the only one in the discussion who thought an expression of a safety concern more important than Wikipedia's need/desire to continue to display a photo.

Will some other people with knowledge of BLP or OTRS issues please take a look at that discussion and give me some feedback on my Talk page?

If I'm as far out to lunch as the other people in the discussion seem to think, I would really like to know. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why start a new section instead of posting this in the existing section? Nesodak (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to a separate section a) because my purpose is not to continue the earlier discussion, and b) to draw attention to my request from people not involved in the earlier section. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, every stated concern over safety doesn't have to be assumed to be reasonable. Given he has recent photos on his website, one of which shows up when you run a Google Image search on his name, I think we can assume this one is unreasonable. Relata refero (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Lutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Tom Sawyer Island section of article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Information is impossible to verify, and there's no way to make the connection between Lutz's blogging and Disney making their final decision. It essentially is a fallacy. Repeated attempts to remove this section from the article altogether continue to be restored with no explanation and no attempts to fix this transgression. Really, it is better off not in the article at all, but it certainly is poorly sourced (links don't work anymore) and present information in such a way as to lead the reader down a path which would have them end up believing Lutz somehow is responsible for Disneyland's decision to keep the Tom Sawyer Island name. // 65.103.3.173 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could experienced editors please take a look at this page and assess whether any of the content is libellous? An IP is edit-warring to have comments critical of the subject struck.Thanks, скоморохъ 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Seems fair. If comments are stated in uncivil terms, they should be "returned to sender" and the originator invited to state them less trenchantly. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ishmael Beah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), VRTS ticket # 2008020710015739. The Australian has set off on a crusade to undermine this person's credibility, as far as I can tell this is in order to save face after being caught out in some shoddy research about him, but that might just be my jaundiced view of the press. Either way, the section "dispute with The Australian" was titled "Credibility controversy" - I think the former is a better title though other titles may also be fine. I also removed a para which gave a blow-by-blow of the Aussie's followup stories, as they have not apparently been covered in secondary sources and their accuracy is disputed by the subject. What we have gives the basics anyway, and I think we should see how it's covered in literary journals and other more thoughtful sources. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article contains quotes attributed to "MindFreedom". If you go to that site, you will see that they are anti Dr. Torrey, and that is reflected in their quotes and their edits. MindFreedom is the citation for the individual who runs the anti Torrey site. The fact they said it on their site, doesn't mean it should become part of the wikipedia record. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.151.119 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 March 2008

Daniel Brandt, the redirect, has been deleted again. Much discussion is brewing on Talk:Daniel Brandt, User talk:WJBscribe#Daniel Brandt, and possibly a 5th DRV (depending on if this can be quickly resolved or not). -- Ned Scott 05:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

we are having a problem with proper use of the word Muslim here. I already requested a 3-O a few weeks ago- the 3-O editor was in over his head and consensus was achieved separate from his efforts. This was mostly due to me not having understood the full BLP policy yet. The more I read it the more I find the text does not meet the standards of: [being edited] "conservatively with respect for privacy." We use language that leaves open the implication that Obama is currently a muslim. This is done while in the context of explaining how and why Obama is not currently a muslim. Sounds confusing huh? Basically we are using the language from a non-RS source, but not actually citing the source. This is due to the text in question going through an extreme level of edit churn- and one editor who rv-s me every time I attempt a fix. This editor will not accept any text unless it uses the actual word Muslim- any "conservative" edit which uses less-inflammatory language such as "heritage" or even "raised a muslim" is instantly rv-ed. So I feel there is no factual basis for this statement, and even if there was it would violate the "conservative" edit clause of BLP. here are some more reasons or arguments from me:

• the non-RS source was later picked up on by normal RS-sources, which is why we are even bothering with a non-RS source in the first place.
• the non-RS says Obama is a Muslim BECAUSE of heritage and childhood- it makes no claim towards his present life, save the use of the actual term "obama is a muslim..." twice in the entire text
• the RS does not use language as direct as that, in its reporting of the original source.
• even the quote from the non-RS, cited anyways, in an attempt to appease the other editor, was considered unacceptable "Obama had sought to misrepresent his heritage."

so anyways now that I understand BLP better, I removed the word Muslim (citing the BLP policy) and created a new section on talk. The editor rv-ed me without even a descriptive edit summary and has not yet posted on talk. This editor is accused by others (and me) of tendentious editing practices, on several different pages.

By rv-ing without comment the editor violated the BLP policy: "Administrators must obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article."

(sorry these are red, I don't know what is wrong. those are the right numbers though) Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008&diff=198378172&oldid=198375146 offending edit

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008&diff=198141225&oldid=198134793 my BLP edit

Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#First sentence.2C Muslim allegations section; Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#edit warring; Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Martin Text

outside examples (from pages I don't edit as much) Talk:Barack Obama#NYT article by Jodi Kantor; Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 12#Requested full protection; Talk:Insight (magazine)/Archive 2; Talk:United States journalism scandals#Important change required during page protection

as you can see must of these are on similar subjects (not that different from my edit history lol)

so anyways for all these reasons I don't think the word belongs. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the problem with the red links is that they're not real diffs.

See Help:Diff for how to clear that up. — Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think [9] and [10] are the diffs meant. — Athaenara ✉ 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this [11] is the diff we're arguing over. Now, saying Martin said Obama is a Muslim is not "use[ing] language that leaves open the implication that Obama is currently a muslim." We say Obama is a Christian, we say Martin is "falsely alleging", etc., etc. and MORE etc. Belt, suspenders and duct tape. Now, as 72.0.180.2 concedes, Martin said "Obama is a Muslim" twice. Martin also alleged that Obama was currently "hiding" his Muslim Kenyan relatives, etc. We don't have to mention Martin at all, but if we do accept the Nation 's thesis that he is important we can't misreport what he wrote! 72etc (or maybe it was WNDL42) sought a third opinion on whether we can report accurately what Martin said, and the 3rdO was indeed that we should say what he actually said. 72.0.180.2 says the 3rdO was "over his head". I say 72.0.180.2 is just forum-shopping. Andyvphil (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

so if you thought the 3o was so helpful, then how come you left this text as consensus for weeks before starting to rv again? also from WP:words to avoid

"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label"

considering WP won't use martin because its not RS, and the nation doesn't use that word, its "poorly sourced" which is BLP vio. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit comment on the first diff Athaenara has supplied,[12] "I see the weasel snuck back in." You keep sneaking the weasel version back in, then claim "consensus" if nobody notices and it sticks for awhile. But the last time this was discussed on the talk page was here [13] and the only editors who weighed in apart from you and I were Amatulić, who responded to the request for a third opinion by saying "But a more neutral way to say it is 'An allegation that Obama is a Muslim was made by columnist Andy Martin in a press release in 2004.'" and "If you are going to quote someone, you shouldn't change the quotation. Martin didn't say Obama was a Muslim; he said Obama is a Muslim." johnpseudo weighed in with "I'd go with Andyvphil's version, because it's more straight-forward about the claim that was made. Using vague terms like 'public claims concerning Barack Obama's religion' when Martin really just came out and said he was Muslim is just poor form." And Justmeherenow said "...at the moment, I'm too lazy to try to align text in the article to this standard. Sorry, Andyvphil.", which isn't to clear on the point at issue, but sure doesn't sound like he's endorsing your version. And the editors endorsing your version were... no one. Nada. Zip. Your claim that it is the consensus version is just bogus.

As to the claim that we can't say what Martin said because he said it on a site which is not a RS, I already disposed of that. "Nor is there any question that on Wikipedia you can, when a primary source is referred to by a secondary RS consult a primary source for its content:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Any any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can see that Martin says Obama is a Muslim. Confirming that he says it doesn't require any analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation. "Fact: Obama is a Muslim..."-Andy Martin. Doesn't require much education either. All that's left is "reasonable". You're not being reasonable. --Andyvphil, 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)([14], again) Andyvphil (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

there have been several edit wars and 3rr blocks handed about because of disagreement on this subject. It would be very helpful if you guys could come up with a decision on this topic, or even "wash your hands" of it, simply so the regular editors of that fast-moving page would know where they stand. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. The 3rdO you asked for told you you should, if you quote Martin at all, quote Martin accurately, rather than obfuscate.[15] The Admin who blocked you told you that the sentence is question is not a BLP vio.[16] Here, nobody is taking your claims any more seriously. Want a fourth venue? Try an RfC. But the answer is unlikely to change. BLP gives you no extra powers to impose your obfuscatory and, as I've pointed out to you again,[17], POV-advancing text. Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

wow andy, I didn't realize you were a BLP admin, but hey thanks for the help... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 20#Andrea Spinks → Pixie (porn star).

This was a page that redirected to an article on a particular porn star's stage name, and is supposedly her real name. We now have an editor, claiming to be the original author of both pages, seeking to remove the references to the actress's real name, including blanking the redirect. Claims are that the actress wants privacy and does not want the links between the two names to reamin floating around the net. So definite BLP concerns on the redirect and the stage-name page.

I have placed the redirect up for a procedural RFD. I have not !voted myself on the removal because I really do not know what is the proper path forward. Any additional opinions in either direction from people better versed in BLP matters would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are 10,500 Web pages (including some purporting to be her "home page") that identify "Pixie" and Andrea Sparks to be one and the same. This is not analogous to a person who uses a stage name and tries to hide his/her real name - both were used to promote a product. Let's consider the motivation here: she has decided to walk away from her very public past and wants to erase it somehow. So, how is the redirect a violation of her privacy? It would be used only as a search term by someone who already knew her real name in the first place. Now, if someone wishes to try to expunge her from Wikipedia, I'd urge AfD for the Pixie article, but with solid Wikipedia grounds as "privacy" is not valid as she gave it up years ago. The disclosure of her home or current work address, telephone, etc., for example, would be a valid BLP concern, but not a redirect to an article to her past, public, life. B.Wind (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I get a quick read on the reliability of TMZ.com as a source for BLPs? A user has edit-warred to remove it from an article, calling it a "gossip rag". The site is owned by AOL/Time Warner and according to this article in USA Today, it's editorially vetted and researched for accuracy. It's presently used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Nesodak (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that article says the owner of TMZ claims its vetted, etc. We specifically try and avoid tabloid sources for anything in the least contentious, so in this case I'm afraid the user in question has policy squarely on his side. Relata refero (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See also profiles in Time[18] and Newsweek.[19] Nesodak (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

TMZ may be tabloidy but so are other media. Reliability of a source is tied to the content being sourced - "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If the content is not terribly controversial it may not be an issue; if someone is crying foul on it based on it being TMZ alone that seems wonky but if they deem that the source isn't good enough for a particular claim a secondary source would be wise. Benjiboi 11:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Michael Alig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Fascinating person who likely earned a lot of scorn from those he wronged in the nightclub scene and perhaps was generally obnoxious - which helped build his career. He was even immortalized in a book which begat a documentary which begat a feature film (see Party Monster). However tabloidy items have been multiplying in the article with less than stellar sources, IMHO, and someone with a good broom would be not only entertained but appreciated for helping clean out some of the worst items. // Benjiboi 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone check out this article? About half of it is taken up by a "Criticism and controversy" section. For instance in the first part of the article it says he founded the Washington Times, and then in the criticism section it says he was criticised for founding the Washington Times. Redddogg (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a user, User:McTools that has some sort of agenda trying to repeatedly post Silvia Lancome's "birthname" and citing it to IMDB. The page is currently locked due to the edit war but he keeps on posting her "real name" in the discussion page of the article in order to prove that Ms. Lancome is not Afghan despite multiple warnings and removals. As IMDB biographies are not reliable and being named as a porn star is potentially both libelous and may violate the presumption of privacy per WP:BLP, what can be done? He's also been accused of being a sockpuppet during the edit war but I haven't been able to evaluate that accusation. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User Venkyhyundai keeps inserting completely unsourced and libellous info on the subject under Criticism and Some Critics Say —Preceding unsigned comment added by March 24 2008 (talk • contribs) 89.241.252.68

• Prabir Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can some editors take a look at this article, which has been a target of edit-warring between IPs and SPAs for months, and repeated addition of poorly sourced/unsourced allegations of fraud, sexual harrasment etc against the subject ? The latest allegations (diff) are sourced to emails about the subject on the Mukto Mona website [20] (an organization that bills itself as an "internet congregation of free=thinkers") and a yahoo group [21]. Seven month back similar allegations and their refutation were sourced to the talk page of the article itself ! (see links deleted in this diff and problematic version of talk page) Both the article page history and the talk page history evidence long term and persistent BLP violations.
More eyes on the article, and page semi-protection would be appreciated. Some SPAs may need to be warned/blocked/banned too. Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hal Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with BLP expertise take a look at the recent history on the above two articles? I originally noticed the traffic on these articles when they came up high on Wikirage...once I checked them out, it looks like campaign is going on in the two articles to link Hannity, a prominent media figure, to Turner, an avowed white supremacist. I don't know that much about the background, and some sources are being given, but I'm not sure how well the sources can be trusted. I think caution is warranted here given Hannity's apparent high profile in television and radio media in the U.S. Nesodak (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have Turner's article on watchlist. I'm RWIing. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did my best to reword the Sean Hannity claims in a neutral way, included the statements from the other side, and integrated into the main article (as opposed to being in a stand-alone "Controversy" section). Would appreciate any BLP-savvy folks to check my work. Nesodak (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hannity article seems to be undergoing a major dispute. One person wants to quote critics in the first paragraph, seemingly to protect impressionable WP readers from this dangerous right-wing guy. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the brief truce at Sean Hannity has fallen apart and people are back to edit-warring. I'm wondering if protection is going to be required. Nesodak (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user Bear in mind that the outcome doesn't have to be the same in these 2 casec. If Hal Turner has claimed he had a good relationship with Sean Hannity (from what I can tell he has) then that may be noteable enough to include in the Hal Turner article, particularly if the claim has received sufficient prominence that Sean Hannity has responded to the claims. However there is probably no justification to include the claims in the Sean Hannity article if it was only a relatively minor issue in relation to Seah Hannity, which it may be if the claims only received coverage in 2 relatively lesser known sources Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My involvement started as "an uninvolved user" also...I totally agree with you that a case can certainly made for that. I just wish people would discuss on the talk page rather than revert warring. The whole thing is now officially annoying so far as I am concerned, think I'll wash my hands of it. Anyone else want an at-bat? Nesodak (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly reverting my removal of an actor's sexual orientation from Peter Stickles. I have been contacted directly by the subject of this article via unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org asking that this information be removed. There's no debate as to the factual accuracy of the information but there is significant debate as to the relevance of the information. I do not believe this relevance has been established and so I removed it as per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT (not trivia) and WP:BLP (privacy). Despite my request that this information not be readded, Otto4711 has continued to readd this information. I have expressed on Talk:Peter Stickles that I would support readding the information if and only if we have a reliable source indicating that this is anything other than trivia. No such has been provided. Although I am an admin, I would like at least a second opinion on whether a person's sexual orientation should be included in an article given that the subject of the article does not wish it to be there. It is a fact that the subject has disclosed his sexual orientation and it is a fact that he has expressed a desire to have this removed from his article. It is a matter of opinion whether or not Otto4711 has established the notability of this information, though I firmly believe he has not. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The section needs to be reworded - "openly gay" is loaded and unnecessary. But he has talked about his sexuality in a public interview, and if it relates to the content and selection of the films he's participated in, I would find it hard to argue that it's inappropriate to include. I mean, he's a professional actor starring in a gay-themed television series that is produced and aired on a network specifically targeting gay and lesbian audiences. If that doesn't make his sexuality relevant, what would? FCYTravis (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Openly gay" is pretty standard language when discussing people who are, well, openly gay. As for relevance, consider this section of the interview that was used as a source for the section:

AfterElton: Do you have concerns about being typecast as an out gay actor? Peter Stickles: Of course I have — absolutely. The producers of The Lair took me aside and we had a meeting about whether or not I was going to be an "out" gay actor and whether they were going to be able to market me. But they wanted me to take it very seriously, because it's a very big decision and I had to stop and think about it. Because even though it sucks, and it shouldn't matter, it does matter. So yeah, I had to really think about it — not so much in terms of being a horror movie actor, because if I could do horror movies for the rest of my life I'd die a happy man. But being pigeonholed as a gay film actor is kind of weird for me.

Along with the quote from another interview which is linked on the article's talk page:

"A lot of times, it's not good, and it hurts," Stickles says of his decision not to remain in the closet in order to build a mainstream career. "A lot of time, people can't watch a gay guy playing a straight role. I was reading an article about Rupert Everett, about how his career is not happening, that [people in the business] won't hire him for the lead because he's gay. It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different. "It's nice to have a little bit of success with a very small group of people. I live in Chelsea, which is the gayest neighborhood in the world, and people recognize me, but there will have to be a time when I can show that I can be more versatile."

This clearly establishes the relevance of the information. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think we're past the point when we have to say "openly." Just say gay. FCYTravis (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, I don't really care whether it says "gay" or "openly gay." Otto4711 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that an actor's sexuality is relevant to the roles they choose. Many straight actors have taken roles where their characters are homosexual and vice versa. Anyway, the key point here is that the subject of the article requested the removal of this content as he personally did not think it relevant. He could be wrong and if the consensus here is that the information should be added, I would be happy to revert my removal and unprotect the page. Note that the subject of the article has claimed he has been misquoted in the interviews but this does not meet our requirements under WP:RS. Once again, if people believe this actor's sexuality is relevant under WP:NOT and WP:BLP then it should be there. My concerns are that it does not meet the criteria outlined by those policies. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite know what WP:NOT has to do with it. A person's sexuality is definitely not "trivia."

He has chosen to take roles in a gay-themed TV show on a gay-themed network, and do an interview with an entertainment news site run by a different gay-themed network, in which he discusses his sexuality.

But there is definitely a problem in that having a whole long paragraph about it is undue weight on that aspect of his life, given that the rest of the article is two sentences about his roles. FCYTravis (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and should be there. On the other hand, we removed (after much debate) all mention of Jay Brannan's sexuality from his article, because of his preference. Aleta ^Sing 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• First, I don't believe for a second that the person claiming to be Peter Stickles really is Peter Stickles. Email me a jpg of his drivers license and maybe then I will. Second, this claim that he's been misquoted is ludicrous. He was asked by AfterElton "Are you gay yourself?" and his one-word answer was "Yes." What, he really said "no" and the reporter wrote it down wrong? Pfft. Third, even if we are to believe that not only did the AfterElton interviewer somehow "misquote" his one-word answer or the two paragraphs about his decision to come out, and if we are to believe that the other interview quoted here is somehow fabricated or "misquoted," that still leaves the question of the podcast (episode 91) recorded in his own voice in which he speaks extensively of being gay. Is he suggesting that the voice recording is being "misquoted" too? Not to mention that his sexuality was part of why he was cast in the part that he was in Shortbus. I'm sorry if Peter Stickles, if it is Peter Stickles, is having some second thoughts about deciding to come out. I'm sorry if he feels bad about having his sexuality mentioned in his Wikipedia aricle. I wrote the article and it certainly was not and is not my intention to cause him distress by writing it. But the information on his sexuality is factual, verifiable and relevant and his personal wishes should not dictate the content of the article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I, through unblock-en-l, have confirmed that this was indeed Peter Stickles. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view: I think his sexuality is relevant exactly for the reasons he cites in the interview, viz., it may influence the roles he is offered and how the audience views him. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the article, but we have to careful how we phrase it. Starting the article with " Peter Sticles is a gay American actor from New York" is clearly unacceptable; adding a whole paragraph on the issue would be undue too. Perhaps we can add a sentence along the lines, "Sticles has expressed concern that his being gay may lead to him being pigeonholed as a gay actor." (may need rephrasing), which not only says that he is gay but also explains how it affects him professionally. Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The same discussion has taken place in relation to Simon Amstell. Read the 'Personal Life' to see an example of how this could be worded. I don't like articles that say "John Doe is gay" but mentioning why it's notable is a good idea if a person's orientation is included. IMHO, it seems notable for the subject we're discussing. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:Abecedare, and think that a small discussion of it would be more than appropriate. I do understand where the subject of the bio is coming from, and I sympathise, and we need to present information in an acceptable manner, but we shouldn't leave out something if it seems relevant to the roles he's being offered or choosing. Relata refero (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare's idea seems to be pointing the way forward, in my view. Orderinchaos 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is it snowing yet? Otto4711 (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed. I will immediately unprotect the page. Thank you, Otto4711, for keeping your cool and working within Wikipedia's framework for resolving this matter. I am not going to revert my removal of your content because the consensus seems to me to be that it was too long in the context of the article, but I will not revert your readdition of the information on his sexuality, appropriately cited (as your additions generally were) and I apologise for making you jump through these hoops. I hope you understand that I felt I needed to err on the side of caution. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)