Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive141

This page is an current main page .

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

This stub is basically a resume and self promotion with a link to his website. Most journalists do not belong in Wikipedia, unless they were/are towering legends... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.130.66 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there. We get a fair few promo ones though. Looking at it he is just about notable.

WP:AFD - and dominate him for deletion discussion. - Youreallycan (talk

) 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael R. Meyer

Michael R. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is basically a resume and self promotion with a link to his books. Most journalists do not belong in Wikipedia, unless they were/are towering legends... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.130.66 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't look promotional to me. Meyers also seems sufficiently notable per Wikipedia guidelines (not yours). However, the article does need more sources, so I've tagged it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Again, another journalist's resume. Does not belong in an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.130.66 (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That ones worse than Hammer - (as far a promo goes) - written by a single purpose user with a likely conflicted interest User:Scoop99 contribution history - He has won an industry Walkley Awards which Australian users assert is a golden ticket to a wikipedia biography. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

there is wrong birth day for Irene Nelson, she was born at least 15 year earlier then 1980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.92.46 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There was more than one birthdate in the article. However, nothing was sourced, so I removed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Bigot of the year, err, "award" has been added to the lucky winners of this award's BLP page. Didn't the communitty go through something similar with Media Matters giving out its misinformer of the year awards? Isn't it best not to include this on each bio unless it became or was or is some huge story, ect? It seems that this sort of "attack" award really isn't appropriate per BLP guidelines. Not saying the folks didn't deserve it, but. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If we have the award page, it should list the winners in the different categories, no different from other award pages. The real discussion is going on at the winner's page (Melanie Phillips). Unsurprisingly, the discussion is contentious and seemingly endless. At the moment, there's no mention of the award on her page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, the dispute is actually taking place on approximately 5 bios right now. All the "winners" of the bully or bigot of the year "award" have had mention of the "award" added to their respective bios. It has been removed and readded. Could you please take a look? Thank you. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a real concern that listing "negative" or "mock" awards is simply a matter of some person or group expressing criticism of a living person, and as an "opinion" must be categorized as an "opinion" and not treated as an "award." In addition, some BLPs seem to contain far more criticism of the person than praise (one editor said that mere mention of the Orwell Prize in a short sentence was so much "praise" that it needed to be balanced by the masses of criticism in the Phillips article <g> which I found a quite interesting claim, indeed. Collect (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't report opinions? Exok (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We do report opinions, though we attribute them. "Best" is just as much an opinion as "worst". From what I gather, Stonewall is a leading and respectable group in the UK, and their opinion is noteworthy. As for the Phillips article, which is the lfocus of this dispute, if the award itself is the bone of contention then perhaps the issue could be finessed by just dealing with the underlying criticism instead. Perhaps something like, "Phillips was criticized by Stonewall for comments including..."   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The rejected offer was "Stonewall, a gay advocacy group, has criticised Phillips as being anti-gay" which seemed fairly neutral, and making clear that this is a matter of opinion and not biographical fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the talk page and I don't see where that text was discussed or rejected.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be a start towards compromise. A few of the bios just have the award listed by itself, which seems non NPOV and weighted towards critisism. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

At Melanie Phillips we tried compromise here. It lasted 6 days before it was cut again without discussion. Exok (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording that you show being cut isn't quite like what Will suggests. It still shows it in the form of an award, and it doesn't describe what Stonewall is (the reader would have to click on the wikilink to find out). I also have a bit of a problem with the whole thing and don't completely agree with Will. A "best" and "worst" analogy works okay for things like films and plays when the organization that is handing out the award is supposedly neutral and is just judging the quality of the piece. Stonewall is a political organization and is using awards to reward and punish people for their views and their actions. Does that mean every time they hand out awards, we have to report it? I'm uncomfortable with that. If criticism of Phillips is relevant to a portion of the article, then it should be integrated in a way that makes sense. For example, the organization discussing Phillips and her conduct in the context of something she's done rather than just giving out a canned award that says they don't like her.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just give an accurate account of what sources seem to report and let the individual reader decide whether it's a highly political self-promotional attack or a richly deserved rebuttal from a charity representing an oppressed minority? Declaring anyone "Bigot of the Year" is an appalling, self-destructive thing for a lobbying organisation to do in my opinion, I'd exclude it on the grounds that it hurts Stonewall's reputation if I could, but why should my opinion interpose itself between verifiable events and users of Wikipedia? Exok (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As I see things, there are multiple related problems here. First, this isn't a genuine award; it's a device to publicize criticism/condemnation of the subject's sociopolitical opinions by dressing it up as a mock-award. Second, it's not general practice here (for good reason) to report public reaction to the political positions of prominent persons; otherwise every such article would be littered by boilerplate reports that, say, "American commentator Paul(a) Politico's stance on abortion/gay marriage/tax rates/capital punishment was applauded by those who agree with it and criticized by those who disagree with it." Third, if the reaction to a particular position went beyond the routine and was particularly noteworthy, both sides (or a full spectrum) of the response need to be presented, not simply what is little more than a publicity stunt from one side of the controversy. In general. I'd say that mentions of "awards" like this are almost superfluous if a well-prepared, balanced account of the underlying controversy is presented -- and inappropriate unless such an account is presented. When the primary intent of a publicity gimmick like this is to deride/disparage a person based on their sociopolitical views, it's little better than empty invective with no encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If the "Bigots of America Association" awarded someone a non-ironic "Bigot of the Year" award (and if the BAA were a legitimate advocacy organization), would we report it in a bio? If Al-Qaeda gave a "Freedom Fighter of the Year" award, would we report that? If not, why not?

It's not clear what the objection is here. Is it because the award is from an obscure group? Apparently not. Is it because the award is presumably a criticism? BLP allows reporting criticism, and NPOV requires it, so that can't be it. Is it because the Stonewall group is an advocacy organization? Many awards are given out by advocacy groups but I'm not aware of a general prohibition on reporting official statements from advocacy groups. Overall, I'm not sure I see a solid policy basis for excluding mention of the award. That's not to say it has to be there, but I just don't see how BLP forbids its inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What an absurd position. "Bigot of the Year" is specifically an "attack" based on opinion. Do you dislike the sentence I offered above, and why? Seems to me it would solve it all. Meanwhile, the article is substantially criticism, even if you count "she got the Orwell Prize" as being effusive praise <g>. Collect (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Does BLP forbid reporting attacks from notable organizations? I'm not aware of that clause. Could you please quote it? I don't object to your proposed text. I suggest you propose it on the talk page and get consensus for it. I'm just saying that the BLP policy does not prevent mention of the award, should consensus favor that option.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a case to be made that mention of the award is prohibited by policy, but it requires a broad reading of the "Criticism and praise" section of

WP:UNDUE. Nonetheless, I can see Will and others arguing that none of these policies applies in this situation. So, assuming it's not prohibited, I would agree with Hullaballo that it doesn't belong in the article, and I would be in that camp when determining whether any consensus has been reached.--Bbb23 (talk

) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any real difference between this and any other attributed negative opinion. If the opinion is relevant, notable and reliably sourced, then there should be no blanket banning of it. Beyond that, it's appropriateness should be on an article by article basis. If the the problem is simply that it is presented as an award, then the same information can be conveyed simply by rephrasing to emphasis that it is an opinion, from a particular source.

Otherwise, what's the difference between this and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress?

I'd also like to raise the issue of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz going on a trawl through articles, removing mention of this on the basis of a consensus here on BLPN, something he does not feel obliged to direct anyone to, or bother himself with discussing with anyone. Despite his claims, I do not see any such consensus on this noticeboard. Happy to have anyone direct me to one though. But in the meantime, I would ask Hullaballoo Wolfowitz stop engaging on edit wars while no consensus has been established, anywhere. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair to summarise consensus as being that there is no specific part of

WP:BLP policy that rules out mentioning Stonewall Bigot of the Year, but that some editors believe it should not be included in any article based on their own view of what constitutes appropriate content? Exok (talk

) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I would agree with that summary. BLP requires that we write conservatively and and from a NPOV. Does adding a quasi attack award from a partisan or advocacy group without any context meet that policy? Maybe the wording could be better written on some of the bios, rather than just listing the "award" as it now appears in some of the bios. I will not revert again, but the "award" has been readded to all the biso excpet one? Who is now getting their way in this dispute? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer your first question, adding a notable award from a notable organization to the article on a notable figure does indeed meet policy, and it makes no difference whether whether the award constitutes a quasi-attack, a full-fledged attack, or just an award. Context, of course, is always desirable and in some cases may be critical to maintaining neutrality. This particular tempest in a teapot is one in a long line of attempts to broaden WP:BLP to the point where negative information is entirely excluded from biographical articles. If such attempts are successful and become the rule, WP will have no credibility on BLP topics. But public figures undoubtedly will rejoice, knowing that no matter what heights of illogic and offensiveness they rise to in their rhetoric and whatever public reaction ensues, a helpful bevy of editors will ensure that WP sees, hears, and reports no evil in their regard. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is not a notable award, them you would not be for inclusion then? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why it is not notable? Leaky Caldron 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not notable like an

Stonewall awards page where the weight of the detail is much less than adding it as a demeaning award to the living person they have chosen to attack with it. Youreallycan (talk

) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable in its own back yard would still mean notable, wouldn't it?--FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I would add that just because an organization is notable doesn't mean everything it does is notable. In this instance, it's essentially a backdoor gimmick.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, Matron! --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You lost me - what does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC Stonewall is a registered charity in the UK. When you say "demean and attack people that oppose its goals and ambitions", what do you believe those goals & ambitions to be? Are they not legitimately entitled to expose hypocrisy? Leaky Caldron 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A registered charity that is a LGBT lobby group. If Stonewell have got some notable comments about Phillips positions on things they should comment on them or open a discussion with her. You say, "are they not entitled to expose hypocrisy?" - If you assert the subject is a hypocrite adding specific content that explains why she is one and her rebuttals is the way to develop the content. And .. Stonewall state, blindly, and without notable explanation that Philips is the person who has most "gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year." - accusations like that from an activist group are clearly partisan and has multiple issues in a BLP' - how has she harmed gay people? How has she snubbed lesbians? Youreallycan (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia doesn't have any policy about excluding points-of-view on the grounds that they are partisan. And, if you feel it is important to include information about why Phillips is considered a bigot (is this not already covered in the article?), then this can be taken from the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

wp:undue---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon}

01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Um. Did you read what I typed? --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thinking specifically about the Philips article. I just wondered if you recognised Stonewall as a legitimate organisation to comment on LGBT issues. Leaky Caldron 23:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't see the difference between the Razzys and the Stonewall Award? That's similar to saying, "I don't see the difference between a Canadian Football League Championship, and a high school science fair." Seriously. The Razzy Award has evolved into one of the more anticipated awards cerimonies of the year. It is covered by virtually every major news source in the country and has become part of the Academy Award Week festivities. Receiving the award, has become a token of respect---you generally only get nominated if you are in a hyped/big budget movie. Coverage is widespread. Goto google news and look up Stonewall Award, do you know how many news articles you will find? 23! Of those 23, about 5 actually deal with the Stonewall Award. For the most part, those articles are in gay magazines/newspapers, not the main stream media. Of those articles that talk about the Stonewall Award, I only saw one which mentioned the Bigot of the Year Award. Not every award, even if granted by a notable organization, is notable enough for inclusion in a persons article. This is a clear case of UNDUE.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it looks very much like undue weight to me to include this 'award' in BLPs. If Stonewall were to actually produce a substantive criticism of a person they 'awarded', and this was discussed in sources beyond the immediate confines of the pressure-group, it might merit mention, but this looks like gratuitous name-calling, rather than considered criticism - and as has been said already, not everything a notable organisation does is notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(Replying to Youreallycan) "Back yard"? Hmm . . . back yard = ghetto = margins = inappropriate for an encyclopedia that

the margins, it doesn't work that way. Links very properly go in two directions; articles build on each other. The world is full both of "journalists" who say stupid things and of "activists" who bluntly, even harshly, call them on it. If we are to be neutral, we don't ignore either category of people when building our articles. Rivertorch (talk

) 01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Would there then be consensus forming that the award should not be included in bios, unless it has recieved wide independent coverage? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the criteria for inclusion. If this award had received wide spread independent coverage in sources other than niche publications, then it MIGHT be worth inclusion. But the reality is that this award is not covered by independent sources. Most of the reliable sources that cover the Stonewall Award, don't talk about the Bigot of the Year award.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So it should be kept out. That is what I was suggesting. Hopefully more editors will comment and then we can move forward. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP's point that the coverage hasn't been especially wide is worth noting. A quick check reveals that previous recipients of the award have received considerably more coverage as time has gone by. In the case of Ms. Phillips, it has only been a month. If I could feel much confidence that six months from now, if the situation changed (e.g.., when considerably more articles deal with the topic) the objections to inclusion would disappear, I'd be more comfortable with waiting for inclusion. But the discussion, both here and at Talk:Melanie Phillips, has seen several editors employing the "throw everything at it and see what sticks" approach, and I find that troubling. Something is sticking now, imo, but that may well change soon enough. In the meantime, I hope that my fellow editors will try to employ a little more precision in their words: the reliability and editorial independence of LGBT-oriented sources are not somehow automatically suspect, but some of the comments I've been reading seem to imply otherwise. I note that the coverage hasn't been very wide period, but if it became widely discussed by numerous reliable LGBT-oriented sources, that should justify inclusion too; it doesn't have to be the Beeb and Reuters. (There was no content worthy of a noticeboard report, and this should have been handled at the article's talk page.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some good points here regarding context, coverage and notability. I agree that simply because an organisation is an advocacy for a particular cause, does not automatically discount its opinion. Nor does a "niched focused" source automatically have questionable reliability in reporting on the organisation. As long as the organisation is notable, and the reader knows, or has clear opportunity to find out, where the award is coming from, they are perfectly capable of deciding themselves whether to disregard it or not. But

secondary sources are always preferable. Consequently I'm still of the opinion that a blanket policy regarding the Stonewall Award is unmerited and unworkable, it should be down to its context within each article. Stonewall is undoubtedly a notable organisation, within its own sphere of concern, and its opinions (and hence awards), are notable, regardless of how negative they may be. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk)

11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we be debating issues of notability here? I agree with Rivertorch that coverage by the BBC or Reuters is not a requirement, but in fact there are plenty of mainstream sources which refer to Stonewall's Bigot of the Year; the lack of such coverage in the case of Melanie Phillips may indicate more about her prominence and currency as a source of news, than it does about the notability of these awards. But if notability is an issue shouldn't it be an issue for

WP:BLP guideline that rules them out? Exok (talk

) 12:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability is an article-wide factor; it doesn't apply to individual facts within an article, for which the issue is sourcing and balancing. Coverage in sectional publications does count as proper sourcing; in this particular case the Pink News article is instructive in that the award to Melanie Phillips heads an article which reports on this years awards generally. Pink News is online only but has proper editorial control and is respected as a news source. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also a niche source with a specific agenda/bias. It covers issues that are of interest to a specific demographic, but might not rise to the level of interest to the wider community. This is not an assault on Pink News because it a paper that targets the GLBT community, but rather because it is a niche source. I'm active in the Poker Project. There are numerous articles published in Card Player Magazine/Bluff Magazine etc that talk about specific politicians/actors and their involvment (pro or con) Poker. But just because The Poker Player Alliance publishes a list every election grading the politicians on their stance towards poker, does not mean that Wikipedia should include those grades in the politicians articles. The poker sources are reliable in the sense that they have editorial oversight, but such inclusion would still be UNDUE because the issue is specific to one advocacy group and not something of interest to the general public. Right now, the Stonewall awards are just that. You have to show me that not only are the Stonewall Awards notable, but that the Bigot of the Year is notable outside of the GLBT community. When non-advocacy groups include it in their coverage/bios, then the notability of the award becomes more apparent. And yes, the barrier for inclusion of this specific award is higher than it might be for another Stonewall Award because it is negative information and unwelcome. Again, when and if this specific award rises to the level that independent reliable sources start covering it, then I would support inclussion. As is, it does not belong.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you even read the articles we're talking about? Here is the BBC covering the 2007 award and the 2009 award in a BBC profile Exok (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

With very great respect, there is no specific need to prove that an issue of specific relevance to one section of society has had coverage in mainstream sources. To take your poker analogy, it would not be justified to add the rating to every single political candidate, but if they singled out particular candidates for being very positive or very negative towards poker, then that might be worthy of note even if no publication not aimed at poker players happened to mention it. I think the term 'niche' is somewhat loaded in this context and best avoided, and you are wrong in saying that Pink News has an 'agenda'. The news coverage is written neutrally. The problem with the approach you outline is that if a journalist were to write many articles in national newspapers which outraged people who like to put traffic cones on their heads, and the Traffic Cone Hat Society Magazine ran an article critical of the articles, it might be said that the national newspaper articles were reasonable to mention because they were general but the fact that they were poorly received was not because it was 'niche'. That would not be balanced per

WP:NPOV. As it happens I can happily produce a number of mentions in straight publications for previous winners of the 'Bigot of the Year award' if that would help. Sam Blacketer (talk

) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone saw this article. Not uber-reliable as sources go, but not chopped liver either. And not pink or lavender or any other color likely to induce panic at the noticeboards. @ Balloonman: There is nothing in policy that requires notability be established "outside of the GLBT community"; WP is written for everyone, including that community. And you're continuing to use imprecise language, such as "niche source". What does that mean, anyway? Who decides whether something is a niche source? Is the Wall Street Journal a niche source because it's written for bankers, corporate executives, and sundry capitalist bigwigs? Is Variety a niche source because it's targeted at entertainment industry insiders? This is neither here nor there, but it may surprise you to know that a sizable number of people who aren't LGBT activists visit sites like Pink News because they're of interest to them. I'll modify the question I asked in a previous post: do you think that "niche content" (however you define it) is content inappropriate for an encyclopedia that "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers"? Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wiki/blog is not a reliable source. Sorry. Never has been. Never will be. Collect (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to know we agree on that much, although I'm not sure what that was in reference to. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's would be sensible if we didn't get too caught up in a concern about this being an "award", and whether this "award" in itself is notable. In essence the "award" is a reflection of Stonewall's opinion of the individual. When given in the right and proper context (which may differ from one article to the next), and phrased to reflect that it is only an opinion, Stonewall's opinion is notable and relevant. The fact that they present it as an "award" shouldn't prevent its inclusion. Many organisations present annual "awards" (positive and negative) in a similar manner. It is just a method of packaging a story in a manner that news media find more attractive than dull press releases. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Not everything a notable group/individual does is by definition notable. Not everything a notable group/individual says is notable. But even when stuff is notable for said group, that does not mean that it is notable for others. For example, the Dixie Chicks made derogatory comments about President Bush. These comments are pivital for the career of the Dixie Chicks, and warrant inclusion in their article. They don't, however, even deserve mentioning on President Bush's article because in the grand scheme of things, the criticism just isn't notable enough. Not everything Stonewall says/does deserves to be included in the articles of those people Stonewall targets. The fact that Stonewall choses to form it's attack in the guise of an award, does not mean that their stance suddenly gains additional credence. The fact that a few articles might mention the award does not mean that coverage is widespread or independent. Similarly, if a conservative/liberal group decided to give awards and chose to attack an opponent via an "award", such an award does not suddenly bestow magical properties of relevance/notablity to the attack/criticism. Sorry, it doesn't happen that way.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The rather strange parallels you draw do the opposite of convincing me - Stonewall is not a poker magazine, still less the Dixie Chicks and Chris Moyles is not President Bush. In any case notability policy works in exactly the opposite way to how you describe it.

WP:BLP guideline that makes mention of the award inappropriate, quite the reverse: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Exok (talk

) 10:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Seggerman

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

This person is not famous or notable enough for inclusion. This article on her is basically her resume and self promotion. Many people have done interesting things in their lives, and in this field, but do they rise to the bar of encyclopedic inclusion? No. The organization she was once head of, Games for Change, DOES merit an article--and has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.130.66 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Small text

Reformatted for display. Dru of Id (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tidied up the text, trimming text not about Seggerman directly. I am not sure that she warrants a Wiki article and perhaps we should propose this article for deletion. --BwB (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

A user keeps adding the following piece, [1] and [2]:

Despite this success, Enya has managed to evade much media attention, little is known of her private life and she is often labelled as 'reclusive',<ref>http://enya.sk/articles/invisible-superstar.htm</ref><ref>http://www.showbiz.ie/news/november00/23-enya02.shtml</ref> though she has denied that she is.<ref>http://www.independent.ie/national-news/enyas-late-late-show-54697.html</ref><ref>http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/why-enyas-ready-to-come-out-of-the-shadows-2647082.html</ref>

The string: Despite this success, Enya has managed to evade much media attention, little is known of her private life and she is often labelled as 'reclusive' is a personal conclusion of the editor who keeps adding this. As such it is original research

05:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I just removed another edit by the same editor: "Enyanomics", based on a blogspot and placed in the lead.

She is unusual in that she has never performed a concert, which has led to music experts coining the word 'Enyanomics', the ability to be successful without touring.<ref>http://www.myobpod.com/blog/post/IN-SEARCH-OF-ENYANOMICS.aspx</ref>

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have also done some editing to the "Personal" section which read like a magazine. I have trimmed some of the fluff. --BwB (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thank you very much. Best of the Season to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Mr. Conlin has been accused of molesting children, probably the most despicable act a human being can commit. However, at this early stage he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and of course, BLP protection. His article discusses an e-mail exchange that Conlin had with another colleague. I removed, as original research, "Nowhere in the e-mail did Conlin specifically deny that the allegations took place". That sentence has now been returned, with a reference. I still believe it constitutes a BLP violation. Presumed innocent, Conlin should not need to "specifically deny" the allegation. This seems to me to be a loaded form of editing. After all, Conlin didn't specifically deny beating his wife or murdering Tupac Shakur either. Am I on the mark here, or am I off base? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern about reporting a negative. At the same time, it has been added back to the article, this time with a source that says precisely that. Given the reports in the media and now in our article, this particular sentence is relatively tame. Generally, people accused of this sort of thing do deny the allegations, and the apparent fact that Conlin has not, has some relevance. Although we do need to protect articles from unsubstantiated allegations, these reports go well beyond that threshold. The long and short of it is I wouldn't remove the assertion from the article myself, but I can understand other editors feeling differently. As an aside, we are not a court of law and are not subject to some of the protections that the legal system provides, although there is certainly some overlap between our BLP policies concerning people accused of crimes and legal doctrines.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• - I made an edit for weight - there are no charges as yet and the reporting imo for a BLP was undue and newsy. I have left some of the detail, but prior to charges imo the weight that I have left is at a maximum. Youreallycan (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Much of what you removed I'm in agreement with (for example, the long e-mail quote and the stuff about Penn State). There's a few bits I'm more ambivalent about, but I don't feel strongly about their removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with undue and newsy, and with your edits. This has unfortunately become quite the norm at Wikipedia. Articles usually return to a more evenly- and accurately-weighted state once the media buzz has died down, but I applaud and support anyone who is helping to make that happen as early as possible and ideally to prevent recentism from getting out of hand in the first place. --87.78.138.72 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We've just had a (deleted) legal threat about this article. "the relevant bits are "There has never ever been any interpol warrant for lupe fuentes, zuleydy vergara or any other alias of my wife.. ... A website like "colombia reports can not be "verifiable" because it is all heresay and gossip, about as credible as tabloid news"

) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Recently I was having coffee with a friend (we are both Vietnam veterans) and he mentioned he was in basic training with William L. Calley at Ft. Bliss, Texas. After the conversation I looked Calley up on Wikipedia and the article states he took basic training at Ft. Benning, Ga. I advised my friend of this and he later produced a basic training "yearbook" that had my friend's photo (along with all the other trainees) and indeed there was a picture of William Calley as a basic trainee. I think Calley was confined to Ft. Benning after My Lai but actually took basic training at Ft. Bliss. Thought you might want to look at this and correct the article if it is in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.45.1 (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We need reliable third party sources to support the text in the article. If you can find a source to show he took training in Ft. Bliss, then please add it. --BwB (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Try "The encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: a political, social, and military history, Volume 1", page 149 in the 2008 edition, by Spencer C. Tucker, with a Google books link here. I think I'll wander over there and add the reference. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Phillips (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mark Phillips was not the producer of Under Attack and I don't think he was 19 at the time. Darlene James was the producer, I was the Production Associate and Mark was the Assistant Producer. Dan Enright was the Executive Producer and David Fine the Executive Associate.

Bill Carney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.121.10 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced. Virtually nothing in the article is sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've pretty much stubbed the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is Bill O'Reilly "widely considered a conservative" ?

Notable and encyclopedic claim on wiki BLP? Then using BLP policy, it should be easy to verify this claim with many reliable sources. I have been unable to find even one reliable source which thinks this claim is notable enough to report. The unreliable internet sources that do mention this claim are copying and using this wiki BLP as a content source. This is probably because when people search Google "Bill O'Reilly conservative", this wiki BLP pops up as #1 match.

Edit history shows that editors have tried over the years to remove this claim or the two footnoted sources which supposedly support this claim. These two sources only describe O'Reilly as a "conservative." One source is written by Howard Kurtz, who openly hates on O'Reilly, and visa versa. The other source is written by a country music reporter and not really relevant on a BLP about a controversial political commentator. The editors who have historically insisted on keeping this content have never discussed the off-point footnoted sources, except to say the source "references that he is a conservative"(27 May, 2010: edit history comment). These two "cover" footnotes give the appearance that this claim is well sourced when trusting readers and editors look at the article w/o reading the sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401124.html http://www.cmt.com/news/articles/1531519/20060510/dixie_chicks.jhtml?headlines=true

It is my opinion that this unverified claim is original research which relies upon great synthesis of two unsupporting sources to push a point of view his detractors believe to be harmful and upsetting to O'Reilly. My internet research shows wikipedia is standing alone in making this unverified claim which I believe violates BLP policy, especially since O'Reilly is registered as an Independent and vehemently objects to being labeled as a conservative or a Republican. --iLyekka (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading your report and those two externals I made an edit to remove the disputed description from the lede - perhaps there is room to add such in the political position section but I saw it as a but undue in the lede. Youreallycan (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit wishy washy on this one. I agree that none of the sources given made anything remotely resembling the removed text. He definitely prefers to call himself an "independent," but he was calling himself this for a long time while he was a registered republican. He only changed his party affiliation when he was called out on it. I really don't care how vehement he is about what he objects to. I'm sure a lot of BLP subjects vehemently object to being called a lot of things that are quite truthful and well documented. And that brings us to the crux. What is considered a

New York Times. The NYT also calls O'Reilly a conservative. Would that work? Sperril (talk

) 20:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources

. If one knows anything about journalism, especially at places of that caliber, one knows how painstakingly multiple layers of editors agonize over such phrasing and distinctions — particularly at the Times, which considers itself (as does countless academic sources) as "the paper of record". Disregarding them would seem indicative of a political bias, or perhaps O'Reilly fannishnes. But no one could objectively consider those two sources as anything but of the highest journalistic caliber.

Sperril is also right that we're here to be objective and accurate, and not write press releases that please the subject.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

@Sperril - "NYT also calls O'Reilly a conservative" - If you have sources please present them for investigation and possible inclusion - I would say without looking at it - not in the lede. The political positions section is the place for all the opining and attributed opinions. Youreallycan (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple to get you started. NYT / NYT2 / Reuters / Or maybe the fact that he's a columnist at Townhall which calls itself, "the fastest growing monthly conservative magazine for politics..."Sperril (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT2 - I am not getting a return for Reilly? Youreallycan (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to read all the way to the bottom of the article portion of the page. Then click on "read more." That is where the article continues. You will find this statement, "On the other hand, several prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, have criticized Mr. Trump for raising questions about it." Sperril (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What? Is someone seriously suggesting that Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly .. ? He appears to be standing as an independent. Youreallycan (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You know there's no actual United States Conservative Party? --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What FormerIP is trying to say is that the lede never claimed he was a Republican. Technically, O'Reilly is correct. He changed his party affiliation after it was pointed out to him that he was an actual registered republican even though he claimed he was an independent. This is already mentioned in the article with sourcing. The problem is that there is no such thing as a card-carrying conservative. But that doesn't mean that the word "conservative" is utterly without meaning. Because there is no way to document his conservatism, we need to rely on reliable sources to use that discriptor. There are indeed some sources that will say he's not a "true conservative" because of one issue or another. But the vast majority of sources that comment on his political leanings say he is a conservative. Sperril (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're talking about this Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)? Of course, he's a conservative. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, has he oft asserted his association to Conservatism in the United States, is it like a self declared association? Youreallycan (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It does appear as if one editor is confusing one's political party or voter-registration choice with one's sociopolitical stance. These are two different things.

Given that we're speaking of a political commentator, it seems very clear his sociopolitical stance is central to his notability. He is a conservative political columnist and that pertinent, simple, factual statement of course belongs in the lead. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sperril's reasoning for inclusion. In American politics, O'Reilly's statement that he's "independent" would generally be taken to mean only that he has no fixed allegiance to a political party, rather than saying that he has no ideological leanings. Nevertheless, if O'Reilly has denied that he's a conservative, such a statement by him could be considered for inclusion in the article (attributed to him, with citation). My offhand reaction is that it would be significant enough to include.

As for Youreallycan's suggestion to relegate the description of him as "conservative" to the political positions section, I got an EC because Tenebrae was posting to the same effect as my comment. I'll add the example that O'Reilly's fellow Fox personality Alan Colmes is identified as a liberal in the first sentence of his bio (although I personally know liberals who would reject that description of him). JamesMLane t c 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

= As per

) 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Describing people does not rely solely on their own opinion of themselves. That would violate

WP:NPOV. O'Reilly describing himself as independent is a self-serving statement. He's a conservative. Everyone knows that, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging around for a time when he admitted it. II | (t - c

) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Admitted...hm, I think there exactly is the issue revealed. This is partisan labelling, thats fine but imo better reported in the political positions section where it can be attributed and where his beliefs can be opined on. Youreallycan (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, conservatism (in the U.S.) is an ideology not a party affiliation. It's not uncommon for political pundits to be defined by their ideologies. In this case, a search of the Proquest newspaper archive for ["bill o'reilly" n/5("conservat*") ] brings up over a thousand reliable sources from around the world who call the subject "conservative". Also, note that the text in questions says he is "widely considered a conservative", not that he is a conservative. It's clearly characterized as an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that, however there is an affiliation and an association with republicans. - Saying that, theres a weight of support from editors more local to the issue than me and additional reliable sources have been presented so I can easily accept the replacement of the disputed content against my bold edit, as has occurred. Youreallycan (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Some commentators here need to read our article Conservative Party of New York State. None of you youngsters apparently remembers Senator James Buckley of New York (Bill's brother) was a Conservative. Today, Sean Hannity is a registered Conservative, another example. O'Reilly registered as independent. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read the discussion. We aren't discussing his party affiliation. We are discussing his political leanings. I am sure everyone here would acknowledge that he is registered as an independent. But that has nothing to do with his political leanings which are most definitely

conservative. Sperril (talk

) 23:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I was being technical about FormerIP's comment about "there is no United States Conservative Party". There is a Conservative Party where Bill O lives, which is New York. And, beginning in 2008, someone founded the American Conservative Party, which doesn't have its own article yet. You are correct of course that the main discussion is about whether the lefties at the NYT and Reuters get to pigeonhole independent Bill. --98.127.4.160 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[According to Wikipedia], American Conservative Party is another name for the American Independent Party.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a failed attempt to link "conservative" to "independent". As they are being discussed in context of O'Reilly, they have no association whatsoever in American politics. People in American who call themselves Independents or register as Independent come from both sides of the political spectrum. When Americans get fed-up with their Democrat and Republican parties, most of them usually decide to label themselves Independent. iLyekka (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, be aware that it is not just the NYT and Reuters who call him conservative. (Since when is Reuters "lefty"?) He has been described the same way by conservative papers such as the

Wall Street Journal, etc., and by libertarian Reason (magazine). Even the ultraconservative John Birch Society's The New American describes him that way.   Will Beback  talk

  00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So this American Independance party is the same as The American Conservative party? - Youreallycan (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The ACP I was talking about is not a re-named splinter group of the AIP, but started new in 2008. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me? This is really up for discussion? Anybody who questions that Bill O'reilly isn't a conservative needs to have their head examined! His being conservative has nothing to do with his party affiliation or lack thereof.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone who knows anything about American politics (and it editing in good faith) would not dispute that O'Reilly is a conservative. Why is this discussion still going on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard not the ANI - its quite usual to just allow further input and not close discussion down. I am still wondering , does he self describe as a conservative in any sources? The assertion that he is a conservative is as User:Will says the label hanging is clearly an opinion and he appears to hold views that are well outside that label. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that the Pope is widely regarded as Catholic, though he self-describes as the Bishop of Rome.

) 00:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think any editor making such a comment as "the lefties at the NYT and Reuters" has an clear ideological bias at odds with what most people would consider mainstream reality. These two sources are two of the most reputable, credible, and objective sources of journalism in the entire world. To work there requires the same amount of skill in that profession as a surgeon needs for the medical field. And a journalist at that extraordinary level of skill does nore let his personal feelings enter into a news story any more than a surgeon lets his personal feelings affect how he's going to operate on a person. I will be generous and say that perhaps it was simply an uninformed comment — I don't know the details of how many professions work, and I may have a misunderstanding of what it means to be a detective, say. But I certainly wouldn't make unfounded accusations about detectives. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The other thing I'm trying to get my head around is why primarily one editor here seems to believe that "conservative" is some sort of insulting label. It's simply a descriptor, and one used by major news organizations whose job it is to describe things accurately and objectively. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to my conclusion that "...his detractors believe (labeling O'Reilly conservative) to be harmful and upsetting to O'Reilly." I personally don't believe labeling someone liberal or conservative is an insult, but I believe O'Reilly's detractors do believe labeling him conservative harms what liberals believe to be his "self-serving"(see II | (t - c) above) attempt to pass himself off as more moderate than he really is, with his goal being to attract more moderate viewers to Fox News and influence their vote. There are many liberal sources claiming Alan Colmes is not a liberal. So he's also a closet conservative, too, who also needs a wiki claim "Colmes is widely considered a conservative" with Country Music Television and HuffingtonPost footnotes as supporting sources. It's not Colmes' actual political positions which cause them to make this claim, but because they believe any liberal who works for Fox News, or is a guest on Fox News, is a traitor to their liberal cause to discredit Fox News and therefore, must be thrown out of the liberal tent. So out the liberal tent Colmes is thrown. And out the liberal tent Juan Williams is thrown. They know any liberal working or guest appearing on Fox contradicts their liberal position that Fox News is exclusively a conservative propaganda network, where liberal opinion is seldom to never broadcast. So, many liberals(not all) have a vested interest in labeling everyone on Fox as a conservative or not a real liberal. The problem with both the extreme left and right is that there will always be people pushing their unverifiable political opinions and beliefs onto those of us caught in the middle.--iLyekka (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Now find some mainstream sources that claim Colmes is not a liberal. We don't use partisan sources. We use

reliable sources. Of course liberal sources will claim Colmes is not a liberal. But I'm willing to bet the New York Times won't make that claim. Sperril (talk

) 04:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're holding journalists in way to high esteem but, other than that, yes. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, certainly, in many cases: There are some terribly unskilled journalists out there, just as in any profession. I agree with you without reservation. But when you get ones that are the equivalent of those snowboarders who do incredible flips in the air and land safely and slush away stylishly — well, I gotta give 'em their due!  :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your naiveté is wonderfully refreshing, Tenebrae. (isn't that Latin for "in the dark"?) I'm afraid your gushing about two left-of-center news organizations provoked me and I just had to respond. No, reality does NOT have a liberal bias. Merry Christmas! Over and out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, unless one has been in or worked in newsrooms, then, with all respect, that person would be the one suffering naivete. I am a journalist — I don't write about politics, just entertainment — and I wouldn't dream of telling someone who's worked in the circus that he doesn't know what the circus is really like. I also wouldn't be quick to throw labels around without objective reliable-source citation. But it's OK. I understand. Conservatives like to say those things, and there's no use getting upset over people doing so. Being a police detective or a professional musician or working in any similar specialty field likewise isn't the way in real life that everybody thinks it is in popular conception. It's all good. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting directly on this dispute, but in Britain we avoid such difficulties between conservatism in general and Conservatism in politics by using the terms 'big C Conservative' for a supporter of the party and 'small c conservative' for one who generally prefers things to be left as they are. It usually seems to work. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I missed the discussion, but I would like to add some comments here and up above. I disputed the claim because I was following Wiki Policies. Everyone does know Wiki Policy does not allow content just because "everyone knows he's a conservative." It is still my opinion that this unverified claim is original research which relies upon great synthesis of two unsupporting sources to push a point of view his detractors believe to be harmful and upsetting to O'Reilly. My conclusion is based on Wiki Policies:

I suppose editors could also find many conservative groups who don't consider O'Reilly a conservative because of his stance on this or that issue. Are editors now expected to start doing original research and use synthesis to make claims in O'Reilly's bio about all the large organized groups where he is "widely not considered a conservative among X religious group, Y conservative cause group, etc, etc" in order to give more balance to the claim he is widely considered a conservative?

One editor reported Google shows 22,700 hits for "conservative Bill O'Reilly". I think these wiki editors are going down a very dark path with their reasoning to keep the claim, because Google shows 31,100,000 hits for "socialist Barack Obama", 34,200,000 hits for "communist Barack Obama" and 8,020,000 hits for "marxist Barack Obama". Wiki claiming "Obama is widely considered a socialist" and then using sources like The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and Country Music Television, acceptable? This violation of Wiki's synthesis of sources policy is a dark path which cannot end well in the long run. If the New York Times or some other reliable source had done the synthesis themselves and reported that "O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative" or "Obama is widely considered a socialist", then that would be good to include on wiki. But right now, it is wiki editors doing original research themselves, then using synthesis to make that claim. The wiki path gets darker!-iLyekka (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, searching google for "socialist Barack Obama" returns 49,100 results. Once you have this, you need to compare it to something like "Democrat Barack Obama" which returns over 3.5 million results. (I think you forgot to include the quotes in your google search.) Calling someone a socialist is a little more problematic because it doesn't fall on a relatively straight line continuum like liberal/conservative. And it certainly isn't absolute like Democrat/Republican. For the same reason, the George W. Bush article doesn't claim he is fascist. Of course liberals will paint Bush as a far right fascist. Of course conservatives will paint Barack Obama as a far left socialist. That's why we use relatively neutral sources such as the New York Times, Reuters, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, et cetera; all of which label Bill O'Reilly as a conservative. (I'm taking someone else's word for the WSJ as they don't make their articles available online for free and I don't have a subscription.) If you can find references in all four of those sources that label Barack Obama as a socialist, (and no, editorials/opinion sections don't count,) you'll have an argument. Sperril (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Obama can be a Democrat and a socialist at the same time. Just like Bush can be a Republican and a facist. Democrats can also be facists. A socialist falls to the far left politcal spectrum line, the same as liberals are on the far left, so I don't see that as being problematic at all.iLyekka (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I did forget the quotes, but the Google hits still returned articles which mostly used "socialist Obama" or "Obama's socialist policies" in reports. Isn't the Howard Kurtz footnote now used to support the O'Reilly claim only Kurtz' opinion expressed in opinion piece? Isn't the Country Music reporter only giving his opinion, since I doubt his editors ever discussed O'Reilly's political leanings? I'm "old-school" and I still have World Book Encyclopedias which never use "widely considered x" in their biographical articles. I really don't care to label anyone's political leanings by using a synthesis of several references because I don't see how that is necessary encyclopedic information, or even possible since there are many different degrees of conservative leaning, from "barely conservative" on one or two issues to "fanatically conservative" on every issue. Colmes and Juan Williams proudly self-describe as liberal. Limbaugh and Hannity proudly self-describe as conservative. Also, just because O'Reilly was a registered Republican does not prove he is a conservative, or how conservative he really is. I have always been a registered Democrat and was very liberal leaning in college. Now I consider myself an Independent, which means I vote for the person I think is best, instead of party or one or two issues. Most people's political leanings change over time and often they don't bother to change their registration because, in many American states, they might not be allowed to vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries if registered as an Independent, which is the case in my state. So if I had a wiki BLP, Wiki editors could try to claim "iLyekka is widely considered a liberal" because of some of his social and military views, and his lifetime registration as a Democrat. Even though I'm factually an unregistered Independent and do not consider myself anywhere inside the liberal tent. IMHO, if wiki editors insist on synthesizing politcal labels, then the language used should be "O'Reilly is a registered Independent who is widely considered to 'lean conservative' on X issue, Y issue and Z issue." or "O'Reilly is a registered Independent who is widely considered to 'lean conservative' on (some - many - most) conservative issues." In O'Reilly's case, "many" would probably be the correct choice, as "most" would be reserved for the most fanantical conservatives, like Pat Robertson. Sources could then verify it is notable to claim he has conservative leanings on X, Y, Z. I think this would be more factually informative for the reader and more encyclopedic in general. Just labeling people with the politically loaded labels "liberal" or "conservative" is not encyclopedic unless the person self-describes as such. In America, these labels are used by many to bash their political opposition. As a personal academic exercise, I might try to see if it is possible to synthesize "Obama is widely considered a socialist." What would be considered reliable European and South American sources on wikipedia? Please reconsider the points I have made. Thanks iLyekka (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that O'Reilly's former Republican registration is evidence of conservatism. There are many actual elected Republicans that are not at all conservative. In fact, if he were still a Republican, you could possibly make an argument that he is a "centrist" Republican. (I would disagree, but it would be arguable nonetheless.) But he is not a Republican. He is an independent. You are looking at sources in a completely backwards manner. To refute the "widely considered conservative" statement you don't need to find other sources that label him as a centrist or liberal. You need to use the same or similar mainstream sources to show that he is referred to as a centrist or liberal about as often as he is called a conservative. This is what we looked at. Does the New York Times call him "centrist" or "liberal" as often as they call him "conservative.?" What about the Washington Times? LA Times? Washington Post? USA Today? CNN? (I would personnaly consider MSNBC biased and Fox News Channel is not neutral as they employ him.) From what we can see, mainstream sources refer to him as a conservative far more often than they do anything else. As far as using foreign sources, please be my guest. But it's going to be an uphill climb to show that Obama is widely considered a Socialist if the majority of the mainstream press in most countries, including the USA, doesn't consistently label him as such. Remember, the article is not stating that O'Reilly is a conservative. It is saying he is "widely considered" a conservative. You also argued that your World Book Encyclopedia would never use "widely considered" in a biographical article. I obviously don't have access to your encyclopedia. I do, however, have access to Encyclopedia Britannica and it has this to say:[3]

Bill O’Reilly, in full William James O’Reilly (born September 10, 1949, New York City, New York, U.S.), American conservative political commentator and television and radio personality, best known for hosting...

So I guess you are right, they don't use "widely considered" either. Sperril (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I do like being right that encyclopedias would never use "widely considered X" because that is not encyclopedic language. You asked: "Does the New York Times call him 'centrist' or 'liberal' as often as they call him 'conservative'?" Let's investigate your belief that they do describe him as 'conservative' often in their news articles. I searched the NYTimes website for "conservative Bill O'Reilly" within All Results Since 1851 and there were 6 hits which I believe are all opinion pieces, not news articles. I then searched for "conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly" within All Results Since 1851 and there were 8 hits which I believe were also all opinion pieces. So I then searched "sexual harassment lawsuit" "Bill O'Reilly", which did return some hard news articles about the BLP, and the NYTimes does not describe him as "conservative" in those hard news articles. Please show me several NYTimes news articles which describe him as "conservative", because the current footnoted NYTimes reference is an opinion article, not a news article. Take a look for yourself. It's currently 3 opinion pieces being footnoted as references to support "widely considered a conservative" on wikipedia. iLyekka (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this suggestion: "Bill O'Reilly is a registered Indepentent who is conservative-leaning on many political issues, with the exceptions being X, Y, Z." and then footnote those exceptions? This is a 100% factual statement which would be impossible for anyone (politcally left or right) to ever successfully dispute, and in America isn't as politically loaded (explained this above) as just labeling him a "conservative". This suggestion also removes the un-encyclopedic language "widely considered" from wikipedia.iLyekka (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

See this material on fringe conspiracy theories allegedly put forth by this Pakistani rock singer, added to the article by a new account. I am concerned that most of the sources being put forth are unacceptable — YouTube videos of interviews with the subject, a blog posting, and a newspaper editorial that makes only brief passing references to the subject, ridiculing his views. One source may possibly be reliable (a video of a TV interview), but it's going to be difficult for most of us to evaluate it since it's in

) 16:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• - I had a look at it. I removed a blogpost external and then another cite the only mentioned the subject once and did not support any of the detail in the recently added contentions addition. That left youtube and one PK external that I was looking at that was looking like a primary and then I was warned about threats on the page so I closed it down and that left the youtube interview upload that is all in Pakistani and was not translated so I have removed it as a care for BLP caution while we discuss it. - I left a note with a link to this discussion, on the article talkpage and a note on the User:Wagen talkpage, the user that is desirous of adding this content to the BLP. - Youreallycan (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• - update - although I left the User:Wagken a link to this discussion and a request for him to discuss here he replaced the disputed content - I have removed it and left him a warning note on his talkpage and reminded him of this discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that the YouTube video seems to be copyvio, it's recording of a TV program.

talk

) 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, although if the translation is available , technically we could add the interview without the copy vio external. Then we would need to considerer issues of weight - he seems to be a notable musician, and (as yet) a completely not notable conspiracy theorist. Clearly some discussion is required prior to insertion. I would suggest to the user that is desirous of its addition to request comment or translation to English from or at the

Wikipedia:WikiProject Urdu - Youreallycan (talk

) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• - Response - Hi. First of all, apologies for adding the section back into the article, I misunderstood that an arbitration process had been opened to discuss the change.

It is absolutely false, and possibly and misleading to say that Tribune article only makes a passing reference to the conspiracy theories. I suggest that the article is read again, it has more than a full paragraph on the topic, and it mentions around 50% of the conspiracy theories which are listed in the disputed wikiepedia edit. To say that the article only makes a passing reference to this topic, makes me doubt the intentions of the person who said that.

Therefore, at least those things mentioned in the Tribune article should be added back into the article, as Tribune is a well known news website related to a few news tv channels and paper newspapers as well.

Express Tribune

is a wikipedia article related to the same source that runs this website.

To confirm the other half of the conspiracy theories not mentioned in the Tribune article, the interview must be watched by an urdu speaker. I'm not sure of what the process for that would be. Perhaps a trusted wikipedia urdu speaker would have to watch the interview? Please let me know of the process. In the meantime, can we agree to add back the items listed on Tribune to the article?

Lastly, I apologize for adding the section back to the article. I hope we can all resolve this in an unbiased fashion. Wagken (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That tribune article is not actually about Azmat and the content about him is Tribune article I mean the songs “Imagine” and “Let it be” were all part of a conspiracy by the wicked West to subjugate us poor things? 440 Hz was the frequency chosen by the Tavistock Institute (which was set up by a member of British royalty!) to tune instruments because this frequency affects the mind? I mean what absolute tripe is this? - seems a bit of an opinionated and editorial to me. The issue is that we need to assess

WP:WEIGHT to this issue - he is a notable musician not a conspiracy theorist. We need to look at context in the interview - and without a translation we can't - please ask at the link I provided for a translation or perhaps they have other reports of his conspiracy theory comments. Are these views he has expressed previously? Youreallycan (talk

) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the person who wrote the article is stating his opinion, however he is also stating that Ali Azmat said those things. I.e if I say "Your shirt is black and I hate black", I'm stating an opinion while at the same time stating a fact, that your shirt is black. In the same way, the article is stating that Ali Azmat said all those things about brainwashing/mass hypnosis, etc. And because the article is on a credible news website, it should be considered a good source.

In order to determine the context, etc, you would indeed need an urdu speaker to listen through the interview. I can't find the link, can you post it again where we can ask for an urdu translation?

He also did this interview though its not on a website well known outside of Pakistan.Wagken (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not clicking on any more external links to do with this - from earlier - try asking here for opinions

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Urdu - Youreallycan (talk

) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Warning. I clicked on the first part of the interview just to see it. It started playing, and in less than a minute, my computer was infected (I have Windows 7 and Firefox). I am posting this message on another computer. I am currently disinfecting my primary computer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

F**k Bb23. Sorry to hear that. Youreallycan (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why that would have happened. I didn't use that link for the interview, I had originally submitted youtube links, but someone else must've changed them and I didn't check. However this link should have the interview hosted clean.Wagken (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The awaz.tv link was added here by another editor. As for the link you provide, I'll pass. It's not that I don't trust you, but I'm a little gun shy at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this link good enough to be an

?

I don't think so and have removed it, but you could always ask this question at

WP:ELN.--Bbb23 (talk

) 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. --BwB (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Windswept House: A Vatican Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sooner or later it had to come here. This book is a novel about satanic rituals taking place in the Vatican. A controversial website run by an anonymous user claiming to be a sedevacantist priest has published a list suppossedly outing the 50+ characters in the book. Editors have twice published the list in its entirety in the article and linked to the real-life priests and bishops they think it is, further going to those people's individual articles and placing the information there. Currently the slambook is in the article's talk section. I am thinking this should be not allowed on 2 grounds, 1. it is potentially libelous information claiming certain people are molesters, devil worshippers, cover-up artists, etc 2. it fails RS as it is a self-published glorified blog by an anonymous source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it's amazing the material has been in the article since day 1, over two years ago. Good job removing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the list from the Talk page (it had no business being there irrespective of the BLP issues). I've removed other material from the article that doesn't belong. I've also reorganized the article somewhat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, every person named in that list had the info linked in their biogtaphical articles roo, I think I've gotten them all removed now, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Must've been a fair amount of work. Post here if you need help keeping the information out. I'm just going to watch the novel article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done. It might be a good idea to check this link every so often to see if the person is re-adding it. Youreallycan (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have most of them watch listed and as they are not what I typically edit, they're a redflag when they hit my list. The anonymous ip put it back in a few yesterday, I reverted and today another editor raised the issue on the talkpage for the book. So I figured I'd need a bigger hammer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

He made the page about himself, so there is not a neutral point of view. There's no reliability since he his not on any other websites, except for the ones that he made of himself. These contain the exact same copy and pasted info. Theres no research on this person since he is not even played on the WBC rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.253.247 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is a mess. I've done just a little clean-up, but, if it's going to be kept, it needs to be rewritten, and it won't be me. It's not clear whether the subject is sufficiently notable. Sports articles are always a problem for me as I don't know enough to determine where the notability threshold is established. I've nominated some in the past and have had little luck with the process. I've added a multiple issues tag, including questioning the subject's notability, and we'll see what happens.

I've posted a message about the article at

the boxing project.--Bbb23 (talk

) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The OP (174.118.253.247) has now vandalized the Nestoropolous page twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added two sources for this article. One (Garfield) devotes the last few pages of his book to de Groot, and I have cited that page range in footnotes on three assertions in the article.

The other source, Middendorp, I found in Google Books; there are numerous hits for de Groot, and large snippets show that there's considerable discussion of him throughout the book, appearing to support a number of the other claims; but I do not have the time to attach specific references to each relevant point, nor am I sure I know how.

I've asked on the Talk page if this is enough verification to warrant removing the banner. Since there are special restrictions on BLPs, I didn't feel bold enough to do it myself. --Thnidu (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss this in

because I have more concerns about this BLP. I have added these links and then removed them:

• News about and interviews with George Maharis from blog Route66news.com:

• Why did George Maharis leave "Route 66"?. Posted 10 July 2006.
• Why did George Maharis leave "Route 66"?—Part 2. Posted 5 September 2006.
• A chat with George Maharis. Posted 17 October 2007.

They are merely blogs; should I add or not add them again? There are blog interviews with George Maharis by Mavarin (one is http://outmavarin.blogspot.com/2010/11/fairness-to-george-part-three.html), so should they be added? --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally we do not use bloggs as sources in Wiki. --BwB (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Includes some BLP issues about another person, and refs which are far from complete as well. This needs more work, alas. Collect (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have appreciated what you have done to this article. However, true, he was in the Playgirl magazine. I'll find reference to that if you don't mind that I add it back. --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have hid the LGBT-related categories, not remove, because third-party and independent sources may not indicate his sexual orientation, regardless of his crimes and his plea to no-contest. Possibly, the blogs may indicate his sexual orientation, but, if I can't add them there, other sources do not. --George Ho (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can reliable sources please be posted here, so editors can review those, and then whatever wording is decided upon can be review here? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever sources you have, post them here, so editors can review. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources that were removed:

• "Actor Suspected Of Sex Perversion", The Gadsden Times (Associated Press): 17, November 22, 1974{{
• "Charge Dropped", The Albany Herald (United Press International): 5A, March 27, 1975

Can anybody find them in the microfilms in the library? --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter Grauman's parents were born in the United States: Jacob Grauman in Louisville Kentucky and Irene Sinsheimer Grauman in Chicago, Illinois. Jacob was my grandfather's older brother and Irene my grandmother's younger sister. My father, Richard Grauman, was Walter's double first cousin.

Signed Ann Grauman Mallow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.218.210 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but we need references for this before adding material to the article. --BwB (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, he has retired. So I must choose either one or another unknown: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1107145/Old-Man-About-The-House-Frail-70s-heart-throb-Richard-OSullivan-looks-unrecognisable.html or http://www.filmdope.com/ActorCredit.aspx?ActorID=13126 or http://www.boyactors.org.uk/actor.php?ref=1247 or http://www.flickr.com/photos/astralglow/5384168796/. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As a public figure that it is clearly possible to get a picture of him and to have it released under a commons compatible license, imo, considering the projects deliberately quite restrictive non free guidelines, none of those pictures fit the bill for non free usage at present in the infobox of his wiki bio. Youreallycan (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

He isn't currently "deceased"; he is living and retired, isn't he? According to

WP:NFC#UUI, I must add a visual of his earliest appearance. If his 1970s image is not early, then I must find something earlier with a very good FUR description. --George Ho (talk

) 11:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there might be a good case for a picture that shows his appearance in a specific show, not in the infobox but in the section that discusses his appearances in that show. Youreallycan (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Richard o'sullivan.jpg has been added in this article. --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Seems policy compliant in regard to non free usage, and reasonable indeed. Youreallycan (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah II of Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Someone bad mouthed the king in the second paragraph of his early life. Please check it out. It is written using English letters but it has a negative meaning in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.173.134 (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this - it has now been fixed. Note that in most cases, you can remove such material yourself - just click Edit at the top of the page. --

talk

) 09:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with this biography of her. Still so many mentions, yet no references except unreliable IMDB. I can't discuss it in its talk page. I hope: it is cleaned up soon. --George Ho (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you can't discuss it (something to do with your block history?), but I've removed a great deal of material from the article. All personal information that we can't even think about using IMDb for. All the theater information (obviously can't be supported by IMDb). A lot of hyperbole and unnecessary detail. Some other miscellaneous unsourced material.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Passing editors keep insisting on adding a birthdate and/or age to this singer's article, without any reliable sources. I keep removing them. What's even funnier, is that nobody editing the article can agree on a birthdate OR an age. It would be helpful if other people could keep an eye on it.

) 19:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demi Moore. Tenebrae (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User SherryNugil is abusing the BLP exception to the 3RR. In Lisi's page SherryNugil is hiding crucial and enormously well documented information about the status of his theory (currently incomplete, not working, and not able to reproduce the known particles, and obviously certainly not a unified theory yet). Xe reverted multiple times even though xe doesn't have any proof of the information being no sourced or POV. In fact all the information is carefully referenced in both Lisi's page and in Lisi's theory's page. It is important, I strongly believe, that a reader arriving to Lisi's page, knows clearly that the theory for which he became famous doesn't work at it's present stage. Even Lisi himself has clearly stated so. There is a suspicion of sock puppetry between User:SherryNugil, who edits only Lisi's page, and user User:Scientryst, who edits only Lisi's theory page. It seems that the two editors are coordinating edits in the two pages to hide and oppose to any piece of information, no matter how unbiased, that isn't supportive of Lisi. Even an admin, watchlisting one of the pages, has expressed the idea that it's Lisi himself or someone close to his ideas to be constantly editing the page in Lisi's favor.

Again, to wrap up, it is important for a reader to also know the critiques to Lisi's theory and the fact that the theory currently doesn't work. SherryNugil attempts to hide this information to Lisi's favor are clearly against the BLP policy. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

User 98.244.54.152 began injecting a large quantity of biased, contentious edits on December 24. Input from other editors would be helpful. --SherryNugil (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What SherryNugil is trying to make look like biased and contentious is actually material extremely well referenced and NPOV. In fact, it's present in Lisi's theory page, and there is lots of independent sources reporting the same information I reported. There is also lots of complaints about the pro-Lisi-ness of Lisi's page in the discussion page. My attempt is simply to show one piece of information in a very clear manner. Which is that Lisi's work is incomplete, and his theory at the current stage is not a successful unification and it can't even reproduce the known particles. Because this is a fact recognized by many physicists and even by Lisi himself, I don't see how inserting this crucial information in Lisi's page can be considered biased. At the contrary, SherryNugil has repeatedly "defended" the page to try to delete any information that show in a clear fashion that Lisi's theory doesn't work. Xe even tries to keep some too technical phrasing for the description of the theory, while doesn't want to help the reader understand that Lisi's attempt has been so far, like many other theories in particle physics, unsuccessful. This is undeniable, well sourced, and should be clearly stated. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Input from admin User:Qwyrxian, that is helping making Lisi's theory page less NPOV and less pro-Lisi, could be useful. Xe was the first one mentioning possible WP:COI and possible WP:UNDUE policies. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute over whether Demi Moore's birth name is Demetria or just Demi. We have several tweets from her verified Twitter feed, saying that she was born Demi and that her name has never been Demetria. See this, this and this. Then we have someone using news articles (which never quotes Demi), saying that her name is Demetria. What I would think has happened, is that Demetria is just a rumor that first spread during the 90s in magazines, and has then been interpreted as fact by other magazines after that. Nymf _hideliho! 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also begun a thread at the Reliable Sources noticeboard asking whether a Twitter feed is a reliable source. For some reason, I think the mainstream press (particularly reliable secondary sources per

WP:RS) are a little more reliable than a Twitter feed. I also have to say I find this episode highly amusing. - Burpelson AFB ✈

21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So why do you suppose that she - over 4 different occasions - has said that her name is not and has never been Demetria? The links are all in the post above. Nymf _hideliho! 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That she said that (which she did not) is not verifiable because you don't have a reliable source. You still need to read

WP:RS. That's ok though, the most important part of youth is learning from your mistakes. - Burpelson AFB ✈

21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are on about. Let me quote the verified Twitter account: "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!". Like I asked you at my talk page, are you going to let the article

stay incorrect due to bureaucracy? Nymf _hideliho!

21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That twitter is verified and she is a reliable source for her middle name. Youreallycan (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Twitter a reliable source? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Verified twitter accounts are primary reliable sources for simple details about living people. Youreallycan (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're really saying a Twitter feed should be accepted over multiple established secondary media sources? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The only accessible support for that other middle name appears to be the People which could easily be incorrect. A dubious middle name, disputed and denied by a living subject is of no added value to a reader as regards her notability and we rather remove it. That feed - is the living person that is the subject of the biography and, although a primary source and we don't allow subjects to write their own articles - something so minor and irrelevant to her notability as a disputed middle names that is clearly not well known or reported even if it was correct, she is a very reliable source about herself. Celebs/notable people often tweet corrections or denials on their twitter feeds when their wikipedia biographies contain false information - If you refuse to remove it as a minimum you should add to the lede that she denies and disputes that was her birth name and add the twitter link to that denial. Youreallycan (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, the fact that it is on Twitter is irrelevant if it can be verified to be her - which it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is a primary source, not a reliable source. Please point to a policy that says verified twitter (or any self published source by a person) is considered a reliable source. (weasel) compromize - State the naeme has been reported to be X by Y, but Demi's twitter has claimed this to be false. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. Demi Moore is the primary source, and where she says it is irrelevant. She is clearly a reliable source for her own name unless and until evidence can be obtained to the contrary: 'reliable sources' get things wrong all the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

She is a primary source. please read

WP:BLPPRIMARY

. In fact, I shall quote the relevant portion. Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As a counter argument, regardless of reliable or not. If demi has expressed a desire to not have that name known

) 22:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Using the subject as a self-published source -

WP:SELFPUB - Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. - seems reasonable to me. You dispute her claim and provide some citations like the People but for the negligible value of the disputed name I think in such a case BLP supports the subjects position. Youreallycan (talk

) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read

Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. And note that this specifically refers to "social networking sites". As for stating her 'legal name', Wikipedia articles aren't legal documents - we shouldn't be implying they are. If someone wishes to add a footnote to the effect that "some sources have claimed her name is Demetria, but she has asserted that this is incorrect", that would probably be acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 22:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Twitter a social networking site? Just sayin... Night Ranger (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Now read the page I linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I did read it. I'm not actually arguing with you. Night Ranger (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a clear example of where
  WP:IAR applies; normally we prefer reliable sources to primary sources, but there is a clear case for an exception here. A verified twitter account is obviously a primary source for her. Is there any obvious reason for her to lie about her name? I can think of a few instances in which an actress might lie, such as about her age and so forth, but there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for her to lie about her birth name. The over-riding principle to Wikipedia is verifiability which doesn't preclude primary sources, and we have a clear opportunity to exercise some discretion and add a verifiable and accurate fact to her biography. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  That's what I think as well, but I got laughed at for thinking so. Either way, I am okay with the current version for now. Nymf _hideliho! 15:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

IAR isn't supposed to be used to circumvent sourcing policy. But there seems to be a compromise getting worked out, which is nice. Night Ranger (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is, but the sources we choose are mostly left to our discretion as editors, as in we don't have a strict hierarchy of sources. Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation of this, but

WP:V doesn't compel us to choose reliable sources over primary sources, it just indicates it as good practice to do so i.e. reliable sources are strongly preferred rather than you must use reliable sources. If the claim is sourced using a primary source then that still actually complies with the policies on sourcing; IAR essentially allows editorial discretion where good practice can be counter-productive. Anyway it's academic now since there seems to have been a compromise. Betty Logan (talk

) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

One more for writing the longer statement: "even though published sources have written that her birth name was originally Demetria[ref][ref][ref], she herself has stated it has always been Demi[ref][ref]." That's even better than just stating either one, otherwise readers will think we don't know about the controversy. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Having two tweets saying essentially the same thing is repetitive and undue weight. --108.21.104.134 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Few points,

1. Even a verified twitter account does not guarantee that the individual tweeting is the verified individual. For instance @50cent is verified as
   Curtis Jackson
   in reality the account the account is run by a Chris Romero. Working on a social media campaign last year, it was revealed to me that this was the case for a number of celebrity accounts that are highly popular and had been influential in a previous successful campaign (revealed by the successful campaigns organiser). It is implied in the media that Moore does handle her account personally but it is not guaranteed and we certainly can't make such an assumption about Moore or any other Tweet as a source. Statements made by twitter accounts may not be reliable, primary, or self asserted.
2. A number of sources (such as this one already cited within the article) make discussion of the contents of her Birth Certificate giving both the "Demetria" name and explaining the reason for the "Guynes" surname on her birth certificate (despite Guynes being her Step rather than Biological father's surname). We presume that Reliable secondary sources have done some fact checking with her certificate before making these claims, but ideally the primary source should be checked and cited to corroborate the secondary sources either asserting Demi, or Demetria. (note it should be cited with the secondary sources not engaging in
   WP:OR
   by citing alone)
3. There are any number of secondary sources out there (mainly from around 2005) which cite Moore's name as coming from a 1960's cosmetic line called "Demetria" (just google)however the occasional one that actually quotes Moore (such as this blog) says "My mother named me Demi – which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up.” it seems discussion of this fact creates the uncertainty - whether Moore has been paraphrased in the past by secondary sources altering it to imply her full name was that of the cosmetic rather than part of.
4. There may be some
   WP:CIRCULAR issues as we first made the claim (unsourced) in May 2003 [4]- This may have come from IMDB but as they don't source and don't keep histories of old biographies we only have the fact that her Bio was linked to IMDB in June 2003 to go on. Archive.org's oldest copy of her biography on IMDB [5]
   dates from 2004 but already has the claim inserted. It's quite possible that from then ownwards our use of "Demetria" has led to it being used in current secondary sources.

All in all the current version is the best way to proceed just now, but we may require improved sourcing to clarify the issue once and for all. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think our current version is silly and a BLP violation to boot. We say "though disputed by Moore,[1] many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria.[2][3][4][5]". That makes it sound like we don't believe her. And having this as the second sentence of her biography gives this total non-issue way too much weight!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly: our policies suck. The whole reason for this argument is that we have a rule saying to prefer secondary sources, and an actual case where we're better off using the primary source. Rules lawyers jump on the rule as written, and quote it saying that we need to follow it. And the system is set up to encourage people to follow the rules, and this encouragement is so strong that anyone who wants to fight a bad rule faces an uphill battle.

(And what's this about IAR not circumventing sourcing policy? IAR circumvents everything except WP:OFFICE.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, does it sound like we don't believe her or does it sound like we can't verify what she says to be true beyond the fact that she has said it. In my personal experience a close relative did not know their own name until they were almost 40 - despite having Passport/Drivers Licence/National Insurance and other forms of ID under the name the believed was their own. While I think that is unlikely in the 10 year older Moore's case, it's certainly not an impossibility. So should we should be verifying the information we present from sources that rigorously check their facts before presenting them or simply present what the individual believes. It has been mentioned further up the discussion that some actresses will actively lie about their ages for example, but where does the line lie if they genuinely believe they are younger than their birth certificates say (and as checked by reliable secondary sources). Should we give a verifiable date or the one insisted upon by the LP? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"What "sources that rigorously check their facts" are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The same sources that are described in

"Identifying Reliable Sources" as having "more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing". This is in comparisons to the issues raised above about the reliability of any comment made on Twitter. Stuart.Jamieson (talk

) 18:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And your evidence that the sources you cite have "checked" any "facts" on the matter of Demi Moore's name comes from where? Nowhere. The only "fact" I can see here is that some people are more willing to parrot 'policy' to justify insinuating that Demi Moore is lying about her own name, than they are to question why this matter is so important to them. Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We aren't here to determine the 'truth' over the matter - and we certainly shouldn't be doing this over minor issues - and breaching

WP:BLP policy in the process. If you seriously believe that the mass media routinely check people's birth certificates before writing about them, you obviously have little understanding of how they actually work. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 20:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't provide any such evidence or make such a claim - my question above was whether we should follow those sources *if* they exist over the claim of the individual. As for the Ad Hominem that I have little understanding of how mass media actually works - you miss my point slightly we do have cases where legal documents for celebrities have been checked and written about - Obama's Birth Certificate, Britney Spear's first marriage certificate, and Aaliyah's Marriage Certificate all come to mind. It's not too much difficulty to check the sources to see if that could be the case. However in the case of Demi it looks like the earliest Demetria claim came from a reference work (Newsmakers 91, Mooney) pu"lished by Gale (Macmillan Reference, and so on) in 1991 - That same reference work identifies that there were conflicting sources about whether her first husband was commonly called Freddy or Rick Moore (obviously both from Fredrick his Birth name[6]) but doesn't raise a similar conflict between Demetria/Demi. The editor who produced that work died a few years later, so isn't personally available to reveal which source/sources she used to state that Demi's birth name was Demetria but the source may exist within the work if a copy can be obtained. From there it is quite likely that his reference work was used by the mass media rather than the certificate directly, but would you claim that such a reference work does not have people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing? You hit the nail on the head - If we are not to determine the 'truth' over the matter and to simply repeat what is verifiable in a consensus of reliable sources then there will be a conflict in any circumstance that a individual disagrees with that consensus. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly how your arguments are based entirely on supposition, guesswork, and a complete disregard for

WP:BLP policy. You seem intent to accuse Demi Moore of lying about her own name, based solely on a source you think "may exist", which the mass media is (according to you) "quite likely" to have referred to, but which self-evidently has not been involved in "checking facts" to the extent you claim. A quick google search reveals sufficient of the Moore bio (which cannot be very long, by the look of it) to learn that it gives her date of birth as "c. 1963" [7] - or do birth certificates not indicate the year of birth? It is entirely possible that later references to Ms Moore's supposed name are derived from this source - one that has been shown not to have done the necessary research. Case closed. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Further evidence on the 'fact checking' involved in the Newsmakers source - other bios are evidently sourced largely from mass-media articles:[8]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Just Wow. I ask a question and you decided I'm making a Claim, I repeat that I'm asking a question and now you've decided I'm raising an argument. You then make a Bad Faith Ad Hominem suggesting I'm Accusing Demi Moore of lying. My question is simply to ensure we are handling the sources correctly and verifiably, I don't believe or am accusing demi of lying and am sure that Demi is her birth name, but would rather have that sourced to something more reliable and verified than a tweet which could come from anyone; head of their fan club, general PR person, hired twitter PR person, Daughter in the same house using the computer, so on and so on (Don't give me that it's a verified twitter account, because I know of verified accounts that at least in the first 3 cases do exist). An official Biography, or direct statement from lawyer or PR company or direct interview are all far more reliable. At roughly the same time as the newsmakers reference, the NYT did a biography asserting Demi as her birth name and that is of equal or better reliability than those asserting Demetria, but I wish to be sure that through strong sourcing this is unlikely to be a point of contention and subject to warring. Debunking the Newsmakers source just suggests that there may be a mass media article out there from the 80's that may equally be reliable but that we don't have easy access to find/check. Honestly we're on the same team here trying to improve the encyclopaedia, I'm not breaching 3RR to insert this non-issue into the lead or anything that breaches WP:BLP like that, I simply asked a question about sourcing weight - there is no need for you to come out all guns blazing against me. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More suppositions and guesswork. Yes, it would be nice to have an 100% reliable source over the matter, but we haven't got one - if you are going to make unsubstantiated claims about who posted the reply on Demi's own certified page, and use that as an excuse to reject an unequivocal statement over the issue. Anyway, this is beside the point. An implication that Demi may be lying about her own name doesn't belong in the article lede, full stop - and that is exactly how this comes across to me. Even if she were lying about it, it wouldn't belong in the lede, unless secondary sources considered it significant. The whole issue has been blown out of proportion by people who seem more concerned with petty arguments over the relative 'reliability' of sources than about the merits of the article - and with a total disregard to

WP:RS that actually indicates that anyone off-Wikipedia cares... AndyTheGrump (talk

) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Still not getting it - I'm not claiming anyone specific posted the reply on Demi's own certified page - I said that because a page is certified does not guarantee that the verified person is controlling it or is making unequivocal statements [9] [10] [11]and it is not reliable as a source other than saying x's twitter account said "". If you want to remove the claim be bold and remove it entirely. By arguing here instead, you are the one making this more of an issue than it actually is. I asked Jimbo a question about sourcing and you have failed to answer that, simply spending the time asserting why you think I believe the claim should be retained (despite me explicitly saying that I don't). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So this isn't about anything other than some abstract question about 'reliable sources' - one that Jimbo is no more entitled to give a 'ruling' over than anyone else? (though he seems to support the position that Demi Moore is most likely a reliable source for her name). I note that once again you aren't addressing the matters of

WP:WEIGHT, and as to why any of this is relevant anyway. Since you don't, I'm going to assume you can't, and assume instead that you aren't actually here to improve the article. Like I said, some people seem more concerned about arguing about abstractions than about improving the encyclopaedia - and there is no reason to provide a forum for their silly games. I didn't bring this bit of nonsense to BLP/N - those wishing to label her a liar did. I think they should get a life... AndyTheGrump (talk

) 07:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not an "abstract question" it's a very specific question on the basis that we currently have 5 sources in the lead of the article for Demi Moore, 4 (a consensus if you will) state Demetria, and 1 (from the unreliable twitter) states Demi (and does so without direct context) neither states a full name "Demi Guynes Kutcher " despite the fact they are being used to support that. So yes it is important we identify a strong reliable source in order to improve this article and a Tweet is not that. Once again I am not addressing the matters of

WP:WEIGHT because I don't believe it is relevant to have the debate about sources in the lead - It just needs a correctly sourced, verifiable name at the top of the article not a debate of what this source or that source has said. The fact you again addressing the weight makes me think you're still implying that I'm trying to get it to stay there - I'm not - go ahead remove it and it won't bother me. However your comments to me (in your edit summary) and to the editors who brought this to wider community attention telling us to "Get a Life" do bother me as they are belittling and uncivil and like your Ad Hominems aren't needed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk

) 10:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We here at Wikipedia should be most interested in reporting accurate, reliable information. Demi Moore has never directly stated that she disputes or refutes any of the interviews she has given in the past 25 years with major, reliable sources such as People magazine and Time, who have listed her name as Demetria Gene Guynes. Her "tweet" on twitter is the first time she has ever been quoted as saying she was born "just Demi". Who knows why her tweet said that? Perhaps someone else is handling her twitter account and accidentally tweeted misinformation. Or maybe she is massaging the truth a bit, as many celebrities do, mis-stating their age or other details... but the fact is, many credible sources over the past 25 years have given her name as Demetria Gene Guynes, and as noted on her "talk page", People magazine in 1996 directly quotes her as giving that as her birth name and relating how her mother came to name her that. Also, Demi lived for some time in Perryopolis, Pennsylvania and attended Frazier High School where she is listed as Demetria Guynes. 68.122.10.149 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You could equally speculate a whole bunch of reasons about People--maybe they changed the name to make the story more interesting, maybe they were just reckless about it because they didn't think it was important enough for anyone to complain about, maybe they were blindly copying another source and attributed it mistakenly. "Perhaps" People is wrong just as "perhaps" she is. You can come up with endless theories about why the BLP subject could be lying about herself, but ultimately we are supposed to give deference to BLP subjects.

"If this totally made up scenario is true, she could be misstating her name" is not a reason not to believe what she says about her name. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Under

WP:BURDEN, I'm sure you can provide evidence of that quote in people? And as for Frazier High School, I can see sources for: Redondo Union High - Demi Guynes, and the nearby Hillcrest jr high - Demi Guynes.facebookSnakkle, The Juggler I can also see another couple of articles talking to school friends, whom identify her as being named Demi Guynes. (The Vallley Independent, 15 NOV 1995 ) so I'm sure you must have a good source to Frazier to show the opposite view?Stuart.Jamieson (talk

) 22:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

- I am not seeing anything

) 22:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

While the sites are unreliable they each present primary sources from "Witnesses" and those sources are presented accurately despite the unreliability of the presentation medium. That said I'm not suggesting that these sources be used on the article - their purpose is to exactly as you say to sow that such sources are weak and educationally worthless and that in order to have a claim taken seriously it will require much more robust and error checked sourcing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I made an edit to remove the disputed detail of limited value from the lede to the early life section where it sits better and imo gets a more correct weight. Youreallycan (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae has reverted - he is the editor that is insistent on keeping the disputed content in the lede. Youreallycan (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a compromise solution by definition is not disputed content. It's a middle ground between two disputed contents. Whether one side or the other, the lead is now POV. And OfftoRioRob a.k.a. Youreallycan has behaved snidely, arrogantly and highhandedly, setting himself up as the sole arbiter of what is educational and what is trivial. Legions of serious biographers consider a person's birth name an important biographical fact. But judging from some of the ignorant comments OfftoRioRob a.k.a. Youreallycan has made, he has no understanding of journalism or of academic research. I'm sure he's never written a book in his life. It pains me that amateurs can have this much control; I wouldn't want an amateur dentist or an amateur pilot or an amateur city planner working in those respective areas.

I'm absolutely sure he'll add yet another sadly immature remark to this discussion. But perhaps at some point when Wikipedia is more established, we'll all have to show credentials to edit and snide amateurs will no longer plague the grownups and the professionals. Perhaps not. We'll see. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:NPA. And the next time there is a discussion on a matter you consider significant, take part in it... AndyTheGrump (talk

) 06:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't scold me. I was taking part in it at Talk:Demi Moore where it's supposed to be. I had no way of knowing this discussion was taking place until it was well far along. I might in turn suggest that a notice should have been placed on the Demi Moore talk page directing users here. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. The article is titled

) 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Aphorisms aside, there is no more "doubt" about this widely and reputably reported fact than there is about anything else we take from People, the Encyclopedia Britannica or other sources. If these sources aren't good enough for this article, how can we justify using them for any article? We don't get to pick and choose when we're going to consider a major journalistic / academic source valid or not. It either is or it isn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Which "widely and reputably reported fact"? That her name is Demetria, or that it is Demitria? Or are you suggesting that it is both? Unless it is, some of the so-called 'reliable sources' are self-evidently wrong. I note too that you have made no comment whatsoever in response to being shown 'reliably sourced' evidence that your sources almost certainly wouldn't have access to Demi's birth certificate, [12] so will have had no chance to determine the 'facts' in any case. Also, read

WP:RS - we do get to 'pick and choose' - or more accurately to judge "whether [the source] is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". Can you explain how a source with no direct access to the relevant material can be a better source for someone's name than the person herself? AndyTheGrump (talk

)

ONE source makes a typo of one letter and it's the end of the world?

You're saying Time Inc. publications and the Encyclopedia Britannica are not reliable sources for a particular statement. You are not the sole arbiter of that. The roughly 100-year history and reputation of Time Inc., just to give one example, is not for you to unilaterally declare invalid. You choose to believe one thing, no matter the mountains of evidence against it.

As I've said repeatedly, but you refuse to acknowledge since it destroys your argument, a birth certificate is not the only way of confirming a fact. Journalists confirm by asking subjects' parents or siblings, for example. I guarantee no Time Inc. reporter — nor the layers of fact-checkers and editors you seem to feel don't exist — would carelessly and unprofessional throw a major fact like that into print without confirmation. Your saying that they would is like your saying a surgeon will operate without washing his hands.

You can shout that all you want, but anyone with the slightest understanding of how the profession actually works would laugh at such a statement. It's distressing to hear someone pontificate about a subject they simply and truly do not understand. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I shouting? No. Am I making unilateral decisions? No. As for "how the profession actually works", there is ample evidence for plagiarism, incompetence, and just plain criminality amongst some journalists (see Leveson Inquiry for how endemic this has been in the UK, for example - and there is no reason to suspect the UK is in any way exceptional in this regard). If you wish to turn this into a crusade to defend the honour of journalists, you are in the wrong place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenerbrae you ought to get off your high pony and stop being so rude and attacking. This is the wiki that anyone can edit. Journo qualifications are not needed to contribute. Youreallycan (talk)

Isn't there a list that memorializes Wikipedia's "Lamest Edit Wars"? Has this dispute risen towards the top yet? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has amply stated, here and elsewhere, his distrust of journalists. That's like someone contributing to a scientific journal and saying he distrusts scientists. If someone is pontificating (and I didn't say "shouting," so so much for accuracy) the equivalent of "surgeons don't ash their hands before operating", aren't we duty-bound to point out that that is not a realistic thing to say? I'm not being rude or attacking by pointing this out, and I find your selectivity troubling: Where were you when he was calling me "moronic" and telling me to "fuck off"? That's strong evidence you don't care about civility; you're just picking on me.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"(and I didn't say "shouting," so so much for accuracy)" Really? See "You can shout that all you want" above. So much for accuracy indeed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And comparing News of the World with Time Inc.? Really? That's like tarring Mayo Clinic surgeons because someone in England commited malpractice. That is just simply not realistic. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was comparing the News of the World (and others - they weren't alone in this) with People, a downmarket 'celebrity' magazine - though I can cite upmarket journalistic shenanigans in the US too if you like. As for "Mayo Clinic surgeons", a quick Google search for mayo clinic malpractice suits reveals 500,000-odd hits. (And before you ask, I don't think much of lawyers either) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not picking on you, you are putting yourself up there - cruising for a bruising as they say. Andy struck his comments , which is something you have singularly failed to do and you continue to be attacking and continue to battlefield- you are now following editors you are in dispute with about this to other articles and escalating there. If I was you I would back off - and consider striking some of your personal comments about other users. Youreallycan (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that he is, showing up at

talk

) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Another unfounded accusation. Look at her editor history. I was editing

Charlize Thereon last month. Look at Nov. 23 and then Nov. 30 on her history, if you don't believe me. That really crosses a line to make such a serious accusation not only without proof, but in a way that her article history immediately refutes. Take back your wikistalking accusation. It is demonstrably, provably untrue. --Tenebrae (talk

) 01:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A look at the summaries in the edit history shows that you accused Yworo of wikistalking you first. [13] So much for accuracy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, and in point of fact, I've been editing the article for over a year, since 20 December 2010 and probably before that but I'm not bothering to look any further. And I'm not going to apologize for or retract something that you intentionally provoked with your edit comment with an at least equally serious unfounded accusation for which you yourself have not apologized or retracted. You want people to play nice? Then don't intentionally provoke them.

talk

) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

An interesting disclaimer

...On the People magazine website: "WE NEITHER ENDORSE NOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OPINION, ADVICE OR STATEMENT ON THE WEB SITE" [14] Is this a reliable source for an assertion that they don't consider their website a reliable source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless. Legal boilerplate to cover user comments. If you think the professionally written online material, much of which also appears in the magazine, isn't edited and fact-checked, that's simply and frankly not true. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll bet you two false accusations and a poodle there is an equivalent statement in the print magazine.

talk

) 02:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an issue handy, so I won't speculate. And we all sign disclaimers before having surgery; that's just legal CYA-ing. That doesn't mean the surgeon doesn't wash his hands. I feel like I'm at meeting of the Flat Earth Society.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the

talk

) 03:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How incredibly sad that he article on Demi Moore now slaps false information right in our faces (stating "she was born Demi Guynes") while throwing out 25 years of history; interviews, published materials, etc., that give her birth name as Demetria Gene Guynes - that have never been disputed or refuted at any time in any way by Ms. Moore - all based on a recent Twitter "tweet" that may or may not have actually been written by Ms. Moore. A giant blow to the reputation of accuracy of this wiki. So..... now, if Eminem tweets he was born Mitchell Mathers not Marshall Mathers, or denies he ever used drugs, will we immediately change his article too? I mean, it's coming straight from him, right? Shouldn't we believe him? And if Jane Fonda tweets that she is actually only 49 years old - should we hurry up and change her article to reflect that? Or if she denies she was really ever married to Ted Turner... should we just go ahead and change her article, as we did with Demi's? What a great way for celebrities to get any information they want into their Wikipedia article, despite the accuracy or non-accuracy of that info... they can all be younger, smarter, erase all questionable past doings just by stating something in a Twitter tweet. By the way, the Wikipedia page on Nicki Minaj states she was born in 1982, per sources, (not People magazine, but TMZ and a police report), even though she personally has stated that she was born in 1984 (which would make her 2 years younger) -- yet we did not change her article to reflect her claim -- so when do we "believe" a celebrity and change their article based on their own word, (Demi) and when do we not (Nicki)? Is this now a new policy that any celebrity can "tweet" information about themselves and Wikipedia will immediately change their article to reflect what they say, throwing away many years of other sources? Or is this a special dispensation for Ms. Moore? Consistency, anyone? 68.122.9.88 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This IP has two edits to the project - this speech here and the same speech duplicated on the Moore talkpage. We don't consider

WP:BLP has existed for quite a while now and yes, we are considering the subjects tweet to have a degree of weight. Youreallycan (talk

) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that shows you don't really read posts in detail.. the posts are not identical, although they make many of the same points. 68.122.9.88 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also "Youreallycan" seems to have a personal vendetta in keeping Demi's article with his edits... he argues for his way without pausing to consider if anyone else's views have merit. It's also not necessary to post immediately after any post I make. 68.122.9.88 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Boring! Comment on content, not people. Nymf _hideliho! 08:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Boring" is a personal comment, not a comment on content, so you broke your own rule. Also it looks like Nymf is a sock account of User:Youreallycan. 68.122.8.196 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted, twice a report that I think (currently as it is not corroborated) violates BLP. [15] I just want to be sure that I am doing the right thing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got my vote. Makes me cringe just to read the source. Such trashy stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur. --BwB (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I could use a hand at the article, I now have a newly registered account that seems hell bent on putting the info in, and it turns out that Laporte is actually separated from his wife, so it is, it seems to me, a non story. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that "single man may be sleeping with his girlfriend" isn't really BLP-worthy. I'll try to keep an eye on it as well. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of material currently being inserted into the article (by

) 15:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone notice how PUFFy this one was? It still has improperly sourced claims etc. apparently made in furtherance of the puffery. Collect (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A "tad" huh? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I left some in it. :) Collect (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Leo Laporte is this guy", then references... Well done though, it needed the cleanup. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

childrens names and disputed wife detail

Hi - there is a case for removing childrens names unless they are a bit well known, which these two don't - also there is clearly a bit of dispute about the wife and him separating, so I think a good solution at this time would be to simply remove - the ending about the wife and children - from -

Formerly of Providence, Rhode Island, as of 2007, he lived in Petaluma, California with his wife Jennifer and two children, Abby and Henry[2]

leaving -

Formerly of Providence, Rhode Island, as of 2007, he lived in Petaluma, California. He has two children.[2] - Youreallycan (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem conceptually with your point about the children (although you're not just removing the names but also the fact that they lived with him), but it's weird to cite to something that says more than our assertion without an obvious reason why. We're also skirting the wife issue based on our knowledge of what other sources say. How about removing the sentence entirely? It's not essential to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that to keeping the disputed wife status and the children's names. We can come back to it when the situation resolves itself and we get additional up to date sources regarding the marriage status. Youreallycan (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected (my request). Would you mind making the change as I'm concerned about the number of edits I've made to the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing dispute about the article section

) 12:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue really hinges on whether the Catholic publications can be used as sources for this sort of material.

WP:RSN, I've edited the section for a few reasons. First, I inserted a date for the archbishop's comments, which, obviously, was needed. Second, I reworded the opening sentence as it didn't really comply with at least some of the sources and it was too official-sounding, like he was seeking some sort of communion ban rather than asking her to stop doing it on her own. Third, the last sentence wasn't really necessary, so I removed it. It was also misleading because it was quoting the pub, not Naumann, yet made it sound like it was quoting Naumann - that kind of thing is always problematic.--Bbb23 (talk

) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. Roscelese cites Catholic publications for other statements in the same article. If she says they are not admissible in this section, I can then take it to the RSN, but so far she is deleting the section on BLP grounds, in relation however to nothing I can find in the section. Esoglou (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes editors will call something a BLP violation when in fact it is not technically a violation but is still problematic from a BLP perspective. Perhaps that's what she meant. Without more explanation from her, it's hard to know. In this particular article, which is inherently controversial given its political/religious content, it's kind of hard to figure why comments from higher-ups in the Catholic church wouldn't be relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't true. I think most of the sources are dodgy, given a stated anti-abortion agenda, but my current objection is to the use of an Operation Rescue press release. Esoglou, it's very dishonest not to mention this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Operation Rescue is not one of the sources, Catholic or secular, cited in the section. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, either, I also don't see any citation to Operation Rescue in the section. You've said the same thing on the article Talk page - why can't you tell us which reference you mean instead of repeating yourself? The only thing I can see that comes close is ChristianNewsWire, but I don't see an obvious connection between that organization and Operation Rescue, which has its own webpage for its own press releases.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

CNW is a press release service. Check out the same press release hosted on their website with Operation Rescue's contact info: [19] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's a little like a jigsaw puzzle, and I'm not sure the source is therefore objectionable, but I've removed it because there are enough other sources anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Would [20] as being specifically written by Naumann not be reasonable as a source for what he specifically wrote - that he asked her not to "present herself" for Communion? It sure does not appear to be a BLP violation as it refers to Naumann's request about her actions - and not making any contentious statement of fact about Sibelius. Collect (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I was unsure what Roscelese meant by CNW. I thought it was a typo for CNS (Catholic News Service), which is a press agency, not a "press release service" and was established by the Bishops Conference, not by Operation Rescue. Bbb23 has understood it to be instead National Catholic Register, a long-standing Catholic newspaper recently bought by EWTN that I don't at all think is a mere "press release service for Operation Rescue", even it if did cite, as I have learned, Christian News Wire, which in turn cited Operation Rescue. (One might as well call the New York Times a press release service for the Holy See, since it sometimes prints the full text of Holy See documents.) While I think Roscelese's reasoning is baseless, I see no reason why she should not be humoured by allowing her allowed (I apologize for my first expression) to remove whichever she chooses. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Collect's suggestion is a good one. I had found on National Catholic Reporter a summary of the information given more fully on Collect's source, but I held off until the question of the alleged Operation Rescue press release was settled. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to cite to the original Naumann source, it should be this one. It's the link at the bottom of the one Collect noted, and it's the original source, whereas the Collect link is subsequent commentary. I don't care much if we use this source (the original), but I do think the information is adequately sourced right now. Nonetheless, if we want to source the May 9 column, I would suggest removing other sources currently in the article that are redundant. Having multiple sources is fine, but we don't need overkill. (As an aside, Esoglou, although I agree that Roscelese has been difficult, the "humoured" comment is unduly patronizing.)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I went to a great deal of trouble yesterday to try to mediate between Esoglou and Roscelese on some of the disagreements they have about this article. I also spent a ton of time meticulously rewording various sections of the article. Unfortunately, although there was a temporary lull, both editors have been butting heads editing the article today. I reverted some slashing to the article done by Roscelese, but she reverted me right back yelling BLP violations. I have made brief comments on my Talk page (Roscelese posted there) and on the article Talk page. In both instances, I said I don't have time to focus on this today. My hope is other editors here will take a look at the issues and try to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the non-free images of this person as "Catwoman" and "Ruth Martin" are allowed, despite her status as living and active? --George Ho (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not what we normally think of as a

WP:BLP issue as such. For what it's worth, though, I could see an argument that the Catwoman image is very different from what we would be able to get as a free image; but I think we can live without the Ruth Martin image, as it seems very similar to the free image we already have in the infobox. --GRuban (talk

) 15:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No not a BLP noticeboard issue. There was another picture question the other day, similar questions would be better asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - I removed both - the one that looks very similar to the infobox is unnecessary to portray her as the likeness is almost similar to the infobox picture and there is no specific additional benefit. The catwoman picture there is currently no non free rationale for the pics usage in her BLP. Youreallycan (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• - edit war over hardcore pornographic movie appearance.

An anonymous user keeps inserting material about a hard core pornographic movie appearance by television presenter Kira Reed. This is usually quickly followed by another anonymous user removing the material. It is likely that one of the editors involved is part of Reed's PR team (see User:AdamC90 and history of article). IMDB confirms Reed's participation in the movie. This likely falls into the category of "things that are true but the subject would rather not have on Wikipedia". I'm tired of seeing this pop up so often on my watchlist, so I'm asking for thoughts on how to resolve this (other than protecting the article). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is never a good enough source for a BLP, and the description of "pornographic" really isn't supported by the IMDB description even if we accepted it as a source in the first place.—Kww(talk) 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

IMDB should never be used as a source for things like birth dates, but as a source for movie appearances, I believe it is generally considered reliable (if not the go-to source). When I first saw the material appear, I checked that it was accurate. It is (see for example this source), so simply removing or demanding a better source it does not seem to be the proper solution here, even if there may be reasons to exclude this type of information. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The AVN review strikes me as being a far more reliable source than IMDB. It makes it clear that the movie is not "adult" in the sense of The Pom Pom Girls, but that "pornographic" is a reasonable descriptive term. I've never been comfortable with people claiming that a source is reliable for some information but not for others. IMDB isn't actually reliable, it's just easy to use.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, I would just add it as a credit to her movie list - scratch that she doesn't have a movie list. As far as it goes, it's not very notable - you have to ask the question - Is it being added purely because it was a real sex scene, even though that fact is not independently citable to a reliable report and the particular movie is not a notable one? Is it her husband in the scene? Youreallycan (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I say nuke the whole article. Its sources are poor and don't really support notability. One of them I can't even read due to the giant AT&T advert placed on top of the text.

talk

) 20:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

note - I just removed it with an edit summary of - (remove - under discussion at the BLP noticeboard - not a reliable source - movie and factoid is not independently notable. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that is helpful. IMDB is a reliable source for confirming movie roles (and we have a better source above). We don't have notability guidelines for facts, just subjects. The fact that Reed performed in hardcore porn is no more or less relevant than the fact that she performed in the softcore porn noted in the article. Are you sure you're not playing "white knight" here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing any sources that assert that the fact that she was in a clip in "Becca" is noteworthy. In a list of all the things she has appeared in I would include it but there is no such list in her article. Those other appearances - are noteworthy imo . The red shoe diaries and the playboy stuff is but there is nothing notable about Becca - so, from the searches I did - reliable sources don't assert noteworthiness to that factoid. Youreallycan (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Porn performers deserve to be treated the same as other BLP subjects. In part, that means that those who are actively involved in the industry and those who are no longer involved in the industry should be treated in similar way. Instead, Wikipiedia editors seem to have a strange Madonna/whore complex wherein the BLPs of those who are active in the industry are full of details and sourcing which we would not allow in any other BLP, while at the same time the BLPs of former porn performers end up being "protected" by those who regard participation in porn as a shameful act which should remain secret. In this case, the participation of Reed in "x-rated" movies is something that would naturally be included in the section about her participation in "r-rated" movies. I didn't come here expecting to find myself arguing for the inclusion of something which I suspect the subject would prefer not to have included, but having looked into it more closely, that's where I am at. Unless someone can offer a more convincing reason, I will include it in the article myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see all that nun and whore stuff as relevant, perhaps to you, my interest is notability and weight. You also say, "something which I suspect the subject would prefer not to have included" - you have no evidence for that. From the videos I have investigated since the topic arose here, the subject is a liberal person and likely cares less about this petty issue. From my investigations, there is nothing independently notable about the "movie" Becca. What are you proposing to add? - Youreallycan (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Anybody noticed that not only does the RHL source give her name as "Kira Reed Lorsch", it also links back to the Wikipedia article. Certainly not an independent source, either.

talk

) 20:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• - In 2010 sometime she married Mr Lorsch, this is something that needs updating with as reliable a source as possible, there is a mention but not reliably sourced - truth is - she is only of low notability really as Yworo pointed out - we will never haver a decent life story about her. Youreallycan (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are much better sources at Google Books, such as Mr. Skin's Skincyclopedia!

talk

) 20:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  72... user made the change soon after this post. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern,

I was looking over the FUMA page and noticed an error. I hope this is the correct place to report it. If not, please accept my apology. I found this under notable alumni, NFL. Mike Quick is/was a 5 time Pro Bowl Wide Receiver, not a Running Back, for the Eagles.

Have a Sonny Day, and Thank-you so much for access to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.244.130 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture associated with this article is not Tommy Morrison the boxer. The boxer is a caucasian man with curly dirty blond hair.

I love wikipedia Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.235.41 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison is 42 years old and has had a tough life, to say the least. If you will enter his name into Google Images, you will see dozens of photos that show how he's changed and aged. It seems plausible to me that the photo in our article is actually him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos on his personal website show a range of appearances over the years. It appears that the curly blonde hair is gone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo in the article is a poor one, but comparing to some other ones (like this one), it's fairly clear that it's the same guy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

I have occasionally wondered about this (principle, I mean, not this photo). Why do we allow images with no

reliable source to back them up, when we wouldn't allow arguments like "It seems plausible to me" for written content? Cusop Dingle (talk

) 19:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos are content. If there's reason to challenge it, it should be removed. However, it's pretty clear that this is him. The info at Commons indicates that the photo was taken at the Chiller Theater on April 30, and this photo ID'd as Morrison and wearing the same clothing appears there. It's just this is poor quality photo, but it's still better than nothing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Issue

Edit undone due to lack of source. Source provided. Edit undone on what would seem to be a dubious accusation of BLP violation.

Background.

The article on Catholic theologican and activist Joan Chittister has been the site of edit wars which centre on Chittister's conflicts with the Catholic Church and her controversial views on a range of issues, and which took place apparently between her critics and "Joan Chittister's office" [[21]]. In the end the "criticisms" category proved so troublesome that although there is probably reasonable cause to include one (much of Chittister's noteworthiness arising from the publicised controversies and conflicts) the category was completely removed. The article as when I arrived at it thus made no references to this very significant aspect of her noteworthiness. Not wanting to re-ignite an edit war by contributing or reinstating the "Controversies" section, I expanded the opening line from

1. "Sister Joan D. Chittister, O.S.B., (born April 26, 1936) is a
   Benedictine
   nun, author and speaker."

to

1. "Sister Joan D. Chittister, O.S.B., (born April 26, 1936) is a heretical
   Benedictine
   nun, author and speaker."

and when it was reverted for lack of sources, to

1. "Sister Joan D. Chittister, O.S.B., (born April 26, 1936) is a heretical
   Benedictine nun^[2], author^[3] and speaker^[4]
   ."

which was reverted for ostensible BLP violation to

1. Sister Joan D. Chittister, O.S.B., (born April 26, 1936) is a
   Benedictine nun^[2], author^[3] and speaker^[4]
   .

Case for Reinstatement (mostly yanked from Talk:Joan_Chittister)

Describing Joan Chittister as a "a heretical[1] Benedictine nun[2], author[3] and speaker[4]" seems to meet the standards for objectivity and neutrality, whilst avoiding giving a battleground for the biases of different groups. Reverting it on a BLP violation seems unreasonable, given that:

• The original revert was because there were no proper sources, then a proper source [[22]] was supplied from the subject's own body of work.
• There had previously been an entire category representing the importance of her controversial opposition to certain Catholic teachings.

In light of this, categorisation of her as a heretical nun would seem to be the most delicate way of skirting the need for a category detailing the various criticisms and controversies surrounding her work.

"Heretical" used to be taken as applying to anyone who was a dissident, even a political one or a social one, but the definition has been very much

and deprived of its vague and pejorative meaning.

"Only a belief that directly contravenes an Article of Faith, or that has been explicitly rejected by the Church, is labelled as actual "heresy."" From Wiki

The most minimalist understanding of Articles of Faith would bypass all Ecumenical Councils and Papal Encyclicals and be limited to the Nicene Creed, which makes frequent and heavy masculine references to God of the kind that Chittister wrote against in the source I provided. Beyond this, the source provided contains numerous instances of Chittister's beliefs as contrary to principles of and facts about the Catholic Church.

• Suggesting that Friday Abstinence is no longer recommended.
• Suggesting that the Sunday Obligation no longer stands.
• Asserting that the Church understands "multis" to mean "all" not "many".
• Asserting that liturgical style represents schismatic division.

And there are myriad sources for

• Asserting that women priests exist, though Ordinatio Sacerdotalis demonstrates the Catholic position.

Consequently, rather raking over all the controversies and conflicts that caused so much trouble in the history of the article, it seems much more diplomatic to just acknowledge them in objective terms and save everyone from inevitable edit-wars over a "Criticisms" category. Such a category could of course be valuable, but it didn't work in the past, and I doubt Chittister's office would agree to its reinstatement, so this seems a tame but reasonable compromise that is in line with BLP guidelines, source requirements, and objectivity standards.

Thoughts?

My reaction is you're going to have nothing but problems trying to put the label of "heretic" in the lead and that you should give it up. It's a charged word that requires explanation and means different things in different contexts. It sounds like you are trying to use the Church's meaning of the word, which isn't necessarily relevant. I also agree with

WP:SYNTHESIS and is not acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk

) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23 here. Do not put this point in the lead, but you can bring our her "heretical" ideas in the body of the article. But if you cannot find a source that specifically refers to her as a "heretic", then the tern cannot be used. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above, the use of the term "heretical", while probably justifiable from an orthodox Catholic POV, it far too loaded in the way you're using it. Find a less pejorative term (like "controversial", or explain exactly why some apply that label to her in the prose of the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

Agreed, "heretical" is not different from any other description. If challenged, and it certainly has been, you need

an inline citation that directly supports the material. In this case, if you mean "heretical" in the sense of "formally declared a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church" (or whoever), then find a source to cite that records that. If you mean "holding opinions at variance with the mainstream of Roman Catholic opinion", then say "controversial", or "dissident", or "minority", and find a source to cite that records that. And so on. Cusop Dingle (talk

) 19:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Romy Haag

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

Can someone tidy this article and possibly remove some revisions? I'm concerned about the BLP issues of giving the unreferenced birth, name details of her family etc. Leaving these in the history just seems to have them added back every so often.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article somewhat. We are lacking sources for much of the text. --BwB (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

There is a slow motion edit war going on over whether to include early assessments of Burnett's show on CNN, which first went on the air back in October. Burnett is a figure which most left and some center media dislike intensely (e.g. [23] from Salon including her in a list of "hacks"). Besides the basic facts of her career, the article tends to attract blow-by-blow addition of every thing she said to which someone out there took offense. It seems hard to justify enumerating these over the long haul because I'm guessing that most of them will be forgotten soon enough. Now the fight has moved to inclusion of ratings numbers from the first couple of outings of her new CNN show. These have been repeatedly removed by one set of people as violating

, and then re-added by a second set, accompanied by accusations that the removers are trying to cover up her bad performance (and the ratings for the first few shows were by any standard not impressive). Both sides have something of a point, though I think the NOTNEWS people have a better argument two months down the road. There is a lack of engagement on the issue.

I have a COI on this, so I don't feel I can try to mediate the dispute. I didn't find a lot of good sources assessing her recent performance or her career as a whole, but I didn't try that hard either. But I would like some verification of whether my concerns here are justified. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed one duplicate ref from her "controversies" section, one ref which did not remotely support the claims made, and made the words of the claims actually comport with the refs given. Now to work on the rest of the misch-masch present in that BLP. Company is welcomed. Collect (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and am proposing a re-write (well, really a re-organization) of about the last third or so of the article. See

^{✩ STARRY NIGHT}

18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change a little sooner that planned so as not to affect any positive edits that might have occurred in the meantime. Quinn

^{✩ STARRY NIGHT}

19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:58.175.246.184 has been vandalizing BLPs such as Sheila Jeffreys[24] and Jessica Valenti[25] with links to attack pages. He previously did the same to Amanda Marcotte[26][27] as User:58.175.246.179, and there are many more with the same URL.[28][29]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

avoiceformen.com is now blacklisted. ~

talk

) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Subject appears to be a self-published interviewer. Article gives false impression that he has a television program called "The Bottom Line", but any such "program" seems to be limited to the subject's own website, which sells his video podcasts. Of more concern is the fact that the article appears to be used as a

) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He did have two amusing interviews that got some media attention: Harry Reid making questionable statements on taxation and one with Pete Stark who threatened to throw him out the window. He's actually a rather subdued Borat type. I know I saw one of them widely discussed at some point. Obviously of questionable notability, but amusing. CarolMooreDC 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I don't dispute he is amusing. Even if he were notable, we shouldn't be using the article as a coatrack for promoting his views, though.

talk

) 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The only reliably sourced facts in this article are negative. The subject appears only to be notable as New York's "Village Idiot" (he was called this by the

) 22:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy just needs a facebook page not a wikipedia biography 'imo' -- I would stub it or delete it, but you better get the opinion of someone from New York City - Youreallycan (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I had to use extreme will power to hit the "D" key rather than the "m" key in the last sentence of my comment. :-) Yeah, let's see if someone from the Big Apple has an opinion on this...

talk

) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mepuffed a tad. And non-notable works by a non-notable person are not notable enough to be itemized. Collect (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been speedied twice already. I'm for flicking the switch on it again, now. If anyone protests we can undelete and go to AFD. Any objections?--Scott Mac 23:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Throw a handful of

salt at it. Youreallycan (talk

) 23:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. I just depuffed the last claim, his song reached the top 100 on the iTunes Spoken Word charts?

talk

) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gone - A7. I will back up if any regular user challenges it.--Scott Mac 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• note - there is this related report - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User threatening to keep on disrupting

• - Holocaust deniers and the French far right

There are attempts by some people to minimize the importance of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala's close ties to people like Robert Faurisson and Jean-Marie Le Pen. However, these are more than well documented:

• http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolocaustDenial_83/5429_83.htm

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4001332/French-comedian-gives-award-to-Holocaust-denier.html

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/outrage-at-french-comicrsquos-award-for-holocaust-denier-1214725.html

• http://thejewishchronicle.org/view/full_story/2424137/article-When-is-anti-Zionism-no-longer-funny-in-France--Ask-Dieudonne-

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/only-in-france-the-black-antisemitic-comedian-at-a-rally-of-le-pens-far-right-424947.html

and these are only links to sources in English. Don't get me started with sources in French. Oh, do get me started, if you wish... Cheers, --Insert coins (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• note - there has been a bit of an edit war and the article has been fully protected for three days. Users wanting to investigate and opine will need to refer to the recent edit history. - It would help if whoever is wanting to make an edit would present it here for investigation. Or please specify what is the actual desire of this report? Youreallycan (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The actual desire is to show that some administrators, like bobrayner (talk · contribs), have acted quite unreasonably when they have shot the messenger on the topic of some people removing references to Dieudonné M'bala M'bala being close to the political far right and a genuine associate of convicted Holocaust deniers. The actual desire is to show and prove that administrators like bobrayner are wrong in giving these removers of valid and factual information a helping hand. --Insert coins (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We are here to discuss content only - please take any objections you have about editors or admins actions to the relevant noticeboard. What is it that you want to add, that he is an associate of John and Harry? What section do you want to add your desired addition to? Please present your desired addition here for discussion , please include the citations you want to support it with. Please consider reading/re-reading

WP:BLP policy prior to posting your desired addition, so as to get it as policy compliant as possible, thanks - Youreallycan (talk

) 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(Back after a break). Sorry. I'll say what I want in a few words, that will be easier. I would like the introduction of the article being put back into its previous state (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dieudonn%C3%A9_M%27bala_M%27bala&diff=prev&oldid=468051036), on account of the association with "John" and "Harry" being a defining trait of the article's subject, as per the many sources I provided. These could/should be added to the article's introduction as well. Thank you!.--Insert coins (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this. It seems obvious to me that administrators have rushed to the wrong conclusion here. There is a long-running campaign to "clean up" this article by supporters of its subject. It is a matter of record that Dieudonné has all but scuppered his own show-biz career and is now known primarily as an unhinged and extremist political campaigner. Besides Le Pen, he is also a friend of the terrorist Carlos... [30] It is hardly a character assassination to mention all this in the intro. That is the public image that Dieudonné cultivates. Mezigue (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A note Mezique, well to both of you really - It is clear you both strongly dislike the subject of this article; that is not illegal here, personally I would ask you both to just stop editing it, you have both expressed strong opinions anti the person. Saying that, during this discussion at BLP noticeboard do not comment in an attacking way about this living person - continuing to refer to him as "unhinged" and similar will not be tolerated here, please lets keep it clean, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider both the warning and the advice to be unwarranted. I have discussed the issue dispassionately and provided facts, and I always strive to edit in a manner consistent with Wikipedia rules. In the case of this article, you can see here that I have stopped PoV-pushing from whatever side/angle it comes from. I will continue to do so. Mezigue (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome to ignore whatever you want, however, if you continue to opine in any way here in a derogatory manner regarding this living person, I will report you and request restriction of your editing privilages. Youreallycan (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a "friend" of Le Pen and Carlos is not notable for the lede imo. The other side of the coin has some support as well , that recently there has been a concerted effort to portray the subject unduly and that users have been coming to re balance the NPOV of the article up. It is always the case that if you create a POV article other users come to NPOV it back up. An NPOV article is a stable article. These is just a little too much vagueness in that version of the lede. Like, describing him as "now politically far right" is that something he has said? You have sources that you want to use to support it, if you can lay out here your desired addition to clarify self declared positions from the subject and the attributed opinions of others and the specific points that your citations support so that interested users can investigate, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so here is a draft of the lede/intro, as it should be written IMO. Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, simply known as Dieudonné (insert date and place of birth), is a French comedian, actor and political activist of Cameroonian and Breton descent. As a comedian, he became famous in his duo act with fellow comedian and actor Elie Semoun, both on stage, television and film. Parallel to pursuing a solo career as a showman owning his own theater in Paris [is all detailled in the article], he has developped an intense political activity, culminating in his standing for elections in 1997, 2004 and 2009, and unsuccesful attempts to run in 2002 and 2007 as well as his launching of his own party, the Parti anti-sioniste (anti-zionist party) [everything described in full detail in the article]. Due to his controversial statements and his many convictions for defamation and hate speech [detailled list is part of the article], his political positions have increasingly shaped the public perception of his persona, both in France and abroad [insert here the 5 links provided above]--Insert coins (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't put ethnicity in the lede like that - also you are removing this "claims to be leading a 'justified fight' against Zionism, and Israel which he deems racist and oppressive.[1]" which appears to be a well known citable notable primary position of his, why is that? Youreallycan (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This also "Due to his controversial statements and his many convictions for defamation and hate speech [detailled list is part of the article], his political positions have increasingly shaped the public perception of his persona, both in France and abroad" - is far too vague and unattributed/able to be in the lede. Due to.. and the public perception of his persona and he has developped an intense political activity, culminating in etc. Such opining belongs in the body of the article where it can be correctly attributed and rebuttals added. Youreallycan (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I do assume your good faith, so you should assume mine. There is a simple answer to your question "why is that?", and it is spelt out in what I wrote: "here is a draft".--Insert coins (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A draft is a starting point to seek talkpage consensus - not a solution to an edit war for which a BLP has needed to be fully protected from. I think from the discussion here we can assert that there is no consensus for your desired alterations and that after the article is unprotected attempts to replace them without talkpage consensus will be a return to the previous edit war. Youreallycan (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Joan Chittister (10 July 2007). "Coming soon to a church near you". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved 2011-12-26.
2. ^ ^{a b} "The Heart of the Rule of Benedict with Joan Chittister". Retrieved 2010-12-26.
3. ^ ^{a b} "NCR Author Profile". NCR. 2010-07-22. Retrieved 2010-12-26.
4. ^ ^{a b} "Asia Pacific Breakthrough - Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B." Vimeo. 2010-07-22. Retrieved 2010-12-26.