Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive154

Going through the cites in the article, I'd say he's notable. He's a historian whose specialization within American religious history is the history of the Mormon church. He's director of the Publications Division within a religions' official historical body. His book Liberty to the Downtrodden published by Yale University Press (2009) won the 2010 Mormon History Association Best Book Award, and the biographical book Parley P. Pratt by Oxford University Press (2011) won the 2011 Association for Mormon Letters (AML) award. Both associations are independent third-party orgs. He's had multiple works published by top-tier university presses.

Applying WP:Professor "person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", or WP:Author "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" and "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews" not to mention GNG, he'd reasonably be held to qualify. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking up the "innumerable" journals: Googlescholar finds only two of his articles cited by anyone at all (one article is cited by 4, another by 2). Far from "innumerable" this is a minor author at best. He appears in absolutely zero instances in the NYT. No academic notability, as he appears to be an "Assistant Professor at the University of Southern Indiana " only ([11]). Wikipedia does not accept that title as conferring notability. And yes,

Although, the later (2011) journal cite [12] in the article refers to him as "former professor" (no "Assistant") of history at least. When I search on: review "Liberty to the Downtrodden", in googlescholar it does return results including refs to it in other works. Innumerable no, multiple seemingly. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• cmt - I was referring to innumerable reviews of his books (which have won several awards between the two). In any case, the subject's middle initial is J. As researchers here may be aware, academics often use somewhat more-complete versions of their names. (Using that monicker, I retrieved 7,840 Google Books hits and 53 Google Scholar hits.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I suggest you look at the google results -- after the frst few we get books like [13] etc. With not a single mention of Matthew Grow therein. In fact, no apparent mention of Grow after the first 22 books -- not 7,840. Shows the weakness of a google search, to be sure, and even more the weakness of thinking a high google count means anything at all. Ditto the scholar results -- the 53 is a bit of an exaggeration if we seek to see of his woprk was cited by scholars. Sorry -- try to find actual notability for the guy instead of making me thingk he is even less notable than I posited. Collect (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Collect, at this point I recommend you open an AfD on the article if you still believe the subject does not meet the requirements of our Notability guidelines. Thanks, 92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

This article falsely claims that I was fired from my job at The New Republic and otherwise distorts the details of my career. It is clearly not intended as an objective presentation but the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.49.173 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've butchered some of the early parts of this article, including the lead, as obviously mis-using sources, and biased or misleading sources. Needs more work on the later parts from "Controversies" onwards - and perhaps more work on the whole. --

talk

) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is false -- and unsourced here -- that Marty Peretz privately blamed Charles Lane for Steve Glass's fabrications. It is also false that Lane wrote disparagingly about obese people, or that he faced criticism for doing so, other than a single erroneous column in the City Paper of Washington DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.49.173 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the stuff about Glass out of the lede of Lane's bio. --

Mollskman (talk

) 13:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The BLP grossly abused the sources which made clear that Lane was the "cleaner-upper" who got rid of Glass -- and in no way the one who was involved otherwise. The other bits also editorialised contrary to what the actual sources said - and should be chastised therefor. I did leave in the blogger saying Lane should "chuck off" as it indicated the level of source used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

This article is being repeatedly vandalised by having verifiable factual content deleted and links to blog opinion inserted. Maherus (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That whole paragraph was not properly sourced (your own version was no better). I've removed it; I anticipate problems will recur and it would help if others watchlisted it as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cogent Benger is a reputable documentary maker, but references to their programme about Sogyal Rinpoche are being repeatedly deleted. Maherus (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can other editors look at the refs in this diff and indicate whether they think they meet

Press releases from the documentary producer are not "best evidence". Wikipedia says that we should prefer a secondary source for what is in the documentary, or (for precise claims) a transcript of the documentary. Because this is a "contentious claim about a living person", we should err on the side of caution, and require very strong sourcing. Collect (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Alive (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several months ago I tried to correctly edit the cast sub-section of this film, but was informed that my edits were unsubstantiated, despite the fact that on a Wikipedia page of the actor in dispute (Miguel Ferrer) confirms my original edit. Under the page for this film, Alive, you have John Malchovich listed as the Narrator (Uncredited) On the wiki page for Miguel Ferrer, he is listed as the uncredited narrator of this film (See filmography" Both articles cannot be true; one has to be wrong. According to the DVD that I just watched, it is in fact, Miguel Ferrer who was the uncredited narrator--NOT John Malchovich. The fact that the IMDB also lists John Malchovich as the narrator, just shows that their source is not an accurate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytimeistoday (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's Malkovich. See this issue of the Film Journal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Hello, there are two minor errors that warrant correction in the

1. Update the first sentence of the intro paragraph to read as: "Howard Fineman is an American journalist who is editorial director of the

AOL Huffington Post Media Group.(citing this source)" Reasoning: The current version is simply outdated, as it uses a prior title of "senior politics editor." The subject of this article is currently "editorial director" as shown here

.

2. In paragraph two of the Education and early career section, remove the phrase "a practicing Jew" due to inaccuracy and unverifiability. Reasoning: The Wikipedian who wrote this sentence seems to have made an honest mistake in describing the subject as "a practicing Jew," as this is not correct (nor is it verifiable in reliable sources). They seem to have misread the source cited, jweekly.com, which states that "He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University"; however the source never actually describes Fineman as "a practicing Jew."

Thanks for your help. If any further sources are needed to justify the changes suggested above, please let me know and I'd be happy to provide those. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that an editor from the WP:HELP IRC live chat was able to make these two changes, so this request has been handled. If anyone has additional feedback on these changes, though, I am more than open to it. Thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—While it is true that the source you cite above would not seem to support a term such as "practicing Jew", it would be a source that would support that Howard Fineman is Jewish. We find at that source:

• "But Yiddishkeit and lively discussions at the dinner table ruled. 'There's a direct line from my table to 'Hardball,' Fineman notes. 'My dad was like Chris Matthews because he would both ask and answer his own questions."

• "His parents, both teachers, also taught Sunday school at the local synagogue where Fineman was bar mitzvahed. He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University.

• "While there, he earned a postgraduate fellowship, for which he undertook what he calls his 'kosher roots project. I bought a VW bus and went to Jewish places in the Old Country, then to Israel for three months. I recapitulated Jewish history.'"

• "Fineman says America has proven a uniquely hospitable home for Jews because of the nature of its founding."

• "'That, plus the innate philo-Semitism of the founders, who analogized their situation to the Jews of the Old Testament, makes the country unique.'"

I would suggest that we have support in the above source for our article to be saying that Howard Fineman is Jewish. I am saying that this edit has removed too much material insofar as it has also removed that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored that Fineman is Jewish while leaving out the term "practicing" which may not be supportable by that source. I have done that in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this so thoroughly. I submit that we take a closer look at the phrase "who is Jewish."

While

The spirit of

Based on these factors, it does not seem to be fitting to speculate that the subject of this article "is Jewish." Bus stop, what are your thoughts on this? Could a few others could weigh in as well, in order to help establish consensus? Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—do you mean to say that despite the assertion supported by a reliable source that Howard Fineman was

bar mitzvahed we still may not have adequate justification for saying in our article that Fineman is Jewish? Bus stop (talk

) 13:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the prompt response--much appreciated. Yes, that is my suggestion. As I mentioned above, I happen to work with Howard Fineman--which is why I've posed this question for the community to decide on (as I'm cognizant of

WP:COI

, and therefore will only make grammatical/minor direct edits myself). Howard asked why the article describes him as being Jewish, given the fact that his religion is not related to his notability, and as an adult he has not self-identified as being Jewish.

Would it be helpful if I asked Mr. Fineman to submit an OTRS ticket or something of that nature to help provide clarification? I wouldn't think that would be necessary, but if it would be of help, I'd be happy to look into doing so. Thanks to Bus stop and others for discussing this so constructively. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—the article supporting that Howard Fineman is Jewish is published in April 2008. Can you please tell me what has transpired in the intervening 4 years to cause us to reassess the applicability of this attribute vis-a-vis Howard Fineman? If I am asking something improper I hope other, more knowledgeable editors will jump in and shed the light of some policy considerations on this situation. I am in personally uncharted territory as a Wikipedian here, and I don't want to make any faux pas or worse in my line of questioning. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past four years, the

WP:BLP standards regarding categorization have been materially changed, as I am sure you recall through discussions on this very board in which you have participated. A clear reading of the article you give allows the assertion that he was "bar mitzvahed" but not that he self-identifies (current tense) as Jewish. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect—I understand your concern with

verification. While I did not add the source to the article, I feel it adequately supports that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk

) 12:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I removed the category "Jewish American writers", in case you missed my edit on that BLP. I also made the edit wherein you labelled him as Jewish to "raised in a Jewish family" as being both accurate and supportable by the source. Cheers. (this post was written while B.S. removed his comments about "categories" being not an issue here) Collect (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is helpful that several are weighing in, as this will help in establishing consensus on what is, naturally, a complex topic. "Raised in a Jewish family" seems accurate. The only question that remains is, doesn't this sentence sound a bit odd with the religious background inserted into it? It now reads:

"Fineman, who was raised in a Jewish family,[4] began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics..."

His first journalism work involved writing for this regional newspaper about state politics and the environment, but neither these subjects, nor the paper itself or his journalism career are tied to the religion of his parents.

For instance, the article about

Since Howard Fineman is notable as a political journalist and this notability is not tied to his religious beliefs, what are your thoughts on revising this content to a state where it does not include the religious qualifiers? Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—why not just break into separate sentences? For instance: "A native of Pittsburgh, Fineman attended Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1966.[3] Fineman was raised in a Jewish family.[4] He began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics before joining the newspaper’s Washington bureau in 1978."

It presently reads: "A native of Pittsburgh, Fineman attended Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1966.[3] Fineman, who was raised in a Jewish family,[4] began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics before joining the newspaper’s Washington bureau in 1978." Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Settled, I trust. Collect (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The separate sentence helps, but it is still confusing that the article mentions that he was raised in a Jewish family at all. Given that it does not have anything to do with his reason for notability, is there a reason why should it be included? Shouldn't the article follow the same conventions that the article about Josh Weinstein does, for the reasons cited above? Thanks for continuing this discussion so objectively--I appreciate the constructive responses that Bus stop and Collect have contributed. Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—I think one article bears less than perfect correlation to another article. Would you agree with that, to an extent? Nevertheless let me ask you, have you encountered any source saying that the

notable individual you refer to—Josh Weinstein—either is Jewish or was raised in a Jewish family? Bus stop (talk

) 03:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is biographically relevant - it's a biography, and in a complete biography we discuss things that are of note to someone's life, career, and times - who their parents were, where they were born, their siblings, spouse, and so on. If a person's cultural or religious upbringing (or, frankly, most any part of their upbringing) seems to be significant to their life story then it improves the article to give it due weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While it was not initially evident, there is in fact one source, Chicago Jewish News, which discusses Weinstein's religion. That source--like jweekly.com--will always describe the religious background of the subjects of its articles. This is certainly a fine thing for these publications to do. However for Wikipedia's purposes, sources such as jweekly.com or Chicago Jewish News are not reliable sources for establishing the notability of a BLP's religion. I would suggest that since Time Magazine covered Mel Gibson's religion in this article, and he is notable for his work directing a film about religion, the inclusion of religious upbringing in the Mel Gibson Wikipedia article is appropriate. However since the only publication mentioning Josh Weinstein's religious upbringing is Chicago Jewish News, the Wikipedia article, appropriately, does not include his religious upbringing because it has not been documented in non-religion-focused reliable sources.

I actually think all of the contributors to this discussion have made solid, grounded points. On one hand, Wikipedia articles--particularly those about living people--should not just mention a person's religion unless

reliable sources

which do not exist solely to document religion (again, nothing wrong with this at all) have established that the BLP's religion is directly tied to their notability. However everyone sees the world differently, and I can respect why others may hold a different viewpoint.

Do others agree or disagree with the suggestion that jweekly.com is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of this living person's religion? I am open to all perspectives, and also want to reiterate that I intend for the community to have the final say on this (not I, given my

WP:COI). Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk

) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article seems perfectly reliable as to the facts - he was bar mitzvah-ed, parents were sunday school teachers, went to a Jewish high school, went on some kind of self-discovery walkabout to Israel. Sounds about as Jewish as most Jewish kids in America. Keeping in mind that notability isn't a content inclusion standard, it's more a mix of weight and relevance (I try to use "noteworthiness" as a shorthand): I don't think we can categorically rule in or out an entire publication, it depends on the subject, the article in question, and what it says. Jewish publications sometimes run "Jews in the News" type columns, where mere inclusion doesn't establish notability and may not even be factually correct. On the other hand, a full-on feature article in a publication with strong editorial standards, profiling a person's relationship to their faith, culture, roots, etc., would definitely establish due significance. This one, alas, is in between. It devotes a couple paragraphs out of a several page article to describing his Jewish upbringing. If it were a general interest periodical that would be a strong sign that this is a biographically important fact. Here, because of the nature of the publication they have to tie his Jewishness in somehow or else why would they have an article? I guess the answer is that I would downplay the weight of this source but not discount it entirely. If that's the only source anyone can find, it may not be strong enough. Plus, in debatable cases we ought to take the BLP subject's own (apparently) wishes into account. Just what are they asking us to do here? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon, the way you put this makes a lot of sense. I just spoke with Howard Fineman about this and he indicated that he'd prefer the Wikipedia article about him refrain from discussing his religion or religious upbringing. He feels that since his reason for notability (as a journalist) is not related to his religious upbringing. I've informed him of

That works for me. My stake on this particular issue is slight. Any other opinions? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—I see no justification for leaving out such a basic feature of biographies as that the individual is of Jewish background. In my opinion this is standard fare in biographies. In my opinion the inclusion of information similar to that is to be expected. I think that generally speaking, the reader's interests are best served by our providing information rather than by our withholding information. I don't think the subject should be allowed to persuade us to leave out information if it can be argued that some readers might find it of interest and if no reasons relating to impropriety can be found, and I think none can be found pertaining to this instance. The argument seems to be that the information should be removed because it is irrelevant, but I think that is debatable. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bus stop. You and Wikidemon both make good points. I recognize that this ultimately comes down to someone, hopefully a few Wikipedians, making an editorial decision. I think we can all agree that this falls into a grey area in terms of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines, which is why, fortunately, we have intelligent editors here making decisions instead of just letting an algorithm compile these articles. Because I have a COI related to this subject I feel it would be best for me to bow out of this thread and step onto the observation deck for the moment, in order to leave the ultimate decision up to uninvolved editors such as yourself, Wikidemon, Collect and any others who may be able to weigh in. Regards,Jeff Bedford (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—in looking this over again I just noticed that the Chicago Jewish News story is about a different Josh Weinstein. This one goes by the name J. Elvis Weinstein. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Bus stop. My mistake! --Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a few other BLP/N experts to weigh in on this thread and come to a conclusion? As noted above, I have a COI, so I would prefer to limit myself to presenting information, leaving it up to you all to make the editorial decision. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Jeremy Wade was born March 23, 1956...not May 5th. This was confirmed on Icon Films, Bristol website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.103.182 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - have you got a link to the related website ? - IMO he is not independently notable enough to require a Wikipedia biography, the article as such is primary promotional content, no independent reliable sources have reported about him, which is a bigger problem than what specific day in 1956 he was born on. As a person of limited independant note he should imo and interpretation of wikipedia guidelines be a redirect to his primary notability , which is River Monsters - and also looks promotional to me as does the related Icon Films - all promotional imo - Wikipedia is not a TV quide etc... I made some edits , mostly related to uncited, and neutrality and promotion and cut it in half - Youreallycan 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Having searched for sources I agree, and I've now redirected his biography-stub to the "River Monsters" article. If in-depth coverage about him should be published in
  reliable third-party independent sources in the future, the case for a standalone biography article can be re-examined. --92.6.202.54 (talk
  ) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong & Getty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about an AM radio morning show that covers most of Northern CA. The hosts continually invite listeners to "spice up" or "vandalize" the article, leading to outrageous edits such as this most recent diff and this diff chosen at random. I don't know how to address this. Maybe semi protection to discourage anonymous IPs?--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP but some Admins are supporters of open editing and will refuse unless vandalism or defamation is at a high level - - I made some edits, mostly related to uncited, promotion and NPOV, and cut it to a third. Youreallycan

19:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Protected 90 days due to outside encouragement of vandalism, and a history of vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

The article is written like beeing a PR for Daniel Mattes. Several sources are not reliable. Comments like "Bill Gates of the Alps" are not objective. Instead of linking an original source of a newspaper there are links to Daniel Mattes own flickr account.

Salzburger Fenster is a very local magazine. Beeing there on the list of 100 most important people is not worth mentioning in an international encyclopedia. Also this cite was written that it reads like he was 54th most important citicen of Austria, which is wrong, as he was just on the list for Salzburg.

The whole article lacks objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.99.61 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue to deal with. There are a lot of references, but in many cases they do not support the content. (Example: this was used to support the notion that he had worked with the NY Times...) I've removed some of it, but it still reads like a promotional/PR thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The word is "puff." And I depuffed a tad more. Collect (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

172.129.57.123 reverts[16]

172.129.57.123 posts to

There is a lot more going on, but it's hard to follow because of shifting IPs and users editing while not logged on. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article (Ref #79) about Goetz' squirrel rescue activities appears to be a reliable secondary source. #79 covers the information about squirrel rescue currently in the article. #80 is a blog that does not appear to be a reliable secondary source. #80 does not talk about squirrel rescue. The complained- about edits appear to be original research and are not based on reliable secondary sources. They should not be included in the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found to support the information.Coaster92 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Bernie Goetz is still alive? For some reason I thought he was older than that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprised me too, especially the part about squirrel rescue. On the one hand we have a bunch of editors trying to insert claims based on "personal conversation" that he tortures animals. On the other hand we have this unsourced gem from today's version of the article: "He [Goetz] installs squirrel houses, feeds squirrels, performs first aid, and treats squirrels better than official 'rehabilitators'."

No citations, no "X claims that", just an assertion that he treats squirrels better than official "rehabilitators" (with scary quotes, just to pound home the fact that Wikipedia declares those official rehabilitators to be somehow not legitimate). Check back tomorrow and the article might once again contain an unsourced quote where Goetz supposedly said "I love little animals, so I must punish them when they are bad."

I just noticed this mess in passing. I am not willing to devote a lot of time to monitoring and correcting an article about someone I have zero interest in. I thought about posting a report to

WP:COIN, but stopping Goetz from editing his own article would give those who want to demonize him free reign. Is there anything I can do to address the problems, or should I just write it off and move on? --Guy Macon (talk

) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading it myself, it sounds to me like the "Bernard Goetz" editor is a troll pretending to be Goetz. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

We could use some input on this article. We have an IP who is insisting because one person referred to this actor as Clive Warren that "He is sometimes called Clive Warren" and that fact should be included in the lede. If in you examination of this you feel that the info is notable just leave a note here and I will accept your judgement(s) on the matter. Thanks in advance for your time in looking at this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not notable or anything we should mention in the article. Once by one person is not "sometimes called/mistaken for" (even if somebody else mentions that occurrence). Plus that person may've been joking anyway. If you want a rationale page to point to,

WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE‎ probably suffice.-92.6.202.54 (talk

) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When does something become notable? This was not just a passing conversation between three people, this was the subject of a podcast and then adapted into an episode of a television show (Titled "Clive Warren" and also mentioned on the Rebecca De Mornay Wikipedia page. Many people spent time putting this show together outside of the three people discussing "Clive Warren." I would not put the subject of a simple conversation into Wikipedia. If information like "Clive Owen likes a particular band and went to their concert a couple times" is notable then how is "Another British entertainer (a notable one, I am sure) devoting a whole television episode to this subject" not notable? Perhaps my placement of this information was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.132.184.130 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a thing becomes notable through being covered by multiple independent reliable-sources. An example is Joe the Plumber. The information you give is different from what you said before: "Not a joke, he was mistaken for Clive Warren. This is a fact". It's a single podcast–television show, with variations for each medium. As far as I can see, it amounts to a single comedian bouncing off his straight man (or two). It does appear to be a joke not a mistake, since it's hard to believe the show aired before anyone involved discovered the mixup. The De Mornay page does have it yes, with a citation needed tag. If something like this was included, it would be in a cultural references section or perhaps recognition section. It wouldn't be in the lead. A lead covers the article's main points, and this isn't key to understanding the subject. Your new information that the name of the show was "Clive Warren", and it was the central or overriding focus of the show rather than addressed by one skit or passing mention, does alter its significance slightly. Although in my view it's not at all essential to the article, a mention may be okay. However, it wouldn't be a mention in the lead or present as fact that he's mistaken for Warren, sometimes or otherwise. Inclusion would be down to editorial discretion, and consensus among editors of the page. I don't have a strong opinion; I'll ask MarnetteD to return to this thread. We include stuff like his musical tastes in the Personal life section to address who the subject is as a person, to provide a more rounded biography. Try not to take disagreement over article content personally by the way, it's not a personal criticism. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

207 please read

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it is a good place to learn that just because one "item" is in an article it doesn't mean that others belong. Having said that a brief - well sourced - mention in the body of the article might be possible. I will warn you though that this feels like a "pop culture" item to me and you may find that other editors will remove it as such. MarnetteD | Talk

20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have only just noticed 207's attempt to remove this thread here [21] I would suggest that you not do that kind of thing in the future 207. It does tend to leave other editors with the impression that you are acting in "bad faith". Such actions do not help in any editing that you are trying to pursue. MarnetteD | Talk 20:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I am Stan Jolley's son-in-law. I have tried twice to correct and add information to the Wikipedia profile on Stan Jolley. This includes information about his death on 6/4/12 and additions to his credits in the film industry. User "Lugnuts" has twice reverted my work. I believe he is calling for citations. I and my wife, Stan's heir, are the source regarding his death. We have not published his obituary yet. As for his film credits, he supplied them to me on paper - the same credits he supplied IMDB and are published there. I noted that on my revision, but Lugnuts chose to ignore and change the bio back. Since Stan Jolley is the source on himself, and I am the source for info on his passing, how is this a violation of the terms regarding biographys? How can I get my work put back permanently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaisen (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

While we appreciate that you want to help us get his credits correct, information on Wikipedia should be cited to a published Reliable Source (RS) available to the public (books, magazines, newspapers, and websites) that have 1) editorial oversight and 2) a deserved reputation for fact checking, not personal observations and recollections (see

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Neither IMDb, nor Wikipedia itself, for that matter, are acceptable as reliable sources. Since you've identified your nearness to the subject (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), if you are able to cite published references, you should consider posting them on the article's talk page so that an unbiased editor can add the material. Dru of Id (talk

) 06:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on Blaisen's talkpage, but had no reply. Surely this would have some coverage in the local press? Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

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

He is now listed as British computer scientist not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.33.59 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just changed, all reliable references show that he was born in New Haven Conneticut. NO sources were shown or added in to say otherwise. I've also left a note on the page of the individual that made the change.User:KoshVorlon Talk 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Jean Morton returned to the UK a few years ago. She died on May 26th, 2012, aged 91, in Beechfield Nursing Home, Lichfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.107.214 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi- those details are not returning any search engine results for me - do you have a link to anything that supports your claim? Youreallycan 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Has IPs adding a table of expenses [22] for the person - relying entirely on a primary source, and without trying for discussion thereon. Collect (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The articles been semi protected - the opinionated undue conflicted user from the IP - 176.61.61.99 - this was his first wiki edit - I support blocking him/the IP address indefinitely, it appears to be static - Youreallycan 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Greene (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Patrick Greene. I am the "activist" that the article is all about. First of all I am not a Christian anymore. Second, I was never an officer in the Air Force. I was an enlisted man for 8 1/2 years. From 1968-77. Third, I never filed any lawsuit against Henderson County. Forth, the rally had nothing to do with me. I didn't even know about the Nativity scene issue until after the rally. You spelled Jessica Crye's name wrong. Lastly I would like to know who put in all the information about me, considering a lot of it is wrong. Please forward my email address to that person, so I can set them straight about me.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.150.125 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are to be based on reliable secondary sources per the policy set out in

WP:BLP regarding dealing with articles written about oneself. Several editors contributed to the article and the topics they discuss appear to be found in the references listed after the article. The editors are listed under "View History" at the top of the article page. You could leave messages for them on their User Talk pages or on the article talk page. There has not been activity on the article talk page so the editors might not find your comments there. All the best.Coaster92 (talk

) 05:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

It has been brought to my attention that my biography (Ruthanna Hopper) on Wikipedia is not accurate. If there is an editor who can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. The edit is fairly simple. I co-wrote two novels, "Celebutantes" in 2008, a New York Times bestseller and "Beneath A Starlet Sky", published in 2011. http://us.macmillan.com/beneathastarletsky/AmandaGoldberg I've tried to make the changes myself but have been unsuccessful. The biography has my occupation listed as an actress and film producer, which is not accurate. I've made some appearances in movies but I am an author. I would greatly appreciate some assistance on this. Thank you!

Best, Ruthanna Hopper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childofthe60s (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• All done. I've expanded it slightly, too. As the article is short (although it's longer than it was), I didn't change "Filmography" to "Bibliography" and separate it into 'writing' and 'film and television' credits, since the novels are covered immediately above. It does, however, now better reflect your current occupation. I noticed it doesn't have a picture; if you wish to submit one in the future,
  this page will be helpful. Thank you for reporting the concerns. Best, 92.6.202.54 (talk
  ) 14:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

PLEASE ADD THE FILM "THE HOUSE THAT MARY BUILT" TO HIS CREDIT. JUST WATCHED IT ON T.V. COULD NOT FIND THE FILM ANYWHERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.4 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I can't find any evidence Bob Hoskins ever worked on a film of that name. There's a 1995 TV movie called "The House That Mary Bought", possibly based on Tim Wynne-Jones' novel Odd's End and possibly also known as "The House That Mary Built". But Bob Hoskins had no involvement in it. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Once again, someone's added a separate section with an apparently well known "wardrobe malfunction" type incident, without inline citations. See here for previous discussion of this on this noticeboard.

The IP concerned seems well intentioned, but I've reverted them here because I don't have time to sift through all the news reports and work out what exactly is due weight for this and exactly which facts can be sourced properly.

If anyone has time to add a brief, properly sourced, and appropriate weight mention of this to the article, that would be great. If not, it may need another year's semi-protection. --

Someone re-adding childish vandalism after I reverted. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action, but it's still going on. Could someone semi-protect the page, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Article contains paragraph "In January 2007, Nolan courted further controversy when, during a debate on Loose Women about gay adoption, she stated her opinion that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children,[27] and said that "there's only so much I want to accept".[12]. There are NO sources for this. The sources cited are false pages, but I have been warned by Wikipedia for trying to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.179.73 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Took it out. Sources do not appear to support it, and a search of stonewall and the mirror websites dont come up with anything. Her stuff on the mirror appears to directly contradict it, being positive towards gay couples with children. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

A BLP issue has been raised re Gregory Stanton article in a DRN post. Libel has been asserted. Any help from BLP experts would be appreciated. Please post any comments at the DRN page, not here, to keep the discussion centralized. --Noleander (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The content is currently out of the article. I had a look and it did seem a bit undue and seemed according to the bit I have seen so far, to assert more than the Washington post article - now only available though purchase via Proquest Archiver did about his job loss. I might err on not bothering to report it from a BLP standpoint, mostly for reasons of it not being widely reported and we should avoid becoming the primary vehicle for such content about living people.but if a consensus arises to report it it needs a better write than was there. He was over prescribed medicine and due to that was acting out of character, ended up getting a suspended sentence and compensating the store owner - libel is alleged in the portray of the previous write up - mostly appertaining to the statement that the subject left his employment due to the incident. As a possible write to cover the incident/if there is consensus to report the incident - In 1998 Stanton was convicted of malicious wounding and destruction of property after an incident with a shop owner and driving through his shop window. Stanton's behavior was reportedly due to over prescribed medication. Stanton compensated the shop owner and received a suspended jail sentence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/29990328.html?dids=29990328:29990328&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+06%2C+1998&author=Wendy+Melillo&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Jail+Time+Suspended+In+Video+Store+Attack%3B+McLean+Man+to+Do+Community+Service&pqatl=google|title=Jail Time Suspended In Video Store Attack; McLean Man to Do Community Service|publisher=The Washington Post - via Proquest Archiver|date=June 6, 1998|accessdate=June 8, 2012}}</ref> - Youreallycan 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Nazima is still alive and she lives in Mumbai with her family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.204.19 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for the report - I have removed the death claim - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_old_Hindi_film_actress_nazima - is not a

WP:RS for a death claim/or anything else for that matter. - Youreallycan

It was suggested at one point that the page was to be semi-protected for a short while. Would it not be a good idea to clean it up again, and semi-protect it until SPA's loose interest in this article? I would be quite happy to chip in when it comes to this, but it feels a bit like we're swimming upstream as every time something is cleaned up it is undone. Sweboi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I do not think this article should be deleted, but it needs some major work. NPOV is definitely in question here, as well as some serious citation issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js sherlock (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:CarmeloLisciotto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I deleted the above userpage and blocked the user for impersonation and creating an attack page. It has been pointed out to me that prior to vandalisms, this was a former copyright violation and self-advertisement, but definitely not an attack page and probably not an impersonation. I just want some folks' eyes besides my own on this account; and want to apologize for insufficient due diligence. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm.. seems to be a similar issue to the last report raised in regards to your administrative actions -

WP:COI and self promotion. - We all make missies and its not the end of the world when we realize and revert - Youreallycan

21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped him a friendly line since I wasn't involved, and I will be happy to help him clean up the page if he likes. We all make mistakes, that's why pencils have erasers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There has been a dispute at

That article and related articles are rife with "allegations" and remarkably few "convictions" for crimes. Consensus in the past was clear that there was too much "stuff" in it, and I agree that the BLP violations can no longer be "whitewashed" so to speak. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Am with Collect on this. There's (still) too much cruft in this article. --JN466 01:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Mushahid Ullah Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wrong biased information inserted in the article

The information that is present in the article is not correct. The reference is not correct and information that is put in is not referenced. Please remove it ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.19.41 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Which article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My guess is Mushahid Ullah Khan, and the IP has already removed the ridiculous unsourced paragraph.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although the IP removed the BLP-violating paragraph, they replaced it with a lot of unsourced material. I've removed it (essentially stubbed it back almost to the way it was when it was first created - there hasn't been much activity on the article since its creation), but I don't know how long that will last.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Peace & Fucking. Believe,

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

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

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

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

Peace & Fucking. Believe,

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

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

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

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

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

• - BLP - Craig_Thomson_(politician)

I have discovered that this borderline attack page on a Member of Parliament (under voluntary suspension from the

It is not necessarily a

WP:COI for a member of one political party to edit an article concerning a member of another. It is quite possible for editors to put their own political (and other) views aside and write neutrally. The best advice is to look calmly at the sources and writing to make sure that they are reliable and being approached neutrally, taking into account the whole of the article. Seeking to use an editor's affiliations as a way of attacking their edits is certainly deprecated, and I doubt that a five year old news story has much direct relevance here. Sam Blacketer (talk

) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have done so at

Talk:Craig Thomson affair - it heads a reflist to follow the four sources provided. --Pete (talk

) 18:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I too have wondered why the article

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

) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I believe the article is autobiographical. See comment at [[23]] Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Its nice your article but currently doesn't assert independent -

WP:RS that discuss or report about the subject - Regards - Youreallycan

14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hi - thanks for your report - if you have

WP:RS reliable support for your claims that would be helpful - I had a look and both DOBirths appeared uncited so I tagged then with citation required and informed users will likely attempt to provide reliable support for the DOB claims and then we will resolve this - thanks - Youreallycan

18:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Discussion. Influential Jew, marriage commentary, RS?. The question is whether or not enough evidence exists supporting Zuckerberg being included as an

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

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

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

That is the specific

WP:BLP issue that vague comments fail to mention or differentiate the connection between ethnicity and religion. - Youreallycan

23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

How would it be misleading? Plenty of info on Jewish "genes" -

African-Americans. Wikifan^{Be nice}

23:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Errm do you have a different definition of "

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

) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John is entitled to his beliefs but editors are obligated to include information reported by an RS. Zuckerberg is an

American Jew, he is an ethnic Jew. He doesn't practice Judaism, neither does Natalie Portman and millions of other Jews worldwide. This whole "Jewish descent" fascination is getting quite old and is not supported by BLPCAT. Wikifan^{Be nice}

10:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

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

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

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

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

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

As a Senator he did not vote in favor of SB 810[3], a legislation that would have supported universal comprehensive healthcare to all Californians, which is part of the California State Democratic Party Platform[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find the quotations give a very descriptive idea of Billie Jean's personality. But they do seem to be overused here per

WP:QUOTEFARM and, with some consideration, could be replaced with a more summary style. Imo the information they contain is helpful and appropriate in this article so I don't think the information should be deleted in its entirety, just summarized.Coaster92 (talk

) 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

 Done

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

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

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

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

The newly elected right-wing president of Serbia. I'm not fan of him (on the contrary, but that's not relevant here). The problem is that article has giant "controversies" section (about 40-50% of the article). Out of the 11 total sections (excluding References and External links) 7 sections are controversies. My main concern is "Accusations of war crimes" section, which is partially referenced to primary sources (press releases actually). There was never any indictment against him for war crimes, so I think this is the case where

I notice that

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

) 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, and also notice that accusations are referenced to press releases published on NGO website. Since there was no indictment, and even no investigation, I think the inclusion of the accusations is violation of

WP:UNDUE. First sentence of WP:BLPCRIME applies to everyone, not just "people who are relatively unknown". But, i agree with your proposed solution.--В и к и T

08:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Glad to hear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is, this being the English Wikipedia, only a small subset of our editors can read the references to

the noticeboard for biographies of living people? —C.Fred (talk

) 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, we need someone to read something:

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

This is a

Forbes Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not introduce the so-called "perjoritive" [sic], but I opined in the thread[24] that the Wikipedia editor who did use it was merely repeating what nationally-syndicated columnist

WP:BLP isn't a great guideline, but it seems obvious that an editor is allowed to quote and paraphrase sources without other editors threatening him making an issue of it. --→gab 24dot grab←

18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous discussion at BLPN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

I am the subject of the article in question and have made edits to compensate for libelous commissions and omissions as previously published. In making these corrections I have referenced Official Court transcripts that are the authoritative research source on the particular and critical matters footnoted. So far as I know the transcripts are not publicly quoted elsewhere than in my own book entitled Justice in Paradise, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal and Kingston, 1999. My affidavit evidence is also reproduced in the book attesting to the fidelity of the quotations to the whole truth upon pain of prosecution for perjury. The transcripts speak for themselves and no opinion from the book is mentioned. As previously presented the article was sufficiently erroneous that a COI check on its author might well be in order just in case he or she has ever been, or might still be connected in some fashion to the indigenous rights industry that is constituted and funded by federal government agencies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Since I acted on behalf of Indian Tribes in bitter opposition to the allegedly usurping federally incorporated or endorsed Indian bands or "First Nations," and since those entities are mortal competitors for the indigenous interest, any such relationship with the industry could be an alternative explanation to paucity of sources and scandalous inadequacy that I have attempted to counterbalance with the most cogent evidence currently available.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article in question would appear to be

Stuartyeates (talk

) 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are the author of the article I should be grateful were you to address my respectful request for COI disclosure. Thank you.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the authors of the article, as are

Stuartyeates (talk

) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you; but do you deny you personally wrote the version that appeared before I started editing earlier today? and secondly that you are "connected in some fashion to the indigenous rights industry that is constituted and funded by federal government agencies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand"? Please.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I categorically deny the first and affirm the second. A glance at the edit history says that multiple other editors editted the article before your first edit. For my connections those involved in "the indigenous rights industry that is constituted and funded by federal government agencies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand" (if it exists) in, see

Stuartyeates (talk

) 22:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure he has to answer that question. But whatever the case may be, I'm certain we can all work together to make the article better. No reason to throw blame around. As a complete third party here - I've never seen this article before - its certainly interesting and deserves some work to be improved. I'm willing to help out. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, Lord Roem. I have made revisions that mitigate the damages to reputation and sentiment. The question therefore is, "Do we agree the article is adequately balanced?" I have not troubled to interfere with the writing style but coming from an experienced editor such as Stuart Yeates I shall assume it is in the acceptable encyclopedic mode. Thank you. Kindest regards,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What parts of the article do you think damage your reputation? We have a strict policy here (

The parts of the article that damaged my reputation have been complemented now by the parts I restored in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Please do not delete again the complementary parts that I had to restore. The default tone is negative and it does not have to be either negative or positive. This achievement requires the balance of my revisions. The different versions can only speak for themselves. Thanks again,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are free to include that court's decision praising your work in a shorter form, but including such a huge chunk of the text is neither necessary nor appropriate. There is a middle ground. Lord Roem (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Please restore my last version so I can attempt to achieve what you recommend as reasonable. Sincerely,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All previous versions are avaliable via the history link at the top of the page. You will also need independent references for quotes. If these are from your book I suggest that you give the full original citation then "as quoted in" and then the full reference to your book.

Stuartyeates (talk

) 23:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.--BruceAllanClark (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stuart Yeates: Your referring to "Mitochondrial Eve" suggests to me a laudable philosophy of racial egalitarianism. If so, it is a concept with which my clients the old-style Indian tribalists wholeheartedly agree. The only difficulty is this, “How can humankind get to the juncture where your view is the practice not just the ideal?” My clients and I think the rule of law and the pursuit of justice as the application of truth to affairs are the preconditions to that enlightened existence. But when courts decline to address the constitutional law because they feel it is outmoded, overtaken by events, the rule of law can not exist, and justice pursuant to it becomes impossible. My clients and I want to ensure that seven generations hence some of their number may survive in an environment capable of being sustained. That will not likely happen if the constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism continues as it is headed in the direction of the triumph of empire and the demise of constitutional democracy. Sincerely,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored "Media Treatment." It explains the way in which Clark's reputation was destroyed and neutrally presents both the rule and the exception to the rule of biased reporting. Since the article is a biography about a lawyer who was destroyed in the course of attempting to raise a critical constitutional question, the media treatment discloses how exactly that result was arrived at. The passage quoted neutrally identifies both the pejorative reporting and the more thoughtful reporting. Both aspects are given equal time. Without this corrective balance, the article itself comes across as pejorative by omission rather than commission. Kindest regards,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC) POST SCRIPT: Might someone who knows how please take this dialogue back out to the margin? Thank you very much. All the Best,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

With your indulgence I would be grateful to conclude my argument of how the media treatment naturally destroyed Clark's stock-in-trade, whether as a lawyer or as an unpaid pro bono legal consultant in any event of the disbarment. Please take note that the last words of Mahony's analysis and of the article are, "public reaction just short of a smirk." People do not gravitate to lawyers or even free consultants whose reputation is, well...to smirk at, a joke, a clown in lawyer's garb. That, is where the Clark story ends in real life. That, is why the article should end with "Media Treatment" restored. I do most respectfully and in all fairness submit,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please could you comment on the talk page of the article, this really isn't the correct venue for discussing changes to

Well, might I ask a question first? When I registered an interest in the article Bruce Allan Clark I think the same day response was from you, to alert me to the potential for a conflict of interest, the rules for which were at the site to which you referred me. As I say I only think it was you. The COI site said to post notice of the conflict in one of two places one of which was the present place. I made my post above and the preceding negotiations to a just solution to editing issues have resulted so far in this very public forum. Switching to someplace else less conspicuous breaks my train of thought and might put a reader on needless journey. If I am not breaking any specific rule would you please do me the courtesy of leaving the discussion where it is? Thank you. Cheers,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you read where, but Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing. Discussion about the articles content (rather than your conflict of interest) definitely needs to be on the articles talk page. Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, this is the difficulty, then, for the public discussion on the conflict of interest, as it demonstrably affects the article adversely, is a question that can only be answered by the editing process with an eye to the evolving content of the arguably-conflicted article in question. Whatever the convention or even rule may be, in general, in the particular and perhaps peculiar circumstances here the question and answer must be read as an integrated and evolving single unit. I think this is the single place. What harm can it do? Thank you for reflecting,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)--BruceAllanClark (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer is because no one will see it here and I see no "peculiar circumstances"? The article is already being discussed on it's talk page and future discussion should continue there.Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know my involvement has been with discussion only here but not there. The case can not be split. Can the whole thing, the conflict and the editing be done on the talk page instead of here? And why bother? Why will no one see it here? Why would more, and how many more see it if it were transferred there? And can it be transferred? Or is it just stopped here and started there? Ah,...but we spend too much time on this procedural matter. Unless I hear a good reason other than your strong preference I prefer things to remain as they are. If you are able to move the discussion without my consent then so be it. I wish to partake wherever it may be perforce or by chance. Thank you. Yours very truly,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC) POST SCRIPT: What happened to Lord Boem? Will he be returning to try his hand at leading the discussion to move things along substantively? Sincerely,--BruceAllanClark (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is already on the talk page here...

Talk:Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer) it has nothing to do with my preference but just how Wikipedia works. You have yourself previously commented there also. Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk

) 20:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

There have been some IP blankings at

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

Well, it was me who added it. It isn't weakly cited: every single sentence is cited to a

reliable source. I tried in good faith to cover events of his tenure, and this incident dominated news coverage of it. Perhaps it is over-kill coverage of 1 event. Anyone else have any thoughts? --GrapedApe (talk

) 12:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• - http://www.lenconnect.com/sports/collegesports/x730414566/BREAKING-NEWS-Docking-breaks-silence-on-Lyall-firing
• - http://www.lenconnect.com/sports/x356301659/Adrian-College-football-alums-unhappy-with-Lyalls-firing
  • • No, it is a DIII school, so I bet that it never gets national coverage on anything. It was covered by the relevant local newspaper of general circulation, which is just about as strong as you would ever get.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A new version of the content: [26]. More narrow coverage. States what happened, why people got upset, describe his response. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Should the subject be called an American or SF based writer in the lede. Please see talk page for discussion. Thank you. --

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

Opps, you are correct, sorry about that. Should I remove this thread? The talk page is decidely against calling Caen anything other than SF-based journalist, but people there might be too "involved". Thank you, --

Mollskman (talk

) 21:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

vacuumed up? lol. I am not going to revert the article again. --

Mollskman (talk

) 03:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I added his nationality after the SF-based part since people wanted that. Hopefully this ends that discussion. --

Mollskman (talk

) 12:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge numbers of people who are Mormons who served in any foreign countries for any length of time are now being categorrized as "American expartiates in (country)". This includes people both living and dead in vast profusion (Brigham Young, Jr. was listed for 8 countries!). [27] is typical of this strange set of edits. [28] was the one which led me to this trail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The URL is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

N Not done What portion of the content is ill-sourced or mis-written? She passes

WP:BIO as far as notability is concerned, so deletion's a non-starter. --Orange Mike | Talk

19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

• So transform the bad citation into a proper one, using the {{cite web}} template and giving its date, author, and actual title. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I removed all the uncited - mostly personal BLP type content - (uncited dob and uncited nickname and opinionated claims - feel free to write new cited content to expand - thanks - Youreallycan 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I applied for protection of the talk page. That may help, as I feel my efforts did not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As Liev's father, I would like to improve some of the information that pertains to me and my relationship with my son and his mother. I would like the phrase "commune" stricken from the description of our home in Canada. We were a nuclear family on a privately owned ten acre property. There is a slimey reference to my lifestyle as corrupted by practices of "free love". Not the case, in fact. Without going into details which might cast aspersions on Liev's mother, we were as a family dealing with issues of serious fear and paranoia. Unfounded charges were made. I'm aware that the New Yorker article did little to explore or diminish the falseness of those charges. When, in flight from a custody case she initiated in Canada, she removed him to New York, I was denied all access to him until his older brother, six years later phoned from New York and offered to arrange a visit if I could get to New York on a weekend when Liev would be in his brother's care. I was desperate to see him; I sold a heifer calf I was raising to keep the meeting. I subsequently, on the salary of a common high school teacher, paid tuition for both of Liev's private school high school years, all three of his undergraduate college years, the year of his training at RADA, and his three years of graduate school at Yale. It would help the record to understand that, unlike any of Liev's New York relatives, I loved theater, was a busy and committed actor at Dartmouth, and later in my twenty wonderful Canadian years helped start a theater department at the local community college and worked to create an actor training program. Also that I was twenty-six at Liev's birth, not twenty-two. I don't believe Liev ever wrestled; I did.

We have managed a somewhat strained relationship since. I admire his talent deeply, love him as well as he allows, and I'm able. I've seen all but three of his New York stage shows. He just paid me a profoundly appreciated visit with Naomi and Sasha and Kai in honor of my seventieth birthday. I'm immensely proud of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.180.222 (talk • contribs)

I have trimmed away some of the text you indicated was problematic. To my taste, the biography makes far too much of the chaos in Liev's childhood. Binksternet (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from wp:Requests_for_comment/Request_board (some issues appear to remain open, e.g., use of "commune") Coastside (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030
Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser
This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred.
Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA
Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter.
The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well.
As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith.
Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones.
A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers.
Thank you.
Snake Man Raymond Hoser
Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles

Phones: (Redacted)

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)

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

Vanity piece. Creator is a new editor, persistently removing maintenance templates. 76.248.149.47