Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:14, 20 January 2014 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,260 edits →Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT: r← Previous edit Revision as of 22:14, 20 January 2014 edit undoAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,260 editsm →Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCATNext edit →
Line 601: Line 601:
:::This is Belfort's full quote from the magazine article: "I’m lying on my back and see the ceiling has cracks in it. I’m like, Why are the Wasps not paying for their ceiling? What a troubling thought that they don’t fix the ceiling in this Wasp heaven — maybe they’re running out of money. I try to stand. I can’t stand! I curl myself into a little barrel and fucking roll myself down the steps. I do the prayer to Jesus. Even an old Jew. Jesus, please God, just get me home one last time."--] (]) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC) :::This is Belfort's full quote from the magazine article: "I’m lying on my back and see the ceiling has cracks in it. I’m like, Why are the Wasps not paying for their ceiling? What a troubling thought that they don’t fix the ceiling in this Wasp heaven — maybe they’re running out of money. I try to stand. I can’t stand! I curl myself into a little barrel and fucking roll myself down the steps. I do the prayer to Jesus. Even an old Jew. Jesus, please God, just get me home one last time."--] (]) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
::::If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew. ] (]) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC) ::::If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew. ] (]) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
:::As his "religion"?] (]) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::As his "religion"?] (]) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


== Paul Hartal == == Paul Hartal ==

Revision as of 22:14, 20 January 2014


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Vallabhaneni Maheedhar (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 17 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion

    James Delingpole

    Can someone remove this BLP violation please, despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

    Done. I suggest other editors add this article to their watchlist just in case this finds its way back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    How is this compatible with WP:FRINGE? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    What does fringe have to do with an editor persistently adding unsourced contentious statements to a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    Barney, since he apparently has (only) a BA in English, the statement is apparently true. But it has to be sourced. And, to avoid WP:OR, don't include the word "despite". But again the main thing is to have a source for the statement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    Correct. It's an unsourced contentious statement about a living person. Even with a source, it's probably WP:UNDUE to include this in the lede. The body would be more appropriate. And I'd also say that the wording would may need to be tweaked as "despite" may run afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for your responses. There are subtleties where WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE interact but the two shouldn't be incompatible. It seems that we should (1) structuring the article roughly chronologically, include a statement as to his education, but not directly include those facts in the sentence within a paragraph next to any other topic. We should also then not include any criticism based on this reverse appeal to authority,unless it is specific criticism from a well-known mainstream scientist or scientists and prominently published. (I don't have any sources, but commentary in The Guardian by a scientists would be the sort of level that we're talking about). Finally however, we can and probably should include mention of the fact that his views are contrary to scientific consensus, thus giving proper WP:FRINGE impersonal context. Is that fair and accurate? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

    The article has been locked due to edit-warring. There is now a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kaj_Taj_Mahal regarding this. The lock will expire in 3 days. Can we get a few more editors to add this to their watchlists? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    James Delingpole‎ (2)

    WP:BLP says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" As such is a section in a BLP titled "Anthropogenic climate change denial" suitable? Given the BLP in question has said, he believes in global warming. Please comment here if you wish. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Look up the word "Anthropogenic" in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    (ec)No need to, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Global warming and anthropogenic climate change are different. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    And you have a source in which he denies AGW? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    The source you've just cited, for a start: 'The Warmists lost the battle over "the science" long ago; that's why the best they can do now is resort to the kind of risible semantic ruse like this deliberate conflation of "global warming" with "man made global warming"' AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Andy, nowhere in that article does he deny AGW. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Note that this is a continuation of the discussion above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Regarding whether we should use the term "skeptic" or "denier", we should follow what reliable sources say about the matter. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "denier", we should use that term. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "skeptic", we should use that term. If there is no consensus, we'll have to figure out how best to handle this. Usually, when reliable sources disagree, we don't take sides, we simply document the disagreement. Alternatively, we can default to "skeptic" since this term is less pejorative and this is a WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Which is why I had requested it be changed to "Views on climate change", that is neutral and BLP compliant. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Section titles should never be judgemental about living persons - they exist to indicate the topic of the section and not the conclusion any source makes. Collect (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)@Darkness Shines: I think your suggestion makes sense. Also, the word "denier" is a violation of WP:LABEL. But I have no problem with adding "Anthropogenic" per @Nomoskedasticity:'s suggestion on the article talk page. Combining both wordings, that gives us "Views on anthropogenic climate change". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    True, "denier" is a bit stuff and might fall foul of LABEL. But "views" is mushy. I suggest changing the section heading to "climate change denial" or something along those lines -- that certainly doesn't fall foul of LABEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Oh wait -- that's what it is. Why are people moaning about "denier"? Red herring… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    He does not deny the climate changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    But he appears to deny that climate change is caused by human activity. That's why we need (and have) the word anthropogenic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Citation for his denying humans have an effect on the climate please. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Because what he actually says is "Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities." So he does not deny that there is some "anthropogenic input" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    He seems pretty blatant about being a AGW skeptic. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    (ec)Being sceptical is not denial. We have NPOV for a reason, and LABEL as AQFK pointed out. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Saying "Pretty much everyone agrees..." isn't saying he agrees. And he clearly doesn't, as, in the very next sentence he asserts there is no demonstration or evidence for the claim that there is "anthropogenic input". This is the opposite of what you say he's saying. In that sentence he is characterizing the mainstream position before offering arguments in an attempt to debunk it. He has said that "GW" occurs but not that "AGW" occurs. In his book, Watermelons, he stated that anyone who thinks AGW is a near-certainty are "liars, cheats, and frauds." You are providing your own citations that he doesn't believe there is evidence for anthropogenic causes. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    No, in the link he says "But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim." That is about the catastrophic part of AGW he is being sceptical of. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    The "it" in that sentence is "anthropogenic input". He is saying that no one has demonstrated evidence of "anthropogenic input". His argument is that 97% believe in a degree of anthropogenic input, but he says no one has ever shown any evidence of it. He does not explicitly place himself in the 97% who believe in something he says there is no evidence for. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    No, he is arguing over the "dangerous bit" Nowhere in that paragraph does he say "anthropogenic" Anyone who writes "Pretty much everyone agrees" is obviously including themselves, he does not say "Pretty much everyone agrees, but I do not" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'll leave it for other people to read and decide. Your interpretation is not convincing to me:
    Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities. But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    DS, you keep saying "LABEL". There is no problem with LABEL, because we're not calling him a "denier". Your repeated attempts to spike the discussion in this regard are getting disruptive, in my view. It surely doesn't help your efforts to convince people that you're not likely to misuse BLP policy in connection with articles related to climate change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Nomoskedasticity: I'm confused as to why say that there isn't a problem with WP:LABEL. It seems pretty clear that this runs afoul of WP:WTA. Can you please explain your thought process here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    "Denial" is not a label. "Denier" is a label -- but the article does not contain the word denier. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Nomoskedasticity: So, you're saying that all anyone has to do to circumvent WP:LABEL is to simply change the tense (or whatever it's called) of the word and that makes it OK? I don't think that was the intent of WP:WTA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    A label is a label. If someone wants to make an argument here invoking a policy, it's best to be precise. The article does not use a label for Delingpole. There would be a big problem if we lacked sources regarding his repudiation of scientific consensus on climate change -- but the sources have been provided here and I do not agree with the contention that we are doing him an injustice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Except we do lack sources, and arguing that "denier" is a completely different word than "denial" is WikiLawyering, no offense. I don't think we can simply change the tense of a word to bypass core Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and I'm shocked that anyone would even suggest such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to bypass anything. It's plain as day -- we are not labelling this guy. And if you think we don't have sources, you're not clicking on what has been provided to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    You're arguing that simply changing the tense of the same word makes it acceptable. That's nonsense. And no, nobody has provided any evidence that this is the consensus of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    "the big lie of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" -- in his own words. That's a repudiation of scientific consensus, by someone with no scientific credentials. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    <sigh> What exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that Delingpole‎ is a denier, but that it's OK, because technically speaking the word "deniar" is not the same exact word as "denial"? It's hard to tell. Or are you arguing that saying "the big lie of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" -- in his own words" means the same thing as something else? If so, that's WP:OR. Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding your arguments. They seem to be all over the place without any sort of logical organization. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'm arguing that WP:LABEL does not prevent us from using "denial", because it's not a label. Following your logic, we would have to refrain from using the words "deny", "denies", and "denied". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    OK. So, you are apparently arguing that simply changing the tense of a word allows us to bypass WP:LABEL since it's a label. Just know that most editors take WP:BLP seriously, and if you violate WP:BLP, you may be sanctioned. You have been notified and warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    It's inappropriate to imply that an editor is risking potential sanctions for stating an interpretation of policy on a noticeboard. A "warning" under those sanctions would come from an uninvolved administrator, and would be specific in nature. It's fine that you want to give a personal reminder between editors, but be careful that you don't sound like you're attempting to impersonate an administrator in any way. That could be interpreted as actions beyond the normal course of editing and would take you away from finding consensus here. If they applied here, discretionary sanctions would also suggest we pay closer attention to WP:EQ and avoid any unjustified failures to assume good faith about other editor's goals. I'm sure everyone here recognizes that BLP policy is serious. In the interests of keeping things civil, I would suggest you avoid sounding like you were giving formal or official warnings in the future. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    Per a query on my UT page, this discussion ensued:

    MOS states A title should be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles
    Main page is WP:Article titles
    Which states the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.
    Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy
    Which states:
    In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity.
    Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
    So yes -- multiple Misplaced Pages policies impact on this - and clarity and neutrality are key issues per policy. Collect (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    The result of which statements of policy would seem to indicate that a clear and neutral section title is required. I suggest Views on anthropogenic global warming as being clear, concise, and neutral here. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Totally irrelevant -- all that is about article titles. What you need is WP:MOSHEAD. C'mon, do it right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    That which is true for article titles should also work for section titles -- would you want section titles not to be clear and neutral, for God's sake? Really??? Collect (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    I don't agree that we are being unclear and non-neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Specifically we have The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well
    Which I think clearly states that "the provisions in Article titles generally apply to section headings as well"
    Or did I misread what the words actually state? Is this clear enough for you since I cite the exact words stating that the rules for article titles also apply to section headings????? Collect (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Did you even bother to look at the "above" on that page? Obviously not. So yes, you misread. Anyway, it hardly matters -- again, I don't agree that we are being unclear and non-neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    I quoted from that page. And from the page it gives as the main page on the topic. How dare you say that I did not bother to look at it! Misplaced Pages:Section_headings#Article_titles is "above" Misplaced Pages:Section_headings#Section_headings and links directly to Misplaced Pages:Article_titles] each of which I not only read and cited, but actually endeavor to follow as policy)
    That is not only non-collegial, it is palpably false and inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    He has self identified as as someone who denies the factualness: "the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    Update: Kaj Taj Mahal has now been given a 6-month topic ban for violations of WP:BLP and I've reverted most of their changes. I tried, as best I could, to explain the reason for each edit in the edit-summary and referenced the applicable policies and talkpage discussions. However, this entire experience has been extremely unpleasant for me and I think it's best for my own mental health for me to walk away from this. So, I'm removing this article from my watchlist. I don't find it remotely acceptable to turn a BLP into a WP:ATTACK page, but whatever, that's somebody else's problem now. I'm done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    IPA issue

    I am having an issue with Ebdòmero (talk · contribs) adding an unsourced IPA to Étienne Capoue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can somebody please explain to them the importance of WP:BLP, I have tried (and clearly failed) and am going out for the evening in 30 minutes. GiantSnowman 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    I don't think you sufficiently explained why this particular pronunciation is controversial or the reasons you think it should be challenged. Looking back, it seems the consensus was that IPAs needed sourcing if there was "a reasonable challenge" to them not that they all needed sourcing from the start. Maybe there's a consensus I'm not aware of, but it looks like you just said it was "controversial" in an edit summary without trying to talk it out on the talk page at all. If there is a "pronounciation rule" as stated, is it written down somewhere I could see? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how we source IPAs (do we?), but the editor seems to be correct in this case, based on my (admittedly slight) knowledge of French. I found this video where the narrator uses the full name at the beginning and the last name repeatedly after that. §FreeRangeFrog 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    I now see that you sent some messages to the editor's talk page as well; I have to say that it doesn't seem to include much support that the pronunciation is "controversial". In the future, it might be better to talk it out a bit more? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm, that's not so much an "issue" as an edit-war - you appear to have three reverts within 24 hours. Why is there no discussion on the talkpage of the article? Anyway, for what it is worth, I believe that you are right to challenge the IPA and that it should be ​ not ​. If the double n were to be pronounced, the final e would I think at most be sounded as a schwa. But please note that I am not a native speaker of French; it should be easy enough to find someone who is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    No, is very much is an issue, it is the repeated addition of unsourced information about a BLP - and it wasn't edit warring, please see WP:3RRNO. The information was challenged (by me) because I have no idea how the name is pronounced - and I'm saying this as someone whose own surname is mis-pronounced all the time. There is, of course, also a wider BLP issue with IPAs being added to articles with no source. GiantSnowman 11:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    It isn't an issue at all. Unlike english language, french is very regular as for pronounciation and I see no controversial matter. Usually pronunciations according to the IPA are added without source and nobody protests. To my eyes GSM is attempting to impose his own point of view without the support of any policy, without consensus and against the the routine procedure. --Ebdòmero (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    As you say, French is very regular. One possible source of controversy might thus be the pronunciation you gave for Étienne Capoue, ​, which would ordinarily be the pronunciation of "Étienné Capoue", which is not the gentleman's name (compare with henné ​). I suggest that the correct pronunciation is ​; compare with penne ​, benne ​, senne ​, etc. (pronunciations sourced from The Concise Oxford French Dictionary, 1968 printing; not the best source, but probably adequate for this). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Right, so we now have two different possible pronunciations? I thought this was not an issue/straightforward/regular etc. etc.?! GiantSnowman 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Rachel Elior

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

    This article is unnecessarily negative. Biographical articles normally give the subjects positive achievements, but this one resembles a hatchet job. It lists one failure after another for a subject who is a leader in her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowGoldman (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    Every quotation is from someone who disapproves, criticisms are included before the introduction or explanations of what is being criticized. This needs some work. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    Robert Spitzer (political scientist)

    Robert Spitzer (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is a TON of unsourced material in this article, and I need some help to sort through it. The article is certainly salvageable, but it needs a lot of work, and I don't really want to just hack away at it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    I am very concerned about the direction this article suddenly took. I will comment in more detail there. Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Please, can some uninvolved editors take a look at this article? A half-day's worth of work has been reverted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    I will try to keep an eye on this article. All editors should bear in mind, in addition to basic BLP policies, the need to avoid undue weight on any aspect of the subject's work and career. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    I've added it to my Watchlist and I'll take a look for any sourcing issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think I've ever heard of this person before, but I don't see any obvious BLP issues with the article. There's an overreliance on primary sources and some unsourced content, but nothing major. On a side note, I don't think it's necessary list out 19 different TV shows/newspapers he's been on/in. Just pick 2 or 3 examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, Newyorkbrad and A Quest For Knowledge. My main concern is not about the subject's editing, but that of one of our editor who insists that the subject - a living scholar/academic - is a gun control advocate or activist. Would you like me to give diffs for specific instances? Others have discussed this with her on the subject's talk page (most recently here) but she keeps putting this stuff back (most recently here and here). Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    There seems to be a POV effort to portray the subject of the article as neutral on Gun Control, when his own words show his political leaning. There are hundreds of examples. I do not understand this. There is also an effort to push the idea that being in favor of gun control is somehow a bad thing. This is something I do not appreciate. I am not trying to "pin a label" on anyone, particulary one of my favorite authors, but we need to be intellectually honest. It is easy enough to quote him as examples of his advocacy. As I said, I do not understand the resistance to this, especially when it should be a given. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    THIS is the only one of only two secondary sources that has been found so far, and it describes him as an advocate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    IMO, there is a POV effort to prove that the subject, a political scientist, is a gun control advocate, and to categorize him as such. That could negatively effect his reputation. After five days searching, one source - a 14year-old book by a criminologist - calls the subject an advocate. No current high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources. Mainstream newspapers call him a political scientist. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    HERE is a second independent source which describes him as a "prominent gun control advocate". That makes a grand total of only two secondary sources, and both describe him the same way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    There are now THREE independent third party sources. This one describes Mr. Spitzer as a "strong proponent of Gun Control" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Robert J. Spitzer is a political scientist. One of his fields of research is the politics of gun control in America. He is known for his balanced research and writing on gun control. See Sugarman, Josh (1997). "Book Review: The Politics of Gun Control". New England Journal of Medicine. 336 (1): 74. doi:10.1056/NEJM199701023360118.. He is not a gun control advocate. Sue, who admires him, does not understand the difference between political science research and advocacy.
    Let me repeat what I said to Sue on the article talk page.
    All three sources used for the lead are not reliable sources:
    • The google books url leads to Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control by William J. Vizzard. Vizzard is a supporter of Gary Kleck's research. Spitzer has harshly criticized Kleck's research methodology and Vizzard is a critic of Spitzer and not an unbiased writer in this case.
    Now she is proposing as a "reliable, verifiable" source one of the strangest self-published blogs I have seen, http://www.volokh.com/2003_05_04_volokh_archive.html.
    In any case, they only describe Spitzer as a gun control advocate, they do not provide any actual evidence. To demonstrate that he is an advocate requires sources that analyze Spitzer's work and politics and come to the conclusion that he is an advocate. Sue is pushing her point of view here without adequate sources. She has demonstrated her inability to find real sources about academic people. She is has demonstrated on the talk page of the article her lack of understanding of academic research, biographies of living persons, and what constitutes reliable and verifiable sources. The material describing Spitzer as a gun control advocate needs to be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    I am not vouching for the quality of these three sources. They are far from steel-clad. But they are the ONLY secondary sources available. The entirety of the remaining sources in the article are primary sources. We need sources that are untouched by the subject. Interviews, etc. will not do, as the hosts generally introduce guests by whatever title they want. There has been no biography. These few sources are the only independent ones that have been found to date. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    WP:BLP states "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." The material in question is "gun control advocate." The sources are one book and a student newspaper article (and a blog, and a blog, and a blog, and a blog). The contentious is confirmed by the contention here, and the fact that the subject has protested - . This is a no-brainer. Hipocrite (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    As well as the Syracuse Post-Standard of course. In context; there are only three mainstream RS refs at the article that are not written directly by the BLP subject himself. All refer to the subject as an "advocate", hardly a contentious formulation. The fact that the blogs agree with RS is neither surprising nor relevant.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Which does not refer to him as a "gun control advocate." The three sources are an advocacy book by an ex-ATF agent now law professor gun-control writer, a student newspaper, and the headline of an opinion blog that doesn't call him a gun-control advocate. That's some shitty sourcing for a contentious claim. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    READ THIS it's pretty clear. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    LOUD NOISES. No it's not. It doesn't call him a "gun control advocate." Provide quotes. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    David Dreier

    Should this article mention rumored allegations about him? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    The article should not assert that he is gay -- that is a matter of self-identification. To the extent that there are good sources for the assertion that he has had a sexual relationship with another man, then yes, that can stay in the article. (Has he denied it?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'm seeing references to a Hustler article on Drier in late 2004/early 2005 -- but it doesn't look like this is on-line. Anyone have any leads on it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Nope. This is a splendid example of possibly harming a person by using Misplaced Pages to promote rumours about sexuality of a living person. Rumours are not biographical fact. "Hustler" and the like are not reliable sources for such rumours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    In general, no article should mention "rumored allegations" about a living person. "Rumored allegations" by their very nature fail all three of the core content policies for BLP: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR). No matter how tempting it sometimes is to "expose" presumed double standards. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Pawel Maciwoda

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

    Pawel Maciwoda has a son. His name is Roman, he is 2 1/2 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous12 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    Do you have a reliable source for that? Otherwise we'd prefer not to include that type of personal information in articles. §FreeRangeFrog 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Even if verified I don't care for such information. What's important to the subject is often not important to the reader. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Cartoon pornography

    On Cartoon pornography an editor keeps reverting me restoring BLP material, ie the unsourced claim that various likely living people are involved as makers of cartoon pornography. I have tried my best to explain our BLP policies but the editor is getting more and more aggressive on the talk page and deliberately restores the BLP violating info, ie unsourced claims about living people. He has been directed to our policy page but seems to think "There is no need. (also: you know that you could find a reference within seconds, if you bothered to look for one" is an acceptable alternative to a ref♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    What is absolutely required is a secondary source that specifically mentions the person doing this type of work. Looking up an Amazon author credit is not enough, and in fact it's original research. WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE are perfectly clear on the sourcing required for this type of thing. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged (according to what it written in WP:BLP). The one and only reason that it was challenged by SqueakBox, was due to a pedantic enforcement of BLP, so it doesn't really count. He/she didn't challenge the truth of the statement, but merely insisted that such statements be sourced. That's not the kind of "challenge", that is being referred to, in the statement "challenged or likely to be challenged".
    You mention WP:BLPSOURCES... The first thing mentioned there, is "Challenged or likely to be challenged". Thank you for supporting my argument. There is no need to clutter up articles with needless citations.
    Furthermore, Amazon is a perfectly reliable source, to verify the mere existence of a work of cartoon pornography, and of the author of the work. Amazon isn't, generally, a reliable source, but basic information like that, it's perfectly fine. At least if WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is to be believed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_104#iTunes_and_Amazon_for_television_series_verification
    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Amazon.com_as_a_RS_for_merchandise.3F
    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Is_Amazon.com_a_reliable_source.3F
    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#Amazon.com
    Need I go on?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Please dont dismiss my BLP challenge as not counting, or is there some policy which says MY challenges dont count? Or that "pedantic" challenges dont count? (with a clear idea of what pedantic means here). Challenging unsourced material is classic BLP enforcement, no? And where in BLP does it talk about needless citations for unsourced material about living people? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Is being associated with cartoon porn contentious? I'd sure say so. But upon further review of Kevin J. Taylor (the P we are discussing) his own website seems to confirm his involvement with erotic art, so I don't think the subject would consider this contentious. There are also sites like comicvine which mention his erotic work, so no, this is not a contentious statement with respect to Mr. Taylor. Whether Mr. Taylor needs a mention in this article, I don't have an opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    There was a dispute about Kevin J Taylor but that got resolved when Zarlan did finally source it after I pressured him or her to and I have accepted the inclusion of his name with the 2 current sources, I merely wasnt willing to here. This is the contentious edit, said Alazar is also likely a living person and the contention is that Zarlan cannot add info about Alazar or even their name without a reliable source. Zarlan clearly thinks a reliable source isnt necessary for Alazar and that my BLP challnege in favour of Alazar doesnt count but doesnt explain why except for using the word pedantic. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Removal of content is most definitely a "challenge" and counts as something that absolutely requires a reliable source inline citation before restoration, AND particularly so when BLP the basis! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged. This clearly refers to challenges to the truth of the statement. SqueakBox never challenged the truth of the statement that any of those people are creators of cartoon pornography, but purely challenged their adherence to Misplaced Pages policy.
    That is not the same thing.
    Hence it doesn't count. It may count, if you look at purely at the letter of the policy, but doing so goes against the rules and principles of Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:The rules are principles, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:Wikilawyering and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy, Zarlan,a nd that is worrying. Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so but even if it were so that doesnt mean I cant challenge ANY unsourced material about living people, or is there some policy I havent seen that allows you to ignore BLP whenever you choose?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    "You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy"
    That statement is pointless and without meaning, unless you explain what aspect I am not grasping, and in what way. You're just claiming that I am ignorant of it. Anyone can do that. It doesn't prove anything. (note: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. You need to stay at the top three levels of it)
    "Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so"
    What are you talking about? When/where have I ever made such a claim?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    Hey ZarlanTheGreen when ANY other editor says "reliable source needed" for ANY reason regarding a contentious claim in a BLP, then that is by definition a legitimate challenge, and the onus is on YOU to provide the reliable source. Is that clear? So I am saying right now that I expect you to provide reliable sources 100% of the time for any claims that any living person is involved with cartoon pornography. There are no exceptions to this requirement, so please comply going forward, or refrain from introducing such content. Thank you for your adherence to BLP policy. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    "when ANY other editor says "reliable source needed" for ANY reason regarding a contentious claim in a BLP, then that is by definition a legitimate challenge"
    Why? Also: Is it really a contentious claim?
    "Is that clear?"
    Given that you have made claims, but not given any actual explanations: No. Not at all.
    "So I am saying right now that I expect you to provide reliable sources 100% of the time for any claims that any living person is involved with cartoon pornography."
    You expect that of me, do you?
    Why should I care? If it is expected by Misplaced Pages policy, then I shall bow to those rules, but I fail to see why I should care what you, personally, expect.
    "Thank you for your adherence to BLP policy."
    Given that you are implying that I have not adhered to BLP, that sentence is nonsense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    In addition to all that, it looks like at least two of the people being discussed lack articles on wikipedia. In the absence of such articles to demonstrate notability of these people, it would be even more important to include reliable secondary sources mentioning them since BLP issues aside, there's no reason to mention non notable people who's involvement in the field isn't mentioned in such sources as their involvement is of little significance to the reader. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Ah. Notability (or, more accurately "due weight"). I'd say that the standards should be lower here, as it is more of a niche market, but some mention should probably be needed ...though that doesn't really address BLP issues, and is thus not really relevant to this noticeboard.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Nino Firetto

    Following on from this discussion , I still haven't had an answer to the questions I posed regarding this subject. I am currently under a subject ban for stating factual, relevant information that was sourced correctly and that didn't break Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. The points I raised are as follows: 'I don't understand why the block was in place in the first place as I had sourced the information, which was in the public domain, and it is of public interest (as it was published in a newspaper, like all other bankruptcy notices). Other notable people have this included on their biographical pages on Misplaced Pages (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/Kerry_Katona and http://en.wikipedia.org/Shane_Filan), why should the person mentioned above be an exception?' Could someone explain why this BLP is an exception to the rule? And to why I received a topic ban? Whoisthisalfonso (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Looking at the diffs but not being familiar with the dispute, I'd say you used two unreliable and one primary source. Sometimes an event in a subject's life is not notable enough to mention, perhaps evidenced by the fact that you probably can't find a lot of secondary sources about the bankruptcy. Including that material can be also considered undue weight. In any case, you are under a topic ban, so I'd refrain from pursuing this further. Misplaced Pages is not the best place to pursue the desire to document negative information about people. §FreeRangeFrog 01:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Charles Denham

    The living person biography of Charles Denham has been involved in an edit war since 9 January 2014. This is apparently related to a U.S. Department of Justice press release about a $40.1 million payment by the medical products company CareFusion to the government to settle claims that the company violated the False Claims Act and stating that "CareFusion paid $11.6 million in kickbacks to Dr. Charles Denham while Denham served as the co-chair of the Safe Practices Committee at the National Quality Forum, a non-profit organization that reviews, endorses and recommends standardized health care performance measures and practices. The government contends that the purpose of those payments was to induce Denham to recommend, promote and arrange for the purchase of ChloraPrep by health care providers."

    Since 9 January there have been 5 edits inserting this statement or a reference to it. In each case the edits have been re-edited to remove these details. Two of the 5 insertions are from wikipedia named users. None of the removal edits are from named users. The IP addresses of the removing edits are uninformative.

    Edit history for Charles Denham as of 23:15 UTC 15 Jan 2014:

    14:13, 12 January 2014‎ 70.114.157.229‎ (10,615 bytes) (-157)‎(Undid revision 590353735 by 71.185.164.77

    12:28, 12 January 2014‎ 71.185.164.77 (10,772 bytes) (+157)‎(CareFusion settlement with state of New York does mention Dr. Denham by name)

    21:24, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (10,615 bytes) (-170)‎ (undo)

    21:16, 10 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,785 bytes) (-437)‎ (undo)

    21:13, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (11,222 bytes) (-428)‎ (→‎Corruption Scandals) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

    21:12, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (11,650 bytes) (+994)‎ (Undid revision 590130052 by 64.58.148.154) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

    21:10, 10 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,656 bytes) (-994)‎ (Tag: reference list removal)

    19:16, 10 January 2014‎ Crimestopper100 (11,650 bytes) (+2)‎

    19:15, 10 January 2014‎ Crimestopper100 (11,648 bytes) (+713)‎ (Adds news articles and press releases mentioning Dr. Denham)

    18:33, 10 January 2014‎ 132.189.76.43 (10,935 bytes) (+428)‎ (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

    23:53, 9 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,507 bytes) (-231)‎ (undo)

    19:03, 9 January 2014‎ Mikeyoung1976 (10,738 bytes) (+523)‎ (Adds information about Denham that appears in a Department of Justice press release)

    The edit war that is taking place exceeds 3RR although the reversions come from different IP addresses. The specific edits proposed are not defammatory or libelous and are based on primary sources with solid URL links.

    How can this be resolved? There is no user to report to the Edit Wars page. Can the page be noticed as disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard I. Cook, MD (talk • contribs)


    I took a quick look. The phrase is sourced to a government notice that does actually mention Dr. Denham by name and does state that he recieved a kickback. The government source is reliable, the sentance in question only says what the government document says, without synthesis or OR, so I'd say it should stay in.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Could this page be semiprotected for a week or so? Can I request that here, or should I go to the admin board? The problem is with IP editors who do not want to talk. If they slowed down and talked to others then I think there would be fewer problems. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    María Luisa Piraquive

    Need eyes, especially Spanish-speaking eyes (si!) on this article. There's a controversy, apparently, and I am not convinced of the sourcing (let alone of the wording in the article). I removed it, and was reverted by the original contributor, and I reverted them, invoking BLP. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Well, the sources do support the information, but the edits are certainly waaay too undue. Referring to this diff, the first paragraph aggrandizes something that happened 8 years ago, merely because it is referenced briefly in the articles about the videos. Then there's some synthesis related to referencing the videos themselves in YouTube (not to mention lack of reliability), although this source is a good secondary for that. The last article is a bunch of original research supported by primary sources, and seems like an attempt to associate Baena with the whole thing. In general, there does seem to be something of a controversy there related to Piraquive, but it would definitely have to be less dramatic and wordy if it were to be included. The rest of the sources do seem reliable to me. §FreeRangeFrog 18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Jonathan King

    A clever campaign to denigrate King's (rather limited) achievements has been supported by various Misplaced Pages editors, removing positive comment and proven facts and adding negative comment as well as achieving deletion of his works - example, his film Vile Pervert: The Musical, just deleted. I have an interest being a huge Genesis fan (he discovered, named and produced them) but this cunning smearing of anything connected with him is the kind of vandalism Misplaced Pages should stamp out. I have no wish to defend him and neither should this site. Clear information without deliberate and malicious distortion of the facts.Progrockerfan (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    The question of whether King received an Ivor Novello Award for Paloma Blanca has been discussed twice at Talk:Jonathan King. The jury is still out on this one, but the consensus is that there is not enough reliable sourcing for inclusion at the moment. There was a decision after a debate to merge Vile Pervert: The Musical to Jonathan King.--♦IanMacM♦ 13:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    No editor was trying denigrate Kings achievements, but there were many many claims in the article that just werent true and not sourced (because they werent true!). I simply wanted it to tell the truth and be a good article. The article is much better now, with all credits recorded and sourced, no wild unfounded claims etc. It reads very well and shows all achievements and mistakes the man made. If JK is honest, he knows he likes to blow his own trumpet and over-egg what was achieved. Example: saying his book was going to be listed for the Booker prize when it never was etc! This article still reads like someone who did well for quite a few years and then fell from grace. Dave006 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    What is quite funny is the fact that admins on here really think its a worse crime to want an article to simply state the truth than anything JK did! Find me one thing wrong with the article now? There isnt any. But you would think that wanting it to be the truth, that I was raging a one man attack on the subject. The really get upset if you think you have the right to ask that it be changed to the truth, and if there are 30+ lies on the article (there were) then they get even more annoyed that you ask for every lie to be removed! And as for empathy and sympathy, well you can forget that, they are the admins and they know best. The rudest people on here are the people that are supposed to police it. lol. Dave006 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    One of the stumbling blocks here is that the Ivor Novello Awards are for songwriting and composing. Jonathan King did not write the music or the lyrics of the song Paloma Blanca, George Baker (musician) did, and King recorded a cover version. This is still being looked into.--♦IanMacM♦ 14:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    roger ailes

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

    The current bio page for Roger Ailes states, under the "Personal Life" heading, that he married "his lover Rush Limbaugh" in 1980. No fan of either gentlemen but pretty sure that is not true!

    Richard Geddes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.148.95 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    This was vandalism and has been removed.--Auric talk 13:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Using "expert" critical SPS blogs in BLPs

    This issue in Robert P. Murphy was brought here a couple months ago but ignored by uninvolved editors. Now at Reliable Sources Noticeboards and hotly debated. Feel free to come over and discuss here: Misplaced Pages:RSN#Brad_DeLong_blog_RS.3F. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    corneliu vadim tudor

    The intoxications used here about Corneliu Vadim Tudor are outrageous. CVT IS still the founder and, more so, the president of PRM (in every official document). He is NOT an extremist, etc. - just a patriot fighting for his country. The only extremists are those who are practicing an undeclared genocide against the romanian people, over the last 25 years, almost. All these criminals, together with their external suppliers, describe CVT as THEY themselves are, inventing and feeding crap to those who are uncapable of thinking with their own heads. CVT expressed his disgust to thieves, liars, corrupt, etc. regardless of their nationality or provenience. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a source of culture, documentation and truth, not a fountain of lies. It's a real shame that SOME users choose denigration, in spite of TRUE facts and evidence. This only proves their purpose, which is anything but the truth, because they don't benefit from the truth. Period.

    List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame

    I removed a load of unsourced people from List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame and an editor has reverted me here. I have discussed BLP with him at the porn wiki project and he contributed this there so he or she seem to be aware of BLP and just wanting to ignore it, calling my enforcement of it shameful and suggesting tagging is enough when it comes to dealing with living people who wikipedia is alleging without reliable source work in the porn industry, ie the material is contentious enough♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Sourcing for all of the removed content is available, but Squeak refuses to acknowledge it, or better yet, look it up first before deleting the content he claims is in BLP violation. Furthermore, the user has stated their bias against the subject as justification for the content removal. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    Scalhotirod's approach to editing is plainly inconsistent with WP:BLP policy and principles. Sourcing is required for such claims. Sourcing must be provided when the statements are included in articles. Moreover, every linked article must be verified to assure that the subject of the article is actually the person (more often, the pseudonym) recognized by the porn industry. Misplaced Pages editors have a long and sorry tradition of misidentifying notable individuals with erotica industry figures, and publishing large amounts of unverifiable kayfabe about them, and if Scalhotrod continues to be unwilling to edit responsibly and conform to BLP requirements, he should be placed under an appropriate topic ban. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    Squeak is correct. Sourcing must be provided. If they are in this hall of fame, then it should be quite easy to verify. No need to be difficult. Just source itTwo kinds of pork (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem is that what "SqueakBox" actually tried to do in his recent edits to the article in question here was to not only delete some names (which may or may not have absolutely needed to be in the article at all), but he also attempted to delete a list of links (at the end of the article) that could easily be used to provide inline citations for a large portion of the article, which is not what one should be doing on Misplaced Pages IMO. It's one thing to be aggressive when deleting red links (there's an entire Project developed to that sort of thing, where the principle most often used is will the red link in question have a real chance of ever having its own stand-alone article on Misplaced Pages), and it's another thing to attempt to gut an article of future, valid sourcing. Some of the Wiki-links deleted (Michael Carpenter (pornography), Scott Lyons (pornographic actor), Rick Masters (pornographic actor), Rick Savage (porn star), Jerry Steven Winkle (Internet Porn Broker), Barry Wood (pornographer), etc.) from the article in question here were also obviously, solely associated with pornography. The problem that I've seen with a fair amount of "SqueakBox's" recent edit is that he sometimes willfully deletes content that can very easily be properly sourced. He's also started a number of discussions on other talk pages, and then, when those discussions don't go his way, he attempts to direct users to this board here to solve all of the issues that he apparently refuses to discuss on the actual Misplaced Pages pages themselves.
    Being in the AVN Hall of Fame is an important part of the recently revised PORNBIO inclusion standard. The article here needs those that are willing to help provide more valid sources, not more deletions. Guy1890 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    I would enquire as to why Squeak deleted those links. I assume they are reliable for the porn industry?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly, from my initial investigation, all of those links were still completely valid weblinks, and they went to either still live websites or archived & reliable links of the organization (AVN) that gives out the awards that are documented on that page in the first place. To be completely honest, I was about to restore all of those links to the end of the article, but "Scalhotrod" basically reverted almost all of "SqueakBox"'s edits to the page in question here...so I just moved on. Guy1890 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    hey if you disagree with my removal of the external links then do revert, Guy, that was a judgement of mine which I am happy to admit wa smisplaced if you disagree as a fellow editor, but that isnt a BLP issue and so discussing that shouldnt happen here. On the other hand if those links can be turned into inline citations then they should be turned into inline citations as I am more than happy to see anyone included or added with a reliable inline citation but nobody should be added or re-added without one. As long as people desist form reverting my deletion of BLP material I am happy, they can delete my other edits in the normal way♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    As I've already stated, there's no reason to do a revert now, since basically all of your edits to the article in question here have been reverted at this point. It's pretty obvious what you were trying to pull by some of those edits, and if you're not willing to come clean here, then that's on you, not me. "On the other hand if those links can be turned into inline citations then they should be turned into inline citations"...by someone else of course, not you, since you've already clearly stated that you unfortunately have no interest in doing that whatsoever. Guy1890 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Admin needed

    Unfortunately you are right that unsourced info about living people was indeed restored again here by Scalhotrod, he had already reverted re'adding this material before here, a very bad move as BLP allows for their removal without discussion esp given both the fresh editors who commented here have fully supported my view that this info must be removed until sourced reliably with inline citations. Is there an admin or should this now be taken to AN/I as Scalhotrod seems determined to ignore BLPSOURCES and this noticeboard as well and restore unsourced info about living people, claiming they are porn stars, a contentious (in the BLP sense of the word) assertion♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    If you'd like to bring in some admin. action, then I'd like to hear a very clear & honest answer as to why you, "SqueakBox", intentionally attempted to remove those external links when it was obvious that they could be used to provide many inline citations for the article in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    A random review of the people on that list, and simple google searches shows this information is indeed verifiable (though I haven't checked every one). I see no good reason to challenge this list, as all of the blue linked articles indeed mention the subject is involved with porn.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, they don't (or at least didn't until I intervened). See, for example, this edit . Virtually all of the porn lists haven't been properly verified . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    There are no inappropriate Wiki-links on the page in question here. I can't speak to the validity of all of the gay pornography-related Misplaced Pages pages, since I don't edit extensively in that area of Misplaced Pages. Guy1890 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    Antonio Petrus Kalil

    Two years ago, this article was stubbifyed as it was considered to be extremely innacurate with several problems in its sources. I personally believe that that sole contributor to the entry has something personal against the subject, as he does not show a neutral point of view. Once again he has rewritten his attacks to Antonio Petrus Kalil and not only are his sources poor, but he actually invents things that are supposedly sourced from his head. As a family member of the subject, I can say that I have been personally affected by the lies posted by user DonCalo in a very negative way. I would like to request that the article would be sent back to the stub and that this used should be banned from editing this entry as he clearly does not have NPOV. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    While I agree the article is a mess and the sourcing is confusing at best, I will note that the BLP policy does not require removing all negative information about a subject. That said, I think that the policy on criminal acts applies: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." I will therefore redirect this article to Jogo do Bicho. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    I should not have said that before reading the talk page. I see that DonCalo has been working with SlimVirgin, Husond, and Idontknow610 to address these sourcing concerns. I suggest that you continue the conversation with DonCalo on the article talk page, and I wll see what I contribute there. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    186.73.193.83 asked me to comment on this. First, I want to clarify that I'm not working on it. There have been repeated claims that the article is a BLP violation, apparently from the subject's family. The sources are in Portuguese and some are behind paywalls. I stubified it in January 2011, after a complaint on RfPP, but it's back. The equivalent article on the Portuguese WP doesn't make the claims that this one does, so I really have no idea what to do with it. SlimVirgin 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Seems to me this should be moved to Operation Hurricane (Brazil) and the emphasis on the subject minimized. §FreeRangeFrog 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    If it can't be verified, then chuck it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    It would have been appropriate if the main contributor to this article would have been notified that there is a complaint about the article. All information in the article is verifiable through multiple sources, both in English and Portuguese. Most relevant sections from Portuguese sources have been copied in the notes and have been translated into English, both by me as by other users who judges the sources they checked reliable. As far as I can check, all sources are now accessible. I restored the dead links. The fact that the Portuguese article doesn't make the claims that the English version does is no reason to disqualify the article. There are many articles in Portuguese on Portuguese and Brazilian issues that do not have an equivalent to the English ones. That is no reason to start curtailing the English versions, or is it? Every effort has been made to verify the information, and when there is a difference of opinion on the information provided, this can obviously be discussed. That has happened in the past as well. The problem is that User 186.73.193.83 (talk) is deleting complete sections that have been properly referenced. That user has an obvious Misplaced Pages:COI being a member of the Kalil family. - DonCalo (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    DonCalo, in order to save everyone's time as this topic has been overly discussed several years ago, I will just give a brief example of your lack of NPOV. On the first paragraph of one of your most recent edits you mention the following statement… "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for formation of armed gangs, money laundering, smuggling and corruption.". I have asked you a couple of times on the talk page where or how could you possibly get this kind of information from the reference posted but you decided to ignore my questioning. Maybe this noticeboard might have a better chance then the one I had earlier.
    Regarding being a family member of Kalil, I don't believe this affects my credibility, since I am not writing any of the things that I know in first hand just because I do not have the proper news references for it. If anyone seems to have something personal agains Mr. Kalil, it seem to be yourself with your constant personal attacks over the past years. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    On your request this has been changed into: "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for conspiracy and corruption". The original was based on a AFP article that mentioned "formation de bande armée, blanchiment d'argent, contrebande et corruption". However, apparently not all these crimes could be linked to Kalil, so this has been corrected. Regarding your relation with the Kalil family it is true you don't write anything on the subject, for obvious reasons, but you try to delete everything that is not in the family's interests, despite the numerous reliable sources. I am not involved in any personal attacks, I just inform people on a quite well-known person in Rio de Janeiro/Niteroi linked to its famous carnival and rather infamous but very popular illegal lottery, who happens to be convicted twice for his involvement with the illegal game. - DonCalo (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    Once again your argument just shows how your bad intentions are. For starters, this was not the article you credited as a source for the statement, besides, nowhere in this article it states that that Kalil was convicted or even accused of those crimes. It mentioned an event that included other 24 people. If you personally think that Kalil was involved in this sort of crimes but "could not be linked to them", it is a free country and you are entitled to your own opinion at any bar conversation, but fortunately a wikipedia entry is not based on opinions. The original source you mentioned http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/os-23-condenados-na-operacao-hurricane-seus-crimes-penas-4301901 is quite clear on what the sentences are for each of the accused so I still do not understand why and how could you get this information somewhere else, unless you have any other personal motive. Also, regarding the sentence, as you are so interested in the case and Brazilian legislation, I am sure you are aware that no one is considered guilty in this country until there is a proof and final decision by a higher court. Kalil is currently appealing to the sentence in liberty and has the same rights of any free man or woman, just like you. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    This has already been ressolved. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    DonCalo, Moving forward with your biased content an still keeping on the first paragraph alone: Can you please point out on the references where did these statements come from " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines."? on the two references you present, for this statement, one is from 1993 and does not even mention Kalil, the other one only mentions he was arrested on an event that included 23 other men, but nowhere mentions why and what he was charged for. Why are you making up so much stuff? You clearly do not have any moral grounds to write about this man. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    Both sources are from April 2007 and both concern the same event. One does not mention Kalil, the other does. In combination they provide reliable information. I will add more Portugues sources, for your convenience. - DonCalo (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    DonCalo, the problem is that we can't easily check the article, because there appear to be no English-language sources, and some of the Portuguese ones are behind a paywall. With a BLP that makes serious allegations, that is a very big problem. Perhaps you could create this instead on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, where other editors can check it, and where the subject has more notability. Then, if it's deemed by the Portuguese WP to be okay, perhaps it could be translated back here. I'm pinging Rothorpe, who I believe is fluent in Portuguese, in case he has any advice about the content. SlimVirgin 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    Which articles are behind a paywall? I cannot find any, but maybe I am overlooking one. I don't see why it has to be published on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages first. Can you point out the rationale for your suggestion in the Misplaced Pages policies? Relevant sections of the sources are translated in English. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    There is no policy that says it should be posted first on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, but that makes the most sense, because there is no notability in English-language sources. It would be like posting Death of Ian Tomlinson on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, but not here. If it's on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, there are people there who can easily check the Portuguese sources, and who will know how high-quality they are.
    As for paywalls, when I wrote that the first footnote said "subscription required." SlimVirgin 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Slim, the problem is that the personal attacks happen even when the sources are in english, where he takes things completely out of context, the example I gave of " In April 2007, he was charged again for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines." both have english sources, but neither mention any of the alegations made by DonCalo186.73.193.83 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    The AP source clearly says: "24 people arrested for alleged involvement with illegal numbers games, bingo parlors and the distribution of slot machines, police said in a statement." The other source says that Kalil was among them, but as I said above, I will also provide sources in Portuguese. For your convenience I now changed the sentence in: In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    This is getting ridiculous. It looks like were on another trial and DonCalo feels he is a Supreme Court judge who knows above all. For starters Im glad you had at least the decency in adding an article that resembles to your statement, but you changing the context of an article making someone the topic for a whole event. Are you going to write 24 entries for each of the persons charged? As much as you like to generalize and take things out of context, I would suggest that if you are so interested in writing about operation hurricane, you should write about the event itself with proper references and not generalizing. Please refrain from the personal attacks, you are clearly showing bad faith against this man as you have been for the past two years. This is not a question of convenience Don, no one here wants to waste their time in this discussion that is not adding anything productive anywhere. You act as if you own an encyclopedia entry about a living man! You do not care at all about the consequences that your lies affect to the lives of his family, real people in the real world. This man was acquitted from all accusations while appealing on the 90's and is still appealing IN LIBERTY to the sentence from 2012. If Brazilian justice has not formed a definite opinion on the case, why do YOU feel like you can take this liberty?
    On your entry you claim to him charges that were actually to other people (as per the example above), you asociate him to the death of 53 people! Mass murder is a serious crime in Brazil and in most countries in the world! How can a man not even get away with that? You claim his involvement on another murder in the 80s as well but then mention it is unresolved! How can YOU claim an supposedly unsresolved murder 30 years ago to someone? You mention he has a casino in Paraguay, what casino would that be? You mention that his sons inherited illegal gambling sites due to an alleged testament, how can they have inherited something if he is still alive? Why weren't they charged for it if it is illegal? These are just a few examples of how biased your entry has been throughout the past years. Filled with lies and attacks. It was stubbified two years ago exactly for this reason, and you pretty much rewrote the same article, the sole interested contributor as this man does not even have enough relevance in the english speaking world (None english of the articles were written about him, they only mention him in passing for participating in the event that took place, and not even all of them mention him).
    If you personally do not like this man, it is your own right. If you have a bad opinion about him, you are entitled to your opionion. You are even free to open a blog and write about YOUR OWN opinions. Now you should not use the wikipedia to try to get credibility for YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AND ATTACKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I am sorry but everything in the article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. I understand you feel angry about this, but he is convicted twice. The fact that he has appealed does not mean that the current conviction does not stand. If you have information from reliable and verifiable sources that proove otherwise, please provide them and I will be happy to include them in the article. I would also appreciate if you would keep this conversation as civil as possible and stop accusing me of personally attacking Mr. Kalil, although I understand that this affects you emotionally. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    DonCalo, could you post the source for each of the following, along with what the source says about the subject (in English), please?

    1. "In April 2007, he was among 24 people charged for involvement with the illegal lottery, as well as bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines" (The first source doesn't mention him and says the group was arrested, not charged; the second source is a Chinese news agency (why?) and also says arrested).
    2. "According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association" (and is O Globo the only source for this?).

    Also, if any of the sources are tabloid newspapers, that material has to be removed or re-sourced. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." I would also suggest removing the claims about the named sons. SlimVirgin 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Draft namespace suggestion

    We have a new draft namespace (e.g. Draft:Antonio Petrus Kalil). It's there for people who want to work on drafts together, and the articles don't show up on Google searches. Perhaps a good compromise would be to move the article to the draft namespace, and for DonCalo and 186.73.193.83 to work together to make sure every sentence is sourced according to BLP. When it's finished, we can move it back.

    If there are sticking points, we could look for a third party who speaks Portuguese and is familiar with the policies to act as a mediator. Would something like that work? SlimVirgin 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    I can compromise with that just like I did two years ago when the entry was moved back to a stub due to several reasons like the ones we have again now. I just hope DonCalo will stop with his personal attacks as he did not do that after the past argument 2 years ago. 186.73.193.83 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Randolph Mantooth

    There has been some confusion as to this subject's year of birth, as evidenced on the talk page. A new user is adding familysearch.org as a reference for year of birth (see here). Question if this is a reliable source for a public record? Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Is there a reliable source for his birth name being "Randy Deroy Mantooth" to connect the public record unambiguously to him? If not, the use of this record is OR at best. Collect (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    No, there is no source at all that this is absolutely his birth name, and while I have read before that his birth name is "Randy" and that he uses "Randolph" for a stage name, it is completely WP:OR as well. I would certainly propose to leave off DOB altogether for this to avoid any more confusion. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    If the maiden name can be verified, then I'd say it could be appropriate. – Connormah (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    I may be falling behind the times, but am unaware that guys have maiden names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    No maiden name. Surname is Mantooth. Possibility that birth first name "Randy" and stage first name "Randolph" but that is unsourced. Main question is if familysearch.org is a reliable source for birth information, if connected unambiguously? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    emma kenny

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

    I constructed a wikipedia page for Emma Kenny who is an amazing woman who helps people. She has all relevant qualifications for her roles on TV etc but a few different users have gone onto the page and taken everything that a put up. When i first constructed it i had some help from some really nice people on here who helped sort it out properly. All of the stuff they placed onto her page was highly liable and complete lies. they have removed all of her qualification and biog as-well as making ridiculous blog links for her refs and external links. please can someone help me get this sorted as her page is now been completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    The reason why editors have removed various material from the article is that it was not properly sourced. Misplaced Pages articles, especially if they are about living people, must be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources. -- Alarics (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Todd Michaels needs major rework

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

    Normally I would take this on myself, however I will be logging off shortly and won't be around for the next couple of days. This article is packed with an absurd amount of puffery and unsourced material that is completely inappropriate and serves solely to promote the guy (although I'm unsure how "Todd appeared as a contestant on The Price Is Right in February 2005. He won $1,000 spinning the big wheel in the Showcase Showdown, then went on to overbid and lose" is supposed to help his career). Could someone pull their pruning sheers/weed-whacker/chainsaw/tool of choice from the shed and somehow craft this into a BLP-compliant article of sorts? --Jezebel'sPonyo 23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    I prodded the article, there isn't much salvageable there. Borderline A7, fails all the guidelines and will take it to AFD if the prod is somehow removed. Secret 04:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT SOUMYA SETH

    Please WIKIPEDIA Correct the born place written in the biography of Soumya seth, who is an indian television actress. The information of her born is wrong that she was born in Guwahti India, She was actually born in Banaras India. Please correct this informatiom about her. This is the URL link to her biography http://en.m.wikipedia.org/Soumya_Seth Please correct her information. I will be grateful to you.

    Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.222 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    I have removed both claimed birthplaces, as they are both unsourced and disputed. Please re-add the correct birthplace once you can provide a reliable source for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Abhisit Vejjajiva

    The following text is irrelevant to Abhisit's term as the Prime Minister

    From 10 October to 19 November 2010, the worst floods in 50 years hit North and Northeast, Central, and then Southern Thailand. More than 230 people were killed and more than 7 million people in 25,00 villages were affected by the flooding.

    The flood actually took place during the Yingluck Shinawatra's term. The inclusion of this flood into Abhisit's biography is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.131.109 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    People's Republic of Zhongtai

    People's Republic of Zhongtai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article is not strictly a biography, but I am still concerned about it. It's about a purported micronation, which consists of a mall restaurant owned by a single person (the LP in BLP :-), who is mentioned by name. The sources are in Chinese, but it is still evident that several negative claims made in the article are unsourced: that the restaurant has had trouble with regard to health regulations (a business-killer for a restaurant) and the assertion that the whole of China is laughing about all this. I'm not too much concerned about the latter, but the health thing is worrysome. Although the article was at AfD, I tagged it as an attack page (G10) and it was initially deleted as such by Alexf, upon which I closed the AfD. Subsequently, Alexf undeleted the article and re-opened the AfD, saying that it needed more time. I disagree with that and still think it qualifies as a G10, but as Alexf seems to be absent for several days (see their talk page), I am posting here to see whether other editors agree with this or whether I am being to worried about this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    The poorly-translated and badly-sourced "Influence" section seemed to be the primary concern, with phrases stating the owner was "...playing the fool..." or stating the entire nation was "ridiculing" the owner. I have removed that section, which contained essentially all the actual BLP attacks, which should allow for the AfD to play out. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. In retrospect, I don't actually understand why I didn't do this myself... Usually I am bolder :-). --Randykitty (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Donald Trump inter alia

    Actual residence addresses are being added by a user - is the use of actual addresses proper for BLPs? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    At least w/rt Trump, Collect's concern appears to be that readers are able to learn that Donald Trump lives in Trump Tower. Hmm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    It is the inter alia addresses which are problematic. Or did you elide noticing them? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I looked at Trump, because that's what you indicated in the section heading. If you want people to look at other issues, give the links. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I made the mistake of assuming that people were able to look at the articles so edited without too much trouble. Clearly I was wrong and I apologise for making that assumption. Collect (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC) .
    Links? Dwpaul 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Collect, are you concerned with the recent edits of Reverend Mick man34? I see residence fields being added by that editor to Stephen A. Schwarzman, David H. Koch, and Will Ferrell. I'm not sure how much stating that person lives in a certain building on Park Avenue compromises BLP. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    IIRC, past practice has been that street addresses of notable people were not regarded as being of "encyclopedic value" and required actual strong secondary reliable sourcing that the address was common knowledge. No such sourcing was given for any of the addresses that I saw (in fact I can not corroborate any of the addresses through Google at all - Donald Trump has a large number of properties, thus identifying Trump Tower as his "residence" without any sources so stating seemed odd), and thus I suggest that such is not acceptable practice now for any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Per WP:BLP, "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". A street address is contact information, and needs to be deleted, if not oversighted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Stephen Schwartzman and David H. Koch edits reported to WP:RFO. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    You have the wrong Rosemary Rogers married to Robert Downey Sr

    Robert Downey, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Check the NY Times article you cited for her marriage. Wrong. RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.221.126 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    The article and infobox say that Robert Downey, Sr.'s spouse is named Rosemary Rogers, and he married her in 1998. So does the New York Times article. Rogers is not further identified in this article, so I'm not sure why you say we have "the wrong Rosemary Rogers". Dwpaul 17:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think the editor means that we have notable romance fiction writer Rosemary Rogers, on that article, listed as being married to Robert Downey, Sr., when that's not in the article. Downey may be married to some other Rosemary Rogers. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, different Rosemarys. I'll fix it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Tyler Ward

    Keeping this article clean is not very easy. There's an IP (now blocked temporarily) who keeps vandalizing, blanking, prodding it, and on the other side there's editors like Joetri10, who are obviously fans of this (barely notable) artist. Now, I've done some cleanup, but Joetri keeps reverting me, with a blatant disregard for neutrality, reliable sourcing, etc. Some words from another editor, and perhaps some appropriate edits to the article, would be greatly appreciated lest this remain a fansite. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    I've had a quick word with the other editor, and will help keep an eye on this going forward. --John (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I and other editors fought to keep this page up. Many other YouTube mainstream artists have pages that mostly span from their own YouTube activity with more bulk. One example being Boyce Avenue whom seems to have an immense amount of YouTube related information including collabing, Tours and Ep's. The only thing that makes BA more notable is their one album reaching No.7. But the page is up and all the information is relevant.
    Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and the page as such his article roughly outlines his previous past with Football, how he got into music, his albums, labels and his most famous video. Are we saying YouTube hits are not credible? The US in fact uses YouTube views directly in their top xx charts and YouTube is becoming a much bigger platform then previous. Stars such as Psy, Justin Bieber, Conor Maynard and others have all had/have information regarding their YouTube career. Nothing makes Tyler an exception unless the other pages are in the same violation.
    There is no fandom on the page, nor "trivia". We, who have kept his page in shape, view him not just in a fan frame of mind but in the neutral state that we know what is relevant in his life and to the page. You are under the opinion that he has little point on Misplaced Pages, incredibility and lacks impact. That is simply your own opinion, a negative one as such. We had admin control the issue in the past and they were happy with how the page currently was in my revert (to my despair for the most part), I even recently deleted parts that I now feel embellish him. I request the page to remain under revert as it has been since it's savior. In reflection to other YouTube pages, there is nothing incorrect otherwise. Joetri10 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    The funny thing is, now self proclaimed "More important" editors swaning over from nowhere have changed the page to look even less credible for him to be on Misplaced Pages. I am going to do a constructive and thorough re-do and investigation of this page/Ward in the next recent weeks due to the amount of vandalism done by editors due to their own opinion. Joetri10 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Unlike Bieber and others, your hero has no record contract, no hits, no appearances on SNL, no coverage in the media--not even in the gossip pages. Calling others' good-faith efforts "vandalism" is a kind of personal attack, of course, but is here more likely the result of lack of familiarity with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, i.e., ignorance. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Wow. One hardly knows where to start. I guess one place would be with the observation that, no, in fact, YouTube hits are not considered credible evidence of notability. While YouTube artists have expanded into national or even international prominence, (Justin Bieber indeed is the prototype here), the obverse is not true. That is to say, YouTube notoriety does not guarantee general notability. This is the the difference between Tyler Ward and the other artists you list. They easily all are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The sources currently in the Tyler Ward article are not clearly of the same quality. Currently, these sources are:

    1. A Czech music web site of unknown reliability
    2. A student newspaper from a community college
    3. A Billboard article that doesn't actually mention Tyler Ward
    4. A ticket website
    5. Another billboard article that devotes a paragraph to Ward's making the "Uncharted" chart (getting a little meta here)
    6. The promotional website of the microphone company that Ward uses
    7. A concert venue's web site
    8. Another 1-paragraph mention of Ward on the Uncharted chart
    9. A local news story
    10. A now-removed video of possibly a Ward performance on an awards show
    11. An article in USA Today about a promotional stunt for the American Country Music awards show
    12. The front page of the Chester Chronicle newspaper in England, which doesn't appear to mention Ward
    13. An apparently expired link on the web site of The Ellen Show to a video (Did he appear on Ellen? I can't tell)
    14. A video from Ward claiming he's signed to Sony
    15. A dead link to Sony Music
    16. A dead link to Sony Music

    Most of these sources are not even worth discussing whether they are reliable sources or not. Of the others, the absolute best that can be said is that Ward is marginally notable under the WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria #1. Give it time. If you truly believe in Ward, then you should have confidence that he will pass into incontestable notability (when, for example, he releases a second album on Sony (WP:NMUSIC #5)). At the present time, however, Drmies is right, and a lot of this has to go as non-reliably sourced. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Eggishorn, I am impressed by your due diligence. Thank you. I hope that this will be received not just in the spirit in which it was sent, but also with the same knowledge of what's important here and what's not. But if the claim is made that YouTube views somehow figure into the calculation of chart positions, then I fear the worst. BTW, the AfD closed as keep, and you'll see that MichaelQSchmidt gave a list of sources, some of which may be helpful and good. Since you already put so much effort into this article, do you wanna have a look and see if you can make this into something decent? Joetri10 should appreciate it, even if they probably won't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll see what I can do. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    It looks like Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, GiantSnowman, LadyofShalott, John, and Mogism have already taken care of nearly everything. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Drmies The concept of "charting" is expanding dramatically, to the point of making the charting item of nmusic a big issue (I would propose rewording it to indicate if that is the sole criteria the person meets, they definitely aren't notable). Youtube charts, the uncharted chart, heatseekers chart. There is some article on my watchlist I can't find now, that's main point of notability is that they are a US band that "charted" on some middle-eastern chart, where their actual national charting system is based on an anonymous internet poll, hosted by a single radio station . Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    The problem here is Tyler Ward; being big in Germany, means that all the sources that are actually credible are all of German media and written in German. They are somewhat difficult to locate but that is most of where his recent activity has been.
    Also Drmies, please fix that attitude towards me. What I think about him personally is irrelevant to me but you seem to think otherwise.
    Eggishorn, Your bias and ignorant nature also needs fixing. The billboard chart link does in fact mention Ward, even though only once and although that Ellen link now does not host the video, the image shown clearly shows Ward as well as mentioning his name. I understand most links are now broken and others have been used in in-correct context which admittedly got away from me due to people adding these links in randomly. I admit these problems but you need to stop being so critical and ignorant. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a "Look you're wrong because:" showcase. Joetri10 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Do you understand the simple fact that Misplaced Pages is not allowed to be used for advertising? Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Did you tried to read WP:NPOV? Hafspajen (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    It seems the guy is actually notable, and probably even satisfies the GNG. Most of the links in the article were crap, but there are actually, contrary to expectation, enough high quality sources for much of the material. I'm not expressing an opinion on Joetri10's editing practices, which are no doubt problematic, but he's covered enough by even e.g. The Denver Post that we're going to continue to have an article about him regardless.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, no doubt about it, he is notable, the problem is this edit Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Well, with enough eyes, all spam is reverted.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    And also this edit. Yes, thank God, spam is gone. Hafspajen (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    The funny thing is now with the new edit, anyone who actually knows who Tyler Ward can see that not only does the page miss simple information on him, it's also so condensed down that it's in fact wrong and or mis-understood. Wikipiedia also needs to grow up, YouTube means a lot more than it did 5 years ago. The page is actually more of a mess than before. You must know content of the subject before editing guys. Joetri10 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Joetri10 Your logic is exactly backwards. Misplaced Pages would not work if everyone was required to be an expert on the topic. this is in fact the exact reason for WP:RS and WP:V everyone should be able to easily verify or cleanup information in the encyclopedia by looking at the reliable sources that back our content. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    But you miss the biggest picture by relying completely on reliable sources when you don't understand what it's actually referencing. Things are missing, chunks of relevant information. You have a very vague understanding on what it is that they are showing and proving. Yes, what we have now is reliably sourced but coming from someone that has followed him for 5 years to someone who edits Misplaced Pages based on loophole rules, I know that it's all slightly vague at best. It tells something, but not everything and gaps are missing. I'm not saying the page is wrong, I'm just saying it's vague at best and something's to me are just plainly missing.
    Examples that are clear to me: He is not completely independent for a start. Before he was interested in music? He was always interested in music since he was very young. It tells us who ward opened up for, but when, Why? They were not the only ones he opened up for either. How did ward become popular? He had labels and producers helping him, people in his band ("Tyler Ward" is actually a band for the most part). His album(s) are released and went to No.1 in the iTunes. Is charting only relevant in mainstream charts? because I would rather argue Misplaced Pages's ethics than the page in that case. The album is also only released in 1 of 2 parts. He isn't just signed with Sony Germany. In "Instruments" he also plays the piano for his recorded music. His "genre's" are vague but missing other genre's that he actually does (Pop, Rap). He is a producer and has produced music for well known stars such as Jason Derulo and Cody Simpson. This is all relevant solid information if what is already written is also relevant and this is also just some things. I am aware I have not sourced any of this information but yes, I could with time. Joetri10 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    If the article is a biography of a living source, and it includes a fact not cited to a reliable source, then if someone challenges that fact you have to either source it or remove it. Misplaced Pages only includes information taken from other reliable sources. This is not up for negotiation. Mogism (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) When it is sourced, you can add it. Particularly on a WP:BLP ALL information must be reliably sourced. Watching youtube videos and doing WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH based on your opinions and interpretations of the content is strictly forbidden. Missing information on a marginally notable musician, of interest primarily to fans that probably already know the information, is frankly not a big deal to wikipedia. Putting in information that cannot be sourced however, is - both for this particular article, and the precedent it sets in other articles that expose wikipedia to legal and financial risk. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Are you guys actually reading anything or still trying to just big-up the issue? I clearly stated I could locate reliable sources on all that I have mentioned. Ignoring my most recent edit on the page (Not entirely created by me), I am instead mentioning what is missing, written incorrectly and misunderstood. What isn't written may not be in the interest to Misplaced Pages but having misleading or blatant incorrect information surely must me. I wish you people would stop sticking rules in my face as well, its disgusting conduct. I never claimed this was from "Watching YouTube Videos" or doing own research, I just said it could be sourced. Joetri10 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Possible BLP violation at Russ Tice

    What appears to be a BLP violation has been made three times, with the last one just moments ago here by Bdell555. I am not well-versed in this area, and am short on time, but this seems a non-neutral use of the source, as well as creating undue weight with placement in the first paragraph, wording, and with the wikilinked psychotic paranoia. Any help would be most appreciated. (It wouldn't seem Russ Tice has not been discredited... as the present version of the page would have us believe. At least, he made an appearance on PBS Newshour this summer to speak on the NSA leaks.) petrarchan47tc 04:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    The article currently ends by citing to the dailypaul and, immediately before that, a story in theblaze with the blaring headline "BUSH-ERA NSA WHISTLEBLOWER MAKES MOST EXPLOSIVE ALLEGATIONS YET ABOUT EXTENT OF GOV’T SURVEILLANCE — AND YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHO HE SAYS THEY SPIED ON". Now why wasn't his "bombshell" allegation that the NSA spied on no less than Barack Obama in 2004 been picked up by more serious media? If true this would be notable, would it not? And how many sources have carried Tice's allegations concerning "the wiretapping of Feinstein’s offices, homes, and family"? Spying on the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and her home and family would be rather remarkable, would it not? My colleague here would like to remove the Slate story titled "The Professional Paranoid" even though the point of that piece is to argue that Tice should be considered reliable. That sympathetic Slate piece still concedes that the saga starts with his accusing "an Asian-American woman he was working with" of being a Chinese spy back in 2001. Note that the Slate piece acknowledges that "Tice's departure from the agency had nothing to do with the misgivings about domestic eavesdropping that he now professes." My colleague's preferred reading creates the impression that Tice's departure has EVERYTHING to do with his "whistleblowing" about domestic eavesdropping because it suggests that Tice was fired in retaliation for his "urging Congress to pass stronger protections for federal intelligence agency whistleblowers" just days earlier. This reading ignores the background completely and kicks off the history after Tice has already been dismissed (the article is currently chronologically ordered such that material pertaining to prior to 2005 should be given first). The bottom line is that the article is incomplete without adding the material I do. Does the article now say he's paranoid? No, it doesn't, it says someone working for the U.S. government thought so, and it includes Tice's statement that he believes this conclusion about his mental state to be unfair. Readers can draw their own conclusions about what to believe. Absent this material, readers are being railroaded into concluding this person has been unjustly persecuted by the U.S. government.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    I've since changed the end of the article to allow Mr Tice to raise what he apparently believes is a key question: has the intelligence community blackmailed U.S. officials to get what the intelligence community wants? "Is the intelligence community running this country"? Inquiring people want to know.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Vladimir Putin

    Vladimir Putin

    Third paragraph in, someone has put " Critics such as stalin describe him as a mcdonalds worker, which Putin adamantly denies.". Vladimir Putin was born in 1952, Stalin died in 1953, so how can this possibly be true?

    No. That was somebody joking around and for some reasons it hadn't been picked up. I have removed it. Thanks for notifying. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    James Delingpole part 3

    is the edit in question.

    The source is Feminist Media Studies which is not a biographical article about the subject of the BLP.

    The edit which I find supportable by the actual article would be

    Delingpole described himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male" and followed with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction

    rather than the edit warred version of

    Delingpole adheres to a version of identity politics that identifies the middle classes as experiencing injury and oppression, describing himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male". In an article entitled "A conspiracy against chavs? Count me in", he describes chavs as "repellent" and follows with "The function of satire is not only to make us laugh, but also, with luck, to draw our attention to the things that are wrong with the world and help mock them into extinction which is called a "paraphrase" by the editor proposing it.


    The actual article abstract is:

    In the last three years a new vocabulary of social class has emerged in Britain. The word “chav,” alongside its various synonyms and regional variations, has become a ubiquitous term of abuse for the white poor. This article explores the emergence of the grotesque and comic figure of the chav within a range of contemporary British media focusing on the role played by disgust reactions in the generation and circulation of the chav figure through popular media. Concentrating on the figure of the female chav, and the vilification of young white working-class mothers, this article argues that the “chav mum” is produced through disgust reactions as an intensely affective figure that embodies historically familiar and contemporary anxieties about female sexuality, reproduction, fertility, and “racial mixing.”

    The article is not biographical, stated to be biographical, intended to be biographical of any person, and is not a reliable source for SYNTH biographical claims. IMO. .

    I fear the "insisted upon edit" is 1. not a "paraphrase" as it makes combinations of claims not in the source 2. makes claims in Misplaced Pages's voice about a living person which are not made by the source 3. Introduces "chavs" without explaining precisely what the usage of the term is, and the basis for the article in Feminist Media Studies which is not intended in any way as a biographical article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Other editors are encouraged to have a look at the talk page, which gives the relevant quote from the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    I would note I already cited the entire source above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    You linked to the source/article, which many people would have to pay for to get access. On the talk page, I provide the relevant quote from that source. Again, I suggest other editors look at the talk page to evaluate things properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Normal procedure is to link to the full source, so that editors may verify for themselves what the full context of any source is. And I would note that looking at the talk page is certainly a good idea which most denizens here do automatically. Including a claim that "not really contestable" is given as a reason for SYNTH. BTW, the source is "free access" for this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, I support linking to the full source. I only wanted to link to the talk page discussion as well. I hope that's not a problem for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Abu Sakara CPP, .

    The subject of this article should be discussed without reference to his predecssor. The article seeks to make a silent comparison with possible intent to denigrate. This is especially obvious when the factual account of his performance is given out of context of a general election in which six of the political parties got less than 1% of the popular vote (Ndoum included). The remaining 99% of the vote was shared between the two dominant political parties who ended in an election dispute that lasted 8 months and was decided by the supreme court. A very unusual election indeed. The CPP for information retrieved a parliamentary seat in Kumbungu by election with support of Abu Skara and are now only one of four political parties that have seats in parliament (NDC, NPP. CPP and PNC). PPP and others have no seat in parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.251.224.47 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    LulzSec

    Article had a problem with a user adding the same line to the list of LulzSec members, including a real name and no source, despite warnings. User blocked, edits hidden. Another user has materialized to add the exact same thing. Geniac reverted this one but if history is any indication it'll just happen again. (Block evasion). --— Rhododendrites |  14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    I have semi-protected the page indefinitely. -- John Reaves 14:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

    I have concerns about the criticism section of the Peter Brabeck-Letmathe article. It is being claimed he denies water is a basic human right and wants to privatize water. A note on receiving a "Black Planet Award" from an obscure organization is listed as well, even though the source link is broken. The source for the water claim is a youtube video, not a primary source, and further is not in English, so I cannot even verify if the information is at all accurate. Further, he denies that he has made such claims in an article he wrote on Huffington Post. I deleted the section but someone keeps reverting my edits saying the information should stay. C0h3n (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Jump Chico Slamm

    This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

    Jump Chico Slamm and Jump "Chico" Slamm are both Production aliases for Faustin Lenon With various record releases including producer projects (self named releases), production (for other recording artists) and remixes Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).http://5chicago.com/news/2012/06/15/the-vaults-jump-chico-slamm-returns-on-rush-hour/</ref>

    I'm not sure what you're looking for here in terms of actions, fixes, etc. See the section on Sagat below for changes I made to that article. If you have other suggestions/requests let's just address them below rather than in parallel threads. --— Rhododendrites |  20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I am deactivating the "adminhelp" template, as you have merely told us a fact, and given no indication what you want done. (In any case, it is rarely necessary to use "adminhelp on a noticeboard such as this one, as it is likely that an admin will see your post anyway: "adminhelp" is more useful on talk pages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Sagat (rapper)

    This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

    I am the representative for this artist and there are quite a few problems with this article.

    1. "He also ditched the eyepatch seen in the FUNK DAT music video. There are currently no confirmed updates on replacement accessories."

    is defamatory and most unappreciated since the bio for Sagat is posted at discogs and Sagat (now Sagatmanchu) has not abandoned the eye patch. please remove this comment

    2. Faustin Lenon never used the alias Chico Jump Slamm The proper Production entity names are Jump Chico Slamm and Jump "Chico" Slamm.

    3. A full bio can be seen at: http://www.jumpchicoslamm.com/#/bio/4558886291 changed to A full bio can be seen at: http://www.jumpchicoslamm.com/bio

    Can these entries please be corrected?

    Thank You— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerumino (talk • contribs)

    Thanks for bringing these to our attention. First off, I will tell you that you need not phrase your suggestions in such terms as "defamatory," which almost always has legal implications and would almost certainly be inapplicable here as it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate harm caused by the statement you quoted. Nonetheless, I removed that line as well as the line about the Capcom lawsuit previous, as any such claim about living persons requires reliable sources. Also fixed the name order and moved the link to the bottom, linking to the official site landing page rather than the bio page. See here for exact changes made. --— Rhododendrites |  20:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT

    When I used to patrol this board more frequently, I often fought against inclusion of religious and sexual orientation labels per BLPCAT. Judaism was particularly problematic because of the cultural/religious dichotomy. Ironically, I find myself in a dispute on this article where I am the one arguing that the Jewish label should remain in the infobox. My interpretation is it's well-sourced that Belfort has identified as a Jew here as there's an amusing quote from him in the magazine article. One editor is so riled up he's reverting me while questioning whether my account has been "hacked" (see ), not a constructive question, particularly for an administrator. I assume the question stems from the editor's belief that the only way I could maintain this label is if I'm not really myself. Hyperbole is always fun.

    I'll leave to others to sort this out, although regardless of whether the issue is resolved, I predict there will be more battles to come (although not by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    The quote says he was praying to Jesus, so it's not a very clear instance of Jewish self-identification, at least in the religious sense (the infobox entry was for "religion" rather than ethnicity).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    (ec) I am the "riled up editor" who had the audacity to question an administrator. First of all your strawman argument about my "belief" is the funniest thing I've read here today, so thanks for that. As for the underlying issue, this is my position: Not sure where in the linked article it states that Belfort "identified as a Jew." I hope its not where in the long article there is a half of sentence that says that he had a "Jewish mother on steroids" (whatever that means). I could be missing something though I think I covered the whole article. I would like the administrator proponent to show specifically on what grounds he is introducing the fact that Belfort's religion is Judaism and on what grounds he is introducing the fact that Belfort "remains Jewish" (again, what the heck does that even mean?) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Your comments here are also unconstructive, so I probably won't be responding again. I have no problem with your questioning my edits. As I clearly stated, it's the "hacked" business that is inappropriate. The "remains Jewish" is awkwardly worded. I wanted to get across that he was raised in a Jewish household and, as an adult, still considers himself Jewish. I have no objection to that being reworded. As I also stated, the religion/cultural issue has always been an issue. I don't know how to sort that out because using the ethnicity parameter in the infobox instead of the religion parameter has its own set of problems. It implies that he doesn't identify with being Jewish but comes from a Jewish background, which, in this case, is not accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    Why not use the "religion parameter" and fill it with "nonobservant Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    This is Belfort's full quote from the magazine article: "I’m lying on my back and see the ceiling has cracks in it. I’m like, Why are the Wasps not paying for their ceiling? What a troubling thought that they don’t fix the ceiling in this Wasp heaven — maybe they’re running out of money. I try to stand. I can’t stand! I curl myself into a little barrel and fucking roll myself down the steps. I do the prayer to Jesus. Even an old Jew. Jesus, please God, just get me home one last time."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    If he refers to himself as a Jew, then it doesn't matter if he prays to Jesus and all the saints -- per BLPCAT we can (and in my view should) indicate in the infobox that he's a Jew. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    As his "religion"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Paul Hartal

    Could some kind soul please take pity on the article on Paul Hartal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is an absolute mess. We have an email ticket from him. I don't mind passing on your email address if you want to mail me. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive190#Nino_Firetto
    2. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/January/14-civ-021.html
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic