Misplaced Pages

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

emma kenny

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

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

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

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)

• Thank you John. I don't know how well your words were received; methinks brick walls are more likely to be affected by our efforts. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 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)

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)

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 be. 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)

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)

I have not made an edit to this article prior to reverting Bdell555's work over the past few days. Due to time constraints, I have not have taken the time to read it thoroughly, but on first glance, the article has some problems: it doesn't talk about the person at all, but begins with Tice being fired and then lists important tidbits from his career. Usually an article will speak about the beginnings of a person's life, their family, etc. Now the most controversial aspect is covered in the very first paragraph, with this 'no big deal' accusation by a government official highlighted by a completely unnecessary wikilink. This same brand of enthusiasm from Bdell555 has been aimed at the Edward Snowden article, which a quick glance at the talk page will show. Accusations of edit warring at Snowden are found at his own talk page. You can get an idea of this enthusiasm here, in an(other) OR tangent.

The coverage of Russel Tice's firing and psych eval can be done in a much more respectful, neutral and accurate way. First, I found this CBS news article that basically makes fun of the evaluation as a transparent attempt to discredit Tice. Even the article Bdell555 added speaks to this same fact, though the statements from Sibel Edmonds weren't included in Bdell555's additions.

Bdell555 asks why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media. Sibel Edmonds writes:

• MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview

They have appeared in media, however:

• NSA Whistleblower: NSA Spying On – and Blackmailing – Top Government Officials and Military Officers
• ORIGINAL NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: I Saw The Order To Wiretap Barack Obama In 2004
• Russ Tice, Bush-Era Whistleblower, Claims NSA Ordered Wiretap Of Barack Obama In 2004 petrarchan47tc 23:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say "MSNBC Censors NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice Minutes Before Interview" proves my point. MSNBC didn't want to air Tice's allegations in full because MSNBC's suits didn't think they were credible. But Sibel Edmonds says that MSNBC didn't want to air them because there's a conspiracy to suppress them! Petrarchan47, yet again, finds the conspiracy theory the most appealing explanation. I suppose it all depends on perspective now, doesn't it? I remain of the view that the Tice article is far more accurate and neutral with my edits than without. As for "respect", NPOV is a "non-negotiable" "core" policy. Whitewashing a bio to delete anything that might question the accuracy of the subject's claims is not. By the way, how is that you don't have time to fix an article you say is flawed but you do have the time to revert everything I do? Looks more like a problem of priorities to me. re my so-called "enthusiasm," I could make an issue out of your well documented fawning "enthusiasm" for one Edward Snowden, but the issue is article, not the editor, is it not?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It takes seconds to revert, hours to deal with a noticeboard like this, and a day to do proper work on a novel article (at least, for me). I am involved in a project and do not have space to take on another article, which is why I'm asking someone here to look at this. You have now suddenly visited the project and weighed in against it. This could be called hounding. Look, drop the OR and the smear campaign against whistle-blowers, whom you call "conspiracy theorists".

The details about Tice's firing do not belong in the first sentence of his article no matter what sort of diatribe you have to offer in your defense. The story is simple, if you're willing to be at least as NPOV as ABC news: "The NSA revoked Tice's security clearance in May of based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him. Tice calls that bunk and says that's the way the NSA deals with troublemakers and whistleblowers. Today the NSA said it had "no information to provide." petrarchan47tc 01:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Now Bdell555 has gone on to make substantial edits to the Snowden article in what looks like a flurry of revenge editing. I am sorry to the other editors here that I can't take care of this myself. If you could offer some advice, or help look into these edits that would be most appreciated. I am throwing up my hands out of necessity. petrarchan47tc 04:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"revenge editing"? Against you? Because you "own" that other article? You believe the documented diagnosis of paranoia in the subject of this BLP is bogus, with the U.S. government conspiring to falsely diagnosis this employee, but a diagnosis of a revenge complex in myself would be well founded, is that right? How about we just stick to the sources, which means ceasing to follow my editing around. I responded on this page because, as you'll see at the top of the page, "generally" this page is for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material". When you accuse another editor of defamation or libel that assertion may be contested. That's not "hounding." To get back to the substance, statements from Sibel Edmonds weren't included because Edmonds is not credible. According to Edmonds, "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" because of "censorship". There is, in fact, absolutely no evidence of censorship as opposed to declining to broadcast Tice's allegations because they are not credible.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left comments and more sourcing to prove Bdell555's assertions incorrect at the Tice talk page here. Until someone can get around to making the present coverage more neutral, I would suggest reverting to the pre-Bdell555 version of the article. A simple blurb like the one from ABC news above can be used in the meantime to quell Bdell555's worry that the story of how Tice lost his job isn't covered in the article. However, it should not be placed in the very first sentence and paragraph. petrarchan47tc 22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell seems to be making the better argument on this page. Perhaps you could bring your arguments that "prove" your case from other pages to here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:07, 22 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)

Having read the full original ref, I agree that it does not support the "adheres to" formulation in this BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 22 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

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)

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

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

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)

An interesting idea, but we don't know, at least from that source, whether he be identifies as religiously Jewish. We know only that he identifies as Jewish. Perhaps it would be better to leave it out of the infobox because of the limitations of the parameters and use cats instead, which don't get into those nuances.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Non-observant Jew" isn't a religion. I think Bbb23 is right to say we should leave it out of the infobox and keep the cats. I can't find any sources that talk about his religion. He himself, and I noted this on the article's talk page, says he is a Jew, though. In the absence of specific information to the contrary we should assume this means ethnicity. It's obviously relevant, though, because numerous sources discuss it and he talks about it all the time in his autobiography.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:31, 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)

Anythingyouwant—you say "As his 'religion'?" For sure—as his religion. At the web site "Judaism 101" I find: " A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship." Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bus Stop, as you are very well aware (having had it pointed out previously when you tried to cite it), the "Judaism 101" website isn't even remotely a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the creator - a person who states that "I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism" ,and that it "is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint". . And there is no way whatsoever that Misplaced Pages is ever going to define anyones religion on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "And there is no way whatsoever that Misplaced Pages is ever going to define anyones 'religion' on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid." And there is no reason that Misplaced Pages would ever have to "define anyones 'religion' on the basis that their mother was Jewish." Please consider another source: "According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting involved in another of your facile and tendentious 'debates'. A person's religion is defined by what they themselves believe, not by what other people believe about them, and no source that suggests otherwise is of the slightest relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—let us consider what The Economist, a secular publication, has to say: "Gentiles might be surprised that for Jews by birth this traditional test makes no reference to faith or behaviour. Jews may be atheist (many are: apostasy is a venerable Jewish tradition) and still Jews." Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So not content with citing a ridiculously-unreliable source, you are now cherry-picking another one. One which makes entirely clear that there is no general agreement amongst competing groups within Judaism as to any definition of who is Jewish. Not that it is relevant anyway, since Misplaced Pages (like any sane encyclopaedia not pushing a particular ethnoreligious POV) defines religion as a belief system - self ascribed - and not something that can be ascribed by others. It simply doesn't matter what other people think someone's religion is, if they themselves don't subscribe to it. That isn't what 'religion' means - as the Economist article you cite makes clear when it says that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are seizing upon, from The Economist article, what I think is an inapplicable point, namely that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion". Does Jordan Belfort describe himself that way? A wider quote from The Economist article would read "The responses confirm that Jewishness is not thought to consist mostly in belief: 22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion (swap 'Christians' for 'Jews' and the statistic becomes nonsensical)." The Economist, in that quote, is I think suggesting that the parameters applicable to Judaism are different from the parameters applicable to Christianity. "A Jewish person is still Jewish whether or not he believes or practices Judaism.". You are not bringing any sources. If a person is Jewish as a result of birth or as a result of a valid conversion, that person does not become "not Jewish" as a consequence of not practicing the religion or as a consequence of not believing something considered essential to the religion. I think you are displaying a misunderstanding of Judaism. You are trusting your own opinions too strongly. And you are not bringing sources of your own. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone doesn't practice a religion, we cannot describe it as their religion because it isn't their religion, and only a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD would argue otherwise. Now toddle off to ANI because I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll - but expect to explain why you are yet again promoting your ridiculous agenda yet again, after being told multiple times that Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls to go around falsely tagging people as Jewish by religion when they aren't Jewish by religion. If you do raise this at ANI shall of course be calling for you to be topic banned on the basis that your Jew-tagging agenda is contrary to the objectives of Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—is CNN incorrect in supplying for Henry Kissinger the information "Religion: Jewish"? I couldn't find a similar word formation for Jordan Belfort but I think they are both nonobservant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—this thread wasn't initiated by me. It was initiated by Bbb23. Though that editor has reversed their position, they said in their first post "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". Also Nomoskedasticity says in this thread "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." And finally Alf.laylah.wa.laylah says in this thread "See the article from the Jewish Journal of LA discussed on the talk page of the actual article. It is a subject of interest because Belfort talks about the fact that he's Jewish extensively in his book and elsewhere and yet his character in the movie is not Jewish. This fact has been discussed fairly widely in the press, so it seems plausible that a reader might wonder whether or not he is Jewish. He is. He says it himself all the time." Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm not easily offended but calling someone a "Jew-tagging troll" is simply unacceptable. Bus stop (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Only just noticed? Anyway, if you don't like it, stop advocating that contributors violate multiple Misplaced Pages policies by misrepresenting people as Jewish by faith when they aren't. We aren't going to lie to our readers just to satisfy your bizarre agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—your language ("I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll")is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment in which a premium is placed on collegiality. Bus stop (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who wishes for Misplaced Pages to publish lies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—this is a collaborative project whether you disagree or not with another editor or whether you feel another editor promotes "lies". You are nevertheless expected to conduct yourself in the manner expected at this project. We have policies that tell us that "Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." This matters. You can't skirt these policies. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages." Bus stop (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who engages in an ideological battle with the objective of persuading Misplaced Pages to publish lies. If you don't like my comments, toddle off to ANI, where I can call for you to be topic banned as promoting your own objectives relating to Judaism and Jewish ethnicity which are totally incompatible with the stated objectives of Misplaced Pages. Namely, that we should publish lies about the religion of living persons, contrary to WP:BLP policy, and to everything else that Misplaced Pages stands for. So put up, or shut up - this thread has served its purpose, and it has been made clear that we aren't going to describe Jordan Belfort as a follower of the Jewish faith, because he doesn't state that he is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"put up, or shut up"? We don't speak this way at Misplaced Pages. Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I do. I just did. And I'll do so again. Put up, or shut up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps use his own autobiography as a source, as it's less ambiguous? I put a cite template for it on the talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed - no reason why we shouldn't cite both. I'd put the autobiography first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The revert of your edit removed the infobox, left the cat, and included the fact that he was "raised in a Jewish home." What exactly is the wording that you are proposing to add? Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to move this conversation back to the article talk page so we're not having it in two places. There seem to be a lot of eyes on the article by now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This has shades of Ed Miliband. I don't know what eventually happened there and it sounds like in this case we at least don't have any sources we he says he's not religious but still, I don't see any reason to label his religion as Jewish from the sources presented so far. The opinions of third parties, even RS, on what a term means are of course largely irrelevant, what matters is how this LP defines himself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone give a good reason why Belfort's ethnicity and/or religious beliefs (if any) are of any relevance to to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—there isn't necessarily a concern here with a person's "ethnicity and/or religious beliefs". Furthermore a biography "entails more than basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death". Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. See the article from the Jewish Journal of LA discussed on the talk page of the actual article. It is a subject of interest because Belfort talks about the fact that he's Jewish extensively in his book and elsewhere and yet his character in the movie is not Jewish. This fact has been discussed fairly widely in the press, so it seems plausible that a reader might wonder whether or not he is Jewish. He is. He says it himself all the time. I really wonder why this discussion is still going on at this noticeboard given that, contrary to all reasonable expectations, the issue has already been resolved on the article's talk page and the questioned sentence is now stable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know and to be honest don't really care that much about any sentence. I'm more concerned about the infobox which from my experience akin to Bbb23's, is along with categories, usually the biggest problem (since we have room to expand on what people actually say in the article but in categories and infoboxes are very simplified so run a strong risk of convey something not supported by what the person said above). The suggestions made in this discussion about the infobox by Bus stop are IMO rather flawed so I felt it necessary to reenforce AndyTheGrump, Bbb23 and your view that the information presented here does not support listing the religion as Jewish, non observant Jew or anything of that sort in the infobox. I also thought it helpful to mention the Ed Miliband case, as a somewhat related case where this was discussed extensively (and in which I believe Bus stop was involved). The infobox and categories were also what brought this issue to the noticeboard, not the article text. And this discussion was started less than 24 hours ago when I replied, Bus stop's responses were about 15 hours old. So I don't see how or why I can or should have assumed it's settled. The fact that Bus stop has continued to reply here after I responded (albeit not to me) supports my view that it's not clear the infobox issue was settled, however settled the article text is. While I appeciate that split discussions can be confusing, I find very little discussion about religion in the infobox in the article talk page, and a lot here, most of it not coming from me (and as I've said, some of it coming after me). Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 22 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)

I have trimmed out most of the obvious cruft to expose the bones of the article. What remains isn't great, and parts are very poorly sourced, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what the problem is? I see there were huge arguments on the talk page years ago, but that seems to have passed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cruft and badly sourced, was precisely the problem. Thank you, that now looks much better. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)

Wendy Davis (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some eyes on this please. It seems a quasi-expose came out in a local paper today and various editors are interested in adding minutiae such as who paid for her education (mentioned multiple times) and took care of the kids. I don't know if a male politician would get quite the same attention as to how he financed his education. --NeilN 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I know Sara Palin would.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

More than just one local paper -- LATimes, WaPo, CNN, Detroit Free Press, UPI, CBSNews, New York Magazine, and the New York Times. Collect (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Chua Beng Huat

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

Chua Beng Huat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person does not fulfill Misplaced Pages's guidelines for an encyclopedic article about him/her.

Further, many passages of the article are obviously monobiographic in nature and do not reach Misplaced Pages's editing standards.

Since this person is not deemed relevant according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines, I suggest removing the article altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.50.215 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:PROF - this individual prima facie meets those guidelines. The article may need cleaning up but I don't think you can argue against notability.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

George Washington (trombonist)

Born in 1907, it seems quite unlikely that this man is still living. However, as I understand it, WP:BLP requires that anyone under 115 years of age be presumed living until confirmed deceased. This case seems to be something of an anomaly, as the page, when created in 2008, began: "George Washington was...", seemingly indicating that he was already deceased. Internet searches have yielded me next to nothing. I did find one article stating that he was alive, aged 106, but it seemed to be based on our own article. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. Meanwhile, should I observe the letter of WP:BLP, and change the lede to indicate that he is living? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is the source that says he was born in 1907? The Allmusic source gives 1910. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But note the picture of "him" at Allmusic, which hardly inspires confidence in their reliability :-) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic bios are generally considered RSes, which makes Washington's "picture" all the more baffling. But anyway, what's the source saying he was born in 1907? I haven't found one. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 04:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a group photo on a website that may or may not be reliable, but it states that the photo was taken in 1920, and he looks older than 13. I guess the bottom line is that we don't know for sure when he was born and whether he has died, but if he's alive, he's awfully old. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The portrait on Allmusic must be the bassist who played with John Lee Hooker. Bassists and trombonists often look indistinguishable without their instruments. But if they wanted to indicate he was old, that's the portrait to do it. But more seriously, I don't think it's settled that the George Washington playing trombone with Buddie Petit in Lousiana in the group shot should necessarily be considered the same George Washington that played trombone from Jacksonville. (Although I wouldn't say he couldn't be thirteen in that picture, being the smallest man in it, and considering he started playing at ten, and being that thirteen isn't a "look".) The George Washington in this photo is taken in the city he was supposed to be in at the time, at least. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on the allmusic page for the first time and now everyone at work is looking at me funny for laughing so much. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a bunch of George Washingtons in Findagrave.com born in 1907 and in 1910, but without having a solid source for the birthdate, it's not much to go on. I'm also unable to locate a New York Times obituary. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations linking suicide to living person

• Yevadu#Brahmin_protests

I am having second (and third) thoughts about whether including this is appropriate. I am not seeing in any of the major news papers coverage of this angle and in fact The Times is running a story about the large box office take and no mention of impact of the purported protests. .

Given the seriousness of the accusations, the gossip entertainment nature of the sources covering it, and the apparent lack of impact, I don't think it reaches the level needed to be included - yes? no?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pure speculation, and may be harmful in a BLP. Collect (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

James Morgan (actor)

An OTRS ticket claims that James Morgan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is fake. All edits seem to be by single-purpose accounts, but there is an IMDB page (which of course is also potentially user-generated). Can someone please check this out? Guy (Help!) 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple independent sources that support the subject's existence, at least. Not sure about actual notability though. What's the ticket number? §FreeRangeFrog 18:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(EC) There seems to be lost of funny business going on there for a relatively low profile actor including some deleted. However there are 3 working sources used in the article , the first one which looks to be a RS (and possibly the second) and the third a decent primary source so it sounds a lot like the actor exists and a some of the info is correct. The history suggests to me for some odd reason the subject is a target for trolling and the OTRS is unfortunately probably more of the same. It's also possible the person saw one of the vandalised versions, there were two recently although they were reverted within 60 mins. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, because of the continual vandalism/trolling, I requested page protection and it was granted. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Harry Styles

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

The first sentence of the article linked above describes Harry Styles as the lead vocalist of the group One Direction, this information is false and easily disproved. I demand that this statement be removed from the article as it not only de-emphasizes the contribution of the other members of the group but it will also improve the validity of the article.

Regards TanaSpyce (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Max French

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

The subject has emailed with proposed changes, with his permission I have dropped them at Talk:Max French. I'd be grateful if someone could do a quick review and fix any inaccuracies in the article. Thanks Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ted Nugent

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

I don't think things have crossed the line yet , but I would guess they will be shortly.the current accusation seems to be sourced, but also very fresh/unverified. Nugent stepped in it again, which will likely dredge up tons of the old issues that have been brought to this board before. Article/talk could probably use additional eyes for the next bit. Talk:Ted_Nugent&curid=627342&diff=591931514&oldid=587884515Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The man's a real prince, isn't he? It leaves a bad taste in the mouth defending that kind of person. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He's utterly contemptible in my personal opinion, but that doesn't mean that we allow any BLP violations. I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout

Amanda Lindhout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As has been commented before on the Talk page, the article as it stands, is written in a highly inappropriate tone, and manages to avoid any mention whatsoever of the many criticisms that have been made against this public figure (well it did, until I through great effort and persistence managed to convince one editor to include a bland statement that "some reporters have criticized her", without offering any specifics.

I provide these links below, as two editors seem to object to any information from these sources being included in the article, on the grounds of "BLP".

http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/18752373/naive-waitress-reveals-hostage-horror/ http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=50fea71f-7c28-42e5-8bf5-04dd83147c8d&p=2 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/20/chris-selley-amanda-lindhout-and-her-critics/ http://www.news.com.au/national/kidnap-victim-nigel-brennan-speaks-of-ordeal-anger-at-federal-government/story-fncynjr2-1226772297591 http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/06/escape-from-hell/ http://www.elle.com/life-love/society-career/amanda-lindhout-somalia-reflection http://malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=154391:i-was-raped-beaten-starved-by-warlords-woman-journalist&Itemid=4&tmpl=component&print=1#.UuAbtbSxXIV

For those who can't be bothered reading, I'll summarize a few dot points of potential information to be included in the article:

- Lindhout worked for Iran's state-run outlet, Press TV. Which has been banned from satellite providers in the UK, EU, Latin America, and a number of Arab countries.

- In Iraq in January 2008, Lindhout was held hostage for several hours in Sadr City. Some reports say she paid off her captors, she denies this.

- Lindhout and Nigel Brennan, her Australian ex-boyfriend who she convinced to accompany her to Somalia, are captured on their third day in the country. He will also later write a book that received a lot of attention in Australia, but almost none in Canada or the US.

- Robert Draper, a journalist on assignment for National Geographic, describes Lindhout as "recklessly perky". He writes: "Within minutes, she was asking where all the bombings were taking place, because that’s where she wanted to be. That night I e-mailed my girlfriend: “She’s going to get herself or someone else killed.”" }} - Lindhout and Brennan no longer speak. In his book, Brennan writes that he overheard Lindhout speaking to her mother on the phone begging her mother to take the entire $500,000 that Brennan's family had raised, and use it to pay just for her release. Brennan writes: "I don't think I have ever felt so lonely and cheated in my life... I'm furious at myself for trusting her." The bank account for their ransom, it turns out, is held in Australia, her mother unable to access it.

- When Lindhout and Brennan were still speaking, before Brennan published his book, Lindhout attempted to stop him from doing so.

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you the editor, InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting, who has repeatedly tried to add this gem of a sentence, "This led to some journalists to criticize her for her 'naivete' for parroting Iran's anti-Western state propaganda" to the article. If so, do you really believe that this complies with our neutral point of view policy? Cullen Let's discuss it 05:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. This point was made across Canadian and Australian media, by at least half a dozen different journalists. Do you want me to quote them for you, or can you use Google? Do you have any idea of the nature of Press TV? Do you realize it is effectively banned across much of the globe? That it was banned in the UK for broadcasting an interview with a Newsweek journalist that was obtained through torture? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

From reading the article's talk page, I understand that the editor believes that WP:BALANCE is being met and not WP:NPOV is achieved by making these statements. The question is whether the sources all carry the same weight and why this WP:SPA is editing this particular article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I not be a "SPA" when I have only just joined? Surely everyone is a SPA when they're editing their first article? If I am allowed to continue to try and improve this article, I'll move onto others. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the similarity between the edits of this editor and acknowledged IP edits, and those of indefinitely blocked serial puppeteer Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? RolandR (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Carl Freer

I came across an article about Carl Freer and Tiger Telematics about a month ago and recommended Freer for deletion. The article asserted a claim of him being a criminal but his actions are similar to thousands of others and did not seem to amount to WP:CRIME. With the exception User:BabbaQ who voted to keep (although did not really elaborate how it meets WP:GNG), the other reasons for keeping the article left by editors were not based on guidelines. After the article was kept, I edited it to more conform to BLP guidelines for neutrality, original research, and verifiability (at least in my opinion). The edits were reversed yesterday by user User:Universaladdress who asserted that the content I added and removed was already “approved” and from reliable sources. However, the information removed was WP:UNDUE and the information I added was something other editors left out when introducing negative information.

While I do not care about Tiger Telematics or Gizmundo as they are company pages, BLPs are different and need to be strictly adhered to. While Freer and Erikkson do not seem like saints, they also do not appear to rise to the level of WP:CRIME. If they did meet notability for criminals, we could double the size of Misplaced Pages’s database with criminals who would qualify as well. Also, after the Freer article was kept, a User:Universaladdress requested page protection which was applied to the page. Page protection should be requested for persistence vandalism, not because someone disagrees with an article being recommended for deletion. This is poor use of page protection in my opinion.

So, long story short, there seems to be some major BLP violations with Eriksson and Freer. I would request that it be looked at by those familiar with BLP guidelines in order to ensure that they are being followed with these articles. The talk pages show much contention among editors who are either trying to heavily weight the articles against these guys, as well as other editors who want to whitewash the article. Looks like something that has gone on for years and will go on for years until someone steps in. I would love to do it, but leaving it up to those who deal with issues every day is probably the best. Also appears that people are either using multiple accounts on the talk pages or people are coming to Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of these pages, which makes it dangerous as they are here to put specific information into the articles that they want, not putting information in objectively.

Please take a look at the following for additional information:

1. BLP violation post on Carl Freer talk page made by me on 1-17-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Carl_Freer#BLP_violation_and_neutral_point_of_view_

2. Edit comments on Freer that explain the edits I did to the article a few days back. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Carl_Freer&action=history

3. Edit history of Stefan Erikkson showing the edits I made a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stefan_Eriksson&action=history. Also notice that it appears people do not care about the Eriksson article as much as the Freer article as no edits were made since I made them to Eriksson.

4. Talk page of User: Universaladdress explaining my reason for edits to these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Universaladdress I should have assumed more good faith and will take the heat for that as I should have developed better communications; however, the history of the talk page for these articles showed me that all editors

So, either what I read here at BLP is wrong, it is being interpreted differently that how it is written, I simply don’t understand the policy even though it is pretty clearly written, or there is a major BLP violation with these articles. If am wrong, please let me know so that I understand the policy going forward. I am also completely open to taking my lumps from more experienced editors for not assuming as good as faith as I should have. And, ultimately, I would like to see Misplaced Pages to be used as an encyclopedia, not a platform for airing out complaints about people they don’t like.--JakenBox (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the primary-sourced stuff about RICO doesn't belong - WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly prohibits using court documents, etc. as sources in BLPs. However, if this person is notable (and per the AfD decision, he is), he is primarily notable for his involvement with a massively-dubious game console that is one of the most famous gaming business failures of all time, and thus there's going to be some significant negative slant to the coverage. That may be so, but that appears to have a significant and fair basis in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Stefan Eriksson are all appropriate, in my opinion - removing either unsourced/dubiously-sourced material or stuff which is completely irrelevant (his girlfriend being pulled over, etc.). Nice work there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Erwiana Sulistyaningsih help needed.

I could really use some BLP experts to help with this article. It's a recent event that made international news and seems to have some notability to it but I'm not sure I've structured it in the best way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E?--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a minor case, it's risen to being addressed by both of the leaders of the countries and made international news. I was operating under the "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" guidelines which we do have a subheading found ] that deals with this but with the level of attention this case is recieving internationally it merits a stand alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ESM

Hi, I am the subject of this page, and I wanted to update my name, which is now Erin Siegal McIntyre.

You can see this change reflected in the links, etc.

Thank you for your help

Erin

I've renamed the article to Erin Siegal McIntyre. Erin Siegal now redirects readers to Erin Siegal McIntyre. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Geraldine O' Rawe

The date of birth of Geraldine O'Rawe is 4th March 1971. The material relating to her date of birth currently is incorrect. It is causing concern with her work as an actress, is bing used in other publications as a true DOB and is damaging. A passport or birth certificate is available if needed. Please can the above be changed to DOB 4th March 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.24.48 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume the 31st December 1969 DOB came from ulsteractors.com or perhaps they copied it from Misplaced Pages. I've removed the DOB from the Misplaced Pages article for now given that there is an apparent mismatch. I don't think the DOB can be changed to 4th March 1971 based on a message on this noticeboard. Is there a reliable published source that contains the correct DOB ? If not, see WP:BLPSELF which includes a link with contact details for the Wikimedia Foundation. If you send an email to the address under "Questions related to Misplaced Pages", someone there should be able provide advice. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

david allen coe

In discussing the start of his career the story goes from his early days in Nashville getting signed to inde label, then new paragraph... when his house got seized by the IRS which I can only assume happened many years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.182.80 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Adam Mitchell DOB

• Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy80214 (talk · contribs)

Andy says he is this subject's father, and says the DOB is incorrect - it should be 18 October 1993 and not 2 December 1994. I have no reason to doubt him, but almost every source uses the latter date. Further help at the article talk page would be appreciated so we can resolve this. GiantSnowman 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

St Clair, New South Wales

St Clair, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request revdel of these three edits, which (though possibly self-referencing and intended, I assume, to be humorous) are potentially defamatory to a person named in the edits. ,, Dwpaul 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want a revdel, you should either ask at ANI, or preferably ask an admin to do it directly - it is usually better not to draw attention to such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Revdelled and semi-protected to slow down reinsertion. Zero 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Kates

Nancy Kates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) apparently ended up missing a plane due to a bra wire setting off a metal detector. Clearly this is of surpassing significance and it's vital that we include it, establishing, as it does, her significance as an artist. Or, you know, not. I personally think we can do without this. So does she. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

James Balcer

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

All external links not pointing to TJCenter.org appear to be dead. ~E$ (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ali Abunimah

This article has ballooned with minutiae in recent months, lots of it is completely inaccurate and relies on highly partisan primary sources.

Among the inaccuracies:

• The subject has never been funded by the Dutch government.
• The subject did not cause "a stir by posting a false Twitter tweet in February 2012 about supposed Israeli Likud party intentions to storm the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque and build a Third Temple."
• The subject was not a participant in the flotilla to Gaza that included in the Mavi Marmara, but he reported on it. (This has been partially corrected by another editor.)
• The subject did not initiate a statement condemning Gilad Atzmon.

The article is full of redundancies and minutiae:

• The discussion of the subject's writing titled "We have no words left" appears twice in different sections of the article.
• The subject has likely visited hundreds of places in dozens of countries in his lifetime, but there's no explanation why his visit to Maghazi Camp in Gaza is notable.
• The subject's views of various other people such as Joshua Trevino, Greta Berlin and Gilad Atzmon are not contextualized to explain why they are notable enough to be mentioned in this article but not theirs.
• There's a section for "criticism" of the subject, but the article is filled with criticism from primary sources in almost every section.
• The subject has likely appeared on television to debate dozens of people hundreds of times, but minor appearances are described in great detail.
• Most of the sources for content added in late November 2013 are highly partisan and may be primary sources.

It's hard to catalogue all the problems with this article. It is riddled with falsehoods and deserves review by editors who understand the policies of wikipedia with respect to the biographies of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.157.122 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Charles-Edwards (1943--)

I am the subject of the article. It should not say that I was a Bergin Fellow at the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. I was merely a Scholar (1967--9). The Bergin Fellowship had not yet been created.

Thomas Charles-Edwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.156.34 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Prof. Charles-Edwards. I've corrected it using the same terminology used in the cited source in the article (announcement of your appointment at Jesus). DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP by novice editor needs eyes

Wyatt Kaldenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs some attention. It's sources range from a Duke University Press book which looks excellent to a letter held on the Stormfront site. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at it. I am not sure the subject meets notability guidelines. Most of refs seem self-published. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion, along with another article created by the author. The Duke publication on this one looks good, though, but I'm not 100% convinced it's enough to sustain an article however. He gets a paragraph in one other book I've found, which isn't really significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have access to an e-copy of the academic source, Gods of the Blood. It does contain a substantial discussion of the subject of the article, about six pages. Whether or not that is enough to sustain an article, I really don't know. I am concerned about the use of so many primary sources in this article, that perhaps this lone academic source is being just to justify a lot of synth and OR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The book is also available in preview through Google Books, but I'm also pretty wary of a BLP being sourced from one publication, and an unfriendly one at that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I declined the prod. I don't know about his current activities, but he got a reasonable amount of coverage in the early 1990s for his involvement with Tom Metzger (white supremacist) and White Aryan Resistance after they lost the SPLC lawsuit for helping Metzger hide assets and then going to jail for contempt over it. That much was widely covered in Oregon and San Diego papers and even in the NYT. One could probably make a GNG claim on the basis of that alone, and then with the Gods of the Blood thing I feel that notability is covered. The article's in dire shape, though, and is going to be a trouble magnet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

mug shot in Khalil (singer)

This article will be getting many views, since its subject was recently in the news: . Someone has added a mug shot to the article. On Commons, I found another photo but it's also a mug shot. I looked for a freely-licenced photo on the Web but didn't find any. —rybec 01:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric tillman misinformation

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

Attack on Eric Tillman's wikipedia made by User: Hirolovesswords. Addition of misquotes, adding untrue information, taking some facts out of context. I personally contacted Eric Tillman who was distressed by this constant harassment made by this user: Hirolovesswords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computergenius1 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The most recent edit by User:Hirolovesswords notes that Tillman started his career in football with the Houston Oilers' PR department. This is backed up by a newspaper story source: "With a degree in journalism, in 1981 he joined the NFL's Houston Oilers to work in their public relations department." I'm not sure how that counts as a misquote.

With all due respect, User:Computergenius1, if you're editing at the request of Tillman, you have a conflict of interest and need to be especially careful that all your edits are backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Henchman

We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the monkey bit should go. It's puzzling that the lead makes no mention of this aspect of his life (the general issue, not the monkey bit). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Only the monkey bit is all you see as being tabloid fodder? Um -- look closer at the "stuff" and the SYNTH in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

chris evert

needs editing-typos, double bagel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.254.21 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A double bagel in women's tennis refers to a straight-sets win where a player doesn't win a game. It refers to the two zeroes in the score 6-0, 6-0. Hack (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Craig J. N. de Paulo

The Craig J. N. de Paulo article appears to have a number of problematic issues. The principal editor of it, Augustinestudent (who is a suspected sockpuppet as investigated here), appears to be very closely associated with de Paulo and only edits on him and pages associated with him, such as his Collegium Augustinianum. There appear to be clear COI and user name issues as well as other possible issues. The de Paulo article and related ones appear to have been created for promotional purposes. I would appreciate some administrators and other experienced editors having a look at these articles and assessing the potential policy issues with them. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Afterwriting. I am a graduate student in philosophy, and I am very interested in these topics. But, there is an individual who continuously writes slanderous and biased remarks. I think the page should be watch closely! Augustinestudent (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It should also be closely watched for the kinds of issues I originally mentioned. Afterwriting (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look at this article, there's nothing that seems overtly promotional about the biography, and I feel that it's fairly sensibly written. Could you be a little more specific about your objections?

I will note that the sourcing isn't great and relies heavily on primary sources linked to the subject, but there's nothing in it that would seem to violate WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When the de Paulo article is considered with the articles related to him, especially the Collegium Augustinianum article, being edited by Augustinestudent, it is reasonable to suspect that a promotional agenda is being pursued by this editor. You should also check the sockpuppet investigation link I provided above. Is there, perhaps, a better place for these issues to be discussed than on this BLP discussion page? Afterwriting (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you feel like there is overly-promotional material in the article, feel free to remove or rewrite it. If you feel that the article is unsalvageable, you may nominate it for deletion. The best place to discuss specific issues with particular content in an article is the article's own talk page.

The only obvious BLP issue I can find in the page history was an unsourced insertion of negative allegations, which has been properly removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A little promotional (I removed a few items), but nothing that is concerning that can't be handled by the usual methods. I do question the notability, so perhaps deletion might be the way to go.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit questioning too, but there are a number of dead-tree publications he's responsible for that apparently would clear him through WP:PROF - that's according to DGG, who accepted the article. Whether it's sufficient to pass an AFD muster is another question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I raised the question on the talk page to have a pre AfD discussion. No BLP issues exist IMO.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was asked for an opinion. I think de Paolo will pass AfD as a notable author, 2 of his books are in over 500 libraries, which tho not a formal standards, is an indication. I think the article is a little absurdly promotional, including every possible distinction, down to Honorary Kentucky Colonel, and it is rather vague about the exact nature of the "many professorial appointments " There's no point using AfD unless it turns out the promotionalism can't be removed otherwise. My first impression about the university is rather similar: appropriate for an article, but in need of even more trimming than most university articles. It's unfortunate that though we have a simple method of enforcing whether or not to have an article, we have no equally straightforward method of making enforceable decisions about quality. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ericka Huggins

To Whom It May Concern;

I am writing regarding an issue related to the Ericka Huggins Misplaced Pages page. There had been a number of defamatory and historically innacurate statements, particularly in a section titled New Haven Trial that I have been attempting to rectify. There is a user Pokey5945 who is undoing all attempts to remove the negative material. The user is not only not neutral but is disseminating disinformation and manipulating facts to paint Ericka Huggins as involved in torture which is neither true or verifiable.

Your policy on this matter is quite clear. A quick look at Pokey5945's talk history shows a history of bad behaviour in hijacking other pages as well to further their own agenda via an sustained campaign of disinformation. If you follow their edits up to the most recent you will notice an escalation in their defamation of Huggins. With regards to your own policy this should result in being blocked or suspended. Please let me know what can be done to make sure that your own policy is upheld in this case.

Please confirm receipt. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politigrafica (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I now have the article on my watch list, have commented on the talk page, and encourage other editors to do so as well. Ericka Huggins was accused of serious crimes connected with a 1969 murder, but the jury voted 10-2 for acquittal and the judge dropped the charges in 1970. Under these circumstances, I believe that including lengthy and lurid details about the crime, and what other defendants were convicted of, is a violation of BLP policy. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/January/14-civ-021.html