Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:41, 10 May 2013

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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

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

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Nina Dobrev

Nina Dobrev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was redirected by another editor to post here about an edit request.The request is about changing Canadian to Bulgarian-Canadian.My reliable sources and arguments are the following:

In an official interview for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com) Nina Dobrev says "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!".Here is the link: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 .If Nina Dobrev herself is saying that she is Bulgarian, then I don't see a logical reason why in her wikipage should be written only Canadian?!Sofia News Agency refers to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian and even one of the references used in the wikipage of Nina Dobrev- NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief from deadline.com also refers to her as Bulgarian-Canadian http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/123303/ .If NIKKI FINKE is good enough to be used by other editors in BLP I don't see a logical reason why she wouldn't be good enough to be used by me as a reference. --Dvrt09 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something (I'm the editor who directed this here), regarding MOS:BIO. That guideline says that in the first sentence, we may only refer to a living person's nationality, not their ethnicity/descent. The question then becomes, when Dobrev calls herself "Bulgarian", does she mean "of Bulgarian ethnicity" or "of Bulgarian citizenship"? Similarly, is the newspaper saying "Canadian citizen of Bulgarian descent" (like the way we usually use the phrase in the U.S.) or does it mean "dual citizen of Bulgaria and Canada"? I'm not sure how we can tell. The article does currently state further down that she was born in Bulgaria; my personal inclination is always to err on the side of caution w.r.t. ethnicity/citizenship issues, but I can understand the argument that Dvrt09 is making. Outside opinions will be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just say "Canadian, born in Bulgaria" seems the logical move. Collect (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But Nina Dobrev didn't said "I am born in Bulgaria", she said "I am Bulgarian".The term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians.Besides as far as I know wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources but only to use them as references.The real questions here are:1.Do reliable sources refer to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian?Yes, they do!; 2.Does Nina Dobrev say that she is Bulgarian?Yes, she does! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source where she says she is Bulgarian, then it would appear that WP:BLPCAT is satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is! "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The source looks okay to me. I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I could be referring to myself as American (ethnically), but if I don't have American citizenship, I am not legally an American. I think we should be cautious as per the concerns of Qwyrxian above. Nymf _{talk to me} 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Many people will emphatically state "I am <ethnicity>!", even if they're a third or fourth generation immigrant to another country. But I just might be willing to let this particular one go, given the variety of sources and the unsourced OR which makes it likely to be true. Just a side note: do we know that both Bulgaria and Canada allow dual citizenship? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nymf I already said that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean.Besides Nina Dobrev is not "third or fourth generation immigrant", she is native to Bulgaria and born there under the name Николина Костантинова Добрева!The facts are that Nina Dobrev herself claims to be Bulgarian and the term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians-exactly the case of Nina Dobrev! --Dvrt09 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to this information Canadian law permits dual or multiple citizenships: http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship Another source confirms that both Bulgaria and Canada recognise dual citizenship: http://www.thelaw.com/guide/immigration/dual-citizenship-countries-list/ --Dvrt09 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria: Chapter 2, Article 25 (1):"...anyone who was born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is a Bulgarian citizen" ; (3): "A Bulgarian citizen by birth may not be deprived of his Bulgarian citizenship". Here is the link : http://www.investbulgaria.com/laws/constitution.pdf --Dvrt09 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source about the Constitution of Bulgaria: "Constitution-Making in the region of the former Soviet dominance" by Rett R Ludwikowski page 353-354 Here is the link: http://books.google.bg/books?id=qw8o0_c0m74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Constitution-Making+in+the+region+of+the+former+Soviet+dominance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=48B0Ue_2CMPStQbNrIGgBA&redir_esc=y --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev was born in Bulgaria and according to the Constitution of Bulgaria this makes her automatically Bulgarian citizen.Besides Nina claims herself to be Bulgarian so everything looks pretty clear to me. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying "She was born in Bulgaria, the constitution of Bulgaria says that people born in Bulgaria are citizens, therefore she is a citizen" is prohibited WP:OR. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding @Nomoskedasticity. If Nina's own words are not important then I don't know what is?! I see double standard in wikipedia:(( "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Her own words aren't any good here because they are ambiguous--it's not clear whether she means she is a Bulgarian citizen or whether she is of Bulgarian ethnicity. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Ken -- we don't have to be any more specific than she was. We can just say "she is Bulgarian" -- consistent with the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee I already said multiple times that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean, but only to use them as references!!Besides according to the law in Bulgaria she is Bulgarian citizen by birthright and saying that she is only canadian is nothing more than a lie and false information!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So I'm seeing a consensus here that we can't be sure that she meant "Bulgarian citizen". If that is the case, then we cannot say "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lead, but we can state somewhere later, "In an interview, Dobrev stated "I am Bulgarian"." Does that seem reasonable? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. Someone has already made the point that the lead, in saying she is "a Canadian actress", implies quite strongly that Canadian is the only citizenship she holds. In that respect it is evidently misleading, a disservice to our readers and an insult to her to the extent that the Bulgarian element of her identity is important to her. On the basis of that latter point, I favor "Canadian/Bulgarian" in the lead. What gets in the way, apparently, is MOSBIO -- though there is some wiggle room in what it says about ethnicity. To the extent that MOSBIO is getting in the way here, that seems like a problem with MOSBIO. If editors are nonetheless going to insist on slavishly following it, then WP:BLP in my reading would lead to removing any mention of citizenship from the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you @Nomoskedasticity!This is the reason why there are complains about this article on the talk page of Nina Dobrev."Canadian actress" really implies the she has only one canadian citizenship without sources to prove this and at the same time it downplays her Bulgarian element which is very important for her.I hope a solution can be found on how to balance this article better. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

All of this stuff -- and it appears 1. she calls hereself "Bulgarian" but does not assert she is a Bulgarian citizen. 2. She has Canadian citizenship, which no one seems to regard as a contentious claim. 3. We have no standard for saying that hyphens assert citizenship, or whether they assert national identification, or whether they assert ancestry. Ergo: It is reasonable for us to call her a Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, avoiding any possible misuse of hyphens here. It is not required or even logical that we find a source stating a negative, which means we can not assume she has dual citizenship, or, more tellingly, separate passports. Absent positive statements that she is in that category, it would by OR for Misplaced Pages to make that assumption. BTW, a person saying "I am Italian" in the US generally means "Italian ancestry" and not "citizenship." Collect (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What I mean about "canadian actress" was that the way it is written mislead people to beleive that Nina Dobrev is related only and only to Canada which couldn't be further from the truth.The complaints on the talk page are exactly about this.That's why I suggest to write that she is "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship" this has the same meaning like your suggestion "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth" but with less words.I also think this would be more accurate because Nina refers to herself as Bulgarian without specifying anything and I think it would be better to leave it that way to be consistent with the source.And when we write "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship" we acknowledge the fact that she does have canadian citizenship but at the same we leave some space to the possibility that she may have another citizenship as well, because we don't specify what the term Bulgarian refers to exactly like Nina did in her interview.About the italians you are talking about-How many of them are born in US and how many of them are born in Italy?!Paul Wesley for example is born to polish parents, but he is born in US and he has nothing to do with the country Poland.Nina Dobrev is exactly the opposite case-she is born in Bulgaria and related to this country. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

MOSBIO says that ethnicity can be emphasized in the opening if it is relevant to the subject's notability.Yes it is relevant, Nina stars as Katherine Pierce(Katerina Petrova) on The CW American television teen drama "The Vampire Diaries".Katherine Pierce was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity.Some of the events in The Vampire Diaries take place in Nina's native country Bulgaria like Season 2 Episode 9 where we see in the opening scene, Katherine Pierce giving birth in the year 1492 in Bulgaria and talking in bulgarian language with her family.Clearly Nina's ethnicity helped her with the role of Katherine Pierce who became the only Bulgarian character on American television.This is an interview with Nina Dobrev made by Sara Bibel: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ Sara Bibel asked Nina:"Did the writers make Katherine Bulgarian because you were born in Bulgaria?" Nina replied:"In the books, Katherine comes from a German heritage. It may be because I’m Bulgarian, but I think we all agreed that Bulgaria has a sense of mystique that is strangely unique. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that I already speak Bulgarian. The writers heard me speaking Bulgarian to my mom on the phone while I was on set one day. One thing led to the other and voila!" --Dvrt09 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

her candianness and her bulgarianness are not equal. and so, to solve the problem one needs to mention what it is about each, since the single word canadian and single word bulgarian are not sufficient, even if combined like canadian/bulgarian, which would imply equality (citizenship, country of birth, where she grew up, went to school, etc.). so, something like Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, or in reverse, would be fine, and appropriate based on RS and all other policies. Soosim (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Her canadianness is only her citizenship.Her Bulgarianness is her Country of origin,DNA,family and relatives:)You can change your citizenship whenever you want but you can't change your origin and DNA:))Once born Bulgarian, always Bulgarian:))Anyway what do you think about "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship", "Bulgarian by birth with Canadian citizenship" or "Bulgarian by birth who is Canadian citizen"?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DNA? Seriously? As an argument on Misplaced Pages? Nah ... but it is a great argument not to call her Bulgarian when so expressed. Collect (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

dlv - not sure about your pov use of 'only' (canandianness is only her citizenship). some people are very proud of their citizenship. and she left bulgaria at age two, right? so she might not even care about being bulgarian. of course, she says she is proud of that too. so, how about: "born in bulgaria and raised in canada". then later, we can say that is proud to be bulgarian and that is a canadian citizen. (we're talking about the lede, right?) Soosim (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Soosim Agree with your suggestion:))Yes, we are talking about the lead.About "canadian" as far as I know this term refers only to citizenship because there is no such thing as canadian ethnicity.And when I said DNA I was refering to ethnicity.Is DNA a forbidden word in wikipedia?!I am a new editor and I don't know all the wiki rules... --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but DNA precedes any states or statelike organizations. There is simply no "Bulgarian" DNA; where would you like to draw the line, historically? Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) And if you look back even farther: would it be Thracian DNA then? Ethnicity simply does not equal DNA. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Of Course in general DNA precedes any states or statelike organizations.But the population of some european countries have specific Genetic markers,IGENEA for example make DNA maps based on country of origin. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And? That is a very unspecific remark, and no breaking news......and, btw, IGENEA just samples for region of origin (and uses the word "Urvolk" for associating it to tribes/people like Vikings, Celts etc.), all that only in the time spam 900BC to 900AD. Which is in itself no argument for a Bulgarian DNA, provided there are special markers inherent to Bulgarians. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Lectonar If you want we can continue our discussion on my talk page,because we will be offtopic if we continue here:))I would be happy to argue with you :))Regards --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You brought up the DNA for discussion, so this is not off-topic, and no, I do see no need for further "arguing". Someone will close this thread sooner or later (not me, btw), and will take into account the arguments as presented.Lectonar (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I don't agree with you:)As i said some european countries have specific genetic markers... --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect What is this supposed to mean?!Is this how new editors are treated in wikipedia?!Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully follow Wiki-precepts about newcomers. That does not encompass, however, catering to those who believe there is a genetic nationality which can be ascribed to anyone. Including "some european countries have specific genetic markers." Collect (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did I said that there is a genetic nationality.Yes according to dna labs some nationalities have specific genetic markers because their population is more homogenous for example countries like japan, china, russia etc.What is your problem really?!Anyway this is not the topic here... --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually it appears to be precisely the topic - as to why it is "important" to you that she be labelled as "Bulgarian." China, by the way, has more than fifty "nationalities" and is certainly not as "homogeneous" as you appear to think. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote "racial purity" as a "nationality" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a German I wanted to stay away from mentioning racial purity, out of reasons that should be obvious....but I feel I must concur with Collect here. Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect So now you are putting words in my mouth?!Where did I said "racial purity"?!If you can't find these words in my posts,you should apologize!!I am sick and tired from the arrogant attitude from some editors towards me just because I am new!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, assume good faith and even assume the assumption of good faith. You are trying to lift this to a level which has nothing to do with with the article or your edit-request; this is not personal, you know. Lectonar (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

He(@Collect) made it personal!!If there is a little honor in him,he should apologize to me for accusing me of something that I never said!!Anyway I will not respond to other provocations... --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure whether to add this source or not,but finally I decided that it is better to be here.In a Funny or Die music video with Nick Braun called SPF, Nina Dobrev says again that she is Bulgarian and she even shows a map of her country Bulgaria.After the "The Vampire Diaries" where she plays the role of the Bulgarian lady Katherine Pierce, this music video again clearly shows that being Bulgarian is relevant to her notability and something important for her.This source is already used as a reference in her wiki page.Here are the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7r_mvVVg08 http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3d673108bf/spf-with-nina-dobrev --Dvrt09 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should also add ethnic category in the infobox as well since it is relevant to her notability and Nina also says herself that she is Bulgarian. --Dvrt09 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And for me, the topic is now done, becuse Dvrt09 has completely crossed over to nonsense arguments. Her ethnicity is not in any way related to her notability. She is notable as an actress. Period. She is not a Bulgarian freedom fighter, a leader of a prominent Bulgarian civil rights groups, etc. Nor is she regularly labelled as Bulgarian, like "The first Bulgarian to do X in Canada/the US". She just happens to be Bulgarian. The fact that they played the video in the show does not make her famous specifically for being Bulgarian. And the fact that you're willing to go this far shows that this is not about improving the encyclopedia in a way that is compliant with WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk)`

This is not even my main argument.Saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR."Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 Nina became famous with "The Vampire Diaries" show where she plays the role of Katherine Pierce who was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ .Nina is notable for playing the role of "the only Bulgarian character on American television(Katherine Pierce)".Her ethnicity is quite relevant to her career and notability!!The complaints about this article on the talk page show that I am right!!Besides MOSBIO is satisfied!!It is also a fact that some editors don't want the word "Bulgarian" to be written in the article despite all the sources.I would think that someone want to mislead the readers intentionally!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No one here has said "Bulgaria" is not to be mentioned -- only that the most logical course is to accurately state she was born there. Claims about DNA etc. do not impress folks here, and thus most of your posts actually undermine your position. Collect (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect I hope you realize that I am complete newbie in wikipedia, but another editor helped me with some ideas and I know that my main arguments above your post are pretty good and strong.If we write only that she is born in Bulgaria without mentioning that she is bulgarian(ethnicity) this could be misleading because a lot of other ethnic groups(armenians, russians) live in Bulgaria but they are only citizens not ethnic bulgarians and they don't identify themselves as such.Besides all my posts were made in good faith-I realize that I lack experience, but I am still learning. --Dvrt09 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a pleasant surprise for me to see that some editors are fighting tooth and nail not to write that she is also Bulgarian in the article despite the reliable sources and the fact that I proved that her ethnicity is relevant to her notability-"Katherine became the only Bulgarian character on American television."-Sara Bibel.I find this attitude very offensive and discriminative to her fans,to the bulgarian community and to Nina herself.After all this is her wiki page and if she says that she is "Bulgarian and proud of it", let it be... --Dvrt09 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I already proved my point and since my main arguments and sources are in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:MOSBIO, I expect the other editors to leave their feelings aside and to follow the wiki policy.I will post here once again my main arguments and sources to emphasize them: "Saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR."Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 Nina became famous with "The Vampire Diaries" show where she plays the role of Katherine Pierce who was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ .Nina is notable for playing the role of "the only Bulgarian character on American television(Katherine Pierce)".Her ethnicity is quite relevant to her career and notability which means that WP:MOSBIO is satisfied." Also I would like to remind that: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources...NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." --Dvrt09 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My proposition for improving the article is the following:1.In the opening paragraph instead of "Canadian actress" it can be written that she is "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth" or vice versa like other editors already suggested.We can also write that she plays the role of Katherine Pierce who "became the only Bulgarian character on American television" and use this source as a reference: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ 2.In the infobox under nationality(canadian) it can be added ethnicity(bulgarian) since its relevant to her career and notability as explained above.3.Somewhere in the article it can be written that she is "proud of being Bulgarian" and the other source can be used as a reference here: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 Are there any objections?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"born in Bulgaria" was what I suggested a long way back -- using multiple mentions of "Bulgarian" is UNDUE in almost all cases unless the "only Bulgarian character" has a much stronger source - it looks like a TV show PR blurb item here. Collect (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok,let's try to reach consensus.Your suggestion for the opening paragraph was "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth".Do we have agreement about that?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way the source used as a reference in the opening paragraph of Nina's wiki page is Crissy Calhoun's book "Love You To Death: The Unofficial Companion to The Vampire Diaries".Well one of the sources used in Crissy Calhoun's book, is indeed Sara Bibel from xfinity.comcast.net .If Sara Bibel is not good enough then you should discard Crissy Calhoun as well since she uses Sara's articles as reliable sources.Besides exactly this article(http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/) is used as a source in Crissy Calhoun's book "Love You to Death - Season 2: The Unofficial Companion to The Vampire Diaries":http://books.google.bg/books?id=NqAcT09XJhUC&pg=PT393&dq=Sara+Bibel%2Bcomcast&hl=bg&sa=X&ei=Z-mDUa2DGM_OsgbgmoHwAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA If my source is good enough for Crissy Calhoun's book then I don't see a logical reason why it wouldn't be good enough for wikipedia which uses Crissy Calhoun's books as reliable sources in BLP articles.Also xfinity.comcast.net is not a no name,personal or a fan site; it belongs to Comcast Corporation-owner of NBCUniversal which makes the content published there more likely to be true.My source is stronger then 90% of the sources used in BLP articles and the fact that it is also published in a book speaks well enough for itself. --Dvrt09 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I proved the reliability of my sources I want to ask-are there any other objections?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This case shows very well why there are so many complaints about wikipedia.Obviously some "editors" are above the rules.Reliable sources are discarded even if they are in accordance with all necessary wiki rules, just because someone doesn't like them.But what I find ridiculous and utterly preposterous is the fact that it is not mentioned even once in the entire article that she is Bulgarian despite the sources and Nina's self identification as Bulgarian."Born in Bulgaria" does NOT equal Bulgarian(ethnicity) since there are other ethnic groups who are born and live there(armenians,russians etc.).If this is not an extreme POV-pushing then I don't know what it is.Misleading the readers is against NPOV which is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages.Anyway I want to thank the editors who are objective and who are trying to make wikipedia better and more reliable but I am afraid that their efforts will be pointless with such POV-ish articles... --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy

On Talk:Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy in this series of edits, User:Offender9000 said of Nigel Latta: "Latta made it up and Misplaced Pages does not validate pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV psychologists trying to make a buck out of other peoples misery. The "diagnosis" suggests bias and doesn't meet criteria for NPOV. It also contravenes WP:BLP ". That reads as an attack to me, but I'm a involved party; could someone else please take a look? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

At some point someone is going to have to take a good hard look at the editing of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was involved with Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Offender9000, but it went nowhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It went nowhere because the editor who initiated the request was unwilling to accept a compromise put forward by the mediator and then withdrew from mediation.Offender9000 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I please get some external feedback on this comment which says: "Yes he has been convicted. But that doesn't mean he did it." Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement as such is of course correct. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Offender9000 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Alistair Moffat

I declined a request for the deletion of this article. It appears that the section BritainsDNA is the cause of the contention, and an edit war has taken place. Have protected for one week, and would ask for your views on this section. Stephen! 09:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The contentious section is well referenced. (I created the section, an IP editor expanded it and added most of the references.) One reference is from Nature, which had an article on Moffat's use of threats of libel to try to silence those who were criticising the obviously false (denied by his own company) statements he had made. The deletions have been by IP editors, by the single-purpose account User:Detaerc, and by User:MRobertsQC. MRobertsQC's contributions to Misplaced Pages almost all praise Moffat (like this one). None of these editors has explained the reason for their deletions, or indicated what statements in the section they consider libellous. Maproom (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(Obviously) I have also reverted the IP/casual users. The section in question could use a bit of a rewrite (it reads to me like it begs a question and then goes ahead and answers itself), but otherwise seems fine and reasonably well sourced. Another source or two wouldn't hurt either. DP76764 (Talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The section in question represents an biased view of a small group of people who clearly have a personal vendetta against the subject. The content may be referenced, but what is not clear is that most of these documents are authored by a very small, select group of people who are all associates. It gives disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint. For this reason, the content does not present an accurate view of the issues at hand and only provides a platform for further harassment. There is no need for this page, all this content is available elsewhere, which is why I recommend it be removed completely. Furthermore, it seems that the creator of the content, does not have an objective view, given that he stated above that the libel was to try to silence criticism of obviously false statements. This is not what it says in the Nature article. The libel was to silence defamatory comments which have not be disclosed. Therefore this editor in particular cannot be seen to be presenting a balanced or neutral viewpoint. This is why the content should be removed.Detaerc (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "There is no need for this page, all this content is available elsewhere". I don't think you understand how Misplaced Pages works. It aims only to include content which is supported by material available elsewhere. Incidentally – I have no personal vendetta against Moffat, and I am not an "associate" of any contributor to the article. I had never heard of any of them before I read the Nature article. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - I had not intended to imply that you were associated with them. My issue is that nearly all of the sources cited here are authored by this small group of individuals, thus creating a biased viewpoint. Detaerc (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dp76764 that the section is valid and could use some tweaking. There's a couple articles about Moffat's threats and academic freedom in The Saint, St Andrew's student newspaper, noted in the Nature piece. The fact that the university's academic senate concluded that its own rector (Moffat) was stifling academic debate is worth noting. The senate's conclusion is noted in the last two links.

• Rector assessed: Moffat blasted over "laughable" scientific claims The Saint
• University slams Moffat for stifling debate The Saint
• The right to speak out Nature

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Libel (or other criminal qualification) in article "Martin van Rijn"

<attack redacted>

seems unacceptable behaviour by editor 2001:4c98:2:0:3c9b:8577:aba8:71bc

I think appropriate measures against this editor should be taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltshazzar (talk • contribs)

This was a single incident of vandalism which was not restored once removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth date ambiguity

Is there any recent guideline about conflictive birth date sourcing - if we have strong sources that give various dates? WP:BLP says that no info is better than dodgy info. Many BLP articles seem to have settled for scratching the birth date altogether where there is no definitive, conclusive source. I understand that public records, such as birth records, are not permissible as references, so short of the subject publicly stating their birth date I'm not sure how DoBs can be conclusively verified by WP. The question seems to be coming up a lot all over the place. Please advise. Thanks. Span (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For living or recently deceased subjects, consensus seems to be that if there is no reliable source for a birth date, it can be removed altogether. If there are multiple conflicting sources, a note can be added to that effect - e.g., John Smith (January 1, 1900 or 1901)...' where it would be stated that sources differ. If there is a specific privacy issue we've been made aware of, and the date has no encyclopedic value, we default to removing it. In the case of people who write requesting this via OTRS, if the subject or his representatives can prove that the birth date we have is incorrect, but no reliable secondary source exists, we tend to remove it as well. You're right in that we cannot use primary sources, so we can't go looking at birth records and the like, because that would also be original research. §FreeRangeFrog 00:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"You're right in that we cannot use primary sources, so we can't go looking at birth records and the like, because that would also be original research" -- with all due respect, that is a serious MISUNDERSTANDING of the 'original research' rule. there is absolutely nothing wrong with using government records as a source. requiring someone to "loopback" via some third-party article, for birth information taken from an official record to be considered "valid" for sourcing would be unreasonably obtuse, & also "just plain nuts". Lx 121 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is extremely clear about this. As to whether or not digging for birth records or whatever constitutes "original research" in the strict sense of the term may be up to for discussion in some contexts, but not in the context of BLPs, and that's what we're talking about here. §FreeRangeFrog 16:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Luke Harding, etc.

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

Federal Security Service (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been having a bit of a battle in these two articles that involve the same issues. The other editor is an IP who is editing from two different addresses but both of which geolocate to Ohio, so I assume it's the same individual. The central question is how the allegations about the FSS should be presented, and although it might appear that it's only the Guardian who is claiming certain things. That's not true. The Guardian is reporting on what others say as well as on their own. Although I haven't read the articles carefully, it may indeed be true that it would be better to have more sources other than the Guardian, but I'm still uncomfortable with the agenda-like changes by the IP. If anyone has time to look at the issues, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I found these additional sources about Luke Harding's expulsion but no other sources about a campaign against western journalists. Or the sources I found quoted or directed to the Guardian. Seems like there should be more articles on the campaign but here are the Harding articles. "Luke Harding, 'Guardian' Moscow Correspondent, Expelled From Russia". The Huffington Post. February 7, 2011. Retrieved 3 May 2013.; Corcoran, Jason and Meyer, Henry (February 8, 2011). "Russia expels U.K. reporter Luke Harding, who covered corruption". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 3 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Coaster92 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

NYT covers the story and links the affair to Wikileaks, and to Harding's views about Putin et al. Collect (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin

For some time now, I have had concerns regarding the page on Eugene Plotkin. When I first came across this page, I was struck by the lack of NPOV and the inconsistencies between the public information available and the Misplaced Pages article. It was not until recently that I was able to conduct research and make revisions to the article, expanding its scope, adding references, shifting toward a greater NPOV, and adjusting its title to reflect its true notability. The media coverage really centers on a conspiracy involving a group of people and the subject of the article was not notable beyond that group. My extensive revisions were made and posted. A few days later, an editor rolled back my revisions in their entirety. An examination of the page's history shows that this same editor has rolled back multiple other revisions that had been made to the page, essentially treating the page as a private domain. I find this to be unacceptable behavior and would like to have a broader discussion regarding the content of the page. Both my version and the other version are available to be compared. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that Factchecker25 may have a point - we have an article supposedly about Eugene Plotkin, but in fact devoted almost entirely to an insider trading scheme which also involved five other people. Given that Plotkin seems to be notable for nothing else, I can see no justification whatsoever for having an article about him, rather than one about the insider trading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The media coverage centers around PLOTKIN's involvement in an insider trading scheme and the media has not come up with a catchy name for it for us to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The media coverage discusses all six of the participants in the insider trading scheme, with significant coverage devoted to Pajcin and Shpigelman, and, to a lesser extent, Smith, Renteria, and Schuster. The lack of a catchy name is not a reason to keep an article from following NPOV and discussing the full scope of the scheme. Moreover, a number of titles have been suggested based on media coverage, including "Business Week and Reebok Inside Trading Ring". A title should be descriptive, not catchy as Misplaced Pages is not a marketing tool but a knowledge base. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Factchecker25 has also posted about this article on ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is utterly absurd to suggest that the lack of a 'catchy name' justifies misrepresenting an article about insider trading - the only legitimate topic for Misplaced Pages, given the involvement of multiple individuals - as a 'biography' of one of those involved, notable for nothing else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that a lack of a catchy name is justification for anything other than there is no obvious landing point IF we determine that the case and not the individual is the primarily notable subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a damn whether there is 'an obvious landing point' - it is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to misrepresent an article about a crime involving multiple individuals as a biography of one person, notable for nothing else. Either the insider trading scheme is notable - in which case we should have an article on it - or it isn't, in which case we don't have a biography on Plotkin. This is elementary stuff, and shouldn't need spelling out here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eugene Plotkin it is not so obvious that the community shares your opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the article be deleted - I am suggesting that it be revised and renamed to cover the only subject matter, as required by Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

renames are clearly options in AfD and were suggested in the AfD and gained no traction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question. Does the insider trading scheme meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines? Please answer yes or no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know whether the community in revisiting it will determine whether Plotkin who is the subject of feature articles in reliable sources and is the person individually named in relation to the case is the appropriate subject or whether it is the broader scheme. But I do know that they made their opinion known that it was him individually before. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do I get the impression you are being intentionally obtuse? I asked a simple question: Do you think that the insider trading scheme meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage of this scheme consistently mentions Business Week and Reebok Options. I would suggest that the combination of "Business Week" and/or "Reebok" with "Insider Scheme" or similar best captures what is unique about this case and provides a natural landing point. I would love to hear other editors' viewpoints on this as well.Factchecker25 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article is an obvious BLP1E and would likely be deleted as such at another AfD. Moving it to the crime might help avoid that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Actually there were at least 25 separate crimes (insider trading in 25 different stocks over about a year), at least 3 different schemes, e.g. bribing a Grand Juror, repeated pre-publication theft at Business Week, repeated theft of merger info from Merrill Lynch. If you pled guilty and were convicted of pickpocketing 25 times getting $7 million over the course of a year, would that be considered a single event?
  • I'll suggest that we all consolidate into one discussion on the article's talk page. No use having ANI, here, and the talk page. It's clear the content is well sourced and is going to stay. The article can certainly be updated, but do watch for SPAs trying to sweep things under the rug (see ANI if you want proof) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, in fact this is exactly the sort of thing that is considered 1E at deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Should a talk page discussion be deleted?

In this talk page discussion Talk:List_of_Freemasons#OK.2C_here.27s_a_predicament... there seems to be a bit of harmless celebrity banter about a reasonably well known actor asking whether he should be "outed" as a Freemason. The only problem is is that he is from a Catholic family (at least according to his Misplaced Pages biography) and so the chances are reasonably high that he is a practicing Catholic, and membership of Freemasonry (particularly active Freemasonry) is still an offence that will get a Catholic automatically excommunicated. The actual discussion makes it clear that he should not be outed if he's a Catholic.

Should I delete this conversation?

JASpencer (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that it would make much difference either way, but I do not see any problem with deleting it. Apteva (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the logic in "...he is from a Catholic family...and so the chances are reasonably high that he is a practicing Catholic". HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 that assuming "he is a practicing Catholic" because "he is from a Catholic family" is a tenuous conclusion. I don't think his Catholic standing is a paramount consideration either. The BLP issue is the speculative outing based on statements of original research. I don't see a problem deleting the content on that basis alone. My76Strat (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." and "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." A reasonbable possibility of harm has been shown at least on a subjective level (as has been shown in the discussion where they said that this should not be done in these very circumstances). JASpencer (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Canon 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty - one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict. This is not latae sententiae excommunication; it is not automatic; it is not even specified for one who merely joins! Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism in the United States

An editor is continually adding the Boston Marathon bombing, along with both suspects' names, to the list of notable domestic terrorist attacks. This presumes the guilt of the suspect, at odds with WP:BLPCRIME. It also concludes that this was a terrorist act, before this has been decided by a court. Something like WP:CRYSTALBALL. Editor seems to think the confession to planting a bomb is good enough. I think admitting an act does not equal admitting criminal wrongdoing (see Anders Breivik), and the source used says this confession may not even be admissible. However he is demonized in the media, the guy deserves a trial before Misplaced Pages calls him a terrorist. Rather than continuing an edit war, I'd appreciate some sort of higher ruling on this matter. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the incident qualifies for the article. WP:PERP says, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I think that it is clear to all that coverage is persisting, and that the event will be covered in books by historians as time goes by. The wording should make clear that the younger brother is an accused suspect, and has not yet been convicted. I do not see the need to mention the reported "confession" in the sort of brief mention appropriate for this particular article.

As the living suspect is already identified in the main article Boston Marathon bombings, and we also have an article about the brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, I do not understand why it is inappropriate to mention the living brother briefly as a suspect, not a guilty party, in this article. The bombing has been described as terrorism in a wide range of reliable sources, and is multiple categorized as such. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The inappropriate thing is listing this as a domestic terrorist attack. This would presume the guilt of an American, even if we didn't specifically name the suspect. It's a matter of interpretation, but I read the two opening sentences of BLPCRIME as distinct. All accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. For suspects accused of widely-known crimes such as this, we can (and should) name them as suspects, but in relevant articles, such as the one about the bombing, or the one about the suspects. Here, it more than merely suggests this was terrorism (legally, as opposed to buzzwords like "act of terror" or "terror attack"), and domestic (again presuming guilt of some American). By listing specific names, we strongly suggest these were the actual perpetrators. This is possibly true, but not even close to proven. There hasn't even been a plea or opening statement from prosecutors, let alone presentation of evidence or a verdict. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Carolyn Moos

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

I came across this bio as another editor was de-fluffing it, and attempted to remove a primary-sourced and fluffy section, and was summarily reverted . For good measure, the article has a B quality assessment. Further eyes on and thoughts re: this appreciated. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I took a look and chimed in on the talk page. I encourage others to do so as well. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad

Teesta Setalvad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial left wing Indian political activist, so both IPs and established editors edit her article from their own povs, which is ok if done according to our policies. There is a tendency to put up critical material from news sources that may be trivial as they've had little coverage (and perhaps no response in the media from her supporters) and that's against our policies and guidelines. An EL has been added - *Teesta Stelvad has been also accused of Minting money from Gujrat Riot victims, a RTI (Right to information Act) discloses, News Express reports. According to the YouTube page, dated March 13th, "Ahmedabad Crime Branch is likely to conduct an inquiry into activist Teesta Setalvad's collection of funds for Gulbarg Society. The residents had alleged that Teesta had collected donations in the name of Gulbarg Society and had not distributed the money." It obviously doesn't belong as an EL and an editor is saying it could be used as a source and is material not in the article, but not only is this discussed on the talk page, "likely to conduct an inquiry" indicated it doesn't belong in the article. Sorry this if this is confusing, IRL is in the way and I'm trying to wind down for a wikibreak. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There were ten news stories quoted which were saying the same thing as this eleventh one (the News Express video), the stories have been carried by IBN, Zeenews, Asian Age, India TV, The Indian Express, The Sunday Guardian whose editor in chief is M. J. Akbar, and Niti Central, which is headed by Kanchan Gupta.

The youtube video that Dougweller cites here is a Indian Express group story, which is quite wp:RS. It is surprising that Dougweller calls these sources trivial and the coverage little.

The external link was added by a new editor, Dougweller reverted it with the edit summary to the effect "material already in article, shouldn't have an EL", which was a misrepresentation of facts as material wasn't there in the article.

It is a heads I win tales you loose situation, on 14 March, 2013, Dougweller removed the accusations of financial misconduct, the matter was discussed on the talk page, to which they didn't respond, when it was added subsequently they deleted carrying edit summary taken to BLPN, almost 2 month old report that says an inquiry might be conducted, that doesn't belong anywhere in the article

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jordi Bertomeu

He is referred as a clown and a supporter of Barcelona and CSKA basketball fan probably written by a panathinaikos dissapointed fan after the series of criticism for 2012/2013 games of panathinaikos against those teams. Furthermore he is referred as the CEO of CSKA Euroleague basketball rather than Turkish airlines Euroleague basketball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.177.78 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The only cite did not support most of the claims made. Collect (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mica Mosbacher

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

I brought this here a week or two ago, and another editor prodded it. Since then it was de-prodded, and I've been backing and forthing with a WP:SPA who just removes the templates without discussion or explanation. My first question is whether the subject meets notability guidelines, or is benefiting primarily from proximity to others. At the least I'm setting the stage for a more thorough removal of unsourced and puffy content, which I'd already begun. Further thoughts appreciated, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If notability is a concern here, WP:AFD is the next step. If we remove everything that's unsourced or relies on inherited notability, there will be very little left. §FreeRangeFrog 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I've looked at it and done the Google search, and think there's probably enough for a short article--the primary claim to notability appears to be as Honorary Consul to Iceland, thin stuff at that, but there may be enough additional mentions as a socialite/philanthropist/political activist to keep. If someone thinks this merits AfD, fine, but until then I'd appreciate some watchlisting and cover, lest anyone misconstrue removal of unsourced content. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Self-published blog on living person

In the article LewRockwell.com, per this diff, an editor wants to include criticism of a living person (Gary North) from a self-published blog by Tom G. Palmer, using a WP:RS that criticizes that person to back up the negative criticisms on the self-published blog. Sounds like WP:Synthesis to me and against Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources which I've quoted there:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

I don't have a problem with them using the WP:RS on the person's article. But I do have a problem with the attempts to use a rather inflammatory self-published blog, and fear it will be a bad precedent for more of the same in this article. (Plus arguing about it has stalled my ability to collect a number of WP:RS showing the notability of the website in general, leaving article extremely unbalanced.) Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the record. On his website, Tom Palmer explicitly cites and discusses the RS of Reason magazine in support of his criticism of north for wanting stone gays and heretics to death (a claim which, as can be seen from the Gary North Misplaced Pages page, has a copious number of RS). In other words, he's criticizing North for x, and explicitly basing his evidence for x on RS y; mentioning his criticism and his basis for that criticism (an RS which he discusses explicitly extensively in the piece) is not SYN. The full excerpt Carol is objecting to on the LewRockwell.com page is as follows: On his personal website in 2004, Tom G. Palmer criticized Lew Rockwell, as well as LewRockwell.com, for hosting as a columnist Gary North, whom Palmer noted (citing a 1998 piecehttp://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning in Reason) advocates "stoning heretics and homosexuals to death." (the source for the Palmer criticism is: http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/) Clearly, there is no "BLP" issue here. Steeletrap (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I was previously unaware of this discussion, but I happened to notice the BLP violation and removed it from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Having brushed up on WP:BLP, the criticisms of Sobran and Francis (which Quest for knowledge removed, and is ostensibly referring to) were apparently violations of WP rules (though Palmer's claims about them are easily verifiable, they were unsourced, and thus "came from him" and are in violation of WP rules.) But, to stay on point, this is not the case with the Gary North criticism which Carol raises above. Palmer's claim re: North is based on evidence from an RS (Reason) which he explicitly discusses and cites in the article. (he doesn't "allege" North wants to stone gays to death any more than I "allege" Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review; he (like me) is paraphrasing RS that credibly reported that.) The only thing original to him is his criticism of LRC for publishing him. Steeletrap (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, looks like WP:Synthesis applied to WP:BLP. Put the Reason article on the Gary North web page where it belongs. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky situation. Reliable sources show that North said X, and that he was criticized for it, this is in North's article. Can we include in another article — where it is relevant — that fact? Does this violate WP:BLP or WP:Synthesis, or is it OK? FurrySings (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a solution to this. His LRC comments, and criticism, gets expounded upon in his BLP (to the extent that the page-watchers of his article allow), and a "See further" hatnote or "See also" link gets added to the LRC page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 20:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Palmer's blog as a WP:RS on WP:BLP is out and he's the only one mentioning both North and LRC/Lew Rockwell together. North is already listed as a columnist with a link. I did find another North article mentioned by a WP:RS and will put it in with a link to his article and people who care to can go over and read the Reason and other articles. Anything else is synth and verboten. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Palmer's web site can only be used as a source about himself, not other people or third-parties, even in his own article. So, Palmer's website cannot be used a source about LewRockwell.com anywhere on Misplaced Pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: both Joseph Sobran and Samuel Francis both are dead and have been for more than two years. So, per WP:BLP there is no BLP issue, and any "BLP" discussion in regards to them (not North) is therefore baseless. Steeletrap (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember that Palmer criticizing both Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com is the crux of the issue, or mentioning Sobran and Francis would not be relevant at all. Plus Palmer's comments are hardly dispassionate remarks by an expert on libertarianism, but highly personal rants meant to damage Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com and therefore their reliability is rather questionable. I don't think any real encyclopedia would use them. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Overly promotional article Sasikrishnan

Can some other editors please have a look at the recently created Sasikrishnan article? It seems to have been created by someone closely connected with the subject, an Indian artist, and while it appears to pass the basic notability criteria, having received press coverage in India at least, the author insists that there is no problem with what I see as an overly promotional resume-style tone to the whole article, and has now twice removed maintenance tags highlighting these issues. --DAJF (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Adam Kokesh

Kokesh's daddy is a bankrupt venture capitalist. The Santa Fe Horse Park was taken over by the mortgage holder, Los Alamos National Bank I believe - and is currently leased out in several portions to various businesses.

It's right across the valley from me and we've been watching the soap opera for a spell.

I imagine anyone searching the Santa Fe New Mexican can pull up this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.152.233 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't really do soap opera here, sorry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Liza Tarbuck

More for keeping an eye on rather than requiring any immediate action. Her father, Jimmy Tarbuck is being questioned about sexual assault. Nothing (as far as I can tell) is being reported in the media about any connections to Liza. I've just reverted an edit that linked to a news article about his arrest that was being used as citation that Jimmy is Liza's dad.

I've semi-protected the page and added a note on the talk page about BLP and cautious editing. Any additional monitoring would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Stephen! 16:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Watched. Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

John Parr

"his band was known as the best thing going in Newcastle." "and the album went on to win many awards around the world."

this reads like a press pack, not an encyclopedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.117.150.71 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely needs improvement. It's not currently protected in any way - so anyone is free to improve it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodluck Jonathan

There is edit warring over this article. More eyes are needed there. I am happy for another admin to drop full-protection if there is productive discussion and I am not around or otherwise occupied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RUFF PRODUCER

BIOGRAPHY OF RUFF MFANAFUTHI NKOSI

Please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) for a description of the criteria used to decide whether a person is sufficiently notable for an article in Misplaced Pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

The section Concerns on Results is heavily biased and scathing to the subject. Papers get challenged all the time. In this case the challenge has been inconsequential. This section only serves the purpose of defaming the subject. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.23.0 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Most of the section was a direct quote from the source so I removed it as copyvio. I agree that it is far to trivial for entry. The article itself may end up in AfD for not being notable enough.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone just paraphrased it and added it back. I still believe it is too trivial to include. I couldn't be bothered to fight a battle over it though. Others may also wish to see if the article meets or notabilty standards and possibly put it in AfD for review.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, somebody is interested in discrediting Ariel Fernandez. This is a trivial matter that does not belong in Misplaced Pages. Please remove. Haydee Belinky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

• Stephen Hawking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boycotts of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Academic boycotts of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Israeli Presidential Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes on the articles above may help for a few days. I've boldly removed some content per WP:NOTNEWS for now since matters are not clear at this stage, it's a breaking story (e.g. the Reuters article "Confusion as Hawking pulls out of Israeli conference" was only published a couple of hours ago) and it involves WP:BLP. I've already been reverted once. Since this combines a living "celebrity" with the Arab-Israeli conflict there is much potential for...let's say volatility. I think it would be better to wait a week or so to see if things become clearer but patience isn't very popular. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of this content given the contradictory reports. GabrielF (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth adding, since many editors may not know, that this content is probably covered by WP:1RR under WP:ARBPIA because it is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Different sources say different things. Complete opposite of one another. His official website says nothing. Recent sources say its for the boycott. Check the time zones, when was each report done? Dream Focus 16:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say if we are relying on time zones to resolve the conflict, there is still a conflict. Just because one published after the other does not mean they have the most recent information. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This source attributes Hawking's nonattendance to "health, not boycott". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Or not.(JTAForward) This is what WP:NOTNEWS is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Intel angle notable? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-hypocrisy-israel-boycott Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hawking will probably be subjected to many more attacks by Israel supporters. It's probably another reason to wait a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio

Can someone please take a look at the "Other family members" section in the article about the kidnapped females in Cleveland, and this related talk page thread as soon as possible? Is an "Other family members" section even appropriate? The paragraph that is by far the most concerning is the third paragraph, which talks about the completely unrelated crimes of one of the suspects' daughters, and the fact that she once tried to commit suicide. Wow, what does any of that content about a suspect's daughter have to do with the subject of the article?? Nothing! Can some experienced editors please review the entire section and remove whatever is inappropriate and violates policies or guidelines? The entire section was removed last night, but someone reverted it. Perhaps some of it is notable and relevant to the article, but I'll let those much more experienced with BLP issues decide that. Btw, someone really needs to set User:Legacypac straight on BLP policy. Read his comments in the talk page thread. Thanks! --o76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Based on the talk page discussion, which includes agreement from an admin, an editor has just removed the most inappropriate content in the section with this edit. Whether another editor will revert it, I don't know. But I think if any editor re-adds that outrageously inappropriate content, they should be blocked from editing for awhile. In any case, the remaining content, and just having the section itself, should still be carefully reviewed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are now several people proposing to move the page in such a way to assert as a fact that kidnappings took place. I cannot see this as anything but a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - there have been no convictions for kidnapping, and such assertions can only be prejudicial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a BLP vio to assert that a crime took place. Federales (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the event, and narrowly about the people directly involved in it. It's not about one of the alleged perpetrator's second cousin's former landlord's mother in law's 3rd grade history teacher that did something bad this one time at band camp, and some enterprising reporter dug up to get more page views on his juicy story. §FreeRangeFrog 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the move discussion in question is here: . The proposal is to use "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" as the title, under the rationale that reliable sources are calling them kidnappings, and that the suspect has now been charged with kidnappings. So it's immaterial whether or not the suspect is guilty, since the crime being committed is described as a "kidnapping", and the official stance is thus that the victims were kidnapped; that doesn't change even if the suspect is found innocent. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The really problematic BLP issue is the inclusion of the victims' names in the title. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM There's a very good reason by rape and child abuse victims are typically anonymous: people need to go on with their lives without the whole world knowing that information. There is no need for the title of this article to further the victimization these poor women have suffered. Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, these women are not anonymous. Far from it. Two of them have been in the news regularly over the past decade. We cannot censor names in highly notable crime articles like this. Did you express the same thoughts about Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? Smart was in captivity for nine months; these females were gone for a decade. Yes, they were both horrific crimes, but their signicant notability, which is not temporary, necessitates putting their names in the title. That's why the title of Smart's article isn't Utah girl kidnapping. This was discussed in great length when the Smart and Dugard articles were being developed. Therefore, this is not, as you say, a "really problematic BLP issue". Contrary to your request at the article's talk page to "put yourselves in the shoes of these victims a few years from now", we must actually be careful as editors of an encylopedia not to do that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the answer I gave you on the talkpage before repeating the same post here. The major difference is that both Dugard and Smart have written books about their experience. They have drawn attention to their situation. To date these women have not at all. Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, editors here may not see anything said somehwere else. And I'll repeat whatever I'd like as I see fit. And let's not forget that you are repeating your same arguments in multiple places. I already addressed your book argument which, frankly, is completely illogical. Uh, they didn't write books until long after their Misplaced Pages articles were created. So what you describe as "a major difference" makes no sense. Look, our job as editors is not to figure out how our content will make a human subject feel. It's to write an encylopedia based on notability and reliable sources. So whether someone wrote a book or not is completely irrelevant to what we do here as editors. The articles are Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping for a reason. There was full and lengthy discussion about those titles. That's why they're not Kidnapping of Calfornia girl and Utah girl kidnapping. Look, you've made your views clear. Now we'll see how the move proposal goes. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"our job as editors is not to figure out how our content will make a human subject feel". I think you'll find that the WMF has a different opinion on this matter: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it again. Nothing in it contradicts what I said. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I also do not see how wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people applies here. We did not strip these victims of dignity (point 2 in the WMF link); the alleged suspect did. Now we need to act as an encyclopedia. Does it suck for them that they're the targets of a widely viewed Misplaced Pages article? Yes, I assume it does. Do I care? Yes, I actually am fairly uncomfortable working on such an article. (I mainly do so to make sure the article isn't too horrid; personally, I'd rather wait until it's sourced better, but I know creation of the article won't wait for that.) Is it relevant to the purposes of Misplaced Pages that these individuals went through such an experience, such that we'd exclude widely disseminated personal information? No, and I think that's the important point there. BLP doesn't cover what basically all sources are reporting. If we could have a generic title that worked, I'd be quite happy with that, but no such workable title has been proposed. Nor do I see a BLP violation given the huge coverage currently and over the past decade of these individuals. The fact is, within the article itself, we're going to name the victims. Lacking any other way to write the title...we're going to end up basing it on the victims' names. It's not optimal, but I really don't think it's a BLP violation. It's not great, but it's what it is. In my opinion, either we exclude the victims' names altogether (which makes no sense given the decade-long coverage), or we treat them as valid for the article title. And not calling these "kidnappings" when that's the current legal justification is even more ludicrous, really. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we need to be concerned about BLP issues regarding the victims. Exceptionally concerned, and we must be scrupulous to avoid joining the voracious media pack in sensationalizing their plight. But BLP applies to the suspects as well. Fresh reports indicate this might have been a one-man crime, and if we helped pillory innocent family members, shame on us. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, no one said we shouldn't be concerned about BLP issues. Haha. We of course should always be concerned about BLP issues. And those have been addressed very nicely by some great editors who have removed any unworthy crap from the article. And that will continue to happen. And including the names of the victims in the title is in no way a BLP violation and, in fact, has clear precedence e.g. Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Those kidnapping cases are in the exact same realm as this case and therefore should have the same title formatting. I do agree, however, that there were some horrific violations with regard to the original suspects in terms of not adhering to BLP policy regarding those arrested but not even charged with a crime yet. You're absolutely right: "shame on us" for those violations. I voiced my concerns from the beginning about that, but unfortunately to no avail (until police announced the two brothers had nothing to do with the crime). 76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy (again)

Nigel Lattais a psychologist in New Zealand with a television program called Beyond the Darklands in which he discusses high-profile criminal offenders. On the page Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, editor VNTrav has repeatedly posted a dubious comment made by Nigel Latta on his program about Mark Lundy - who has been convicted of killing his wife and child, Christine and Amber Lundy. Lundy claims he is innocent and is taking his appeal to the Privy Council in Britain.

Unfortunately, Mr Latta does not interview or conduct clinical assessments of the offenders he talks about because they are still in prison and not allowed to speak to anyone in the media. Latta gets his information from family and people who knew the offender and extrapolates that into a diagnosis - which is unethical and irresponsible - but makes great TV. In the 30 min documentary which he did on Mark Lundy, he describes Mr Lundy as requiring support to stand up at the funeral (of his wife and child). He referred to this as "limb specific grief".

There is no such disorder or diagnosis known as limb specific grief recognised by the medical profession. Latta made it up and Misplaced Pages is not in the business of validating pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV presenters. The "diagnosis" suggests bias and, in my opinion, contravenes WP:BLP which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing".

I have removed the comment a number of times but VNTrav keeps reposting it. Who agrees that this non-existent medical condition labelled "limb specific grief" being applied to a living person is a breach of WP:BLP? Offender9000 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to you or me to decide whether someone is capable of diagnosing something or not. What matters here is that inserting the opinion of a person into a BLP context is original research. If there are secondary sources that cover Latta's comments or diagnosis or the way he scratched his head while he talked about the issue, then that can be included. Otherwise not. §FreeRangeFrog 23:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify please... You seem to be saying that Latta's diagnosis is an opinion - is therefore original research and should not be included. Is that what you meant? Offender9000 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at it this way: You find a video or article by John saying XYZ about Jane, and you include it in a BLP context (in this case, an article that talks about about Jane). That's original research and POV, because you as Misplaced Pages editor, supposedly neutral, are making a value judgement as to the weight of Johns's opinion re: Jane. On the other hand, if you find an article by Mary@ReliableSource that confers that weight and validity by virtue of coverage, then it's fine - assuming the material does not violate WP:UNDUE to begin with. So in that sense, inclusion is a non-starter. Does that make sense? And in this case, it sounds like it's just made up since it's not even a real medical term, so no dice either. §FreeRangeFrog 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Mary@ReliableSource (or, in this case, Elizabeth@thecountry'sbiggestnewspaper) here: . If any living person's BLP is being violated, it is Nigel Latta's, and it is Offender who is doing the violating with his slurs against Latta's character e.g. ("unethical and irresponsible"); ("trying to make a buck out of other people's misery"); ("Latta made it up"); (in its entirety is nothing but an unsubstantiated slur against Latta); etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Thecountry'sbiggestnewspaper" (as you put it) is only quoting Latta. There is no independent or secondary source showing that "limb specific grief" exists. Therefore Latta made it up. WP:BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". Offender9000 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how including this would be WP:UNDUE, however, I will note that "limb-specific grief" comes up in Google only on this article and mentions of Latta's comments, so realistically it's fair to say he made that up somehow, and giving it too much weight would be silly at best. I could even be considered "gossip" to a certain extent. But that's not the extent of his comments. You could word it like this for example: Nigel Latta, a clinical psychologist with experience in assessment of prisoner behaviour in court cases, indicated in an that he was certain Lundy's public displays of grief were an act. Sourced to the NZ herald, that would be neutral and it would leave out the dubious neologism. §FreeRangeFrog 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

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

I have noticed the repeated posting of a section named "Concerns about Results" in the biographical article on Ariel Fernandez. This section refers to an expression of concern published by a journal called BMC Genomics on two conflicting views on a paper published by Dr. Fernandez. This is clearly a very minor point not worthy of publication in the Misplaced Pages article unless the intention is to discredit Dr. Fernandez. Scientific papers get challenged all the time and in this case, the challenge did not result in the paper being retracted or even corrected, so the challenge proved to be inconsequential. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that a person is discrediting Ariel Fernandez by repeatedly posting the section "Concerns about Results" in the Misplaced Pages article Ariel Fernandez. This section describes a trivial matter not worthy of attention. Papers get challenged all the time and in this case the challenge did not lead to any consequences. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the whole section again. Unless it is reported widely by reliable sources it shouldn't be included as it is undue and not notable. I will claim BLP 3RR exemption the next time it is added an I need to remove it. Others may wish to add it to their watchlists as well. If anyone wishes to keep it in the article they should find more sources and seek consensus on the talk page. I am still wondering if we should put the article in AfD as not notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of things about this. First of all, the suddenly arrived "Haydee Belinky" is almost certainly Ariel Fernandez, the subject of the article (certain details of Talk:Ariel Fernandez, coupled with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer/Archive, should convince you of this). Second, contrary to "Haydee's" claims, and contrary to what a non-scientist might think, this is not a trivial or commonplace thing. Expressions of concern are extremely rare in the scientific literature. It is always a big deal for the editors of a journal to express such concerns publicly. It is a bigger deal for them to declare data anomalous, for an author's institutions to investigate, and for one of them, even if one of two, to say that their employee's results could not have been obtained the way he says they were. Any scientist who reads this would have serious doubts about the reliability and veracity of Fernandez' work.

I won't get into a long argument about this. I put in some information, it was removed because of the quote, and I put it back without the quote. So, I'm done with this. But you are permitting Fernandez to manipulate his own article to suppress damning information, and you should reconsider. AlphaHelical (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are COI then and should discuss any changes on the talk page. After you reach consensus then have another editor add them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ernie Winchester

• Ernie Winchester article;
• Psychedelicrabbit edited Winchester's death in the article: ; however, without a reliable source;
• Psychedelicrabbit claims to be Winchester's child: ;
• I'm unsure how to go about this - there are a few pieces to the puzzle missing, such as the fact that there is no hits at Google News; and Psychedelicrabbit has cited a different date of death for two of the edits (8th or 10th). Any ideas? —MelbourneStar☆ 11:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• It's sorted. Now that Aberdeen FC have reported my father's death (at my instigation), you have your source. There is an odd circularity in how sources become 'verifiable' here that needs reconsideration generally, I would say. - Donald Winchester Psychedelicrabbit (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)psychedelicrabbit

  Misplaced Pages sees itself as an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. Ordinarily we'd wait until obituaries or mainstream news stories were published announcing his death, and work from those. Sorry for your loss, and for the misunderstanding here. Rklear (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

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

Some of the reasons, as given by other users:

• Ocaasi (sysop), at Aaron Swartz, concern about BLPSOURCES:

15:55, 7 February 2013 Ocaasi . . (→JSTOR: rephrase, a bit more neutrally …)

16:12, 7 February 2013‎ MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 537068878 by Ocaasi. The non-neutrality is not ours; it’s a direct paraphrase of the source…)

• Bbb23 (sysop) at BLPN:Stephen Heymann, concern about BLPSOURCES:

More input would be appreciated with respect to recent changes to the article.… --Bbb23, 18:56, 17 March 2013

Harvey Silvergate’s essay for Mass Lawyers Weekly is not inappropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:33, 17 March 2013

I don’t care if it was written by a supreme court justice. It’s an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… --Bbb23 00:27, 18 March 2013

• FreeRangeFrog (rollbacker) at Talk:Stephen Heymann, concern about GRAPEVINE:

The Harvey Silvergate report in Mass Lawyers Weekly is entirely appropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:40, 17 March 2013

OK, I’ll give you my humble opinion. Including the essay directly is original research. Basically it means “I think this guy is right”…. --FreeRangeFrog 18:03, 22 March 2013

• Collect (sysop) at RSN:Carmen Ortiz (and Aaron Swartz), op-ed using anonymous sources, concern about BLPSOURCES:

… I note the example quote given above is “first-year law” – and thus of little value, esp. as to what someone “would have done”, this being speculation in any event, which must be sourced to the specific person asserting such knowledge. --Collect 13:56, 30 April 2013

• Collect at AN3 (Result: Stale, editors discussing), concern about NOPR:

… My employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I’d completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.… --MarkBernstein 07:49, 3 May 2013

The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an “employee”. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article. My concern is with the Ortiz article … where there is a subsection on Swartz that … should only summarize the Swartz article and not be a mirror if it, and which is subject to BLP. --Collect 08:04, 3 May 2013

Note. In this article about U.S. Attorney for Mass. Carmen Ortiz, quotations from Attorney Silverglate and his unnamed sources add up to 117 words; quotations from Ortiz and her USAMA posse add up to 86.
Users’ typographical errors and grammatical slips have been silently corrected. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I am not an admin on Misplaced Pages - though I have been in charge of large numbers of "sysops" for CompuServe etc. in the past. Just wanted to be clear here. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla - What is the issue here? I'm afraid I don't understand. §FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

After a quick look it could be UNDUE, COATRACK, and copyvio. Too many biased quotes in the section from non-notable people, a 'see main' link in the section to Swartz's bio and not an article on the prosecution. It is wikilinked as well in the same section. Aricles like this shouldn't be edited by Wikipedians and Amercians with a POV on the issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial politician from India, the dispute is about the lead. It is mentioned in the lead that Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for its actions during to the 2002 Gujarat violence (emphasis mine). An editor feels that in addition to the sentence given it should be mentioned that there were allegations against him of complicity which were not substantiated in the court of law in the Lead, which I think would not be needed because 1)Reference to violence is already mentioned in the lead in the sentence His administration has been criticised for its actions during to the 2002 Gujarat violence, actions of an administration also includes the actions of the head of the administration that is Modi. 2)The fact that the allegations were not substantiated in a court of law gives a bigger reason not to mention it in the lead.Here is the revert which might help in understanding the dispute. -sarvajna (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• The reason Modi is controversial is not primarily because of the acts of his administration but because of allegations that he has personally aided and abetted Hindu massacres against Muslims in the 2002 Gujarat Violence. He has been accused of this from various sides, including his own supporters on hidden camera recordings. It is correct that so far none of these allegations have been upheld in court (mostly because many of the testimonies have not been accepted as evidence), but this is the reason for his controversy and appears in a multitude of reliable sources and in the body of the article. Of course it has to appear in the lead as well, anything else would be disinformative. The lead has to be able to stand on its own as a comprehensive overview of the topic, and if it does not mention these accusations it fails on that account.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am involved in editing the Modi article and there is no doubt that it has attracted a substantial amount of POV contributions in recent years. That is inevitable given the controversial nature of its subject. I am also the person who suggested that this dispute concerning weight in the lead should be raised here, and I can see both sides of the current dispute. It is not like me to sit on the fence when it comes to India-related topics but that is where I am. We really could do with some uninvolved opinion regarding application of WP:BLP and WP:DUE to lead sections. Please. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sam shepard

The Profile of Sam Shepard does not refer to the fact that he was in the movie Resurrection (1980) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.141.114 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. Please feel free to add the information yourself (as long as it is verifiable) or you can raise your concerns on the article talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyo 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy

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

I'd be grateful for additional opinions concerning questionable content in this article which was reinserted today and apparently has been a source of contention for a while. (I'm new to watching the article.) The relevant talk page section is here. There are sourcing issues, but I see a larger WP:UNDUE problem with the whole thing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

well I think we have to be careful of transphobia and Western-centric viewpoint when the woman concerned is probably Fa'afafine. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille

It was recommended by other contributors to bring this issue the BLP board (It has already been discussed without resolution on COIN, ANI and WikiProject_Pornography). This article was proposed for deletion twice, subsequently deleted, recently reverted to the original author's (User Erpert) user page for revision at his request and is now being reviewed for reinstatement. The original article, as well as its current revision, have several inaccuracies and poor paraphrasing that changes meaning. Most of the information is based on a 9 year old interview from a user-generated message board, and contains very little recent data. A couple of examples of the inaccuracies are "She entered the adult film industry in 1998-1999 after discovering how much money one of her girlfriends made by running a webcam site; DeVille then created her own webcam site and subsequently used the profits to create a porn site." and "DeVille has had sex with both men and women but she mainly has sex with women on her website." which are both incorrect statements.

I have a COI with this article, as I am the subjects husband and co-owner of her production company. I provided additional facts and verifiable sources in previous edits, and while some were too promotional and rightfully removed, even edits allowed by COI (such as grammatical changes, corrections of inaccuracies for BLPs and the addition of more reliable sources) were deleted as well. To meet COI rules, I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide. Other editors have also expressed concern over this article (with both the original authors content as well as some of my promotional content), hence its original deletion. It has turned into an ugly battle, with User Erpert refusing to make any corrections or add any additional data or suggested sources. As others have suggested, I'm hoping that third parties from BLPN will review the the document revisions as a whole , in order to finally end this situation (hopefully, with either a better written article or final deletion of the inaccurate version). I, as well as Vanilla, are willing to provide any additional information and assistance that is allowable under COI. Thanks. Stewiedv (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Harris

Patrick Harris's parents did not run a restaurant in Ruidoso, in fact his father was my attorney and I in fact was Particks' soccer coach. I did have a restaurant in Ruidoso "Gregson's" after my name. Congratulations Patrick on all your success, Bob Gregson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.70.133 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please confirm which article you are speaking of? Neither Patrick Harris nor any of the links at Patrick Harris (disambiguation) seem to apply. --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect they're talking about Neil Patrick Harris, there is a claim about Harris' parents there, sourced in part to: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-09-13-neil-patrick-harris_N.htm --j⚛e decker 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Vilayat Inayat Khan

• Vilayat Inayat Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drdonw (talk · contribs)

Okay, the subject isn't living, but the list of living notable students is unsourced, so I trimmed it to include only those who are subjects of their own articles here. A COI account persists in restoring them, with particular interest in adding himself and his publications. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

colin firth

He was not born in 1899, and he's definetely not 113. He was born 1960. Andrew Masters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.118.125 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne M. Olsson

I am Suzanne M. Olsson. I wrote a self-published book titled 'Jesus in Kashmir The Lost Tomb." I originally created a Wiki page back in 2005. I have been a headache for Wiki editors ever since. I have an interest in two pages, Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf. At some point I was banned from editing any of them due to COI. Further any references to my book on other pages was deleted on the basis my book was self-published and not allowed, although it has received high praise from most scholars internationally for the accuracy of its research. Yet I am subject to constant belittling here. Fiction books on the same topic, by authors who quoted me and acknowledged I was their source, are allowed to be included in Wiki references, yet my factual research book is not for one reason or another (either because its self published or COI). Never the less I obeyed Wiki decisions until today. The page 'Suzanne Olsson' was pulled some time ago. Recently someone unknown to me resurrected the page and for the most part there was nothing objectionable. However I felt a small part of the page, less than two lines, misrepresented the facts and took things out of context. I asked for correction on the talk page. I went to great lengths explaining why. The Wiki editors were taking a comment out of context from an article in 'Times of India. I only just read the complete article in the last 24 hours. The information was untrue and I know the man who gave those interviews to Times of India. I pointed out on the talk page that this man was a known liar. In part he had said that I was planting false evidence at a famous tomb. There could be lawsuits over such false statements but I am far away from India now. I have written to Times of India asking them for a retraction, but it may be unlikely because they may not be able to reach that same man directly again. I heard he has since been warned about giving these interviews and false information. I also explained several times that a statement made in this article was later refuted by me publicly and in my own published book after I did my own research. Yet no one will acknowledge this, explain, nor expand on the article. Thus readers are seriously mislead when they read this. I asked for help from Wiki editors. I got none. If I touch the page I am accused of COI and threatened with a total ban from Wiki. In desperation, I tried to delete the entire page and have NO presence on Misplaced Pages. This should be no problem because I keep getting accused by some editors of not being noteworthy enough. Another editor accused me of trying to white wash my image in hopes of selling more books. The same editors accuse me of breaking all these Wiki rules, even when trying to delete the page. I'm sure I have broken many rules, and more I am not aware of. What it boils down to is not to blame me or jump on me for alleged rule breaking, not to accuse me seeking to sell books or to whitewash and glorify my image. That's missing the point completely. In the end it's about representing facts accurately. When a Wiki editor is made aware of conflicts directly from the original source, some choose to battle instead . I asked for either complete deletion of the page or of getting the facts right, accurate, and in their full context. I usually get some smart answer back that I cannot even do this because I am offering 'original research' from a self published book by an unknown author with COI. I give up. Please get me out of here. I would rather never be on Wiki than this blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The last I heard, they wont delete the page, wont make the corrections to the facts, and will bar me from any editing. I give up. Help me please. This is about the truth being represented in Wiki, not about how upset I get with some editors here. I feel that is the real crux of the problem. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any discussion on the talk page. If the article isn't deleted, which two lines do you take issue with? (unfortunately I can't determine which lines they are based on your comment or the edit history). also please read WP:WALLOFTEXT, precise talk page statements are usually more productive than lengthy explanations. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The argument boils down to, a source which is a reliable source, states claims she sais is false, and takes issue with the use of this source. The only evidence she has that they're wrong, is that she says so. No other sources to back it up. This user is a WP:TE and either refuses to read policies or doesn't understand them under WP:IDHT. She's topic banned, broadly construed, on anything about the Roza Bal and is likely going to have that topic ban extended (current ANI). She doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. And has been beating the same horse with her fringe theories for almost a decade on wikipedia under various accounts. There's your little background here.. not to mention the MASSIVE WP:COI she has with this article and subject. — raekyt 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coffeepusher...I do that a lot too- the caffeine I mean-- here is the link to the bio page in discussion: Look at the first lines under the heading India and Kashmir. This is a quote taken from an article in the Times of India. The article goes on to say that I even tried to plant false evidence in the tomb. That is what shocked me. I know these comments are not true, and I know the person who gave these interviews was severely chastised by local Government officials. ...it says, According to local reports, Olsson arrived in Srinagar, Kashmir in 2002, "claiming to be Christ's 59th descendant". Soon after she attempted to gain access to the Roza Bal tomb, "seeking DNA testing of the shrine's remains" in an effort to prove her claim of descent and seeking to move the remains of the entombed persons to another location. Olsson wrote to the shrine's caretakers: My family has its origins in France, where Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene lived for 30 years after the crucifixion. There they had two sons and one daughter. We're descendants of the son. And if you wish to know more, I refer you to a book called Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Lawrence Gardner. We feel any claims you make about the sanctity of the grave are invalid we would prefer to move our grandfather.end of the quote. I pointed out many times that I was not the originator of this claim about Jesus and Magdalene and being a 59th descendant. Laurence Gardner was the originator of that in his book Bloodline of the Holy Grail.He placed my family name, Des Marets in his book. I quoted this in Kashmir but after my own research I reached the conclusion that this id not happen. I published my own research, which contradicted Gardner's research. This is what I asked to have clarified on the talk page. Yet Wiki editors have refused to expand the comments to include these new facts that have been published for several years.. As the information is presented on the Wiki page, it is misleading about me. When they would not correct it, I tried to delete the entire page. Your input would be greatly appreciated. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, your link to the talk page is dead, and I suspect it was deleted, so I have no idea which text you have a problem with. could you please state exactly what the text says and how you would like to see it changed, briefly if at all possible. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Having spent quite a bit of time on this already, I'm going to make one last attempt at an explanation. Ms Olsson is somewhat of an expert on the subject of a particular shrine, Roza Bal, though her "expertise" has been questioned by editors here because it is regularly based on personal experiences, first-hand accounts and private beliefs, rather than the good old Misplaced Pages reliable sources and verification. As a result, the views she has expressed in relation to that shrine mirror what she has written in her books and so any attempt to include them comes across as an effort to promote her book and research. Unfortunately, few others share her views and so few sources (other than her books and those of her supporters) verify what she has claimed there or here. The combination of her continued claims without third-party RS and the assertion that her book is a reliable source saw her topic-banned from the shrine's article and all related articles. Many others contributing to the article have cited a series of news articles (that are considered reliable sources) in which Ms Olsson made some fairly big claims about the history of the shrine and her own ancestry. Mr Olsson has since suggested that those original claims were either untrue or inaccurate - some of her own claims she has since withdrawn; claims from others she says are untrue. Without contrary reliable sources to counter those claims (from her or others), the information has become an integral part of the shrine's story and an integral part of her BLP at Suzanne M. Olsson. She asked me (and the other author who played a role in fixing it after MFD) to consider some changes to her BLP based on her own account of events and subsequent retraction of various claims. She was given some advice as to how that information might be published in a way that would allow us to cite it and "fix" her BLP. In the meantime, editors frustrated with her conduct at Talk:Roza Bal have referred her to ANI asking that her topic ban be extended to relevant talk pages. Facing a ban from the talk page and presumably with the belief that nobody was going to edit her BLP in line with her wishes, she set about trying to delete/blank her own BLP as a BLP violation. I, for one, would happily have made the required/requested edits had Ms Olsson made any attempt to take the advice she was given about the claims that were made. Instead, she offered us free copies of her book, suggesting we read it and make amendments on that basis. Then she got upset when, a couple of weeks later, the edits still had not been made. What we now have is a difficult situation where the subject of a BLP has been topic-banned from editing that BLP and may soon be topic-banned from editing the talk page of that BLP. One might even suggest that posting here about said BLP is already violation of that topic-ban. If you want to wade into this 8-year maelstrom of COI and quasi-religious fervour, be my guest. Stalwart111 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of us is really opposed to deleteing her bio per her request, but none of us are admins. And I don't think going about it as a blanking is the right course of action. That's why it's under a PROD, but has seen previous AFD's so it may not be deleted even if that tag stays. I also don't think it's appropriate to ignore sources based on the blp's subject's objections to their validity with nothing to back it up except her word, specifically when they're critical of her. As Stalwart said, this one has warning flags all over it, so if you want to wade into these waters, go for it. ;-) — raekyt 02:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution