Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Metamagician3000 (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 1 December 2014 (→Jian Ghomeshi: recentism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Julien Blanc

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

The article on Julien Blanc is currently up for deletion, but it also has a lot of interest for much the same reason, oh, Gamergate controversy does—Blanc is a controversial pickup artist who has been banned from entering Australia. Some of his fans think he's being very poorly treated by the world's media and want to correct this. It could do with a lot of cleanup, possibly with cutting the whole thing back to a stub and starting from scratch to make sure it is BLP compliant. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I closed the AFD as keep - this was looking inevitable at the time based on the arguments and the direction of the discussion. But I'm in favour of being ruthless with such articles if they just turn into reporting a litany of conflicting opinions published in the media. There seems to be plenty of straight, reliable news reportage on Julien Blanc, so I doubt that it would be necessary to stubbify the article. But if someone wants to cut back considerably, that might be quite appropriate. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

amjad ayub mirza

Amjad Ayub Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amjad Ayub Mirza is a living person however what is written about himself is incorrect, there is no references. Google information states the living person is owner of World Wide News LTD registered at companies house and lives in Glasgow Scotland. He is a taxi driver registered with Glasgow City Council and what has been written is completely false. Further he has no primary source of reference and article should be deleted for violations. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable this entry is clearly not.

This article needs some significant editing to bring it in line with BLP policy. Presently, it relies on a single source that links to a page error. The subject is also of indeterminate notability. I'd set about this article straight away normally, but I'm on a tablet, which isn't practicle for heavy editing. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Treon Harris - sexual assault allegations

I would be grateful if one or more BLP/N regulars would take a look at Treon Harris#Sexual assault allegations. Given the high-profile nature of the University of Florida football program, the allegations got a fair amount of initial coverage, but all charges against Harris were dropped relatively quickly. As a University of Florida alumnus, and someone who regularly works on Florida Gators articles, I want to avoid making any changes to this section lest I be accused of being a "pro-Gator partisan" or some such thing. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegations make for bad BLPs as a rule - we are obligated to edit conservatively, so the allegations do not belong unless or until something concrete occurs. Collect (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually say this, but I agree with Collect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There are occasions where it is appropriate for us to report accusations of criminal behaviour that have not been tested in court; we did so while Alastair McAlpine was living. The accusations were demonstrably false in that case (the accuser publicly recanted).

Would commenters here (and everyone else) please look over these?

• Talk:Lena Dunham#Proposed edit and
• Bill Cosby#Rape and sexual assault allegations

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with the way the Talk:Lena Dunham page is going. Editorial consensus there seems to be moving in the direction of putting what I'd consider too much detail about the recent sensationalist debate over supposed molestation of her sister. Some eyes/opinions from other uninvolved admins would be good. I started to write a comment there, but perhaps better to get some other opinions here first. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael J. Pollard

The co-star in the 1967 theater version of "Enter Laughing" was Alan Arkin. The person listed was only in the film version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.35.191 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The IBDB listing verifies all of stage production cast members listed in the Enter Laughing article, including Pollard, who played the same role in the play and the movie. The lead role of David Kolowitz was played by Alan Arkin in the stage production and by Reni Santoni in the play. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Ribon

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

A small handful of IP editors are repeatedly inserting this line into the biography of Pamela Ribon:

She is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary under "muffin top."

She is not listed so much as she is quoted from a book to demonstrate ways the term is used in context. I believe that this line is meant to be offensive and intentionally misleading. I have already reverted these edits twice so at this point I would like to ask for a second opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

seems bad to me. thanks for catching this. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange addition - nothing in the OED like that. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently all the text in the entire article was deleted except for a few lists. Surely that isn't the solution. I propose on the talk page to revert those deletions.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the BBC News item about "Barbie" as establishing notability. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

The subject has mentioned inaccuracies and slurs on the page. Just doing a quick report. Could you check? (User:SatansFeminist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.157.105 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are all hers and sourced. What's the problem? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

whew that is a bitter dispute. article is full-protected now too. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Christina Hoff Sommers, it is not especially helpful for her to say that the article is full of inaccuracies and slurs without saying what they are or how she thinks the article should be changed. I think there are BLP problems with the article, but my view of them may not be the same as hers. Among other things, there is a sentence reading " The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist views as libertarian and socially conservative " that is poorly sourced and needs removing (it is also very confusing and poorly written as it presently stands, which gives you some idea of the low-quality editing that has been going on at that article). There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, and I invite interested editors to review it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are "inaccuracies and slurs" in an article, in order to help you out you need to point out which edits are offending (see here for more info). We really can't help you out if we don't know what we're looking for, sorry. As this is Misplaced Pages the best solution is often to improve an article on your own! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She is, and these are her own words frequently stated, a 'card carrying Democrat.' It should at least say that she says that. The article is being slanted to paint her as solely conservative. If you look at the article from a few weeks ago it was far less of an inaccurate character assassination in that respect, which is important to her as a BLP subject.SatansFeminist (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to compare the version from later July with the version now, and it seems that the version now is much improved - in particular in the removal of unbalanced criticism that was there in July. The July version did have a statement along the lines of "Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a 'libertarian.' Sommers is also a registered Democrat." Is this the line in contention? The article currently describes her views as libertarian, so I assume that the concern is that it doesn't also say that she is registered as a Democrat. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What the article looked like previous is irrelevant, though it's good it's improved. That's more a content dispute and this is for BLP violation discussion. We need very specific things that are "inadequacies and slurs" as you claimed. For what specific reason did you start a thread here? I'm not just dismissing the issue because I haven't looked into the article in depth, but I don't know what your intentions were without evidence. Multiple instances and diffs, specifically. As the complainant you need to do the research. Is there anything beyond what Bilby and ImprovingWiki have stated above? The goal of this board is to give BLPs proper help, after all. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The part about Barbara Marshall saying that Sommers explicitly identifies as a libertarian was removed by me, and I think I was justified in removing it. It does not seem especially significant how one author claims Sommers self-identifies: WP:UNDUE applies here. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There are still real problems with POV-pushing attempts to make her seem more right wing and anti feminist than she is, plus inaccuracies. This is a living person and she is really effected by this smearing.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as before... everything is sourced and she is quoted extensively. I see not BLP violations. If you're concerned about WP:UNDUE, discuss it on the talk page. Frankly, the article seems balanced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait... you started the same discussion already a few days ago... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SatansFeminist, there may be problems with the article, but it isn't appropriate or helpful to start an entirely new section on Sommers when one section on her already exists. That only confuses matters. I have moved your comments into the old section, which is where they should have been in the first place. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Landrieu

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

A runoff election for the office of U.S. Senator from Louisiana is currently ongoing. Early voting began Nov 22, 2014 and Election Day is December 6, 2014.

COI disclosure: I work for an organization associated with the campaign, so I am hoping Misplaced Pages's community of editors will review these issues and make the necessary revisions.

Overall the selection of topics and headings included in the article seems designed to highlight her opponents' criticisms of her while ignoring many of the accomplishments her supporters praise her for. This violation of Misplaced Pages's BLP policy on balance is particularly egregious because it is intended to influence voters' views without raising flags with editors and admins for partisanship.

While this may appear accidental, that cannot be an excuse given the revelations several weeks ago that Republican operatives have been deliberately manipulating the Misplaced Pages pages of Democratic Senators . One of the operatives identified in those reports edited Senator Landrieu's article on 14 September 2014.

Today, edits have been made to the article with provocative and false information.

The "Political Positions" section lists abortion, guns, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, but does not include the minimum wage, education, equal pay for women, domestic violence, adoption, or other areas of concern to voters or focus for the Senator. The reference to "Obamacare" itself may be inflammatory, since it is officially called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

An entire section is titled "'Air Mary' Controversy" which may be the way opponents would characterize this, while her supporters might prefer to title the section "Billing Error." This is clearly intended to imply corruption when none was found.

The article references her support for President Obama's positions without including similar statistics from her Senate terms during the Clinton and Bush administrations. There is very little information included about her work on behalf of small businesses or coastal restoration.

We can be sure that supporters and opponents would have strong opinions about the article, so it would be helpful for Misplaced Pages's editors to review these concerns.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pas28 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 November 2014

References

1. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/gop-opposition-research-firm-is-editing-democratic-politican

Navin Raheja

A user is trying to put some defamatory content in this article. The user has made first edit on 20 November and second edit on 24 November.

Please pay your attention towards this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskargupta269 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Leoaugust User: The content is not defamatory but factual. The person in question has had over 45 lawsuits filed against him and his company in July & August 2014, and all this is part of the persons profile. These cases area of serious nature, and just a mention has been made without reproduction of the charges. All citations are made and reliable sources provided, and the law is that what is true cannot be defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoaugust (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article as a whole needs some serious cleaning. The lawsuits do need to be mentioned since they are prominent in the media, but the editor is writing about them in a somewhat sensationalistic manner. However at the same time, I do see where someone is trying to write about Raheja in as positive a light as possible. Either way of writing is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages and the article needs a complete re-write. I do have to warn you that if someone is known in relation to something negative, that must be covered if there is enough coverage of the event- which it does appear that there is, at least at first glance. We cannot remove or block this content from appearing on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would like it if more editors can come in and help clean the article up and ensure that the article is neutral and does not sway in either direction. This looks like it's gearing up to become an edit war and I'd like to avoid taking this to any other boards (ANI, 3rd opinion, etc) if I can possibly help it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this might actually need to get escalated to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Randi Weingarten

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

Would be grateful for editors to look at the Issues section of this Misplaced Pages entry Randi Weingarten. The issue are of Misplaced Pages entry is extremely biased point of view and relies on a small number of conservative websites and opinion pages to make its argument. There’s no balance in the issues section. The majority of the sourcing is the New York Sun and the New York Post editorial pages, which are by the BOLP standard considered tabloids. The WSJ references are mainly from the opinion side of the Wall Street Journal and presented as unbiased opinions. It seems as thought the entire long section is nothing but a hit job.

It’s hard to know what to do here except strike these sections.

Examples

• The school reform section starts out by arguing that Weingarten has argued that she’s a proponent of reforms in education as long as they don’t shred teachers rights and then goes to quote the Manhattan Institute, the New York Post editorial page and anti-union Fox news reporter John Stossel, then the conservative editors of the NY Post, then the conservative NY Sun then the NY Post editorial page, then Joel Klein – the former chancellor of NY City schools and then a random citation about Weingarten being arrested outside of the Tom Corbett run school reform commission which has nothing to do the previous paragraphs about New York or school reform.

• The salary hike section seems superfluous, noting Weingarten a union-leader is fighting for higher salaries for teachers then quotes the right-wing NY Post editorial by Bob McManus complaining about teachers and test scores.

• The section for Merit pay is the same way. Just recounting from conservative sources that the union has argued against Merit pay. It starts out with a red baiting quote from the anti-union Manhattan Institute, then quotes the conservative NY Sun. At least this section finally ends on quoting the NY Times about a collective bargaining agreement in Newark.

• On Teacher Tenure it’s more of the same. A quick strawman argument about teacher tenure from and relying on the New York post to attack.

• On teacher pension plans the entire section is bizarre. It starts out with an argument that Weingarten has supported tenure in one line and then turns to the Manhattan Institute, the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page. Weingarten gets to support pensions generally and then the author dumps a lot of conservative criticism from right-wing authors.

• On standardized testing again the same MO. One line about opposition to standardized testing which is an oversimplication and then several sentences where right-winger accuse Weingarten of being duplicitous.

• On School choice and charter schools. The article does the same thing. Notes opposition to “school choice,” which the author doesn’t define and notes factually incorrectly that the AFT opposes charter school and seeks to unionize teachers at charter schools as if unionizing teachers means opposition. It then goes nto long quotes from the anti-union Manhattan Institute, conservative education reformer Thomas Carroll, the NY Post, then more NY Post, then deviates to a random story about a powerpoint posted on the unions website about parent trigger debate in Connecticut, then the NY Post. From the AFT’s own website they authorize charter schools (http://www.aft.org/press-release/minnesota-approves-nations-first-union-backed-organization-authorize-charter) and celebrate the unionization of charter schools (http://www.aft.org/news/two-more-new-york-city-charter-schools-now-unionized). The section also falsly quotes that teachers can be unionized against their will when they are allowed to vote on unionization.

• The Teacher Accountability section starts off with criticism of the AFT’s position by Joel Klein, then turns to the conservative NY Sun, then the conservative NY Post, then the NY Post editorial again. At least here there’s a New Yorker article even if the Misplaced Pages editor sticks to criticism from the article. Then back to an editorial from the NY Post then the state chancellor’s criticism. Again the section is all criticism with no balance.

• On private tax credits and vouchers more of the same. A sentence with the authors view of the union position and then criticism.

• Class size is weird. It actually has a paragraph about what the union has done. Then it relies on a NY Sun editorial without any research backup or a look at the research.

• More of the same with Seniority. A sentence about the position and then relying on the NY Post and Wall Street Journal for criticism.

• School building. Ok this is weird but it seems straightforward.

• Subsidized housing for teachers. A parapgrah with the AFT’s argument on an issue then relying on the New York post to deliver the anti-union talking points.

• Teacher dress codes: Just relies on the Manhattan Institute for a one sentence description.

• Union solidarity: Again, just replies on the New York Post for a made up heading.

• On the plagiarized section. The author brings up a controversy which should be under the criticism section but the author doesn’t quote from an updated article showing that Weingarten immediately apologized personal to the reporter and NY 1 accepted the apology.

• WTU conflict if it needs to be in a wikiedpia entry would probably exist in criticism section and quote what Weingarten’s response would be to the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbier (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tracy Smothers

He was at least wrestling important matches after the mentioned clash of champions match. He was featured on multiple Pay-Per-Views the last one being at Wrestlewar 1992.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7777:1020:8caf:a179:76e:53c3 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

you have not made clear what is the dispute is. please explain. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 8

Also probably affected:

• MTV Roadies (season 11)
• Bigg Boss
• Bigg Boss 7
• MTV Roadies
• Gautam Gulati
• MasterChef Pakistan (season 1)

A year ago an editor, User:Imtitanium, was indefinitely blocked for (among other things) repeatedly posting defamatory material about reality show contestants (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Imtitanium (persistent copyright/BLP violations)). These typically involved completely fictitious stories of lewd or violent behaviour on the part of certain celebrities, plus claims that this behaviour had led to the broadcaster receiving hundreds or thousands of complaints. His latest sockpuppet has been continuing this disruption since January of this year, and is unfortunately still active as of today.

Help is needed to check all the above articles (or at least edits by Special:Contributions/TizSweg) for negative material, and to remove claims not supported by the references. Note that it is not sufficient to simply look for the presence of a reference, since the vandal's modus operandi is to tag their negative claims with plausible-looking references to real newspaper and web portal articles; if you actually click through and read the cited material you'll find that they do not support the allegations at all. For reference, this edit by Imtitanium is an example of the libel with falsified references, and these edits by TizSweg show exactly the same thing: . —Psychonaut (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gautam Gulati has been checked; the false information has already been removed. I also partially checked Bigg Boss 8 and removed a large amount of hoax material concerning the show itself and various living persons appearing on it. The remainder of the article still needs to be checked. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The sock's contribution to Bigg Boss 7 has been checked and is clean. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jay Tavare

Jay Tavare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of missing citations. He is not listed as a "celebrity spokesman" for the Adopt-a-Native-Elder (ANE) on the organization's website. According to the ANE website, the only relationship they seem to have is that he is a long time supporter who suggested to ANE to create a special funds for firewood donations (Warming Hearts Firewood Fund). The bio on his personal website is pretty much all citation we could give him for the content of this article. Also, no citation for his birth place "Navajo Reservation" - not even on his personal website does he claim to be born on a Navajo reservation.All the content on this article is based on the bio on his personal website and his blog on Huffington post.Add: and IMDB is another source. Slaythereddot (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Roddy Byers - The Specials

On the page for The Specials, Roddy Byers is still listed as a current member but he left about a year ago. In the members section it says 'do not change' when I try to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinkitten (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says that. (see WP:RS if you don't know what a reliable source is). Open a discussion on the talk page, present the source, and say that you intend to edit according to the source, that Roddy left the band in 2013 or whatever the source says. Then make the change, citing the source. No one should object to that. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Pat Quinn (politician)

What year was Gov Pat Quinn born? In the very first line of the article it states "born December 16, 1943" however under Education and personal life, it states "Quinn was born in 1948". Which is the correct year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoBlue82 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be 1948 according to Chicago Mag. I suspect the 1943 year was caused by someone confusing the politician with the late hockey player with the same name, or just a typo. — Strongjam (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arvind Narayanan

This is an article about me. I realize it was written in good faith, but the English is so bad that it is nonsensical in places and misleading in others, especially considering that it deals with technical information. Arvindn (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger Pearson (anthropologist)

Some attention from experienced BLP editors would be good at the perennially controversial article about the anthropologist Roger Pearson. Pearson has now created a personal website which specifically criticizes the coverage of his person in wikipedia, contradicting and criticizing much of the published literature about him. And he appears to be personally participating in the talkpage discussion, arguing for inclusion of material from his website. I have tried to include his specific responses to some of the claims made in the literature and repeated in the article, but being a main contributor to the article I would like some outside eyes to see if what I am doing is reasonable from a BLP perspective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sangeeth Varghese

References are not mentioned properly and most of the content could not be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.232.65 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Dara Torres

The Dara Torres article is currently a Good Article candidate. The fourth paragraph of the last section (see Dara Torres#Personal life) mentions that a doctor with whom she previously worked was investigated for the illegal distribution of human growth hormone. No credible allegations of steroid, HGH or other performance-enhancing drug use were ever made against Torres during her long-lived competition swimming career. This strikes me as a relatively straight-forward attempt to forge an implied link between a BLP and an unproven illegal/unethical activity with no evidence. I propose to remove the paragraph in its entirety, and I would appreciate some extra eyes on this subject for objective, uninvolved opinions regarding the BLP issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is problematic Dirtlawyer1, and should be removed from the article. It is an implication of guilt by association. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cullen. Reactions from any other BLP/N regular participants? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this is an inappropriate and undue mention in a brief Misplaced Pages biography. The appearance of the connection, presented without context and based upon a single media reference (albeit a very high-quality one) suggests that it be left out, and the absence of any follow-up coverage on the matter further suggests that the implied connection does not exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for review, NorthBySouth. Based on BLP/N feedback, I have deleted the questionable paragraph here. If anyone wishes to comment further, and/or believes the questionable content should be restored, this thread will remain open until archived. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Lamb

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

Hello. I just noticed someone created a Misplaced Pages entry about me. I added the sentence about my PhD. I noticed that one of the references for the APA (2007) Sexualization of Girls Task Force Report has an erroneous author on it. Jeanne Blake is listed as the 7th author but she was not one of the authors. I removed her name under the section called "ARTICLES" but was unable to remove it in the section entitled "REFERENCES." Also, one of the co-authors is EILEEN (not Ellen) Zurbriggen, which I corrected under the section called "Articles" but should also be corrected in the references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.161.4 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for drawing our attention to this. Usually the talkpage of the article would be the best place for this kind of minor concerns. Here we mostly deal with problems where biographies of living persons are biased in favor or against the subject and need attention to become objective.Nonetheless, many thanks for correcting these mistakes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

Canadian TV personality Jian Ghomeshi has recently been arrested, charged and bailed in relation to the accusations which have previously caused problems. See also the recently deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal. The main issues are the extent of the section on recent issues; whether coverage should be limited to there or be mentioned in pretty much every other section; and the relevance media-reports rehashing details from what might (or might not) have been a stand-up comedy style event. It doesn't help that the publisher of many of the news reports (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is not independent, having been his employer during some of the time when the alleged actions happened. More eyes wasted please. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a severe case of recentism. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Justin Berfield

User:Mrmoustache14 keeps adding "Category:LGBT Jews" and "Category:LGBT male actors" tags to the Justin Berfield page even though there are no sources presented in the article to identify the subject as gay. As a justification for the tags, Mrmoustache14 offered the following explanation at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags "It's known that Just Berfeild has been in a relationship with his business partner Jason Felts. Although I'm not sure if they're still together, the fact they ever were makes Berfeild LGBT. Even if he's had a girlfriend, he could be bi, but isn't straight". Obviously, that's not anywhere good enough justification, in terms of both WP:V and WP:BLP. The addition of tags was originally reverted by an IP, then Mrmoustache14 re-added the tags, and I have removed them again. I left comments explaining my revert both at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags and at User talk:Mrmoustache14 Since I am basically almost completely retired, it'd be good if somebody else keeps an eye on the page and also comments at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags regarding this issue. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorization as such requires self-identification. Been settled a long time. such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Collect (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Malky Mackay

User:Amusedkid is adding defamatory (and poorly sourced) content to this article. The subject is currently undergoing an investigation by the sport's national governing body (the FA), but has not been convicted of anything. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

List of British mobsters

List of British mobsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entirely unsourced list of "organized crime figures within the underworld of the United Kingdom", including redlinks, and at least one apparent blue link which actually redirects back to the list. Can anyone give me a legitimate reason not to preemptively blank the lot per WP:BLP policy, until such time as it is properly sourced? I can't think of one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks should be removed, but what was the result of the semi-recent similar RFC about lists and sourcing where the individual articles were sufficiently sourced? (I can't remember the specific topic of the list in question, but it was in the past month or two and was a bigish kerfuffle) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If the RfC came to any conclusions (I can't find it either) it doesn't seem to have resulted in any change in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump It was the porn list issue mentioned below I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the exact topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say to remove any link, red or blue, except where there is an article that identifies the subject as a "mobster" with unquestionable sources. Note that "mobster" is arguably not the same thing as "criminal". Lankiveil 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Removed the lot. If someone adds even a single name, it must have absolutely reliable strong sourcing. In fact, I would suggest the "List of mobsters"-type articles should all be Hoovered of any names where the sourcing is peccable. Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The list has been nominated for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters (2nd nomination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Rfc, resulting from a discussion as to whether porn star lists needed to be BLP compliant, did result in a slight policy change, makoing it clearer than ever that lists need to be BLP compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that there was a more recent discussion of the subject somewhere or other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a single user is not merely restoring BLP violating material here but threatening to treat those who remove such BLP violations as vandals. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the majority of these people are dead, therefore WP:BLP does not apply. Amongst those that are not dead there appear to be sufficient references to demonstrate involvement in criminal gangs. Therefore I do not consider the mass removal of all items on the list justified by BLP - if anything task should be taken with the linked articles if SqueakBox believes they contain errors. Artw (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are references, the article needs referencing, per policy, regardless of whether the people are alive or not. We do not cite Misplaced Pages articles as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The references can be copied from the linked articles to the list if required, however that seems like an unnecessary duplication and not something I've seen in other list articles. Artw (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are basing your claim that it is unnecessary on the assumption that we only have articles about British mobsters on wikipedia. Because otherwise I fail to see how an article merely existing can be used as evidence that someone is a British mobster. Hence we need source they are mobsters and that they are British, and in the list article. If you are finding lists that arent compliant you might help fix that but RESTORING BLP violating material is never acceptable. Because the reality is that the list you restored does contain living ppl and does not contain a single reference, therefore you are being dishonest in claiming these references exist. Where are they? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In case it is unclear the linked articles are all about UK gangsters and the references in those articles predominantly discuss gangster activity in the UK. 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Inclusion in a list requires evidence that the material in question meets the criteria for inclusion. That requires citation. Though since the list concerned gave no objective criteria anyway, it was clearly WP:OR, and shouldn't have existed in the first place. And yes, I am well aware that crappy unsourced lists can be found elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps it is time that those who compiled such material actually took the time to ensure that they complied with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed a Courtesy blanked template on the page, which should remain until the issue is decided both here and at the AfD. Safiel (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems highly unconventional to block improvement of an article under AfD, especially when there is a claim that including references from the linked articles would allow them to be included. Also you have not addressed the bulk of these people are not living (see here ]) - what is the argument for not putting them in a list? Artw (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion on the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"List of British Mobsters"? Artw (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So, no actual criteria, just anyone a contributor thinks fits the description? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are all British and described as gangsters in their respective articles. I'm pretty sure you could argue about the usefulness of such a list at AFD, but I see no WP:BLP reasons for not including the likes of the Kray Twins on such a list. Artw (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Artw, that it is very sad the article is currrently blanked as now is the perfect opportunity to improve it. But it is entirely your fault as you kept restoring BLP violations and even went as far as to say that removing these BLP violations is vandalism. They arent actually all described as mobsters in their wikipedia articles, the first three I checked didnt use the word mobster. But how are we supposed to verify your claim that the articles mention that these ppl are British and mobsters? With reliable sources, but that is what you have failed to add, there is not even one reliable source in the article as it was. And you didnt just restore the dead ppl such as the Kray twins so dont please start making claims about them to justify your BLP violations. You have made no attemopt to prove your assertion that the original articles source what you claim they source as if you did you could have copied and pasted the alleged sources. And given that I was getting 0 out of 3 checking for mobsters I am dubious of your unproven claim. That means your BLP additions have been challenged and it was unacceptable of you to revert that challenge without citing, let alone twice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per my edit summary all restored items were either people or people whose articles have references showing them to be British gangsters. The claim that no rationale was given for restoring them to the list is untrue - in fact you'll notice a few that did not meet those criterea were dropped from the list. Artw (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong here. How can you claim this. The article did not even have a reference template. This was the page as of yesterday, as we can al see without a single referenced entry. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As you will note, SqueakBox plays this little game where they refuse to click on any link within the article. Artw (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The refs must be in the article. I have had this argument before and the conclusion was to tighten up the BLP policy to make it 100% clear that lists needs citing in themselves. That is the policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

please point me at the relevant text. Artw (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"try searching "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates" on the page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen a ref on a navigation page or a template. Surely this just means that WP:V must be met by the target of the link? Artw (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that some material was being removed over-and-above BLP reasons and in a way that is clearly discouraged in AFD policy. Source-defined career criminals who have been dead for decades were removed, as well as basic navigational categories for the article. If the material is not sourced in the respective articles, they should be removed, but that doesn't translate to effacing all study of past criminal history in a society, as sourced by reliable historical texts. Are people actually suggesting that there have been no proven cases of a British person involved in organized crime? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Fawcett (writer)

Dear Sirs,

The entry for Bill Fawcett writer is consistently being changed back to information about me that is incorrect, professional damaging (claiming things I did not do) and potentially might open me to legal action. Virtually every line in he material constantly being posted again and again under career is wrong. I have just attempted again to simply put in a placer holder.

I have attempted several times to remove or revise the information entering both long and short revisions, only to have the fallacious entry reappear a few days, or even hours, later. Your staff member (do not want to post the name, contact me for it if needed) and I have corresponded since early November about this concern. When it was revised accurately, he gave the impression the problem was solved, only to have the incorrect entries appear and reappear several times since replacing the inaccurate and damaging material. He recently no longer is responding to my emails. I spoke to the source referenced for the material and the owner of Crescent City agreed it was incorrect. (I can put you in contact if needed.) In light of the several weeks of being unable to remove the damaging material I ask that you simply remove any entry on me. I formally request this for European access, if that even applies and is needed. I commend your work and its many volunteers, but am being damaged by it and seem unable to get corrections made. Again, please remove the inaccurate and legally questionable material (the entire career sections when changed back) or just delete the entry completely to stop doing me professional and financial harm.

Thank you,

Bill Fawcett

Here is my official bio:

Feel free to source my bio on the Dragoncon.org website or use any or all of the below if you are unwilling to simply delete any entry for me and leave it gone. After writing for Dragon Magazine Bill was one of the founders of Mayfair Games, a board and role play gaming company. As an author Bill has written or co-authored over a dozen books and dozens of articles and short stories. Bill Fawcett & Associates has packaged over 300 books for major publishers. These include a number of bestselling Science Fiction, Mystery, and Action novels. The Fleet series he created with David Drake was the first military science fiction shared world series. Bill has collaborated on several mystery novels including with Quinn Yarbro including the Authorized Mycroft Holmes novels and the Madame Vernet Investigates series. He has also written Oval Office Oddities. His other solo collections include The 100 Mistakes that Changed History and Trust Me, 100 Leadership Mistakes that Changed History. As an anthologist Bill has edited or co-edited around 40 anthologies. Bill is the editor of Hunters and Shooters and The Teams, two oral histories of the SEALs in Vietnam. His historical "Mistakes" series of often amused look at how the mistakes in history changed our lives include It Seemed Like a good Idea, It Looked Good On Paper and You Did What. A military mistakes series include How To Lose A Battle,, How To Lose a War, How To Lose WWII, How To Lose a War at Sea, and How To Lose the American Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouru (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bouru: Well... we can make small tweaks with a WP:PRIMARY source but not huge ones. The main thing I saw was that you were removing a history section, but I don't see anything about it that would be overwhelmingly harmful to you as a professional. Sometimes Misplaced Pages articles can contain information that someone may not want in their article, but if those things happened and received enough coverage to merit inclusion, they should be added. We can't really edit an article to only include the positive things or to only include things in an official bio if anything negative or embarrassing gained a substantial amount of coverage. (Plus us only including things in an official biography does come across a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, among other things.) That's just not how Misplaced Pages works. I do see where someone just redirected it to the main article for your pseudonym, which was what my main suggestion was going to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• We also cannot just ask someone if this is true or not- we'd still need coverage in reliable sources to back this sort of thing up and not word of mouth. I remember one instance where an author held an interview with a newspaper just to fix things in an article. I can't remember the author, but he was someone fairly well known in the literary world and it kind of just goes to show how difficult it is to disprove something or to fix something without an independent and reliable source. Word of mouth just simply isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We should just AfD this. Its only references are PW book summaries, one fleeting reference in the LA Times and the author's official bio on the Macmillan website. Doesn't really meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and, if it's inaccurate, would be better to just recycle the whole article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Update - I just AfD'ed this. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba

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

This article has very few watchers. A rather green editor who appears to be a big fan is adding a lot of material to the article that is poorly sourced. Initially, he didn't source it at all. Now, most of it is sourced to the subject's own website. I'm not getting anywhere with him (he just left me an angry post on my talk page). Perhaps someone could take a look at it. It probably can be made to into a reasonable article, although secondary sources may be hard to find.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the page to see what I could improve/fix. Someone beat me to it and removed the information supported by poor sources. The page is now on my watch list. Meatsgains (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws

Can we get some eyes on this? It's a list of non-notable, non-articled people completely referenced to primary government documents. Many of the child immigration cases are from the sixties and seventies but some are from 2000s, clearly about children, and who would still be children today. All of the cases involve subjects within the time limits of BLPs.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrid. Unless the person is notable, they have no business being listed in a Misplaced Pages article. Period. Collect (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pruned of all non-notable persons AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone re-added non-notable persons. Re-pruned. Collect (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

LeGarrette Blount

• LeGarrette Blount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several of the references are used inappropriately to cite falsely. For ex. under early life and high school career, the link about him having a brother and a sister with whom he smokes blunts connects to a page that only mentions the siblings - nothing about smoking, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macattack415 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was recently added vandalism. I've removed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon - AfD

This article is up for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonah Falcon (2nd nomination). In the first AfD, the subject himself commented that he was about to receive major press for a screen play he had written circa 2008. This apparently did not happen as the majority of his acting resume in uncredited roles meaning he was an extra or had other lesser parts. The Afd had a non-admin close when the nominator withdrew. Now we have a second AfD with currently a single Delete (myself) and a single Keep vote with discussion. Additional input would be appreciated. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution