Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

This needs resolution, article talk is unable to develop consensus, and slow edit war (overwhelmed by massive number of productive edits elsewhere) is happening

George Zimmerman, shooter, made allegedly racist comments during incident, and allegedy racist statements in the past and had arrests but not convictions for assault and domestic violence

Trayvon Martin, victim, described as "on drugs or something", and "up to no good", "suspicious" during incident, has history of pot, grafitti, and theft, but no convictions

All information incredibly well sourced by both parties. All information is being added (or removed) without OR/SYNTH, just pure recitation of the facts as reported in MANY MANY MANY reliable sources, and in the case of Martin's past, publicly acknowledged by the parents, and an ongoing part of the controversy "They killed him, and now they are trying to kill his reputation"

There is consensus that the information regarding Zimmerman should be included. No consensus if the information for martin should be included. I believe it should be both, or neither. (personally I think both should be included) In both cases, the history informs the user about the participants past actions. In both cases the information provides no direct evidence as to what happened or didnt happen during the conflict. In both cases the information can be used to judge (by the reader, NOT OR/SYNTH in the article) the reliablility/accuracy of the statements by or about the participants.

Zimmerman is accused, by the family and the media of being a racist, and tendency to violence. Martin is accused, by Zimmerman as acting suspiciously, as if on drugs, and of violently attacking Zimmerman.

Either the background is relevant, or it isnt, but it is exceptionally widely reported, there are no real BLP/BDP issues as everything is sourced, notable, public, and acknowledged.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, here are the details that are being debated being included

Zimmerman : Arrest but not conviction for assaulting an officer, previous statements alleged to be racist attributed to zimmerman by neighbors (no actual proof they occured other than statements), restraining order against ex-fiance regarding domestic abuse (abuse alleged in both directions, both spouses subject to restraining order)

Martin : 3 school suspensions for 1) pot residue, 2) being in an unauthorized area of schoool while under suspicion of grafitti - and found with a backpack full of womens jewelry Martin said "was a friends" that he declined to name while in possession of a screwdriver on school described as "burglary tool", tardiness (obviously of lesser importance/relevance to the article).

In both cases no convictions, but were administrative actions taken by the relevant officials.Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is "widely reported" does not mean it is acceptable or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. see WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME for example. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting policy does not help, everyone knows the policy. The question is does the policy prevent inclusion of one or both or none of the participants background. Additionally, the policy does not say "do not include", it says "give serious consideration". Thats what this debate is about. Also that policy specifically says "For people who are relatively unknown" which does not apply to either person at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME says to defer to Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN for well known individuals. I think these two fit that criteria a this point. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That bar is far surpassed for all of this information. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've argued on the article talk page, I think that histories relevant to the topic should be used, while everything else shouldn't. To whit, the reasons for Martin's suspensions has no relevance, so it shouldn't be in there. However, Zimmerman's history of violence seems relevant, and may be used. I have heard it argued, though, that we shouldn't detail histories of violence unless they resulting in convictions. Zimmerman has no "convictions", though it appears he did reach a deal on his resisting arrest with violence charge. If WP policy does explicitly ask us not to include incidents which didn't result in convictions, than the whole shebang should be excluded.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman accused Martin of looking like he was on drugs. And up to no good. A history of drugs and behavior that directly qualifies as up to no good (trespass, graffiti, alleged theft) is not relevant? It is an alleged pattern of behavior in both the case of Zimmerman and Martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose here as Wikipedia editors is to provide an informative article for our readers. If something can be sourced to multiple high quality reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. As WP:BLP says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, martin is dead, so the protection of BLP are significantly weakened. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I, and others, have made this argument on the article talk page, but just to get it on the record here, I want to respond to comments regarding the suspension for pot possession. Firstly, there wasn't even a criminal charge, nontheless a conviction. This adds weight to the argument that it shouldn't be noted, but is not dispositive. More importantly, the fact that Martin had been suspended for possession of pot has absolutely no relevance to the shooting incident. Zimmerman had no knowledge of this, and therefore the fact that he told the operator that Martin looked like he was on drugs is neither more or less reasonable with the information regarding pot possession. What including the information does is insinuate that either Martin was indeed on drugs or that Zimmerman had reason to believe he was. The former is a clear WP:BLP violation, and the second is factually untrue as Zimmerman had no knowledge of the prior events. If, however, the toxicology report comes back and it is shown that Martin was on drugs at the time of the incident, we must include that information. Martin's state at the time of the incident is the only information that can inform the actions of Zimmerman and Martin during the incident.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A past history involving drugs, when related to a later insinuation of drugs, has the exact same relevance that a past history of violence, or racism has to a later insinuation of violence and racism. A pattern of past behavior makes an accusation of later behavior more plausible. It is not direct evidence. But If I said I saw Lindsay Lohan drunk and high, most people would believe me. They would not believe me if I said the same thing about one of Obama's kids. This has nothing to do of if I personally happened to know about their previous history (or non history). Zimmerman accused martin of acting suspiciously. The readers deserve to know that Martin had some history of trouble that makes that a plausible (not necessarily factual) accusation. They also deserve to know that Zimmerman has a past history of alleged racism (be on the lookout for black youth), which makes the accusation LESS plausible. For us to decide that one or both are not relevant is clear OR and POV, when the practically infinite number of RS, including both media and official agencies have said it is relevant (but again not definitive)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← This is basically one step away from bringing up a rape victim's sexual history to try to discredit them. One has the right to go to the store to pick up snacks for one's family without being accosted by a large, angry, armed man and ultimately shot to death. A previous school suspension for marijuana has exactly zero bearing on that right. If Martin had a history of violence (as, apparently, did Zimmerman) then that might have some bearing on this particular act of violence. But bringing up the fact that a high school kid apparently used marijuana is evidently an effort to insinuate that he somehow brought what happened on himself. That's the reality of how high-profile cases are tried in the media, but it's beneath us to be party to it. That's WP:BLP in a nutshell. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say he deserved it. I think he did not, and Zimmerman should be tried. Zimmerman is being called a racist for the things he said and his suspicion of Martin. Removing all things that might corroborate that suspicion is POV against zimmerman. Martins past has no impact at all on the actual shooting. It DOES have impact on zimmeramns decision to find him suspicious, follow him, call the police on him. The ONLY information directly related to the shooting, is what was happening in the 10 seconds prior to the shooting, if zimmerman was getting beat or not, if martin reached for the gun or not, made a death threat or not (all not-proved allegations from zimmerman) and who started the physical confrontation. But there are MANY things relevant to the events that immediately preceded the shooting. the past behavior and prejudices of BOTH participants ARE absolutely relevant to if zimmerman was justified in being suspicions in the first place. If he was not justified in having the initial suspicion, then that increases the probability he is a racist, and increases the probability the shooting was directly due to his racist mindset. If he was justified, that decreases the chance he was acting under a racist mindset as well. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE. To claim the information is irrelevant is to be directly making this decision on behalf of the readers and is OR and POV. it is absolutely a POV to decide that information is not relevant, and that POV is NOT SUPPORTED BY POLICY. WP:WELLKNOWN WP:VERIFIABILITY WP:BLD If you thin you are supported by policy, please quote the specific passages of the policy that you think preclude this information.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't have an impact on Zimmerman's decision to find him suspicious etc. etc. Zimmerman did not know these things when he decided to follow Martin. These are being brought up after the fact in order to justify Zimmerman's actions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, would Zimmerman have known that Martin was suspended from school? Wait, I understand - you want the article to say he was suspended from school so we insinuate that he was a drug addict, and thus Zimmerman should have shot him? Got it. Yeah, you probably shouldn't edit articles about people. We don't insinuate negative things about people. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My logic has nothng to do with zimmerman knowing about the suspensions. It has to do with the plausability of martin actually and objectively acting suspiciously at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your "plausibility" has headed into untenable grounds. it may impact your personal belief, but cannot be used in any form in an article without actual specific sources making the "plausibiity" claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Gaijin42, you're kind of digging yourself deeper and deeper here...if your reason for including the information is because it makes it seem as though Martin was "objectively acting suspiciously," you really need to reexamine your commitment to NOR and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell and LedRush are right. Martin's "trouble" is not relevant to the incident and only serves to make the unsupported-by-sources implication that Zimmerman had a reason to shoot him; it does not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman said that he thought Martin was acting like he was on drugs, so if Martin has a history of drug use, it is relevant. It's no different than Zimmerman having a history of violence. But honestly, I'm really not comfortable with this line of reasoning because this rationale violates our policy on NPOV: using our own personal opinions to overrule what reliable sources say on this topic.

But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers. By omitting key parts of the controversy from the article, we leave our readers less informed. If a reader says to themselves, "Hey, what's this I hear about Martin getting suspended from school for marijuana?" or "what this I hear about Zimmerman making a racist comment?". If they come to our article and we don't cover it, we have done them a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT a tabloid. This makes as much sense as "teach the controversy" does in science class. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The autopsy report hasn't been released yet. If it says that Martin was on drugs at the time he was shot, then the marijuana incident, as LedRush said, becomes relevant. Until then, or if it comes back clean, Zimmerman's speculation that his victim was on drugs is meaningless to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "up to no good"? There will be no autopsy findings that can show that, and some of the suspension were definitely for things that were "up to no good" - grafitti, backpack full of jewelry. There is no evidence that Martin had already engaged in a crime while on the walk, but the backpack indicates he may have been involved in crimes in the past, and may have been acting suspicius (casing?). This is counterbalanced by Zimmermans alleged racism (hypothetically seeing all blacks as criminals?) and mall-cop attitude that may have seen completely innocent behavior as suspicius. We should let the reader evaluate both of their histories and decide which one is more plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't insinuate to the reader that persons were engaging in crimes when no reliable source has said that said that persons were engaging in crimes. I am not kidding - you really need to stop now. Your willingness to defame the recently dead without reliable sources is rapidly reaching the point where you will be sanctionable under WP:BLPSE. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on. HE IS DEAD. BLP does not apply. I am not insinuating he was acting suspiciously. HE WAS DIRECTLY ACCUSED OF THIS BY ZIMMERMAN. As a result, zimmerman has been called a racist. Nobody knows what martin was doing. Martin does have a history of things that people would consider suspicious. Therefore, it is possible and plausible, he actually WAS engaged in such behavior at that time. this in no way justifies his being killed. stop putting words into my mouth. It also does not prove he was engaged in such action. Zimmerman has made statements many consider to be racist. This makes it possible, and plausible that he was a racist bastard who hates black kids. we do not know. we should let the reader make their own opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." We do, in fact, know what Martin was doing. Reliable sources have reported that he was returning from a 7-11 with tea and skittles. The only words being put in to your mouth are yours, when you say that we need to insinuate to the reader that Martin was "casing" (your word) or "acting suspicius" (your word). Please find reliable sources for your racism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's a big difference between saying "Martin was acting suspiciously" and "Zimmerman said that Martin was acting suspiciously". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's in the article now that Zimmerman said that. What's not in the article now is the proposal that the article say "Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspiciously. Martin was suspended from school for being in an unauthorized area, vandalzing, and having MJ residue in his backpack, so who KNOWS what he was doing - We report, YOU DECIDE," which is what's being proposed here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on controversial topics like this are always a mess, and I try to stay out of them, preferring to offer advice at a distance. The article is rapidly changing and it's been a couple days since I last read it. I see now that it says "Martin's suspicious behavior" in Wikipedia's voice. That's not right. Nobody know whether Martin was acting suspiciously. We only know that Zimmerman said he was acting suspiciously. We need to be very careful on how we phrase things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been fixed.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you calling me a racist a personal attack. why dont you take a look at WHO FUCKING STARTED THE ARTICLE, and the edits I put in, before you call me a racist.We DO NOT know what martin's actions were. We know what martins parents SAID his actions were, and they were not there. I am absolutly not saying that we should put into the article that martin was casing the homes. I am saying zimmerman said he was suspicious. Martin had previously acted in ways that are suspicious. It is directly relevant to if Zimmerman is completely making shit up or not, or might have actually seen something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, it has nothing to do with being tabloid. Do you think we should ommit the Monica Lewinski scandal from Bill Clinton's article? Of course, not. And we do have an article on Intelligent design. It's a Featured article if I recall correctly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers" - as an encyclopedia. I really dont think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility or that we are actually serving our readers either short term or long term when we specifically vere from presenting encyclopedic coverage in favor of "clearing up" potential misinformation in current public media circuses. That easily leads to UNDUE focus on ephemeral, emotional trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roscelese that the Trayvon/marijuna residue suspension is irrelevant unless and until a positive toxicology report is released. Let's also remember that 'possession' (of residue) is different from 'under the influence', and that school violations are significantly different from arrests and convictions or incidents resolved by the criminal justice system. Keeping POV out of this article is very difficult, and I hope everyone can engage in some introspection. Part of that difficulty is the scope of the article itself. It's too early to characterize the meta-event, and yet that is the scope. I think in these cases, less is more, and simple is preferable, knowing that over the course of time, just what all this was about will become clearer and less controversial. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from someone who has so far stayed out of this dispute: I think that one or two editors may need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a court of law. We are not here to present 'evidence for the prosecution', or 'evidence for the defence'. Our readers are not jurors, assigned with the duty of determining innocence or guilt. This is an online encyclopaedia, and we should confine ourselves to summarising, accurately but briefly, the more cogent details of the events around which the article is centred, in due proportion to the weight assigned by such sources - with the obvious proviso that we consider tabloid tittle-tattle etc of little merit. We do not have to cover every bit of 'evidence' that might be seen as significant at a later trial - if for no other reason than that we should not be engaging in crystal-ball-gazing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LedRush, MastCell, ArishiaNishi, Hipocrite, Roscelese, and maybe others here that I missed. Martin's school suspensions have no place here - not the reasons for them, and likely not even the fact that he had been suspended. Unless George Zimmerman is clairvoyant, as I have said repeatedly on the article's talk page, we have no information that says that he somehow knew that Martin should not have been inside that gated community (in fact incorrect), or had a history of anything, and that is all that matters. We do not know how Martin was acting, or what made Zimmerman suspicious. No one is claiming that Zimmerman smelled weed. He had no knowledge of Martin at all, but events happened and Martin was shot and killed. We have some actual facts, such as that Martin was unarmed, and that belongs in. But Martin's history, unknown until well after he is dead and buried, so obviously not related to how the event went down, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Zimmerman's is something else - if he has a history of violent reaction, and if he reacted violently that night, his history could have relevance to the event. "Balance" and NPOV does not mean for every bad thing we put in about one person we have to put in a bad thing about another - we put in things that are specifically relevant to the story and properly sourced. Trying to match negative for negative may be thought of as just trying to be fair, but in fact in this case it attempts to shore up the case of one side which everyone must agree is not what we are supposed to be doing for either side. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said about balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own original research as to why you think it's not relevent. But obviously lots of reliable sources thought it was relevent otherwise they wouldn't have reported it. While we all have personal opinions, we should check such opinions at the door. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the original research with the proper enforcement of wikipedia policies under BLP. No one is arguing for the inclusion of information that was derived through original research. We are arguing that because the information is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, it should not be included. Remember, the news media is not writing an article called "the Shooting/Death of Martin". They're writing one called "let's get as many readers as possible, regardless of whether the information is relevant to the underlying facts of the incident." No article on wikipedia should include every detail of an event that is reported in the media...we should include the relevant ones. Therefore, every article is an exercise in judging what to include and what not to. It's not original research. It's a fundamental aspect of basic editing. And it's complying with BLP.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. That goes against WP:NPOV. Further, you can't just cry "BLP! BLP! BLP!" without explaining exactly what the supposed BLP violation is. Nevermind the fact that Martin isn't a living person. And I have yet to see an argument why a less informative article is more desirable than a more informative article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I see you are uninterested in honest dialog, it is easy to dismiss your unfounded accusations and misrepresentations.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened is that I brought up four valid points, you don't have a rebuttal to any of them, so you resorted to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a valid debate as to if the information is relevant to the article, or overly prejudicial to the article. I cannot see a valid point that BLP/BDP mandates the information not be included. This is extremely well sourced information, that the family has acknowledged. BLP no longer directly applies as Martin is dead. BDP could apply to the family, but I say they are clearly WP:WELLKNOWN people at this point, participating in multiple nationally broadcast interviews, protests, etc. Information which is negative, but reliably sourced, which is a source of a controversy should be added into articles, even if the subject would prefer not. This is the policy used for THOUSANDS of bio articles. There is clearly a controversy/scandal regarding this in the media, and obvious (from this discussion) a controversy within wikipedia. Just saying "it shouldnt be there" or "BLP!!!!" is not enough. Specific clauses of policies need to be cited, and specific refutations of why the clauses in policies such as WP:WELLKNOWN do not apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've largely been debating "relevance". If it is not relevant, than BLP kicks this info out. If it is relevant, than it doesn't. Of course, I would still debate WP:Coatrack and WP:Undue, but we're on the BLP board.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP! BLP! BLP!" Sadly, this policy is being used as bogeyman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

From WP:BLP; emphasis mine. The question is not simply whether the material appears in print somewhere. We should not be acting as an echo chamber for the effort to posthumously cast Martin as a menace. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were about some minor detail, I'd agree with you. But with this topic, we have editors arguing to omit key aspects based on their own personal opinions and prejudices which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. My advice is this: if something is widely covered by lots of reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it's not, then it probably doesn't. Generally speaking, that's good advice no matter what the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I included the BLP quote to clarify that this is policy-based, not a personal prejudice. Secondly, we don't include details just because they've appeared in the press; that's a major theme of WP:BLP, addressed directly by the quote above. And finally, what key aspects are we talking about? I see people arguing over a school suspension. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mast, based on that last comment it seems like you may not be aware of what the school suspension under discussion are about. Martin was suspended 3 times. Once for tardiness (clearly not relevant). Once (most recently) for having a baggie that had pot residue in it. Once for being in an unauthorized area of the school. In that suspension, he was observed on a security camera allegedly putting graffiti on school property. When confronted, they searched him, and found a backpack with a bunch of women's jewelry in it. He said it belonged to "a friend", but declined to name a friend. No theft could be proven, and no charges were filed. All three suspensions are well sourced, and acknowledged by the parents. That is the context for my comment below about "history of doing things that if observed would be considered suspicious".

@MastCell & @LedRush Thank you for putting out more reasoned and cited reasons, it makes it much easier to have a discussion. I am in general agreement with you regarding extending victimization, etc. and that the primary issue is relevance. There seems to be general consensus, that Zimmerman's past assault/domestic violence history is relevant to the current situation, as he may have a predisposition to resorting to violence, and this may have had an effect on his actions that day. He has been directly accused of such by the media and Martin's parents. Zimmerman accused Martin of acting suspiciously. Martin has a history of doing things, that if observed, would be suspicious. I am absolutely not accusing Martin of any wrongdoing at the time of observation by Zimmerman, but if Zimmerman is making that accusation, how is a past history of such behavior not relevant in the same way that Zimmerman's history is. Both have been confirmed to have done (in the past) what is being discussed. Neither one was convicted. Both had administrative action taken against them by the relevant officials. Both histories have a plausible relation to hypothetical but unobserved unproven behavior at the time of the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain this in a sort of diagram-y way, if it'll help. Zimmerman has a history of violence ... Zimmerman was violent ... relevant and included. Martin has a history of acting suspiciously ... Martin acted suspiciously ... relevant and included? No, because we only have Zimmerman's word here that Martin acted suspiciously, and he's not exactly objective. And again, Zimmerman was not in possession then of the same knowledge that we have now about Martin's history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Let me make two points. Zimmerman has a history of unjustified violence (since there were legal consequences, we can say unjustified?). He was violent in this case, but it is only an accusation that it was unjustified. Secondly, my logic does not require Zimmerman to have any knowledge of Martin's history. If Martin has a history of suspicious behavior, it is in fact possible he was acting suspiciously and Zimmerman observed that.

I think the relevance of Martin's suspensions (and their causes) can be plausibly argued for or against. I don't see a consensus on whether to include them or exclude them. The question is whether, by default, Wikipedia includes reliably sourced information or excludes it. As it is right now, the de-facto policy is to *exclude* information of plausible relevance. Personally, I think well-sourced information that is at least plausibly relevant ought to be *included* by default, and left to the reader to decide. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I know, and I apologize if you thought I was referring to you. I was referring to some of the other editors working on that article.

I'm not saying we should include every detail just because they've appeared in the press. I am saying that if something is widely reported by multiple reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it hasn't, it probably doesn't.

You quoted part of WP:BLP so let me quote the very next paragraph:

“

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

”

I think that's pretty much what I am saying here.

I'd like to take a step back and reflect on what the BLP policy really means. BLP adds little beyond what WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV already state. That is to say, if you're writing an article and you're carefully following V, OR and NPOV, odds are that you're following BLP, too. The few additional restrictions that BLP adds to these three core content policies (such as not using categories regarding sexual orientation unless the subject publicly self-identifies or don't create biographies about people notable for only one event) don't apply to this article (or haven't been violated).

I get the idea that some editors think that BLP radically alters the way we write articles, and that's simply not the case. For the most part, BLP just reiterates what V, OR and NPOV already state. BLP reminds us that since we're dealing with living people, we need to make sure we get it right. If you look at the top of the BLP policy, it says that we should be very careful to make sure that we're following V, OR and NPOV:

“

This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.

”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include suspensions stated by family as not media rumors: Although some might wish the suspensions noted with just a few phrases, the family replies which confirm the 3 suspensions did occur, is needed in the article to defuse notions of invented claims. The recent suspension explains why the 17-year-old was in central Florida on a school night, rather than at his home in Miami Gardens (in far south Florida) preparing to attend class the next morning. The prior 2 suspensions explain why the recent suspension was a 10-day suspension. Plus, the mention that other students were involved in the suspension shows that Martin was not "singularly unusual" in being suspended. Hence, there is a lot of text, likely notable, due to coverage in whole reports by both The Miami Herald and The New York Times (27 March 2012, not just a single fringe source). Both reports were complete, so there is not even the need for Wikipedians to combine multiple sources to cite the 3 suspensions, and the confirmation by the parents. Another clear connection to the article is the revelation of school police searching Martin's backpack containing a "large screwdriver" and "12 items of women's jewely" (with "wedding rings") which he said "were not his" in his backpack, then photographed to notify the city police. Such details are not "fringe" or wp:UNDUE as they tie into the incident's themes of drug-use (marijuana) & burglary and police suspicions, as obvious connections for a news story. In general, Wikipedia should only censor non-neutral POV conclusions (such as "gansta lifestyle" or "potential drug dealer"), but allow statements of fact, such as detection of marijuana residue or possession of some unnamed person's jewelry and wedding rings, without concluding: "drug dealer paid with stolen jewelry" (which would be a POV-conclusion). Beware users wanting to remove text as "undue" when it is merely "un-positive" toward one side. In general, heed wp:NOTCENSORED and only omit POV-conclusions (either derogatory or peacock), where the vast bulk of text from multiple sources should be allowed in an article, and not blocked by users trying to wp:OWN the contents of an article. Background text must be allowed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without restating the arguments, I believe these facts are relevant and should be included for both Martin and Zimmerman. Intrepid-NY (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this farcical 'talk page trial' is still continuing. When are we expected to reach a verdict? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like writing about current events, Wikinews would love to have you!

Here we go again, can we not step back and remember Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS? Give it a few days, I'm here in France and the recent Toulouse killings have generated a lot of "he did, he didn't, he was disguised as a camel robbing a post office, oh no sorry it was his 5th birthday party" type of coverage, Wikipedia *is not* a breaking news website and, as such, neeeds to step back, weigh up the different RSs and let the dust settle before writing definitve things in article space about PEOPLE! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some other people on some points - this is like bringing up a rape victim's sexual history, and Wikipedia is not a court of law. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should cover what the sources cover. That means including arguments that we feel are irrelevant, illogical, and unethical, provided that the media sources find them to be relevant. We're not here to judge - we're here to provide a navigable path through the thicket of available sources. To exercise NPOV sometimes we need to be dispassionate, and sometimes we need to be outright cold-blooded. Just cover the sourced information. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:BLP. We do not abdicate relevance to newspapers. Otherwise, the Amanda Knox article would have a list of everyone she's every dated, where she ate lunch yesterday, and when she and Sollecito are going to start making flippy-flop again. The reasons of the suspensions are simply not relevant to the crime or the shooting, and therefore cannot be in the article. It's clear from this talk page that we do not have consensus for inclusion, so the suspensions should remain out until consensus is reached, again, per WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, the premise of the encyclopedia is that we approach articles conservatively. The media does not. You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about. The facts are limited, and that is why the media is having such fun playing with this and swinging back and forth. If there are reasons to exclude something from the article, then prudence dictates we should avoid it. It is true that this has become a national phenomenon, but that is entirely a work of the media, not the work of George Zimmerman, and certainly not the work of Trayvon Martin. Spreading titillating bits of gossip about people might work for the media or a trashy tabloid, but it is beneath the encyclopedia. Stick to a rational and reasonable portrayal, based in solid and honest reporting, not the stuff that mostly fills the airwaves. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Avanu: "You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about." Yep, that's pretty much what BLP says:

“

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on missing a quite important word in the policy. "Relevant". Seeing as most of the discussions here have been arguing that the information isn't relevant, I think you should start to read the section you've now quoted at least twice.LedRush (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: Not at all. Zimmerman said that Martin was acting strangely as if he was on drugs. It seems to me that Martin's drug history is very much relevent. It's also relevent in that supporters of Martin have attempted to portray him in a positive light while Zimmerman's try to portray Martin in a negative light. It's not our job to take sides. We simply document what these sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your position on relevancy has been discredited above. So has your vision of a Wikipedia in which every bit of minutiae published by any newspaper finds its way into an article.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush:Diff, please? Anyway, now that I think about, if anything, it's a BLP violation not to include it, both from a NPOV perspective and from Zimmerman's perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to not violate BLP and NPOV we need to violate it? Sounds quite streching to me.TMCk (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the this very thread where everyone explains the logical fallacy of the relevance of a past suspension from school for pot possession on whether or not a man was justified in thinking that someone was on drugs when he had no knowledge of such past suspension. So many people have articulated this, it's not worthwhile to show the diffs. The same truth refutes your BLP claim: omitting irrelevant info can never be a BLP violation. And when in doubt, the info is out!LedRush (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: I saw that post. It's based on the straw man that Zimmerman needed to have knowledge of such past suspension in order for it to be relevent. Do you actually have a valid reason to omit key information from the article? It's sounding more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's "key" about it? HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "key" about it. And with no knowledge of the suspension of Martin, it doesn't even inform his actions in any way. If a toxicology report comes back which shows Martin was on drugs at the time of the shooting, that would be relevant and should be mentioned. But until then it remains irrelevant trivia which must not be included.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: Yes, that's your personal opinion. We write articles based on what reliable sources are saying, not on our personal opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The pre-9/11 issue comes to mind where you argued the opposite. Change of mind?TMCk (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained above, your argument about something being an opinion is a straw man. Editors have a world of information and have to decide what goes in and what doesn't. We use policies like WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP to ensure that not everything written in reliable sources goes into every article. Even beyond that, we use common sense and the fundamental pillars to decide how to weed through the vast sea of information and decide how best to write an article. These processes require opinions. Your personal opinion is that this information is relevant and belongs. My opinion is that your opinion is unfounded, and that the policies linked to above mandate that the information not be included. If you disagree with that analysis, that's fine. We can discuss it here. But your repeated accusations that people who disagree with you are improperly using opinions is completely inaccurate and counter-productive.LedRush (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are policies we can use, and which certainly argue for keeping this information here, as many sources feature it prominently, indeed, are treating it like it turns the tide of the case (something I don't agree with, but agree with reporting here). WP:COATRACK is an incoherent essay favored by deletionists because they can say that anything you want to keep is "just a bunch of miscellaneous junk", no matter what the sources think. And "common sense" is, well, uncommon - especially so for those who think that people who have just read all the latest developments in the case and then come to Wikipedia and see a Pollyanna version are going to leave impressed. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed indeed, about WP adhering to BLP and NPOV instead of sensationalism.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: You are advocating that we ignore WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP and write articles based on our own personal opinions to protect a non-living person who's family has given press conferences to the public about this very content. Look, editors come to this board to get advice from uninvolved editors. You can ignore such advice, but I'm not giving out bad advice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is helpful to continually and deliberately misrepresent my views. If you cannot engage in honest discussion, there can never be progress on reaching consensus.LedRush (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: You're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. WP:NPOV specifically says we are not to do that. I don't know how else you expect someone to view such idiosyncratic opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest discourse is easy. First, ignore whatever the other party says. Next, make up what you wished they would've said, like "You're using your own personal opinion to override what WP:BLP, WP:NPOC, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK are saying about whether certain information should be included in an article. WP:NPOV specifically says we are not to do that. I don't know how else you expect someone to view such idiosyncratic opinions." Now we're sure never to say anything the other can intelligently respond to!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: There you go again. You don't have a argument based on policy and you resort to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my extensive policy based arguments above, and your repeated personal attacks against me. If you are able, please try and comment on my actual policy based arguments, not the fake arguments that you invent. If you do that, and avoid commenting on me, we might be able to proceed with intelligent discussion. Hope that helps!LedRush (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: You haven't presented any policy based arguments. Indeed, your arguments violate our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Resorting to personal attacks and false accusations of personal attacks just reinforces the fact that you don't have a policy based argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was talking about. There's a big difference in saying "I understand your reading of WP:BLP but I feel that your analysis of "relevance" in that context is wrong" and saying "you advocate for the use of original research and you are advocating that we ignore BLP, NPOV, etc." You see, I've made my argument that BLP supports my opinion and have specifically addressed your OR claim at least twice. By ignoring that argument and misrepresenting my views to say that I am advocating the very policies I continually reference and analyze, we can't have a conversation. I've done my part by addressing your points honestly. That's all that I can do.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: If you really want to address concerns about your personal opinion, all you have to do is to present the sources which have made the same conclusion as you have. Not once have you attempted to do so. What's more, even if you could provide sources, we can only document the dispute, not take sides in it. You have presented no argument why WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP should be ignored, and pretending that unsourced opinions which go against Wikpedia policy should be accepted without question does you no service. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was talking about. There's a big difference in saying "I understand your reading of WP:BLP but I feel that your analysis of "relevance" in that context is wrong" and saying "you advocate for the use of original research and you are advocating that we ignore BLP, NPOV, etc." You see, I've made my argument that BLP supports my opinion and have specifically addressed your OR claim at least twice. By ignoring that argument and misrepresenting my views to say that I am advocating the very policies I continually reference and analyze, we can't have a conversation. I've done my part by addressing your points honestly. That's all that I can do.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tsang

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

There is an on-going dispute surrounding the use of the honorary prefix "Sir" to the name of the subject in the lead section of the article. Those against the use of this prefix have stated thus:

Donald Tsang and the Government of Hong Kong have consistently used his legal name "Donald Tsang" without including the British honor.
The British Government does not have a policy on Donald Tsang's use of the title. In a parliamentary hearing, Ian Pearson stated "It is for the individual concerned to decide whether they use or wish to be known by their title." – [2].
The British title is a foreign honor and an entitlement and cannot be forced upon an individual. Neither Donald Tsang nor the HKGOV have used this title post-handover.
There are multiple reliable recent mainstream media sources which simply refer to him without including the British honor.

Those for the use of this prefix have stated thus:

There are multiple reliable mainstream media sources which refer to him as "Sir Donald" or "Sir Donald Tsang".
The subject of the article has not formally renounced the title.

Since I am involved in the dispute, I would urge commentators to please read the complete discussion thread on Talk:Donald Tsang (click here) and then comment there itself. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP issue as the fact that the subject of the article is holds the title "Sir" is a fact supported by multiple reliable sources. see Donald_Tsang#cite_note-1 as well as [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. This issue should instead be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies on whether we should make an exception to the convention that anyone who is entitled to "Sir" will have that title in bolded text in the leading sentence of his biography. This is a Manual of Style issue, not a verifiability issue. --Jiang (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the top of this page: "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons." Despite what you have said, this is a BLP issue (and not just MoS) given the reasons I have explained above. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for BLP violations, not just about issues with biographies of living persons in general. I can't tell what part of the BLP policy would be violated with inclusion here. Please quote the policy.--Jiang (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." Claimed BLP violations are included but not the only sort of issue that might be discussed here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which is under the bolded title "Report a possible biographies of living persons violation". Regardless, if there is a BLP violation as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington claims there is, I'd like to see what part of the BLP policy is being implicated here.--Jiang (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is a guideline rather than mandatory policy. As it says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Rabindranath Tagore is an exception presumably because he renounced his knighthood. Donald Tsang could be another exception because he doesn't use the title. Exceptions are not an issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsang hasn't done anything to disavow the knighthood, but rather, the Hong Kong Government as a whole has stopped giving official recognition to British honors. For all we know, Tsang may be personally proud of his knighthood, but doesn't display the title to keep his bosses in Beijing happy. My inclination is to include the "Sir" where the subject has not sought to explicitly repudiate the knighthood, and include "Sir" where the subject is deceased. It would be excluded, but left as a footnote, for a living subject who sought to renounce the honor, which has not happened in the present instance. There is subjectivity in drawing the line here because this is a style issue. This discussion should be continued at Talk:Donald Tsang or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies.--Jiang (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any RS to back up your claim that "Tsang may be personally proud of his knighthood"? The fact of the matter is that the British government has left it to the good judgment of Donald Tsang as to whether he wishes to keep the title or not. Donald Tsang has consistently used his name without the title and one would think that should settle the matter once and for all. The reason why we have a mandatory policy on biographies of living people is to ensure that we are sensitive about notable living people. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree if he never uses the title himself anymore, I don't see any good reason to include it. We can still note the knighthood in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but neither do I see RS stating that Tsang explicitly does not want to use the title or has asked others not to use his title. Sensitive to what though? My point is that we shouldn't speculate on Tsang's unasserted intentions. The British government did not leave it "to the good judgment of Donald Tsang as to whether he wishes to keep the title or not." The British government continues to believe that he is entitled to the title, but states that it is up to him whether he wants to use it personally. Tsang's knighthood, as well as anyone's (not just Tsang's) British honor, has received no official recognition in Hong Kong since 1997. This does not mean that every Hong Kong knight should have "Sir" removed from his biography. I can't find evidence that Tsang "never uses the title himself anymore." The only place where we see his name and honors displayed in full is on Hong Kong government websites and publications, and the non-display of non-Hong Kong honors is consistent for everybody. Where others have their British honors displayed in a list, Donald Tsang is "Sir Donald Tsang" too, see [8], and also [9],[10],[11].--Jiang (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See his biography on the website of the chief executive of the Hong Kong government which refers to him as "Mr Donald Tsang" without the title – [12]. The links you point out to include World Wide Fund for Nature, which is a private organization; FOE.org.uk is a another private non-profit organization; www.ece.ust.hk is a link to the Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, another private organization; www.hkca.com.hk is the website of Hong Kong Construction Association, another private group. The fact that the subject of the article does not continue to use the title is enough evidence to prove that he does not wish to use it. This is generally a non-contentious issue where the English Wikipedia community shows some sensitivity towards the subjects of our articles, so I am really concerned now as to why you are continuing to push this point so hard. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've restated my point. On Hong Kong Government websites, all British honors, not just Mr Tsang's, are not displayed. Just because his honor is not displayed on a Hong Kong Government website is not evidence that "that the subject of the article does not continue to use the title," and therefore "he does not wish to use it". That is not Tsang's personal website. If this were the case, every Hong Kong Government official who has ever received a British honor "does not wish to use" their title and should have their honors removed from their biography. Has Tsang ever commented on his British honor?

I think this discussion should resume at Talk:Donald Tsang. This is not about a BLP violation and is cluttering up this page.--Jiang (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-state another point you made earlier. The Economist style guide says: "Note that some people choose not to use their titles, so Sir Donald Tsang, for instance, prefers to be just Mr Tsang. (See also British titles.)" – [13]. Here Reuters reports that Tsang does not use the British title – [14]. You are asking us to prove a negative, when there is no requirement to. Q: Does God exist? A: You prove that God does not exist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters also say "Knighted for his service in June 1997, a month before the city was handed back to China, he does not use his title". I think that source directly addresses the first part of the statement Just because his honor is not displayed on a Hong Kong Government website is not evidence "that the subject of the article does not continue to use the title," and therefore "he does not wish to use it" (my bold). I don't think the second part following "therefore" is relevant. The subject doesn't use it for some reason so it's unclear why we would. Some sources use it, others don't, so why not just do what the subject does ? The MOS isn't a policy based reason to include it given that it isn't policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that Reuters is a good source that the subject does not use it so we shouldn't either in the lede - it absolutely should be included in the personal details of his life section and the detail that he does not use the title. I also think it should be removed from the top of the infobox.Youreallycan 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an application of the Manual of Style and not an issue of existing policy, we'll just have to disagree on where to draw the line on when and in what instances to include "Sir". I hate to instigate a RFC for something so trivial, but I think this is the only way out, as there is no clear, logical line to draw. In any event, this is the wrong forum.--Jiang (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth R. Melani

Resolved

– BLP issues resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with better mastery of WP:BLP please glance at this recent short addition. I don't know if there should be an "alleged" or two included. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Collect. [15] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Merzhanov

Resolved

– Unsourced contentious content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam,

According to the revision history of the article, user 76.84.219.119 edited it on January 30, 2012. The edit seems to have been the user's only contribution to Wikipedia. As a result, information about the subject was "enhanced" by an unsourced, unverified, libelious assertion that the subject "was offered to become an informer of the NKVD-KGB, a duty that he performed well for more than fifty years. No one knows, how many lives and careers were destroyed by his denunciations.". NKVD-KGB is a former secret police of the former Soviet Union, and the accusation is quite harsh. In a Russian Wikipedia article on the same subject, no information about that is anywhere to be found - nor are any available sources cited in the English article I am referring to. I am new to Wikipedia - in fact, have joined it as soon as have seen the libel. What is the best way to proceed? Can I mark the article as libelious? And if yes, how do I do that?

Thank you. MoscowpianistMoscowpianist (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Diamond Kuts

The report is poorly written as if it was written by a friend or a relative. It needs to be written from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.80.239 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a bit of help or prodding as there are no secondary sources. - Youreallycan 09:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pruned, schmooned, now just needs your TLC ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now under discussion at -

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Kuts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Youreallycan 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hudson

Resolved

– Unencyclopedic content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Marc Hudson. It is not written in a neutral point of view at all and there are also unverifiable claims written in it that seem to be merely a matter of personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.127.17 (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Asperger

I'm posting this here in the hope of attracting the attention of editors experienced in judging NPOV in biographies. An IP editor has recently started inserting the proposition that HA was in the Hitler Youth. This appears to be false. He's also asserting that HA's work was heavily influenced by eugenic theory, and cites a work that refutes that proposition and the proposition that HA was in any way aligned with the Nazi Party. I may be wrong in my reading - I've only begun to look into this.

But I don't wish to edit that page any more. The IP editor said "I understand that you yourself might believe you have the syndrome named after this man, but try not to let it cloud your judgement or lead you to try to hide obvious and indisputable facts about the man's life." That talk page is too toxic for me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the recent edit, the IP didn't add that HA was in the Hitler Youth, but that he was enthusiastic about the Jugendbewegung, which was reliably sourced. The whole paragraph looks fine to me. FormerIP (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[16] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a bad edit. But can you give any reason at all why the more recent one was reverted? It looks sourced and balanced and politics is always going to be relevant to the bio of a psychologist working in Nazi-era Germany. FormerIP (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source he is citing says there is no evidence that HA was a Nazi sympathiser. The IP is unequivocally turning him into one. I don't care. Really. Couldn't give a damn about Hans Asperger. I came across it patrolling recent changes/medicine. But the IP is using a source to draw conclusions opposite to those of the source. I've told him to find a source that actually supports his POV. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a degree of pov being attempted to add undue portrayal as a nazi or supporter by a few IP addresses - I suggest semi protection if they don't move to discussion or just stop doing it. Collect has imo correctly removed it -Youreallycan 14:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same editor. The discussion began as an exchange of edit summaries but moved to the talk page when we needed more room. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all sorted now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hosking

Martin Hosking is a article that has drawn some past controversy - he runs a company that has drawn a lot of criticism in the australian media, much of which has focused on him personally. There have been past BLP problems in the article, which - imo - had been pretty adequately dealt with. The subject of the article has (apparently) showed up on the talk page of the article, upset at some of the content in the article as it had stood in this revision. I may not have time to pay enough attention in the article to figure out what should be in and what should be out today, so additional eyes would be appreciated. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier comment -- moved here to combine sections -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)There continue to be poorly sourced and unbalanced editing of this article. I appreciate that an editor is looking at the article but it would be useful if another eye can be run over it. The section on children's clothing is about a Company and not about Martin Hosking. The article in contrasts makes no reference to the numerous awards won by RedBubble or to the many speaking engagements by Martin Hosking. All of this is well documented. We can submit a re-edit of the article in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.205.26 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a thorough revision of the article, ferreting out invalid sources and dead links while adding information from existing sources that had been ignored. I've also re-organized his career into chronological order rather than three sections with one or two sentence each that don't help the reader get an overview of the subjects career. I do not see anything in any of the current sources that indicates any kind of criticsm or controversy on the subject of this article. I'll also post on the talk page and keep in on my watchlist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits removed every shred of negative information about Hosking's company. Many of your comments that Hosking is not mentioned in the sources are incorrect. I'm not sure what to do about your edits at this point, although I'm tempted to restore the article to its previous state. Hosking and others associated with Hosking have repeatedly complained and inappropriately edited the article. I am generally seriously in favor of protecting BLPs, but the article is now significantly non-neutral. I don't have time today to do much about this, and it may be useful to wait to see if anyone else comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a rollback is appropriate as I've done a lot of good work there and if something was mistakenly deleted it can be added back in. I'll go back and recheck my work, but it would be helpful if you specified a particular source(s). [We can also continue this discussion on the article talk page]. I'd be curious to know in what way the article is "non-neutral". Are you concerned about hype I removed about his award? Or my removal of the long quote from the company website explaining how great RedBubble is? I think we have the same goals and values for both BLP's and WP, so working this out together shouldn't be a problem but your comments need to be more specific so we can address the issue together. I look forward to working with you on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I came to the article there were 12 citations. Now there are 9. I removed three cites from two sources (one source was listed twice) [17] [18] They are both RedBubble blogs written by an unidentified person. I don't see how this is relevant to the BLP, how they are relable sources nor do I see any "negative information" in them. So I'm confused. Maybe you can clarify. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This source is still in the article, but I don't see any mention of the subject, can you point it out to me? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at older versions of the article I see that there were three sources that reported concerns about porn images on baby clothing. But that text and those sources were not present in the article when I began editing it. So I think you may have jumped to the conclusion that I removed those sources and content, which is not the case. However, I'd be happy to look at those sources with you on the article talk page and decide on appropriate neutral content for the article in regard to them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that a rollback is not appropriate. If the article is going to include coverage of Redbubble beyond the relatively cursory then it should be complete. And if complete is better in the context of a full article about the Company. Simply picking out one incident and inserting it in a biography is not appropriate and inevitably is unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.90 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on my Talk page, I will respond more fully to Keithbob when I have time. Just a passing note that 192.148.117.90 is a shared IP address of an Australian ISP. There is a remarkable campaign by Hosking and his associates to whitewash the article, as well as comments that are perilously close to legal threats (e.g., repeated use of the word defamation).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the sources and see nothing wrong with them. In light of Keithbob's comment above (that he didn't remove the material whose absence Bbb23 considers unwarranted), I have restored some material. I'm sure this won't be the end of it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's comments and participation here. I think the core issue is the offensive images on baby clothing text. So I recommend we discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus. I have started a thread on the talk page for that purpose. Please join the conversation here. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I saw this comment, I edited the article and added back in the baby porn material. I'll comment on the article Talk page, but it's well sourced and has comments by Hosking in the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hosking Here. I am again going to urgently request that the section in my biography related to Hipster Hitler and guidelines around children’s clothing be removed. This is in accord with Wikipedia policy - “When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.” [19]. The inserted material in the biography does not create a biography that is “very neutral in tone and contents, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing, beyond the normal standards” as it includes material that “grossly unbalance(s) the biography's point of view and … is not justified by any encyclopedic need.” [20] This is seen by the simple fact that they account for 132 of the 309 words of the biography. If editors believe I am only notable in connection with this “one incident, topic or matter, and are not notable per se except for your role in that matter, then an article based on that incident or matter will often be more appropriate than one about you specifically” [21] [22] In reverting the article to the policy compliant version I would also request that the talk section be edited as it contains attack material [23].

In relation to the issues I will say both were complex issues and trying to do them justice in a brief biography is impossible. They are also unconnected except in time. Clearly they also have the potential to be inflammatory and attract people who want to insert the words Nazi, porn and children into the BLP. (That they can cause serious reductionist errors is seen in the quote above which talks about "baby porn material" - when it has nothing to do with any such thing.) If they are considered important they should be handled in an article on REDBUBBLE. In which case I would note in relation to the former, that REDBUBBLE was commended by the Simon Weisenthal Centre, with whom we worked on this range of issues (it went beyond Hipster Hitler) as having “modeled how conscience and commerce can intersect”. [24]. In relation the issue of children’s clothing I note that this was a sensationalist tabloid issue and thus is not worthy of being covered by Wikipedia and certainly not in the context of a BLP. The sources cited are not of the standard required for a BLP and are mostly wrong. 220.245.205.26 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material for now, further discussion would be useful on the talk page. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molemo Maarohanye

Article subject largely known (huge number of sources) for being accused of murder after an alleged drag race (there are articles about the riots that took place after he was granted bail, this is a high-profile story) also a hip hop artist (nominated for at least one Gospel award) and Survivor South Africa contestent. I'm not able to delve into this much today (gotta run out the door), but this article could use some eyeballs, care, and/or a decision if appropriate to send it toward deletion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. I think its likely he's notable but it's debatable. I have added three link to the EL section, so there are now four sources there that could be used to develop the article a bit if anyone has time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh D'Souza

The Dinesh D'Souza article rightly states that he believes the universe was intelligently designed (note lowercase letters). But the sentence links to the Intelligent Design-or ID-page (upper case). D'Souza is an outspoken critic of the ID movement (see link below). Therefore, this page is very misleading at best. . http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/04/07/the_failure_of_intelligent_design/page/full/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpax0 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it and added a ref. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingu wa Mutharika

Resolved

– Subject's death reliably sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps editing the article for Malawi's head of state to report his death. It has indeed been reported by the BBC that Bingu wa Mutharika has been rushed to the hospital for cardiac arrest (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17628591). However, no reputable source has yet reported his death.

A Malawi tabloid, the Malawi Democrat, known for sensationalist tactics, has written a story about his death, which has led to widespread speculation on Twitter. However, there has been no official report at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.220.15.2 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the BBC detail to the lede - until there is a decent reliable source for a death claim it should not be added and if needed semi protection should be requested. Youreallycan 14:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danziger Bridge shootings

A user has repeatedly inserted that the Danziger Bridge shootings have a motive of racism based on this source.[25] Ugly stuff to be sure, but the problem is that the shootings involved seven police officers (this witness only testified against one of them), and the primary killer was himself African American. Tagging all seven as killing due to racial hatred based on this single witness's testimony of one of their words seems both extreme and a violation of BLP; the prosecution's case at the trial, in my understanding, was simply that they were murderously gung-ho with their firearms. I can't remove it this time, however, as it would be a violation of 3RR. Would anyone else be willing to come take a look? Khazar2 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thanks. Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touré

I've redacted some material from the talk page of this article that was in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Extra eyes welcome. --JN466 20:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sahar sarid

The uncited content has been removed - thanks - Youreallycan 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty absurd article, if that's all there is to this person's notability. I lead towards "inclusionist", but not that far. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

zuleyka silver

Hi my name is Zuleyka Silver and I would like to change my biography, this article states the following:

Change 1: Please remove my ethnicity from this article. I am only Mexican and not all of the other ethnicities that this article states(brazilian,jewish,puerto rican). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.63.80 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - There are few minor issues with the article but I don't think the blanking you have done is necessary - you will not be able to replace with your personal bio as you have commented - Youreallycan 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all of the categories (of ... decent) are unnecessary? Do we even have sources for them? Buddy431 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - we don't need those disputed and apparently uncited genetic claims - Looking at the article - she is not very notable and deletion is what I would suggest. Youreallycan 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Unkovic

Appears to be written by a consultant (Kirk Peters) based in Pittsburgh. A Google search popped up a Kirk Peters based in Pittsburgh who is a multimedia specialist, and almost all of his contributions appear to be related to this article and a Robert Peirce (Robert_Peirce), both of whom are Pittsburgh attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamskj (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kirkpeters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - yes, clearly a COI contributor and a promotional article - welcome to wikipedia - feel free to edit is to a NPOV state , remove any undue self promo sources etc - Youreallycan 16:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlasia Gamboa

The article doesn′t read very neutral and according to its first external link [26], it was written mostly by someone who feels they′re this woman′s victim. Could someone without a personal interest please take a look at it (I think the "personal life" section is the most critical one as it reveals details of this woman′s children - schools, place of work, ...; one of them seems to be a minor. Even if she′s as bad as the article makes her look, the children cannot help having a criminal mother and don′t need to be mentioned in this much detail). 188.107.169.120 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed a bit - feel free to edit it yourself to improve it - the article is awful and was written as an expose attack so, that is what still remains - disgusting really - anyway the user that created it is banned - I remember thinking at the time, the creation was the worst case of WP:COI use of wikipedia that I had seen - Youreallycan 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 188.107.169.120 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious deaths

Following the recent controversy involving a Wikipedia article concerning a highly publicised suspicious death in the United Kingdom there are a couple of others I feel could do with closer examination. We have Murder of Casey Kearney which I feel ought to be renamed to Death of Casey Kearney because legal proceedings are ongoing in that, and Gemma McCluskie which quotes a ref from the Huffington Post and again involves an active case. As it would be good to avoid another request from law enforcement for their removal I've tagged them appropriately and thought I should mention them here. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reason for renaming from "Murder of..." to "Death of...". It's not necessary to have a conviction in order for a death to be considered a murder. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Casey Kearney article seems very non-notable as a WP topic at this point. Collect (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral about moving the Casey Kearney article (there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt that it was a murder), but I've removed a sentence that seemed unduly suggestive and was sourced to the Daily Mail. I'm not sure what the problem you are getting at with Gemma McCluskie and the Huffington Post is. FormerIP (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the HP isn't really a reliable source for Wikipedia? Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be used in the article to support anything doubtful or potentially sensitive. FormerIP (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it's not something I'd use personally but as it's not sourcing anything major I guess we don't need to get stressed over it. Just thought I should mention them here as I could see a couple of issues, and wasn't sure if there may be more. Both seem to read better now so thanks for taking a look and editing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the correct name is "Casey-Lyanne Kearney" (there are over four times more Google results for that term).--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right so I've moved it to "Murder of Casey-Lyanne Kearney". Still have reservations about the use of murder in the title at this stage but I'll leave that for now. More thoughts on Huffington Post. I guess I was thinking in terms of the FAC test where it probably wouldn't be accepted as a reliable source, but again I'll leave it for the time being. These are things to consider for any future development of the articles, however. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed suspect's name from Casey Kearney article for now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence O'Donnell

An anon or anons have been adding a paragraph to the article about O'Donnell's "well demonstrated hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The material has been inserted repeatedly without source. When I reverted the addition, I tried to explain the need for sourcing. Consequently, the latest version has sources, but (a) they're mostly poor (Newsbusters, The Corner), or are primary sources from which the anon is drawing original conclusions. There's one good source, IMO, from Religion Dispatches, but even that is an opinion piece, and seems to be inappropriately used. Details of my take on the issue at Talk:Lawrence_O'Donnell#Views_on_LDS.

More eyes would be appreciated, as would feedback on my rationale, if people think I am mistaken. Guettarda (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I wonder what that guy *isn't* hostile toward. -- Avanu (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a good example of the type of unsourced comment that you should never make about living people in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I see him in an interview berating George Zimmerman's attorney for cancelling his appearance and the practically interrogating an empty chair, that's where a comment like my previous one comes from. A journalist doesn't behave like that, but a biased self-seving huckster does. We don't need to add any improperly sourced material to articles, but my point is that respect and a careful concern for the truth does not appear to be on that man's agenda, but here in Wikipedia, it needs to be front and center. -- Avanu (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Jacobs

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

I added a factual and properly sourced edit to the page on David Michael Jacobs yesterday. Subsequently Mistereyuz removed my edit and added unsourced and libelous statements about David Jacobs' research subject known as Emma Woods. I undid Mistereyuz's edit, and posted on the talk page to explain that they must not add unsourced and libelous material about people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Michael_Jacobs#Reveresed_Edit Mistereyuz once again removed my factual and properly sourced edit and reinstated their unsourced and libelous statements in the article.

My edit and Mistereyuz's edit are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Michael_Jacobs&diff=486010812&oldid=485994099

Could you look into the matter? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela181 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed unsourced and contentious material about another person in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Such material must never be added without being supported by independent reliable sources, and even then may not be acceptable for other reasons. It must be discussed, and consensus obtained at Talk:David Michael Jacobs first. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. Something odd is going on here. Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) and Michaela181 (talk · contribs) are both new, both interested only in this article, and both trying to insert information about this person and another, presumably also living, person -- in one case without sources and in the other with sources that do not seem to me to be acceptable. It would probably be a good idea for both editors to find something else to do. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the unsourced and libelous material by Mistereyuz (talk · contribs). Regarding my own edit, I added factual information about the controversy over David Jacobs' research in the area of Ufology with nine sources, including the False Memory Syndrome Foundation newsletter, an article in UFO Magazine which is a leading magazine in the field, and a number of radio shows including the Dreamland show which is a leading radio show in the field with a large audience. Anyone with knowledge of Ufology knows about the controversy over David Jacobs' work and the article should refer to it. David Jacobs has a numer of devoted fans who attempt to cover it up and I believe one of them was responsible for the unsourced edit containing libelous statements. My edit is simply factual, sourced by reputable sources, and informs readers of the article of an important controversy over David Jacobs' work. I believe it should be included in the article. Michaela181 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

The English language version of the page is well written, with one exception : the introductory paragraph, which is riddled with spelling mistakes. It is also very obviously biased, in favour of Dieudonné. I have been unable to edit it. Here it is, with my comments ( in parentheses ) :

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (born 11 February 1966), generally known simply as Dieudonné, is a French comedian, actor and political activist. ( No problem here )

A famous popular French humourist who has talent to laugh of sensitive world news, especially politic minds and characters ( bad English and meaningless ). He became internationally known since he made a short improvised show (5mn) in 2003 at a French TV show Channel France3 "on ne peut pas plaire a tout le monde" misinterpreted and comdamned ( bad English - and as for the incident referred to, it wasn't "misinterpreted" ) , by the zionist community in France ( a loaded accusation, smacking of antisemitism ). Dieudonné M'bala M'bala who is member of anti-rascist French organization ( bad spelling ) since 25 years, because of this sketch he has been wrongly called as antisemit by mass medias ( bad spelling, and the rest of the WIkipedia page gives a list of incidents and statements which explain why Dieudonné has been accused of antisemitism). Since 2003 he had more than 23 justice processes and won 20 ( bad English, bad spelling, and the two figures quoted, 'more than 23' and '20' are not backed up by any source or reference, and highly suspect ). Today all the French city mayors boycott Dieudonné M'bala M'bala shows, even if it doesn't talk about any suspicious and sensitive subjects he has been forced to make his shows in a bus ( bad ENglish, bad spelling, etc).

Trying to edit this, I found the only editable text was the first two lines, which are true and uncontroversial.

This odd intro should be removed, fast. The rest of the article, as far as I can see, is fine.

Sons of Sheikh Zayed Issue

The sons of Sheikh Zayed are listed according to the wives by which the children were born. If you look at Sheikh Sultan, it says that he is the second son of Sheikh Zayed; Sheikh Mohammed says the same thing. Which is really the second son? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.254.138 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Green (musician)

Paul Green was not born and raised in Philadelphia, PA as the article states. He moved to Philadelphia from Bangor, Maine in 1984, when he was 12 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.203.245 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existing claim in the article is unsourced, so I have moderated the strength of it somewhat - see what you think.

Do you have an independent reliable source that mentions his birthplace? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Sriraman

There's a suspicion of socking in this article, and I am wondering if the subject is notable in the first place: there's nothing to suggest that he passes the GNG and I am not convinced he passes PROF. Another pair of eyes is appreciated. Note: there is more than a whiff of COI editing; basically, the article is the subject's website without the book covers. Note also that there was edit-warring on the talk page about the article assessment, and I have blocked an IP for it. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to be quite well published and it is very likely that there are reviews on his books and articles. Searching Google News brings numerous results for him. I did not read them all but it looks to me like he does meet notability requirements. He also has at least two notable awards, which might fall under [[WP:PROF}} as well.Coaster92 (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Whitnum

There is a section alleging affairs by Whitnum that clearly violates the policy of Wikipedia that states if material is not sourced, it must be taken down immediately.

Here is the relevant libelous passage from her page:

During her time as a Harvard graduate student[citation needed], she was in a relationship with then-first term Senator John Kerry[citation needed]. Their relationship lasted nearly two years[citation needed]. At the time of their relationship, she was in her late twenties and Kerry was in his mid-forties. They met in 1990, when John Kerry was no longer with his first wife, but before he met his later wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, in 1992.[citation needed]

This has no citations and no source and therefore should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.37.94 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed unsourced, and I've gone ahead and removed it. I have no comment or opinion on whether or not it is "libelous". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed a great deal more unsourced (or poorly sourced) material that impugns various people. I left in unsourced information that was more innocuous.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taki Theodoracopulos

This article seems rather negative and gossipy and could use cleaning up for tone and sourcing. There are several supposed direct quotes with no citations (including alleged attacks on others). Much of the "Controversies" section, which is most of the article, also seems to be long direct quotes from the subject with no indication that they were covered prominently by independent sources—and therefore may be cherry-picked to disparage him. The article also seems to imply that his magazine only employs male writers. The citation for the claim about his imprisonment for cocaine doesn't seem to say anything of the sort, and the mention of his pejorative nickname in Private Eye has no citation. Several of the citations for claims are also relying on dead links. Dominic·t 23:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the negative stuff isn't really negative--all PR is good PR is what I think is going on here. I've made a few tweaks; continued attention is probably required. Thanks for bringing this to wider attention. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drmies. Based on the references I read, it looks like Taki thrives on being controversial and scorned. This seems to be his proud badge. I had never heard of him so I didn't know such a character was out there.Coaster92 (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Feinstein

Resolved

– No BLP issue: subject died in 1986. Caution and edit request link provided. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The report on Moshe Feinstein is especially libelous since as one of the top Jewish leaders he was guilty of being a Nazi leader killing untold numbers of Jews by refusing the offer of Adolf Eichman to resettle the Jewish people in Israel which is the homeland of the Jewish people and he continued to kill Jews as they defend his grave in the land that he never bothered living in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.141.251 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? You might try making that complaint without committing linguistic atrocities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From reading this, I suspect you might be this blocked editor, who also made the same claims under a similar IP to yours, and was the reason the page is now protected. If that's true, I urge you to log back in and request an unblock. Instructions are on that talk page. Once you're unblocked, the best place to request an edit is at Talk:Moshe Feinstein (look below "What can I do?" for the link to submit one). If you decide to make a request, please refrain from accusations of libel, and make sure to provide a few reliable sources that support the information you'd like to add (with citations, word for word and without synthesis. Until you're unblocked, though, I'd refrain from editing at all, even here. What you've written above is unsourced and unsubstantiated point of view pushing, and looks like block evasion. Good luck. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Young

Resolved

– Vandalism removed by Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sylvia Young. . My wikipedia page says that I was diagnosed with fatal lymphocytic leukaemia, this is not true. I am in good health. The entry has caused concern from my students and parents. Can this be removed please. I have no idea who would have put this on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviayoung (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvia. This seems to have been dealt with now. Wikipedia apologises. FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've removed this - it was entirely unsourced, and should never have been added to the article - it is possible this was a case of mistaken identity, but I'll see if I can find out more - it may have been vandalism. Apologies, either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was added by the same IP (slightly different address but probably the same person) without explanation or sourcing. I'll watch the page for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Resolved is a bit of a simple statement in this case - and in general in reflection of wikipedia Biographies of people of limited notability - This uncited serious illness claim sat in the article for over three months - no wikipedia editor noticed, after the insult to the living person of hosting such a serious falsehood in the main Internet search for her name was published by wikipedia for over three months , resolved is a hollow claim - Youreallycan 20:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's worse than that. It has sat twice for months. Each time it was removed by Sylvia herself (ironically, the second time Sylvia's reversion was bot-reverted, probably because of a typo by Sylvia). That said, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you have a suggestion to prevent this kind of damage? Unless something could be added to a bot filter, I don't see it, short of fundamentally changing the structure of Wikipedia, i.e., you must have an account to edit - and even then.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

", I'm not sure what your point is. " - the point is to promote and expose the serious failings and violations of its own policies and guidelines of the en wikipedia project. _ Youreallycan 23:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point of this page, though. We've done what there is to be done here. FormerIP (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything, neither did I - no wikipedia editor did anything for over three months while the the violation sat published by the en wikipedia project for over three months. SHAME - Youreallycan 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected for a year. Obviously the 1st reversion didn't actually resolve the issue, unlikely a plain reversion will this time either. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh picture

- WP:IMAGES

Recently a decent portrait style picture has been removed from the infobox of this BLP - the user that has nominated it for deletion at commons, see discussion has replaced it with this picture - imo a very poor picture for inclusion in the infobox of a living person and imo is violation of the guidelines of WP:IMAGES - I have removed it a couple of times and there is discussion on the talkpage here - sadly its being repeatedly inserted during the discussion - its a rubbish picture and we are requested to carefully consider the inclusion in infoboxes of pictures that poorly represent the subject - any thoughts, we are looking for policy considered consensus - Youreallycan 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems on the order of a cell-phone pic at best ... Collect (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Rush Limbaugh bounce" for a likely reason this crap quality CPAC photo may be the object of enthusiasm. It's a kind of meme at this point. There is indeed a BLP issue in this context. JFHJr (㊟) 21:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the BLP issue. However, I think the image does violate the guidelines of WP:IMAGE in terms of its quality. And to respond to a comment by another user on YRC's Talk page, I think it would be better to have no image than this image.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is no BLP issue. It is a kind of crappy pic, nobody disputes that. The dispute is whether the article is better off with this less than ideal picture or no pic at all. I say less than ideal is better than none. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- There is always a WP:BLP issue - although I did not focus on it - any attempt to portray a living person in a negative manner, such as this attempt to retain a low quality image in the infobox of a living person against the guidelines stated in Wikipedia:Images is a violation of policy - not guidelines - WP:POLICY - Wiki is not a pictorial - content is king - no picture is preferred according to policy than a crap picture.Youreallycan 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't beng portrayed in a negative manner. That claim is absurb. He is neatly dressed, performing a perfectly normal function at a reputable event. He isn't caught making some sort of weird expression like a previous image did. There is simply an issue of photo quality. If a higher quality one is available, great! Let's discuss it. But the claim that this one somehow damages his image is a red herring. And you have yet to quote what part of the policy is actually being violated. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP requests us to portray subjects in a fair light - - a crap picture is just that and clearly makes them look crap - its not rocket science - Sadly - wikipedia policy and its actioning is so weak that this is even under discussion,Youreallycan 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor resolution doesn't reflect on the subject, it reflects on the photographer. There is nothing unfair about the way he is being portrayed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rush Limbaugh.jpg is a lot better, and a good profile shot (a little more blurry than the original; unfortunately that original is a clear copyvio so will be disappearing). The down side is that technically it is a booking photo... I'd say use it because it's not got anything suggesting that is what it is, and looks like a perfectly average potrait of the guy. But I could see a valid argument for not doing so :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else this photo is or isn't, it isn't a BLP issue. We should use the most best quality, most appropriate image available. Would someone mind quoting the wording in WP:IMAGES that this photo supposedly infringes on? FormerIP (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good read of the mos image guidelines and then supplement it with a read of WP:BLP and you should agree that, crap pictures should not be used to represent living people. - Youreallycan 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, there's nothing about the picture that is contrary to either BLP or MoS. That's what I thought. FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the guidelines and come back - for your ease - a common sense position - its a crap picture - Youreallycan 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use crap pictures all the time, as well as crap prose. We're Wikipedia. It doesn't constitute a BLP issue. There's nothing disparaging about it, it's just lo-res. You may think the delete nomination is motivated by a desire to downgrade the quality of Limbaugh's photo. You may be right or you may be wrong, but it's tough luck either way. FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claim, "You may think the delete nomination is motivated by a desire to downgrade the quality of Limbaugh's photo." - this is totally mistaken, I do not think that at all, the deletion discussion is all in total good faith. - There is no excuse to use crap pictures because we are wikipedia - we are challenged to portray our living subjects in a fair light - a crap picture is just not good enough - no picture is recommended in such a situation - its got nothing to do with tough luck as you assert - Youreallycan 23:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another editor sees that you aren't quoting policy. Instead, you are asserting your interpretation of policy and guidelines is the true and correct one (ie, the only one) and that anyone who disagrees lacks "common sense". Personally, I think that your attempt to hode behind BLP is a move to fend off 3RR issues. You've yet to quote any policy that states a low res pic is a BLP problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Errant - I agree with you about the booking shot - It is by far the best policy compliant picture we have at the moment - only issue is that even though it is a decent quality , it is still known as a booking/mug pic, I couldn't support such a pic to the infobox even if technically it is the best one of him we have. Youreallycan 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Wormcast has just replaced the disputed picture , without any discussion at all .. their edit summary of, "restored image. Keep until better-quality image is located." - is not to be found in any wikipedia policy or guideline either - keep this crap picture until we find a better one - Youreallycan 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And still another editor has replaced it. Maybe this isn't as cut and dried as you think. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate point.....BLP applies to all pages in Wikipedia, including here. If you truly believe this photo is a BLP violation, then why are you posting it here, in violation of BLP? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with Youreallycan on this one. It's not at all a flattering picture and should be replaced with a better one. Also, a reality check is needed here. If an editor complains about a possible BLP violation, you work it out on talk until consensus is reached. What you don't do, is edit-war to include the contentious BLP content back in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. Firstly, it does not look to me as if any editor has complained about a possible BLP violation, in that no explanation as been offered as to how BLP is being breached. Secondly, although I don't agree that the picture is unflattering, it is not the best imaginable picture and it should be replaced by a better one, at such time as a better one is available. FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both points. YRC and Niteshift stopped battling over the image. However, multiple other editors are reverting depending on which side of the issue they're on, and that continuing battle is silly and unseemly. As to whether the image should stay in until a better one comes along or whether no image should be in the article until a better one comes along, I've already stated my view on that, but it's relatively subjective and based on guidelines not policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but your phrasing is off. I discussed first, then made a total of 2 reverts. Saying that I am "battling" is frankly some BS. YRC, on the other hand, took action before discussion and has 3 reverts. Trying to make it sound the same is off base. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MUG, the booking shot is out; so is the image posted above, because of its association with YouTube videos mocking the BLP subject. If these are the only alternatives, then no image is the best solution until a neutral image can be sourced. JN466 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it is now the pic that is in the info box.....go figure. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's quite a heavily-mocked guy, though. Good luck finding a picture that has never been used by an internet satirist or prankster. Formerip (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a conservative political figure, Rush Limbaugh is protected by WP:BLP - his article must remain laudatory and any problem that any nominally conservative editor has with the article is, in fact, a BLP violation. Accurately notes political stances? BLP VIOLATION! Grainy picture? BLP VIOLATION! Mispelling? BLP VIOLATION! Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was sly, Hipocrite -- committing a BLP violation in a post that clarifies the nature of BLP violations. Hint: which word is not spelled correctly? Someone oughta take you to ANI for this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it isn't an accurate depiction of the situation. I'm as conservative as anyone and I'm one that isn't having a problem with the lower quality photo. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about other editors here. The fact that you disagree with the conservative editors who use this board as a central location to protect their favored sons in this one, specific case does not make the fact that BLP over-reach is used by a specific type of editor to do a specific type of thing untrue. It means that you alleged you don't do it. Congrats! Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are completely uninvolved neutrals only attempting to apply wikipedia policy and guidelines. - Youreallycan 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a new image and inserted it into the article. Any objections, please feel free to remove and discuss. Best, – Connormah (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a fair bit better - Thank you - Youreallycan 19:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I tried to find something better but there doesn't seem to be many images on Flickr of him even (except a couple from a Think Tank's official stream, I contacted them a few months ago and they haven't replied). – Connormah (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

paul ryan

middle name is not douchbag, please correct - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.68.215 (talk • contribs)

I checked with his office, and you are correct. Thanks for letting us know. I have fixed it. Just so you know, vandalism like that can be fixed by anyone. Just click on the edit tab at the top of the page. Cheers. FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite commonly used accurately of politicians, though not necessarily this one, so confusion is understandable. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sounds like bad lawyer jokes directed at politicians - many of whom happen to be lawyers.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burston

I think the article on Paul Burston probably constitutes a "puff-piece" with lists of "glowing" book reviews etc. There also appears to be some sort of editing battle going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septemberfourth476 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the article considerably, mostly based on lack of sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I was edit-conflicting with you, here and in the article. Thanks for looking into this, and thanks to the editor who reported it. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I had known you were going to do the work, I would have been happy to let you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gjekë Marinaj

This biography doesn't follow Wikipedia principles of neutrality and veriability.

Moreover, many sources miss such as alleged interview with football player Pele, President Bush, Shimon Peres e.tc.

Article is written by user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnspring who is undoing everything. Obviuosly he acknoloedges that Johsnpring us Gjeke Marinaj himself or a very close affiliate of him. This he wrote as comment when undoing:

" (Gjek’s works speak for themselves. Where are your credentials? You can include Belushi if you want. But please keep out of our team’s work.) (undo)"

(It is obvious that Belushi is not your PROBLEM. If you think our team is going to let you continue like this you better think again.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.17.252.233 (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mess. Puffed up. "Praise" as given by his own site. Added some cn tags - more are needed. Had huge "bibliography" which I removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I think you were being very kind when you took your blunt ax to the article. I'm looking at Protonism right now, and I have a feeling this will end up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee -- I did not think of the ax as blunt. Now "Protonism" needs that AfD imo. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had that thought, and I held back only because I always feel obligated to find an appropriate delsort and didn't want to spend the time thinking about which one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranina Reddy

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, but I want other editors to have a look. It isn't the "usual" BLP issues of attack language, but the article creator has basically created a fan page and I don't have time to keep removing all the non-encyclopedic stuff by myself. Cheers.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a machete to it. But I'm not inclined to add it to my watchlist... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machete was not enough. Collect (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your machete was bigger than mine. Or sharper. Or something. But these weeds grow fast. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Turner (politician)

Is heavily edited by what might be a POV editor, or at least one who might have ownership issues on the BLP judging by number of edits. Request eyes on the article, as it may violate some precepts of Wikipedia. Like NPOV. I have watched it since the election, but am now accused of "stalking" of all things ... Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Meineck

This biography has been vandalized several times and incorrect, harmful and libelous information displayed. On April 6 the entire article was rewritten in the first person with several offensive additions. I am the subject of this article and I would like it to be deleted. While I fully respect Wikipedia's open source policy, somebody is using it as an opportunity to public defame me and I respectfully respect that you now remove this entire entry.

Peter Meineck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.225.57 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I've gone through the article to hopefully improve it a little and make it more focussed. We prefer content that has a citation to go with it. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong at the moment, but if there is something I haven't spotted please remove it. I've put the article on my watchlist, which means I will be notified every time an edit is made, and I will do my best to undo any vandalism in future. Hopefully some other editors will do the same thing.

There is a procedure for getting your article deleted if you are of low notability and not a public fugure (I'm in the UK, so I wouldn't know if this applies to you). However, might I suggest that having a few editors watching your article might solve the problem, and invite you to give that a chance first. Protection can also be put on your article to prevent passers-by from editing it, if there is a recurring problem. If you are really determined that you want the article deleting, then we will see if that can be done, but you should be aware that attempts to do that are not always successful. Thanks, and apologies about the vandalism. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Keller

I love how every so often, something comes across in my talk page, or in an edit summary in my watchlist, to the effect of criticizing me for "drive-by merge requests." However, I look at this article and the dozens of other look-alike and read-alike articles on members of the Alaska Legislature, the vast majority of which serve no purpose other than to announce "Hey, lookee, this person is notable!" I must draw the conclusion that drive-by article creation is considered perfectly okay. The reality is that one editor dumped something of dubious usefulness upon Wikipedia, deciding that it was up to someone else to do the real work, all the while wishing and hoping that there is a someone else out there who may possibly halfway give a shit.

I'll quit ranting for now. Consider it lucky that someone was watching this article who did bother to give a shit. An IP repeatedly inserted a screed, packed with POV and containing the barest of "sourcing," about comments Keller may or may have not made about the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts (in the United States?) and a connection between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. I've had more important things to do lately than watch the legislature on television or read the newspaper every single day, so I'm clueless as to exactly what this is all about. I need to leave for work any minute now. The Anchorage Daily News website has multiple references to this, but I can't tell if they are all opinion pieces or if this actually was reported as a news item by them or by anyone else.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - reverted the IP as the section was clearly POV (and borderline defamatory) and unsourced by the IP. Something maybe viable to add, but I'll start with cleaning out the junk first. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AlanDavies

someone has made a false allegation against alan davies relating to his aledged racial comments about tottenham hotspur. this can be found at the bottom of his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.158.130 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Trump

The article says she filed for divorce in 1991, but then says the divorce proceedings were wrapped up after her dad died in 1990, which makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.84.111 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards