Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

• My apologies to both Borg and JBH for wasting your time here, and also 'outing', which I was unaware is forbidden.

However, to address denials of COI, and contrary to prior assertations related to this issue; I strongly believe that ArtemisofMars and Drameu are not only one and the same, but is also a member of Polaroid Kiss. AOM has also made a number of claims relating to this "battle" which they know to be untrue.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InstantSnapFeedback I'm not Polaroid Kiss related, I'm not a band member, nor the founder of the band. I'm not a musician. I sing under my shower and when driving my car, not on stage. How can you be so sure of what you say without even checking with the people concerned? That's incomprehensible to me. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* :  Further to my previous comment, regarding ArtemisofMars, and to quote The Bard:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Regardless of whether ArtemisofMars is a member of Polaroid Kiss or not, they have peddled at least a couple of outright lies. Namely: Richard Brandon Reed, AKA 'Brandun Reed' is not Irish, but American. 'Brandun Reed' resides in Stockholm, Sweden.

Further to what has been claimed by ArtemisofMars; Hanin Elias, like Steve Hewitt, was briefly involved with Polaroid Kiss; however her experience was far from pleasant, a sentiment shared by former members of Polaroid Kiss who have been edited out of the picture and / or uncredited for their efforts, including, but not limited to, Earl Dixon III of Audesi, Ian Pickering of Sneaker Pimps and Tom Shear of Assemblage 23.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback And you keep saying there's no COI on your side? If I understand what you say, you're a former member of the band, aren't you? And you're trying to transpose on Wikipedia a battle that started on Facebook and other medias. Following your quote, I'm a lady... so how can I be the founder of Polaroid Kiss band? Do you believe I'm one of the female vocalists? What's the purpose of my action in that case? Why editing an information about Steve Hewitt? It is very interesting to read that now you say that Steve has been briefly involved in Polaroid Kiss. You claimed several times that he never was a member of the band nor has ever been involved in the band itself. So you changed your mind. For your information, Tom Shear is credited on the "Pay Your Dues Maxi Single" (http://www.amazon.com/Your-Dues-Ltd-Polaroid-Kiss/dp/B00OU7S6AA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421594554&sr=8-2&keywords=polaroid+kiss) and Hanin Elias sings on the eleventh song of the new album ("It All Makes Sense"), a very beautiful song and her voice is perfect. I think that giving the names of the other members of your group will be considered as another outing by Wikipedia. And about artists names or aliases or I don't know what, Paul Hewson is Bono, Allen Zimmerman is Bob Dylan and David Jones is David Bowie ... Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battlefield, so please stop editing Polaroid Kiss article and let it live its own life quietly. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InstantSnapFeedback,ArtemisOfMars first I would like to invite Drameu to join the discussion. Then I restate my opinion all of you need to stop editing any page related to Polaroid Kiss and Steve Hewitt and restrict yourselves to the respective talk pages. Whether any or all of you have a COI is pretty much irrelevent to me at this point. You all act like you have a COI. Quack! Duck!

As to including Steve Hewitt as a member of the band I do not think that High Rotation is sufficient for a contested claim, it is a blog. The other sources on the page are links to personal blogs/websites, a link to a Facebook page, a link to a record label that only supports the fact that the alblums were released and a link to Side-Line Music that does not seem to say anything at all about the band.

Right now I strongly suggest that you all work together, on the article talk page, to get some good sources and write the article on what those sources say and nothing else. The articles notability claim seems to be WP:BAND point 6, two or more independently notable members. However there are no reliable sources to back it up so I am inclined to send it to AfD as it stands.

Finally, please stop bickering between yourselves here, it does you no credit and puts off others who might otherwise be willing to help here. If you must argue feel free to do so with me over the points I have raised, preferably over at the article talk page.

JBH (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• : One final point from me:

Quoting, for context, doesn't make you a lady anymore than a brief association makes you a member of a band. That is all.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InstantSnapFeedback Say what you want, I don't care anymore, you know you're a liar, involved in a COI, and that I'm right. The release of the new album will solve all these issues and I will ask for public apologies from you. The End ArtemisOfMars (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtemusOfMars My apologies for not answering your question earlier. If you want to show Steve Hewitt is a member of Polaroid Kiss take a look at Identifying Reliable Sources. The essence is that a source must be published by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases, self-published material (Facebook) and such are not acceptable. Sometimes blogs and such can be used for non-controversial statements a subject makes about themself. The reason I object to the blog interview is (1) it is a blog; (2) it is old and even if true at the time the claim may not be true now; (3) if Polaroid Kiss is a notable project in his life it would have been mentioned somewhere else in the last 4 years. The prime rule we have here for BLP's is:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

There is a lot of single purpose, likely COI editing going on with Polaroid Kiss they have been added to a lot of articles by a single user, Drameu See these edits(Snake River ConspiracyThirty Seconds to Mars,Tom Shear,Steve Hewitt, and Assemblage 23). This makes me suspicious that a PR campaign is going on to tie them to more well known acts. (It worked on me when I saw this thread, I like old goth so I listened to them and hope I hear them in a club sometime. But that is neither here not there.) I have Polaroid Kiss and Steve Hewitt and their talk pages on my watch list so if you have a new source please post it there. I am far from an expert but I try to be conscientious in applying the rules/guidelines as I understand them and to be corrected with a TROUT if wrong - that is how I learn. I also would like to direct you to Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you have questions if a source is reliable for a givin claim. JBH (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley:

• If you try fishing for any trouts on Mars, you could be waiting a long time...

@JBH Thanks for your help JBH. Polaroid Kiss is going to make some interviews in the next few days, it's promotion time for them now they are releasing a new album. In fact, they had no real interviews for quite a long time because they were working on this album which was a bit delayed. They released E.P.s in the meantime but didn't give interviews. Now that they have been signed by a label (Prussia Records), things have changed, which is good. So if I find an interview of them and if I put the link on this board, will you tell me if it's a reliable source? And if I can put it on the band's article? ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ArtemisOfMars:ArtemisOfMars I will be happy to give you my opinion, however my opinion is only one of many and others may quite rightly have another. The keys for me, since the band membership has, rightly or wrongly, been disputed is that the source be an established publication with a reputation for fact checking and strong editorial control. I would very much like to hear from other editors about acceptable music/band related sources.

A good thing is the article a few editors who are passionate about it and are better able than most to find any good sources that may exist. Right now Polaroid Kiss is in dire need of sources to demonstrate its WP:NOTABILITY.

Since it looks like the edit war has calmed down and we seem to be on the same page about sourcing I would like to propose a consensus and move further discussion to the article talk page.

The consensus here as I understand it is that references to Steve Hewitt being a member of Polaroid Kiss should not be included until such a time as a source meeting WP:RS and WP:BLP is provided that makes such a claim. The appropriateness of a given source should be discussed at the article's talk page and theWP:RSN

If you and InstantSnapFeedback agree with this please say so and we can move to the talk pages. If not please feel free to make changes that you all can agree on. If anyone else has some input, feedback or whatever please chime in. JBH (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH

I am in agreement with your proposal.

That is what I have wanted all along - reliable sources.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH ArtemisofMars' reply is completely disingenuous. It should be obvious from the tone of their language that they are a member of Polaroid Kiss. They don't want references to Steve Hewitt removed from the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, not because it might 'hurt his feelings', but because allying Polaroid Kiss with Steve Hewitt (and by association Placebo) helps the afformentioned PR Campaign for a 'band' that has constantly been promising, for over three years now, an album that has failed to materialise.

Therefore, I suggest that your suggestion of removing all references to Steve Hewitt from the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry until verifiable sources are provided is adhered to. Otherwise, you may be waiting as long for them as a bite when trout-fishing on Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantSnapFeedback (talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH If you don't mind, let's move this discussion on Polaroid Kiss talk page. I'm not a member of the band, I don't know how to prove it on Wikipedia but you have my word that I'm not a member of the band and not affiliated to them. I like what they do and just want the truth to be known. This discussion is a living nightmare. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH ArtemisofMars summing themselves up perfectly, there - 'I don't have any evidence for my claims, you'll just have to take my word for it'. Sorry, but to be taken seriously you need independently verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantSnapFeedback (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict with ArtemisOfMars

@ArtemisOfMars, I really would like to get the issue you brought here settled here where there are more experienced eyes than I. We can and should discuss sources over on the talk page but your earlier post appears to me to be saying that you do not accept the proposed consensus statement and think there is still a potential BLP violation. Please state plainly if you agree or disagree with the proposed consensus so this does not start up again when page protection expires. OH, and while you may not agree, Wikipedia really does not care what Steve Hewitt may or may not like the only thing that matters is what can be shown in WP:RS in line with the strict rules of WP:BLP.

@User:ArtemisOfMars OK, since the COI thing keeps comming up I will tell you why I think you have a COI, if not as a member of the band then as someone in PR. First, this discussion has shown that you have a lot of inside knowledge about this band, the personal relationships of the people involved (same for InstantSnapFeedback), release dates etc. Since there is not much press on the band that says inside knowledge to me. Second, your opening statement of "We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members" and like statements when you opened this issue. Those "We's" do not seem to be "all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning" except in relation to the technical information that makes me think the whole Polaroid Kiss thing is the work of one person or people working together.

Polaroid Kiss's biggest contributor wasChristian Sands back in 2012. That account edited only on Polaroid Kiss, Steve Hewitt and Hanin Elias all related to the band. An idiosyncratic editing pattern of this account is that they marked all of their edits as minor. Just like Drameu tends to do (45/60 edits). Between those two we have another SPA Sosgeneral who also marks all edits as minor they are further linked to Drameu in that they stopped editing Polaroid Kiss on 2013-07-26T06:47:21 while Drameu's first edit is 2013-07-26T11:02:30 the very next edit to the page. This tells me that this is a very low traffic page managed by a single user.

Now we get to your account ArtemisOfMars. You show up after the conflict started between InstantSnapFeedback and Drameu. Drameu reverts [5] (not marked minor) then IsntantSnapFeedback [6] then you pick up the ball with your first edit [7] and soon take up the issue here and at AIV and protection not your common new user. You also support Drameu such as in this series of edits Drameu - InstantSnapFeedback - AtremisOfMars] over exactly the same text.

So in short your the behavioral evidence gives you at least an apparent COI while the technical evidence makes you seem to be a sock or meat puppet of Christian Sands-Sosgeneral-Drameu. On a higher traffic page I might think otherwise but Polaroid Kiss seems to attract only people who have a passion about the politics of the band. (InstantSnapFeedback seems to have edited under at least one other account Salivasnapshot unless two people edit from the same POV from mobile devices with similar usernames [8]) but the editing seems to be consecutive rather than concurrent so meh.)So you have a lot of weight overcoming WP:AGF JBH (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH I just found this: http://home.earthlink.net/~thechurch/side-projects/polaroid-kiss.html Is it enough to show that Steve Hewitt is a member of the band? It's a discography of The Church, Steve Kilbey's band. The official website for The Church is this one (http://thechurchband.net/) and when you click on "Discography", that's what you find under "Side Projects". It's official matter. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion no, it is an Earthlink account, seems to be a Self Published Source, I see no reference to Steve Hewitt. Basically, if a source is something that a PR company or a person unrelated to the subject of the BLP can edit or add information, without a specific reputation for fact checking, accuracy and professional editorial control, it is not acceptable as a source. The only Self Published Source that might be acceptable is if there were some page that were provably under the control of Steve Hewitt or his legal agent that made a direct statement of fact. Then the information could be quoted per WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, let's do sources at the talk page after an agreement on how the article should be at this time, based on the current sources or lack thereofJBH (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH I don't want the name of Steve Hewitt to be removed from the band's article. I know the band for about 3 years now and I follow them on their social medias. I'm aware of what's happening on their lives because I read their news and buy their E.P. (yes, some of them have already been released). InstantSnapFeedback is a former member of the band, that's is more than sure for me because he gave the names of all the members of a Facebook group who called themselves "Ex- Polaroid Kiss Members" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1540049712882097/?fref=ts). They were fired from the band and did not appreciate it. And did you read how he is talking to me on my "Talk Page", calling me "Brandun" and saying horrible things about the founder of the band? He knows Brandun Reed personally. I decided to take part of this "battle" because I cannot stand lies and what this guys are trying to do. I know that it's not that important to know if Steve Hewitt is a member of the band or not, so why having such a fight? Let his name appear on Polaroid Kiss's article and that's all. Why does ISF always says that he "knows" that Steve Hewitt is not a member of the band? How can he be that sure? I'm sure of what I say because it's written on every official websites of the band. If it's official for the band, how can it be wrong? When you read some news on some other bands official websites, do you believe what they say is wrong? No. So why doing this with Polaroid Kiss? It's a complete non sense for me. If it's officially stated on the band's official pages and websites, this is the truth. Nothing more. About The Church official website, they do use this discography to reflect the work of their members, so they acknowledge what is written on it. The name of Steve Hewitt appears in the "credits" of "Pay Your Dues" single CD by PK. I really hope this whole thing will stop because it's totally driving me mad. I've never seen this before. That's incredible. All this battle for one name of an article? That must be a bad joke. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH In response to your last post, I did edit under 'Sailvasnapshot', but forgot the password for that account. I can guarantee that ChristianSands, Sosgeneral, Drameu and ArtemisofMars are also one and the same, namely a single member of Polaroid Kiss, but you won't get the same honesty from them.

As, I have stated many times before, ArtemisofMars is a liar. If you wish to contact EarlDixon III, Ian Pickering and / or Tom Shear they will confirm this and contradict the assertion that they were 'fired' from the band. I am sure your forensic analysis of this micro drama has already made you incredibly suspicious of ArtemisofMars. InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InstantSnapFeedback thank you for clearing that up. Unfortunately me, or any other editor, contacting those people would not really do anything to resolve this. They can contact WP:OTRS if they have a concern. OTRS has procedures for handling intractable BLP issues but it is my understanding that they require very strict documentation of who they are talking to. Best to follow the previous link since I do not know much about them. JBH (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH Thank you for your time, discretion and impartiality. My only regret is that without the lies, deception and negativity of ArtemisofMars none of this would be necessary.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@ArtemisOfMars, I understand your point of view however you need to understand Wikipedia's policies see WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:V. In particular please note that Wikipedia is not truth.

In my opinion the sources do not support your desire to include Steve Hewitt. As well as it being likely that the article fails WP:BAND since there are no RS sources supporting their notability claim.

It is possible] I am completely wrong in my reading of policy so I have asked 220_of_Borg [9], NeilN [10], and Tokyo Girl [11] to weigh in. They are all neutral editors who have a lot of experience in BLP. JBH (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

If there is a dispute, then to settle this conclusively, we need an independent source (not the band, not the band members, not Hewitt) saying Hewitt is part of the band. Having an independent source helps in these cases:

• When the person had a trivial contribution and is trying to associate themselves to a famous band
• When a famous person had a trivial contribution and the band is trying to associate itself with them
• When a person is trying to disassociate themselves with the band or vica versa

Skimming through the above text, I don't see independent sources being listed. Do they exist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN You won't get that from ArtemisofMars, who is a member of the band.

Can someone from Wikipedia's editing team remove references to Steve Hewitt until if and when independently verifiable sources are added to the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, please?InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the source present in the article. It has these Hewitt quotes:

• "But also I’m working on another project with a guy called Brandun Reed, who is an ex-session keyboard player and used to play with Queens of the Stone Age, and he’s got a band/project called Polaroid Kiss. We’ve been working on that and we’ve got about 15 tracks so far. I’ve done the drums already, and I’m just working on some celebrity vocalists at the moment."
• "... I’ll be in the studio all December with Brandun, and hopefully celeb vocalists to finish off the Polaroid Kiss album, which will also be out on Ancient B records"

What is your issue with this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN Firstly, that article is over four years old (2nd November, 2010) and from a blog. A brief association is not membership.

Secondly, 'Brandun' Reed was never a member of Queens of the Stone Age, that is an outright lie, one which I have no doubt he told Steve Hewitt to lend Polaroid Kiss authenticity.

If you speak to any of the numerous former members (brief collaborators) who have left (or in the words of 'Brandun' 'been fired from') Polaroid Kiss, they will attest to this.

The man is a fantasist, as is ArtemisofMars.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN InstantSnapFeedback It's not written that Brandun Reed was actually a member of Queens of the Stone Age, but that he was an "ex-session keyboard player" and that he played with this band. And if you have a close look at all the references that are put on Steve Hewitt's article, you'll see that the majority of them are from webzines or blog, or Facebook! So what's the issue with this interview of Steve and the fact it was made a few years ago. I search the web to find up to date interviews but the man is not talkative with journalists. He was working on all his different projects. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this focused on content, a blog is not a reliable source, especially for BLP-disputed content. As the article is fully protected, I've made the appropriate edit request. His name can be added back in if appropriate high quality sources are found. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN I agree with your opinion.

However, the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, as edited by Panyd, is still referencing Steve Hewitt as a member.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InstantSnapFeedback: As I stated, I've made an edit request as the article is fully protected. [12] An admin will look at it and make the edit (hopefully). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN And what if the next interview is not considered as a reliable source by Wikipedia? Do you know that most of the source used on this website are from blogs and webzines? What if Steve Hewitt doesn't give any interviews this year? To me, the official website of the band is a reliable source. Oh, and to clear things up I am not Brandun Reed... English is not my native language... I thought this was obvious. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtemisOfMars: It is absolutely not correct that most of the sources on Wikipedia are blogs or webzines. Sources like the one we're talking about are rooted out quite quickly when spotted. Wikipedia only covers what reliable sources have previously published. If the connection is important, an independent source will cover it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN My apologies for being hasty in my response. You strike me as a thoroughly reasonable individual.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InstantSnapFeedback: Writing "@NeilN" will not send me a notification if you don't sign your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN My apologies - schoolboy error.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

There is a sentence in the Tony Sly Wikipedia entry ("It was later determined that a drug-related seizure was the cause of Sly's Death.") that is not cited. I cannot find any resources online that would corroborate this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.166.11 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending text as unsourced, here. It has been removed previously for the same reason and re-added again by IP editors to this and related pages. Note that you were able to remove this yourself. Additionally, until I restored an earlier version there was no source at all re Tony Slys death! --220 of ^Borg 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If it keeps getting re-added then a temporary semi-protection might not be a terrible idea. I don't see where it is warranted now since most of the action happened last year around September/November, but it's something to look out for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An SPA, first using an IP, then a user account ‎PAgrad46 (talk · contribs), keeps adding "John Steinmetz" to the list of notable graduates of the High School of Performing Arts. I kept reverting, and have asked for justification on his talk page. He has now given a longer edit summary, which at least identified him enough so I could identify him as this fellow, but he has not given any evidence of WP:N (Steinmetz is not on imdb even).

I'm not sure where to post this, actually. Choor monster (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Choor monster: Anything added to lists like that should generally have their own article to show notability. Removing the name is a good call. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are allowed red-links to notable people—that just means the relevant article hasn't been created—but I'm a strict amateur at identifying notability of people in the entertainment industry. I suspect non-appearance on imdb is almost definitive. I was worried that PAgrad46 (I assume this person is a class of 1946 HSoPA alumnus) would newbie edit-war. There has been no response on his Talk page, but there have been two days of quiet now.

I'll point out that PAgrad46 correctly added Arlene Martel to the list. Choor monster (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not without good sourcing that shows notability (as you alluded to), we don't (especially for BLPs). Most drive-by editors just add a name. For notability for entertainers, WP:ENT is a good place to start. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steverci has created in his sandbox an article titled Crowe propaganda. It appears in a google search.[13] I'm thinking the title is a BLP violation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Steverci/sandbox/Crowe propaganda --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User Brian Dell seeks to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page [14] since his Dec 7th edit[15] and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and User:Randykitty have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.

The most recent Dell edit[16] does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! HG | Talk 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't hurt you to make the good faith assumption that I'm simply interested in having Wikipedia fulfill its role as an information source, and accordingly opposed to efforts aimed at suppressing controversial information about this publication simply because it's controversial. I am also of the view that you are misrepresenting the background by having it appear that the same sort of edit has been at issue for some time. The earlier edits constituted efforts on my part to avoid having critical material in the article and avoid leading readers to the conclusion that there is a controversy while still suggesting to them relevant facts readers could use to inform themselves but you rejected those efforts of mine calling my efforts to make any criticism more indirect "original research". The edit now at issue cites a source questioning a "publication's credibility" as opposed to that of an individual (either living or dead), such that it requires some WP:SYNTH to get even a possible BLP concern here. Re "very poorly sourced", aside from the fact that WP:RS says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...", Scientific American does not just use the source but directly links to the source's website. The source is also used by US News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, the LA Times, USA Today, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. I could go on.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be good to get input from an experienced BLP editor. I think the source is unacceptable for this kind of allegation. This is the proposed edit, "Energy in Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has contended that Carpenter's editor-in-chief role "brings up questions as to the publication’s credibility." I compared it to Energy & Environment, where allegations are mentioned due to sources like The Guardian and Chronicle of Higher Education. The petroleum association may be a credible or sufficient source for some things, but not for whether Wikipedia should cover allegations against one of its academic critics. I do agree that we should assume that Mr. Dell is editing in good faith. HG | Talk 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This situation is pretty clearly covered by WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, 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. (emphasis in original). In this case, the allegations appear to be sourced solely to an oil-and-gas lobbying group with an obvious agenda. Unless these allegations receive substantive coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, they do not belong in the article, according to our WP:BLP policy. (Note that the WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures; arguably, Carpenter is not a public figure and thus would qualify for even more stringent protection against poorly sourced accusations). MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see how the use of that source would be appropriate in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if someone could please help me with the NLL table, I have tried over and over to edit it properly but I don't know what I'm doing incorrectly. Thank you! --WestJet (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fixed now.14GTR (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to use public records etc. for living people - just to confirm, this does not apply as soon as someone dies, such as using a public record to confirm death details? GiantSnowman 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Besides if the details aren't in a secondary source do they need to be in an encyclopaedia? — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the hundreds/thousands of notable people who dropped out of the public eye many years before their death, which consequently went unreported in secondary sources... GiantSnowman 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a secondary reliable source does not think it is important enough to mention, neither ought we. Collect (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is if they have 'dropped out of the public eye', you may well end up reporting their death based on a public record concerning another person with the same name. Which, if the subject of the article is alive is definitely a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the general trend of discussion here of not including an article-subject's date of death unless reported by secondary sources. If the person is indeed notable, their death should be a de-facto part of the article where applicable and is not a weight issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is right. If someone passes GNG and has an article, the fact that they have died is always going to be noteworthy for inclusion in the article, even if we have to make do with primary sources. The alternative is that people who are not-so-famous when they shuffle it off are immortal for Wikipedia purposes, which would be a bit silly. Of course, we also need to ensure accuracy, but that doesn't rule out using primary sources per se. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Perhaps so - but there have been examples where "the wrong box" occurred and the person was actually not dead. Collect (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But common sense and WP:V ought to be enough to prevent that. Formerip (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading Talk:Frederick Meyer for an example of the real danger of mixing up two people with the same name. Also WP:FRANKIE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Meyer looks like it might good example of the dangers of taking secondary sources at face value, or even just an illustration that there are some cases where Wikipedia gets it wrong if the media gets it wrong first. There's nothing in the example that says we should ignore primary sources. Formerip (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial question was much more broad. We should be careful using primary sources for adding details about a persons death (e.g. suicide, details of an accident, etc.) This is especially true if this for someone recently deceased. Editors should also be very careful about conducting OR and linking a primary source to the subject of the article, and until it is established by reliable sources that a subject is dead, or that enough time has past that it is obvious they are dead (i.e. they would be unbelievable old if alive) then WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. If for example, a reliable source says that someone is dead, but does not note the date, then it may be acceptable to use a primary source to note when they died. As long as the primary source is clearly and plainly linked to the subject. — Strongjam (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's presumptively fine. To quote policy: Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers..." If only people would spend half the time reining in bad editors that they spend confronting good editors who, by virtue of exercising their editorial judgment broadly and research skills extensively, are adding value. Yes, there is a such a thing as unacceptable original research, but every time we exercise our editorial judgment we are doing something "original" if we are not engaging in serial copyright violations.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worry about this. True, we do cover people who become notable then leave the public eye. But in most cases a local newspaper will run at least some obituary. It doesn't even need to be a long one, just "John Smith, former drummer for the One Hit Wonders, leaves behind two daughters and a dog." Otherwise, if all we have is "John Smith, died February 31", we are in real danger of referring to the wrong one. Sure, there can be a little bit of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and if the person's name is clearly unique (Honoria Winifred Funkenstein), maybe the primary source will do. But in general, when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not; we are better off by not writing the truth than by writing misinformation. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and "clearly unique" is quite dubious. We spent some weeks at my old parish praying for someone named Leontyne Price, who proved to be the mother-in-law of another parishioner and not the opera singer. We shouldn't go by name alone. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not..."

This is 100% the right attitude, but it has nothing directly to do with using primary sources. You could have a secondary source that is unclear or you could have a primary source (a probate document, for example) that gives the person's name, address, date and place of birth, the names of all her children, her profession, and so on. Formerip (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo linked to Robert Wiley (Robert John Wiley is a former Australian rules footballer...) has the wrong person's photo listed, being Robert Wiley - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The first photo on the attached link is the correct photo. Can you please change it? I have confirmed this with Robert Wiley personally so he knows I'm requesting this on his behalf.

Dee Walsh

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=robert+wiley&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=869&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WMO9VOnkNorn8AWXzILgDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=robert+wiley+carlton&imgdii=_&imgrc=zYXSiNGBsWN-7M%253A%3BJI3p7p4Hj6LdxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww4.pictures.zimbio.com%252Fgi%252FRobert%252BWiley%252BFg33H-nffoem.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.zimbio.com%252FRobert%252BWiley%252Fpictures%252Fpro%3B360%3B240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.250.9 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wiley (the Australian rules footballer) has no photo and hasn't been edited in about seven months. We can't add a random photo from the internet because of our copyright policy. The copyright holder needs to release the properly cropped photo to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license, and it can then be added to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.--ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FIXGOOGLE as well, which we should probably expand. There was a screenshot that was very useful but it keeps getting deleted from Commons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion on the Steven Emerson talk page on if we should include the following to the lede:

Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center,^[1] the Muslim Public Affairs Council,^[2] New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar,^[3] investigative reporter Robert Friedman,^[4] Eric Boehlert,^[5] and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,^[6] leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist^[6]. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,^[7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".^[8]

This section is supposed to reference Steven Emerson#Controversies and Steven Emerson#Media and testimony sections of the article according to WP:LEDE, and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of WP:BLP violations. we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a WP:BLP violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEDE (my highlight): The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. So, providing that the sources are reliable and the controversy significant, such material could be included in the lede, but you have to take into account also WP:UNDUE. A much shorter summary of the controversy may be a good compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. There is no WP:BLP violation in reporting the controversies surrounding Emerson's claims - they are basically all that makes him notable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is not very nice. The section is not neutral, poorly sourced, and last two sentences are synthesis and a violation of BLP. The proposed addition sets up a negative characterization of Emerson and then says despite he being a liar he is STILL used as a resource. This is synthed using Emerson's website to back up the statement. Two of the main sources for attacking Emerson are MPAC and "The Nation" which are clearly biased and simply not usable or reliable for anything factual. The book review is from 1991 from an obscure reviewer. Just because a couple of people are pissed at him does not entail that their opposition be given prominent position in the article. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't negate that there is significant controversy. WP:ENEMY may be a good way for you to address this. Just find a way to report the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says 'inaccurate'. It does not call him a liar. And given that he has admitted that his latest example of 'anti-Islamic rhetoric' was inaccurate, I can't see any particular problem with us describing it as such. Maybe the wording needs work, but there is no reason whatsoever why the lede should not fully reflect the matter that brought him to international attention. Few outside the U.S. will have heard of him before his latest gaffe, and any article needs to explain why he gained such attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the proposed text is that it's not really on point. It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson. While this is undoubtedly true on some level, it's rather besides the point. The notable issue is that Emerson says things in his purported field of expertise which are not true. In fact, some of his commentary is so not-true that he's been called out by reliable sources (e.g. [17], [18], [19]) and even provoked the (conservative) Prime Minister of the UK to opine that Emerson is "clearly an idiot" ([20]). That's the notable aspect here, and the aspect that's had significant coverage in independent reliable sources—not the fact that a number of (mostly progressive) commentators have criticized him over the years. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unaware of this conversation I have just made this point on SE Talk page: In the last census Birmingham had more children registered as Muslim (97,099) than Christian (93,828). David Cameron has previously apologised for getting his facts wrong on Islamic issues. So has Steven Emerson. To repeat the former's comments that the latter is "clearly a complete idiot", without any perspective, is a clear violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV).Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made an edit [21] summarizing the controversy in a few words. The rest can be expanded in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson." When the British Conservative PM said what he did and even Fox News says Emerson is wrong, it goes a bit beyond what progressives don't like. Those of us who don't watch Fox News would never have heard of the guy if it weren't for his wildly incorrect statements. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick clarification on how I am interpreting MastCell's comments. The notable aspect isn't simply the Fox News Gaff, but rather that he has been criticized by multiple sources for his inaccuracies for a while, and the Fox News Gaff is simply another example of that. I don't think he is notable for simply one event, but rather that he has a history of controversy. If I'm incorrect MastCell, please correct me.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator attention please? This BLP is being attacked with both unsourced blanket criticism, and poorly sourced contentious statements, including an accusation of prejudice - [Islamophobia] - in the lead which is totally unacceptable. [22] I realize residents in the UK would like to lynch this guy - he made a huge blunder - but it doesn't justify the personal attacks. Atsme☯^Consult 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is The Washington Post, which reports that ""Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past." - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many books, including one from Cambridge University Press (now included in the article), that mentions Emerson in the context of Islamophobia: [23] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contentious statements are poorly sourced and are based on questionable allegations at best. Using poorly sourced contentious material to discredit a BLP is clearly a violation as I've tried to explain to you. Emerson may be a goofus, but he is not an Islamophobe. To call him that isn't any different from calling a civil rights activist a Crackerphobe, or other biased label. Contentious statements must be well-sourced, the partisan Washington Post made an allegation based on other allegations. The book you cited was co-written by Omid Safi, "whose writings on Islam have been criticized as faulty and “utopic” by other scholars." [24]. The sources you cited do not pass per WP:RS. Atsme☯^Consult 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the underlying, saying that someone is engaging in BLP violations and then using the freebeacon as a source to call someones work faulty should really consider taking my username and spelling it right. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme is actually right there is issues with the article and the fact there is a "Controversy" and a "Reception" section which splits out "praise/mixed/criticism" sub-sections is a bright red flag. The praise is unsourced and out of context from circa 2000. Much of the attention was paid to a minor gaff and the recent gaff. Sources like Salon and such are pretty poor and the whole "what other people think" is already veering into the weeds for a BLP. It is a problem to see editors prop up/tear down Emerson (or any person) by what other people said about him. None of it goes towards advancing a disinterested and neutral portrayal of a person. There is a huge misconception that "if it exists" it can be included or is worth including. Wikipedia should not be using low grade sources or filling up a page's content on what amounts to gossip and dirt. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being hypocritical, I was being bi-partisan. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point. Well, except maybe for this one: [25]. I think it's fascinating how things appear depending on the angle of bias. We all just need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Atsme☯^Consult 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short -WP:BLPGOSSIP. Though it should not really need to exist, but a reception section for a BLP is a bad idea and is nothing more than a lowering of the BLP bar to get otherwise unacceptable material into the BLP. Often this is a "wikilawyer" backed approach to slip a source of questionable nature into the article by attributing the material to the source as justification per policy. This results in gossip being included because it exists instead of whether or not it is appropriate at all. This is aided by not being a major BLP issue, but more of a WP:DIRT issue. This makes attempts to correct or rectify the problem (requiring the removal as the only suitable option) appear to be damaging instead of beneficial. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Criticism/praise is not gossip. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Hate speech and bigotry accusations are BLP violations not criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

really? because when the addition that stated he was accused of Islamophobia was made it was vetted through this board. Perhaps you are accusing the BLP Noticeboard of not understanding BLP?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again, BLP does not say what you want it to say. Please copy the exact sentence in BLP the prohibits adding well-publicized, well-sourced attributed assessments to biographies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - Think Progress and/or Salon are not a high quality reliable sources. If it is not a proper high-quality reliable source it cannot be used to make contentious assertions against living persons per BLP. Also you are completely off base because being accused of inciting Islamophobia is completely different from being a bigot (Islamophobe). This is not "one sentence of BLP" it is entire sections of BLP and IRS. Stop wikilawyering and stop trying to label a living person as a bigot to such weak sources. It a BLP attack and is unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the Cambridge University Press and Washington Post are high quality sources. and they say the same thing. So since you just asserted that this is a sourcing matter and we can make those claims as long as we have quality sources, we can consider it closed unless someone at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard agrees with your interpretation of sources. Unless of course you are WP:POV pushing and going to shift your argument again. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'll just move the goalposts again to your preferred version of BLP - no analysis no matter what the source (Supreme Court clerk, LA Times, New Yorker legal analyst - were all not good enough for the other article). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly covered by WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. There are multiple reliable sources (including the Washington Post and the Cambridge University Press book) documenting the allegations of Islamophobia, so it is appropriate (and consistent with WP:BLP) to mention the allegation. Of course, the allegation should be presented with appropriate in-text attribution, rather than as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Verifiability,_not_truth, If it's written in a book, it must be true!":

• Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
• The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
• It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
• In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.

The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. Atsme☯^Consult 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is

British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that there were no-go zones in the UK, describing Steven Emerson, who had made the same claim previously as "a complete idiot".

Directly relevant to a BLP about Bobby Jindal? Collect (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes -- it's a direct extension of Emerson's claim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • And you assert that Jindal is directly associated with Emerson in some manner? I found no source making that much of a reach - the quote is about Emerson (see section above) and is not about Jindal unless one wishes to use Wikipedia to imply that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot" for which, again, I find no reliable source. Comments about third parties are generally not considered relevant in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - [26], [27] [28] [29], [30] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • In what way? Or just "yes"? Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cameron was responding to Emerson, not Jindal - and I very much doubt that Jindal's comments would have been noticed at all without the earlier nonsense. The article previously gave the entirely false impression that Cameron had somehow made the comment for no reason whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NO that edit implies that Jindal said that there were cities which were all Muslim. Cameron's statement against Emerson was in response to his statement that Birmingham was 100% Muslim. Not only is it a BLP violation, but it presents a synthesis of material problem. I can't believe that anyone is defending such a clear violation, and it should be removed immediately. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why, in removing this 'violation', you left a claim that "British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that such zones existed in the UK"? You have just asserted that Cameron said no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make uncivil comments like this. You show a lack of good faith in this type of edit comment. Arzel (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nitpicking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a good-faith explanation for why you complained of synthesis, and then restored the claim you objected to, Arzel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said the claim was wrong -- and you appear to have agreed that Emerson had not made "the same claim" which is SYNTH as the source did not say "Jindal made the same claim as Emerson"[31] in point of fact, and Cameron's reference to Emerson applied to Emerson only and not to Jindal (SYNTH) refers to the "same claim" and connecting Emerson to Jindal. Textbook case, in fact. Collect (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

I have revised it to read 'a similar claim' - which is what the Christian Science Monitor says. [32] And the fact remains that the article pulled Cameron's statement out of nowhere, removing the context which explained why Jindal's comments were seen as significant in the first place. It is entirely clear from the sources cited that the media see a direct connection between Emerson and Jindal, and that they reported his assertions because he was making similar claims to the ones that Emerson had to retract - similar claims to the ones that Cameron responded to in the manner he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still implies that Cameron called Jindal a "complete idiot". It is really almost beyond belief that some of you are defending this. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The comment was referring directly to one person's statements -- it's inappropriate to use that to make inferences about someone else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No This is not an improvement to the article. Emerson doesn't work for Jindal, he isn't apparently connected in anyway except that they are both Americans that have spoken about no-go zones. This is a Bio article about a specific figure not a forum for broad or extended commentary and context on no-go zones. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Contrary to what some people have asserted, there are numerous reliable sources which explicitly link Jindal's comments and Emerson's (e.g. The Guardian, CNN, the International Business Times, The Week, Bloomberg News, etc). So I don't see any grounds for the WP:SYN objections—this link appears explicitly in numerous independent, reliable sources. Nor is there any clear WP:BLP issue here, and I would strongly caution anyone who attempts to use BLP as a justification for edit-warring in this situation. There may well be issues of undue weight and recentism in giving a lot of airtime to this incident, but those are appropriately handled on the article talkpage rather than this noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, of course - Per the sources presented by Cwobeel and MastCell that unequivocally make the connection. If would be WP:UNDUE not to include a mention of this. "Similar claim" may be preferable to "same claim", but that's really splitting hairs.- MrX 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  So do you think that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot"? Because that is what the section implies. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Jindal is repeating a claim which Cameron described as complete idiocy. Numerous independent, reliable sources say as much. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Cameron called Emerson a "complete idiot", he didn't call the claim "complete idiocy". That is what prevents us from linking the two in a BLP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's hairsplitting, but in any case there's no need, and probably no reason, to include Cameron's "idiot" quote. My main point is that there is no synthesis (and no WP:BLP violation) in linking Emerson's and Jindal's comments, since they are extensively and explicitly linked by reliable sources. My sense is that people are perseverating about the "idiot" quote rather than acknowledging the sources and working to find an acceptable way to reflect them. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Mast, here is the section from CNN. "The Prime Minister said he choked on his porridge after hearing the claim by Steve Emerson, a Fox News pundit, that non-Muslims “simply don’t go” to Britain’s second-largest city.... Mr Cameron said: “Frankly I choked on my porridge and thought it must be April’s Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot." Jindal made no such statement. Seriously, how can you make that claim. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, I don't feel it's important to use Cameron's quote, which as you point out was addressed to Emerson. On the other hand, it is clearly appropriate to draw a link between Emerson's and Jindal's comments on a broader level, since many reliable sources explicitly make this link. I think that focusing on the "idiot" quote is attacking a strawman at this point. I'm not defending its inclusion, and I don't think anyone else is either. At the same time, there needs to be some acknowledgement of the content of reliable sources and the response to Jindal's comments. At this point, it should be clear that there is no distinct BLP issue, and the matter should be returned to Talk:Bobby Jindal so that the denizens of that talkpage can work on the questions of appropriate weight and recentism. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No The inclusion can be seen as an attempt to implicitly apply the label (and the insult) to the subject via synthesis - assuming that wasn't the intention to begin with. When Cameron calls Jindal an idiot then that can be added to Jindal's bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I think it's relevant given that Jindal has made similar sorts of claims to those made by Emerson. If nobody else had made the connection it would be OR, but the media has done so, so it's an acceptable thing to mention. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• No I read the CNN link and the "idiot" remark was made towards Emerson for making the "whole cities" comment. Jindal's statement was, by all accounts not as inflammatory. This is synthesis per FRF. I haven't checked all the links, but I suspect they are quite similar. If someone wants to present an unadulterated quote from a RS that supports inclusion, that would be helpful. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's be frank. If you want to link the two, it's doable. But wanting to include the "idiot" part speaks volumes about some of you. Take it to Twitter with the rest of the malcontented. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think there are numerous ways to go about presenting the fact that Jindal was soundly criticized, for both the initial statement and the refusal to retract it when proven false, without the need to resort to the "idiot" comment which was not directed at him. I don't think it is a BLP violation per se in its present form, just poorly realized. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I can't believe this is even under discussion. It's not only about relevance - it's about importance (weight). Jiminy Cricket. Atsme☯^Consult 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No - WP:BLPGOSSIP for starters and WP:10YT for a relevancy check. Comments and reactions by others to trivial comments made by the subject are rarely encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLPGOSSIP absolutely does not apply to this situation—that's just silly. I agree that WP:10YT (and recentism, more generally) are legitimate concerns. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No - In the end, the comparison is barely relevant and any criticism can be presented better. Tarc has it right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, Recently I wrote in WP:BLP page, under the heading Beatrix Campbell, as follows: "I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Wikipedia completely. Advice will be very welcome." You will see from the last entries to the Beatrix Campbell discussion on WP:BLP that her version is still being contested. I have not received any reply,giving the advice I request.Bold text Could somebody help please? Sturdytree (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, User:Sturdytree, say that her version is still being contested. What I see is that you made some edits to Beatrix Campbell in September, and most recently on 2 December 2014, which was more than a month ago. Your edits were partly reverted, also on 2 December 2014. There has been some discussion on the talk page, Talk: Beatrix Campbell, most recently on 12 December 2014, which was more than a month ago. I don't see any indication that you have attempted to discuss the article on the talk page. I am not entirely sure what your question is, but I will guess. You ask if an "immovable statement" can be inserted that the subject of the biography contests its truth. In Wikipedia, nothing is "immovable", but there are tags that can be attached to an article that should not be removed without discussion. You ask if the entry can be removed from Wikipedia completely because it misrepresents the subject. Articles can be deleted from Wikipedia via the Articles for Deletion process. Since it appears that the subject of the biography does meet general notability guidelines, I don't think that her biography will be deleted as not notable. It also does not appear that her biography can be deleted as unsourced. If there are specific statements in her biography that are not backed up by reliable sources, those parts of her biography can be removed as per the policy on biographies of living persons. However, my advice is to discuss the content of the biography at the article talk page, which you haven't yet done. If that does not result in satisfaction, you can follow any of the procedures described in the dispute resolution policy, which would include coming back to this noticeboard after the issues have been discussed on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article seems like a large WP:COATRACK for WP:BLP issues. I significantly trimmed the article to reduce the issues [33] but am concerned that it still may be a BLP violation to use sources discussing a TV show as sources of fact for real people the show is based on. In some cases the sources used do discuss the real people, but the source doing so is the TV producer/director etc, which I feel may be unreliable for negative statements of fact about real people . ex [34] The real-life story of these cheerleaders shocked many when the story broke, not only for their racy and inappropriate behavior but also for the inaction of the school's administrators and parents," Lifetime senior vp original movies Tanya Lopez said. "We hope this movie reminds parents how important it is to set limits on their children. Obviously the plot of the show itself can be discussed in the article, even where that may imply something about the real people, but I don't think the article should have much about the real people in it at all, especially when newsweek writes [35] By all accounts the girls' behavior is wildly exaggerated on screen, but it makes for good TV

There is another newsweek story, directly about the real people from the time the real story broke. Ironically, it is not used in the article at all.[36]

Additional input would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue could also belong at WP:RSN or WP:COIN - bringing it here as this seems to have the most eyes. Over the past year, a COI editor has been adding puffery to this article. [37] Today, she added this. I reverted because I'd seen those claims before, using a "garbage" source (excuse my term, it's difficult when an editor is only here to promote something). [38] This time, I took another look and she's using another source, one that has a Wikipedia article: Limca Book of Records. Is this a reliable source for the claims she's making? If not, should the claims still appear if attributed to that source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book has been "published" by soft drink makers. I would say, not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The book does not meet WP:BLP requirements for a high quality source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Ahumada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A somewhat controversial former mayor who is, apparently, running again. The article is poor and has mostly negative (though sourced) information. There is more out on the internetz (here, for instance) but I haven't found anything positive. Whether the guy is notable in the first place is an interesting matter. In the second place, I wonder if recent edits have anything to do with his campaign. Your eyes are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the detail per WP:UNDUE - watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad we don't have a List of mayors of Brownsville... we could totally redirect there. Not enough for a bio and will always be negative. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being negative is not a good reason to remove content; this would be a terrible encyclopædia if we were never allowed to accurately report on subjects that have been criticised in the real world. However, poor sourcing or low notability is a good reason to remove content. bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing isn't either, but an eternally negative stub is better off as a redirect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Gannon

This article's title is inaccurate. Gannon's name is "Kathy" not "Cathy": http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kathy-gannon-canadian-reporter-wounded-and-photographer-killed-in-afghanistan-1.2597928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.131 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved to Kathy Gannon. Thanks for letting us know.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara, an entirely unfamiliar name to me, popped up in my watchlist. Even by WP standards, the article was dreadful. I rather lazily sprayed it with warning flags and added a few internal links. Later, I noticed that it had been edited again, with no edit summary, and took a quick look (mostly to see whether hagiographic elements had been reinserted). It was then that I noticed that there'd been a series of edits changing unsourced factoids to different unsourced factoids.

The biographee seems notable for horseracing, car racing, and running a large house, three areas of which I know very little. While I'm concerned that WP should not misinform, I'm not the best person to be fact-checking this material. (I also have other, major demands on my time.) Could other, level-headed editors please take a look at this article and its fairly recent history? (If a sweeping reversion is in order and my own changes are among those that are swept away, of course I shan't take offence.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have a single source. I will stubify it and check for notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Additionally, this is within a bizarre genre of articles that treat their biographees as racehorses or similar, with precise (if usually unsourced) details of breeding. I never know quite how to take this kind of thing, but it seems vaguely insulting. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes are needed, there is one camp turning the article into a hagiographic (and extremely extended) speakers promotional blurb and another camp attempting to insinuate that she has lied about everything she ever stated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Profile pic is of the wrong person - definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.103.10 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol W. Greider, a 2009 Nobel Prize winner, has recently been editing her page (along with her assistant) to remove mentions of her husband, Nathaniel C. Comfort. Both User:Carol.w.greider and User:Scrow1 (her assistant) have deleted the references multiple times without adding any additional sourcing. It's evident based on a number of different sources that they were married in 1993, but I've yet to come across any sourcing to indicate otherwise. Per a note left by User:Scrow1 on my talk page, she's attempting to remove mention of her (apparently now ex-)husband.

My question is since Greider is clearly a public figure, 1. is she (or assistant) allowed to edit her page without it being a conflict of interest, 2. is she allowed to remove current, sourced information, and 3. to what extent, if any, is she allowed to dictate what appears on her page?

Thanks.

—GauchoDude (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order: 1. There is no absolute prohibition, but it is "strongly discouraged". 2 and 3 No. provided that the article complies with WP:BLP and other relevant policies and guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is that an unregistered editor (whom the original poster implies is either the subject or her assistant) removed the mention of their marriage both from Carol W. Greider and from Nathaniel C. Comfort. Their marriage was not referenced to a reliable source, although the original poster provides a source. As the original poster implies, it is likely that they are no longer married, in which case it is probably best to allow the deletion of the reference to their marriage. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukexpat: @Robert McClenon:, yes there were a number of edits removing the mention of the entire marriage, which I edited back. While seemingly an uncoupling is most likely if we believe the duo above (whom I cannot verify if they are who they say they are aside from their word alone, in addition to not being able to find any mention of this potential event to source), the history of the marriage should not be in question. Per the sources in the article and above, both primary and secondary, it is black and white that a marriage did, in fact, exist. I am curious as to if this person has the ability to remove said information even though there are sources present that show it existed and, essentially, to cover up the past by "censoring" the page at their will. —GauchoDude (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way that you are asking the question is "loaded". Content in Wikipedia is determined collaboratively by consensus. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone (with the exception of banned and blocked users) can edit. Of course anyone can edit it. The question is not whether they have the ability to remove the information, but whether its removal is appropriate. In general, the place to discuss article content is the article talk pages. It appears that neither you nor the unregistered editor has used the article talk pages. I would suggest that you post a question about whether the marriage should be in the article on the two article talk pages, and that you notify the unregistered editor on their talk page. At the same time, I would advise that if someone says that the subject of the article does not want the marriage mentioned, and there is no compelling reason to mention it, that it be omitted out of respect for the privacy of living persons. (Do you have a specific reason, other than the fact itself, why you think that the marriage should be mentioned? Is there anything in your past that you would prefer not to discuss? Unless you have a specific reason, I suggest that, out of respect for the privacy of living persons, some facts can be omitted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kajol is born in 1975 as i heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reloade (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reloade: Heard in what reliable source? We don't change biographical articles only based on what somebody "heard". —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source, you can propose a change at Talk:Kajol. Since her birth date is referenced to two reliable sources, I would not recommend editing the article without discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jayne Heitmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Harry the Dirty Dog has insisted on including this external link in the subject's biography, which apparently he decided is actually the subject based on original research rather than relying on a secondary source. The image was previously being used (in conjunction with IMDb) to support the subject's date of birth, with this hidden note:

DO NOT change the year of birth to 1970. Jayne was born in 1960. The date on the photos linked below (1979 in both cases) is the year these people would have graduated high school, not the year the photo was taken. Jayne could not have been in both grade 4 and grade 6 in the same year. To graduate from high school in 1979, she would have to be born in 1960

This kind of OR is unacceptable in biographies, and while my removal of the DOB was not challenged, they insist on keeping the external link, which makes no sense since there no biographical information regarding the subject's early life, and in any case it is an unacceptable source to begin with. Further, Harry the Dirty Dog has apparently managed to elucidate which of those children is actually the subject, based on some unknown criteria (age regression?) and a faded 36-year old signature. Is there consensus that this is acceptable as a standalone external link? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jayne Heitmeyer can be used for context on how important this apparently is to the editor, and the amount of OR that has gone into it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually removed the link before this notice was posted.

There is also this link, [39] Heitmeyer appears in the bottom photo on page 62. She is named, and it is a PDF of the yearbook which appeared in 1974. She is clearly much older than the 4 years old she would have been if she was born in 1970.

I am actually happy to have no DOB in the article. What is important to me (and should be to all editors) is that we should not have the wrong one. My only aim has been to avoid having misinformation in a BLP. If you go back through the history of the article you can see that a year of birth of 1970 had been added on the very first edit with no reliable sources. The photo that is in question here is signed by Heitmeyer, so there can be no question that it is genuine. A signed document by the subject is certainly valid as an external link, as is a PDF of a yearbook in which she appears. Whether or not it confirms a year of birth is a separate matter, and I am happy to accept that it may not be sufficient, but if it is not being used as a source for a year of birth, but merely a link illustrating the subject, there is no reason for it not to be there. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question then is: "Is a yearbook published by the school a primary source?" I'd say yes but I'm not 100% certain so that's why I brought it here for further discussion. For the record, I don't doubt that this is Heitmeyer and your investigation is correct - but that's not the point. This would be acceptable only if a secondary source had done the research, and linked to the yearbook. There's a not-so-subtle difference, which is encoded in the OR/SYNTH and BLP policies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree since in this case the DOB seems to be contentious. My purpose in assembling what evidence I could that 1970 couldn't possibly be the year of birth was to avoid the incorrect year being reinserted. But if we are happy that that there should be no DOB on the article then the issue is moot. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I didn't adjust the DOB in any case because that would have been equally wrong. We're better off without it altogether. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: He responded - committing the felony of lying to congress under oath - "No, sir."

This is a legal opinion. Unless the writer can cite a felony conviction, it has no place in the article.

Nor does the section heading. The administration expressed confidence that the Director answered in the least misleading way possible, given the wording of the questions. To use the phrase "False testimony" is an opinion and is not supported by any citations to legal findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.224.205 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit where someone asserted he was lying, since it was nothing more than an opinion. Articles are supposed to be neutral and reproduce only what the available sources say. As to the lede, I don't think there's a problem with it because all that is sourced later in the article, and it is worded neutrally. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the template for BLPs says "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns", material has been repeatedly inserted and undone, and there are concerns outlined in the Talk page for the subject in question. In particular, COI via self-promotion self-referencing, (indirect) libel, and relevence of putting outlier information not shared by mainstream sources.

Not sure how much detail I should add here, but the gist of the concern is in the Talk Page for the Wikipedia BLP mentioned above. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some editing that needs further attention -- see this section of the COIN. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject field to look at it with the necessary care DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of BLP continues to make edits to the bio, removing all content that is negative towards him or shows verifiable proof of his past work actions, in violation of BLP guidelines and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.17.230 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy edit warring. But the removal is justified as the placement of the material is unacceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin processes this, can we get the article semi-protected so the IP's use the empty talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi'd it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs are past 3RR, but User:Callanecc has saved them from themselves by semi-ing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did this last night but I'm not entirely sure about it. As I pointed out on the talk page, it seems the view of his under discussion was expressed in an early work (published when he was in his late 20s) that happens to have had an influence on other scholars, and scholars (at least those of the opposing school) consider him to be the "founder"of the revisionist view in question. A seemingly neutral review in The Journal of Japanese Studies apparently considers his scholarly method to have been flawed but not without merit, as other scholars continue to take this view. (By "neutral" I mean in relation to this debate, not to make some sort of claim that one source is superior to another based on how objective and NPOV it is.)

But regardless of which view is more mainstream, I'm inclined to think discussion of that debate belongs in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, not in the form of criticisms of one of the scholars on one side.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajin_Vass_Gunawardena&curid=27170258&diff=643823440&oldid=643808700 is a large edit which looks to me to be laden with potential BLP issues. I reverted it once (no time to pick through the whole thing and it looked like it would clearly violate BLP policy if left alone) but it's back. Some of this material has been in before, and the page was semi-protected in December 2013.

I'm calling for help; it seems clear there are BLP issues, but equally some of the material may be good. I have no time to pick through it, and know nothing about Sri Lankan politics. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please see DIFF by Murry1975 (talk · contribs).
2. I had removed a sect from an article with completely unsourced info about WP:BLPs.
3. Murry1975 (talk · contribs) added the entire sect back, with zero sources, asserting he can do that because "WP:BLUE" and because the "articles are linked".
4. Last I heard, WP:BLUE was an essay, while WP:BLP and WP:V are policy.

Some clarification would be helpful here, because I think it's best to remove completely unsourced info related to WP:BLPs from articles.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUE is irrelevant - the colour of the sky is common knowledge, whereas who won an Academy award etc for a particular year isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely shouldn't be added back without adequate sourcing. GiantSnowman 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are available at the linked award pages, citation over kill for a page that has clear links.

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

How are actual facts contentious?

How is removing vast sections, linked to sourced pages, across multiple articles "improving" wikipedia?

Removing material, blanking when sources are available on the linked articles is actually disruptive. If the editor in question would like to improve rather than delete. Utter tautology. Murry1975 (talk)

No, Murry1975, refusing to use citations is disruptive. As for whether the material is contentious or not, put yourself in the shoes of the person that actually won the award. We have a serious problem with these unsourced award sections, and a lot of them consist of false information.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is well-known and obvious, then it should be trivially easy to provide a reliable source for it. It's not "oversourcing" to provide such a citation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The My Left Foot artilce, is it contentious that Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar? Is it not counter productive that instead of drawing attention to the possible need for inline citations, the section is removed? Is it not counter productive that when an article is linked that instead of transferring inline cites that the accurate, neutral infomation is deleted? Common sense is meant to used. Murry1975 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, if they are sourced at the article for the award then the addition of the award to other articles is entirely appropriate. Per WP:PRESERVE any editor is free to add any citations that they wish. OTOH removal of the info is counterproductive to say the least. An alternative is to add "CN". Claiming that awards won is a BLP violation is pure sophistry.I'm not sure what the WP:POINT of these removals is but they do not improve the encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the unref section tag instead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And based on the logic of blanking the whole section, then the article for 43rd British Academy Film Awards should be blanked too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A third of it sourced in 5 minutes. You can bow down and thank me later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see, Lugnuts, you knowingly restore unsourced material about a living person after its been objected to and then expect thanks? I assume that you will accept this block warning instead. Never, ever, again, under any circumstance, should you restore uncited material about a living person to an article after it has been challenged for lack of sourcing.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wixifixer, who is the subject of the article, is attempting to remove ethnicity information from this page. I've had conflicts with him in the past and would rather defer the case to other administrators. Owen (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling people as Jewish etc. falls into the topic of WP:BLPCAT where unless the person self-identifies as Jewish, we do not do so. Collect (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Ernst Joni Ernst's Wikipedia page states " ..the first woman ever elected on a statewide level in Iowa...." this is incorrect. Patty Judge was elected Iowa's Iowa Secretaries of Agriculture in 1998 and served until 2007 Iowa Auditor of State Mary Mosiman was elected in 2013 and is the current Auditor. Secretary of State office has been Held by Mary Jane Odell elected in 1980 and served until 1987 and Elaine Baxter elected in 1987 and served until 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.107.1 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]