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

Scott Lash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) request edit

I would like my date and year of birth excised from Wiki page on me. This has hurt my employment prospects and chances of obtaining research grants. A friend of mine has edited my page and deleted year of birth several times, but it keeps being reinstated. Can you please help me on this?

Many thanks

Scott Lash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicrover (talk • contribs) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sorry to hear that the Wikipedia article is causing you problems. I believe birth year is a core information about a person that Wikipedia will not censor. We are however supposed to have reliable sources for all information and currently I can not see any sources for the birth date so maybe it should be removed on that ground (if sources are not forthcoming). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the date of birth since it is listed in Lash's authority file at the Library of Congress. However, I am not sure about Wikipedia's policy in such cases (see WP:DOB). In 2010, we had a similar case regarding George Lusztig, who wanted his DOB removed although it was published in the International Who's Who. Back then, my opinion was overruled and the DOB was removed. Right now, I feel like Wikipedia needs to find a general solution for cases like this, since there are more (for instance, some Brown University IP keeps deleting Oded Galor's DOB, so I suspect similar motives there, too). --bender235 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I started a general discussion about the validity of WP:DOB at Talk:BLP. Feel free to join. --bender235 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely clueless as to how someone's date of birth could affect their employment prospects (unless it is incorrect of course), given that anyone employing someone would ask for their correct date of birth as a matter of course. Could anyone (including the OP) enlighten me? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all countries have laws that protect people from age discrimination, as we have it in the U.S. I think it is the case with this person. Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an actual case on Wikipedia of an actress wanting to obscure her birth year. She had made efforts to put out she was younger than she actually was, saying that helped her get parts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally understand this in the case of an actress, but we are talking about an academic here. Am I being completely naive here when I say I still don't understand the problem for someone who does live in a country with ageism related laws (The Equality Act 2010) in place? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to prove age discrimination, and it happens all the time. I'm a mature person still seeking to be active in the workplace. I've had questions in interviews like "We have a pretty young crew in our company. Do you really think you would fit in?" The implications are obvious, but there would be no record of that question having ever been asked. I sympathise fully with our OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand, but what do you do? Do you lie about your age? I don't know where you live in, but where I do, you are required to provide identifying documents or anyway state your date of birth when you sign a contract -and it is expected that it is the real one. Also, it remains complete nonsense that we are asked to remove public and essential biographical information. If he has problems with his age being public, he could ask the source publishers to remove it; then we would comply since we would have no source to base our claim on. --cyclopia^speak! 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen similar things in the Australian job market, with a friend of a certain age being unable to get interviews because he had his date of birth on his CV. As soon as he took it off, the interviews started coming and he quickly found a job. So once you get to an interview then, yes, you're going to have to tell them your real date of birth. But once you get to an interview, you also have the opportunity to show that you're not a doddery old fool. Too many HR managers take one look at the front page of a CV, see, "Born in 1955," and throw it on the discard pile. I assume, in this case, that people are seeing his CV, looking him up on WP, seeing his date of birth and throwing his CV on the discard pile. Or at least he has that impression. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Is the DOB for this BLP, though well sourced, a necessary addition to this article?

• No. Remove it, as it is causing the subject (we assume it's the subject) problems through no fault of their own.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Remove it. Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Year of birth, and in general the age of a person, are critical quintessential data expected in a bio. The information is fully public so we are not causing the subject any problems which already didn't exist before. If the subject complains about his age being listed, he should ask to the source publishers for it to be removed, not to us. --cyclopia^speak! 14:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal. I'm not answering the question because it is a leading question. Nothing is necessary to an article (except a name, I suppose). Should it be in the article? Yes. It is standard biographical information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal per NeilN - it's well sourced, standard biog info. It's also findable (as it is well sourced) by a prospective employer irrespective of what is in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• strong support of removal of month/day as it is a PII identity theft issue, and is currently covered by WP:DOB. courtesy delete on year as a courtesy for this marginally notable person, as the birthdate adds very little of encyclopedic value, and is based on a primary source. This user would probably qualify for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of the entire article and I think we should surely extend that to a bit of information that is as unimportant as this. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your "identity theft" argument is moot, since Lash's full date of birth is available from other sources, including German Wikipedia. Deleting it from English Wikipedia does not lower the "identify theft risk" (if there is any) one bit. It's pure privacy theater at the expense of encyclopedic precision. --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: I wonder if there's a reply under way for this. --bender235 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bender235 I thought I had replied, I must have left it in an abandoned browser window. en.wiki is the #1 hit for the guy. Other sites are much more difficult to come by (Searching for Scott Lash Birthday/Dob/Birthdate etc don't come up with anything.) The de wiki is the first hit for the German google, but as the subject is not german, does not live/work in germany, and has no interaction in german as far as I can see, its much less likely anyone is searching for him in German imo. That information is available in obscure or foreign language sources is not the same as making it be the very first thing that happens on google. Virtually every bit of information about any person is available on the internet - that is not an argument to add it into the biography. In any case, there is a policy specifically covering this for the month and day, and local consensus cannot override a policy such as WP:BLP. If you want to try and change the policy - feel free, but I think it is unlikely to go anywhere. As to the subject's actual objection (the year, due to age discrimination) As I said, I think we can remove it as a courtesy, but there is no policy requiring us to do so, and I do not intend to fight to have it removed at this point (As it has been re-added I believe). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy aside, you actually believe deleting Lash's birth date and/or year will make it any harder to obtain this data for any criminal person interested in identity theft? Because that is your argument. The picture you're drawing is a criminal who gives up because the information he wants is not the #1 Google hit. Do you actually believe in this fairy tale?

The same goes for Lash's original argument (supposed the OP was actually him). His year of birth is listed on every major national library in the world. Does he really believe erasing it from Wikipedia will dumbfound potential research sponsors? Is he a university professor or what? --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removal - Per unconfirmed identity of a warring claimant and that the data is reflected by the Library of Congress. At minimum, a year should be included, if not the precise date per WP:DOB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions:

1. What gives you two reason to believe that the anonymous user above actually is who he claims to be?
2. WP:DOB says if full date of birth is deemed sensitive, just add year of birth. That wouldn't solve the supposed age discrimination issue, would it? So what do we do? Add nothing and claim his year of birth to be missing, based on our ad hoc WP:BLP extension?
3. Since this whole “discrimination on something” and “information that hurts my employment prospects” issue is just the starting point of an awful slippery slope, it'd be interesting to hear how far you guys would go. Is arguing “Wikipedia mentioning the fact I did not graduate college hurts my employment prospects” enough of a reason to blank, say Steve Masiello's article? What if a person fears gender discrimination? Do we clear his/her (oops!) article of gender-specific words and maybe the person's surname? --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did make the assumption (and so stated) that the poster is the subject. We know this could be verified if push came to shove, but why bother? If you insist, I'm sure they would verify their identity. If other subjects want to request similar information be removed, we should afford them the same consideration. Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what is your solution to (2.)? Do we follow WP:DOB by adding his year of birth only, or do we establish a new rule by removing the information entirely? --bender235 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote for deletion is much weaker on the point of the year. It is not covered by policy, and is not nearly the privacy/security issue. However, as it is also of minimal encyclopedic value, and the user would probably qualify to have his entire bio deleted if they asked, I don't see the harm in the courtesy. Per your question about Masiello, his educational status has been specifically noted in multiple secondary sources (not just as part of an "infobox" data dump), so no, I would not extend that there. If there were newspaper or magazine articles discussing this guys birthdate that would sway me on that as well. Frankly I think the LOC is a primary source that we should not be using in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Material cited to Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian is being repeatedly removed from this article on BLP grounds. (diff) It describes Nuland's husband Robert Kagan as being "regarded as a leading neo-conservative." Oddly, the same description with the same sources appears in Kagan's own BLP, where it is not being challenged. Are the cited sources too weak to support the text in question? Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those three references mentions Nuland in any manner: "A neocon by any other name" in The Observer, published by The Guardian. I would support telling the reader that Kagan is Nuland's husband, and that he is a leading neocon. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet:Here is a link to aother, more recent article by William Pfaff discussing both Nuland and Kagan with respect to Ukraine, neoconservatism in the Obama administration, etc.What Ukraine really needs.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be all kind of wrongs with that article. The Multiple versions of the phone recording section is a Original Research mess. There are all kind of interpretations of what she said and what happened with very little sources, mostly just the tapes itself. Iselilja (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this: the same editor has now deleted that material from Robert Kagan as well, claiming BLP violation (diff), so we should probably broaden this discussion to include that article as well. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have serious problems. In terms of describing Kagan as "neo-conservatism" (and then going off on a long WP:UNDUE tangent about it), the first source Foreign Affairs, doesn't really support it. It says he's sometimes regarded that way but that a different description is more accurate. And this is pretty much the only BLP-standard source. The Guardian and the WP articles are opinion pieces which aren't sufficient for a BLP. This is especially so since apparently Kagan does not see himself that way. If there are some academic or scholarly sources on this, that'd be different.

The rest of that paragraph is just WP:UNDUE, even IF this wasn't a BLP with a bit of sneaky WP:SYNTH thrown in to try and imply certain things to the reader.

For Nuland's article, Binksternet gets right to the additional point - those sources aren't even about the subject of the BLP. And the article has way too much OR in it, though the one being presently disputed (I thought about doing something about it, but don't even know where to start).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of some examples here where a critic of a public figure characterizes that figure in a reliable source, but the public figure does not see himself that way, so Wikipedia removes the criticism. Does this happen often? Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that happens frequently. Just because one critic calls a person a "meanie", even in a reliable source, does not require that Wikipedia reports that so-and-so is a "meanie". We need much more than one critic's opinion to include any contentious characterizations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me one example? There are multiple RS (five refcites now?) describing Kagan as a neoconservative, founder of the PNAC, "well-known right-wing publicist", etc. Obviously WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to Kagan and Nuland.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the "Whitewashing" characterization. There is no basis for blanking an entire section with the types of edit summaries [1][2][3] being left on the Nuland article. Here is a link to a recent article by William Pfaff discussing both Nuland and Kagan with respect to Ukraine, neoconservatism in the Obama administration, etc.What Ukraine really needs. This seems like outright censorship, though I'm not familiar with the BLP policy, so this is a good place to start. The phone conversation is evidence of US State Dept. meddling in the affairs of a foreign country, practically starting a war, obviously this is something that Wikipedia should be providing the reading public reliably sourced information about.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant Talk page thread here Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another source for Kagan as "leading neoconservative foreign voice" Note that I noticed that this news article RS A conservative split aids Obama on Egypt, Washington Post was deleted from the Nuland article[4], and I haven't checked to see if it was in the Kagan article. The text reads

  Robert Kagan, one of the leading neoconservative foreign voices, has been in the forefront of those arguing that the United States needed to be more prepared for a democratic rebellion in Egypt, and he was among the specialists brought to the White House this week for a discussion of the next steps on Egypt.

  Note that it seems that the author meant to write "foreign policy voice".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is he regarded as a neoconservative by neoconservatives and people sympathetic to them, or by their opponents?

I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people who consider Obama a radical leftist or George Bush to have been a fascist. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the point of your question vis-a-vis Wikpedia policy? Reliable sources consider him a neoconservative, and it is basically not our job to question the motivations of each source, but to present NPOV content reflecting all relevant reliably published statements.

The only source that doesn't consider him a neoconservative is the primary source quote by himself referring to himself as a "realist".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LABEL requires that contentious labels be *widely* used in reliable sources. If the label is used only by someone's opponents, even if they are reliable sources, that is not wide use. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria do you basis your evaluation of "widely" on? You have no basis to characterize the WP:RS cited as being written by opponents, and I don't see where there is any provision for such a rationale in policy, either. Can you cite the text of the policy statement related to "opponents"? You also appear to be making arbitrary statements with almost no basis in policy. The application of WP:LABEL with respect to the term "neoconservative" is questionable, even though the public figure doesn't like it.

The view that Kagan is a neoconservative appears to be the mainstream view on all accounts in WP:SECONDARY sources, though a discussion on the degree of attribution, etc. maybe blockquotes from the Foreign Affairs piece are open to discussion.

Is that a variation of "I didn't take it, and besides I returned it in perfect condition"?

If it's really the mainstream view in all secondary sources, then the label is not just used by opponents, and there is no need for you to argue that it's okay for the label to only be used by opponents.

Of course, if it's really the mainstream view in all secondary sources, you ought to be able to show some supporters who call him that. If you can't find them, then it's not the mainstream view in all secondary sources, after all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs require high quality sources for these kinds of claims. That means scholarly or academic works, or at least NON-editorials and NON-opinion pieces. As far as just labeling him as neoconservative - I'm of two minds on that, that might be supportable (though not by the source being used) although it should also be noted that he rejects the designation. But the edit under discussion also has a whole bunch of other irrelevant crap in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "irrelevant crap"? Stop using crude language and be specific about what you are supposedly objecting to in the text on a policy-based basis.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crap that starts with " In a tongue-in-cheek article published ...". I mean, that phrasing right there is a huge big red flag flapping loudly in a wind that this stuff doesn't belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question, because there is nothing (never has been) in the relevant text that could remotely be construed in that manner. I posted the presently (reverted) version as well as a version from 2 years ago in the An/I thread, which are

Kagan has been described as a neoconservative foreign-policy theorist, although Kagan has adamantly rejected being labeled as a "neoconservative". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Kagan&oldid=491718396]

and

Because of his association with PNAC and his early endorsement of the Iraq War, Kagan is widely considered a neoconservativeforeign-policy theorist. Kagan rejects that label, however, now preferring to call himself a realist. [5]

Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs piece is a bonafide secondary source, encompassing a review of Kagan's writings placed in the context of his career.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From AN/I: This likely only belongs at WP:BLP/N but critiques that a person is not what he says he is are a tad contentious, and this material places excessive reliance on editorial columns. The essence is "He is a neocon, though he denies it. He admits his friends are Straussians, though he denies being one. He said a person who denies being something, is one." The section is a mass of contradictory of "Everyone says and he denies" argumentation which, if it belongs in the BLP, needs massive attribution of the opinions, and should not be laid out in "He is A but denies it" style. When we use opinion sources (and there is no doubt the sources are reliable per WP:RS, but are opinion columns), we must label the opinions as opinions, and not use a debate style to make any argument in Wikipedia's voice. (Some of the sources may not be "opinion pieces" but I did not vet every source used - the issue about using counterpoint in a BLP is true in any event) Collect (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the sources are not opinion sources and are high-quality sources for the purpose of conveying a widely held view regarding his orientation (neo-conservative). The only real issue I see is use of the word "however"; this can be eliminated with no loss of meaning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? The Foreign Affairs source, which is the only originally used non-opinion source, doesn't even say what the text claims it says. Also, like I've pointed out several times, this isn't just about the designation of Kagan as "neoconservative" but all the other junk that Ubikwit and Joe Bodacious are restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one, for example. Any quibbles on that one? It's also worth noting that the sources being used for his preference re "realist" are -- wait for it -- opinion columns. Do we have any reliable sources for this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the Foreign Affairs is not an opinion piece. Regardless, if it was, that would just mean that we can't put either the "realist" or the "neoconservative" label in'ere.

And yes, I got quibbles with the Guardian source. It's an opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing of the sort -- it's a "World News" article (look in the banner (News -->World News -->United States). Opinion pieces show up under Comment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are your contentions in relation to the Foreig Affairs article based on? Please cite specific passages. Otherwise we can't discuss the relevant passages. If you don't, it may be construed that you have misrepresented the source, especially if I have to post more passages that problematize the assertion that the term "neoconservative" doesn't apply under Wikipedia policy. Moreover, the Foreign Affairs piece fully supports the opening of the first sentence of the text you've been reverting today, particularly with respect to PNAC and the Iraq war. So that couldn't possible be the "crap" to which you have repeatedly referred.

And that is besides the google searching that is referred to below, which I gather you don't dispute, correct?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And let me point out, for the umpteenth time (it's getting old), that at issue is not just the label "neoconservative" but all the other junk that Ubikwit is restoring. Care to comment on that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

better sources

A google scholar search on the term "neoconservative Robert Kagan" [6] gives a good range of results in which this term is used -- more than enough for "widely". Note that this is a rather restrictive search; with other search strings there would be a much larger list of results. This sort of thing would be much more productive (for both main parties to the dispute). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just looking for same thing on google books [7] [8] [9] and thinking "why do *I* have to do this?" - so thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Foreign Affairs piece should settle this matter; it strikes me that VM is being tendentious about this. It doesn't matter if the subject prefers the term "hot chihuahua interpretation analyst" — if an ultra-mainstream source like FA uses "neo-conservative," for our purposes the term is "neo-conservative." Carrite (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, it would help matters if you actually bothered reading a discussion before blessing us all with your opinion. It would also help matters if you actually read the source before you made claims about what's in it. That's how responsible editing works.

So first, the problem with the Foreign Affairs piece is that the whole point of it is that "neo-conservative" is NOT a good description for Kagan, but rather the term "realist" is. That's a funny way to source the fact that someone is a "neo-conservative".

Second, if I am being "tendentious" why the hey do you think I just gave three - actually reliable and scholarly - source for this view that I am supposedly tendentiously opposing? Did you bother clicking on them? The point is that if you're going to put in "Kagan is a neo-conservative" into the article, a BLP, you need high quality sources. And I just provided those.

Third, the main problem with the edit - which I pointed out half a dozen times, so the fact that you somehow managed to miss it says a lot - is not actually the whole "neo-conservative" label, but rather a whole bunch of extra junk that is being tacked on afterwards, based on a "tongue-in-cheek interview".

Next time read and think first, then comment. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VM, you are misrepresenting the Foreign Affairs source, as anyone that has read it would readily understand, I hope this isn't a pattern with you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet in this latest rumination on international politics, Kagan largely eschews neoconservative theology and instead sounds themes reminiscent of the great American realists Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr. Kagan once professed to believe that "there is something about realism that runs directly counter to the fundamental principles of American society." But now he deploys realist principles to explain the world.".

Cut it out with the thinly veiled bullshit accusations. See WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'll leave it to someone else who has read the article to respond to that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry to have to bring it up again, Ubikwit, but posting to two noticeboards simultaneously regarding the same matter reads as hedging your bets. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: Apples and oranges. See my reply, here.

More specifically, this revert claimed that "VoR is not reliable" as part of its basis for removing the specific text addressed at RS/N related to the statement of a PM. There was no BLP related rationale for dismissing that text, just a blanket assertion that it is not reliable.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of a look at the sources, and it seems to me that while Kagan denies being a neocon, there are plenty of reliable sources that characterise him as such (for instance, this one refers to "neoconservatives such as Kagan" and "Kagan the unrepentant neoconservative". It would indeed be a BLP problem to state that Kagan is a neocon if he explicitly does not identify in that way, but I don't think it's unreasonable to mention that such-and-such-reliable-source describes him as such. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Limits of using Google Scholar -- it finds lots of en passant mentions. And en passant mentions are not worth much at all. This is a good case where categorization of a person which is contested by the person is likely something which must be ascribed as opinion. By the way, "Voice of Russia" is not generally recognized as a "reliable source" on Wikipedia for claims about living persons -- I have no idea why anyone would assert it meets WP:RS for WP:BLP claims at all. BLPs are not a great place for extensive political discussions for which better articles are available. Oh, and by the way, book reviews are "opinion pieces" and not factual reportage. FA is RS for opinions properly ascribed as opinion - but it is not a source for opinions to be ascribed as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Such bits as To be fair, neoconservatives did not concoct the war; it was George W. Bush who chose to invade Iraq, and the chief responsibility for all that has ensued since is his. are pretty clearly "opinion" as is the entire review -- because that is what book reviews are. I am sure that real sources can be found - we can easily say "The NYT has called him a neoconservative" as a fact (many non book reviews) - it is what would be reasonable wording, but we ought to reserve Wikipedia's voice for verifiable facts qua facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That response embodies a somewhat pedantic review of the FA article, first of all, because it is not simply a "book review". The article specifically rebuts the claim that Kagan is a realist by examining his writings aginst the context of his career and the impact on public policy thereof as well as the historical development of political "realism" and "neoconservatism".

Second, there is nothing in the BLP policy that excludes "opinion pieces" from use in BLPs, especially when they are written by experts that also happen to be syndicated columnists, like Paul Krugman, and in this case, William Pfaff. We went through this to a fair extent during the arbitration on Austrian School Economics, in particular, with regard to the use of Krugman in the Robert P. Murphy BLP article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: No, in this instance it is definitely not apples and oranges. See my reply here. Let's just call it a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Being aware of the context of this discussion, this is being used as an endgame. Promoting a pawn by advancing it to the eighth rank for a BLP is tendentious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy, I don't appreciate the tone of your assertions and insinuations. What exactly is it that you mean to say? In plain English, please. This is not a game, and you are wasting time with such incomprehensible nonsense. What are you referring to as a pawn, for instance? The Russian PM Medvedev? Or maybe you mean VoR? You, too, seem to be intent on dismissing VoR, but in your case with recourse to BLP. That opens a new chapter as far as I'm concerned, but we can go there. Remember, WP:NOTBATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: "The tone ... incomprehensible nonsense." (sic). You are well aware of the fact that I am not talking in riddles, as evidenced by your response on RS/N: I don't really get the allusions to an "end game" here, but this is of course related to the Ukraine crisis, just from another angle... I'd be equally tempted to remind you of WP:BATTLEGROUND after the WP:COI comment you've just left on my talk page. The arguments you are proposing on both noticeboards read as a desire to conflate all manner of sources, rather than treat them issues to be dealt with per context per article, in order to reach what I understand to be creating journalistic articles (or WP:GAME / WP:SOAP objective per example 1 + example 2). As with VM, you're not merely trying to introduce a couple of sources, it's "all the other stuff" you're creating by stringing sources together that go far beyond a BLP. I'm not exactly thrilled by your tone, either, and I believe that, if had hadn't already made myself clear in plain English before, I have now. If you're intent of bandying around accusations of COI, be wary of who the shoe actually fits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't falsely accuse me of "bandying about accusations of COI". It is appropriate practice to ask a user on their user page if they may have a COI, and I have not even suggested that you do anywhere, let alone "bandied about". You have been speaking in cryptic terms wasting editors' time here with your "end game". And now you come clean with what it is that's bothering you: "the Ukaraine issue". And then you come back with another somewhat cryptic and absolutely baseless assertion against me regarding COI, which is somewhat exasperating, frankly. That is not acceptable practice, and verges on being a personal attack. If you are not a native speaker of English, please stick to the basics, and don't make unfounded grandiose allusions that can be construed to embody negative commentary on other editors.

The source at RS/N was not "introduced" by me, it was deleted on highly suspect grounds with the blanket dismisall VoR not reliable, but I've already pointed that out to you. It is clearly an issue within the remit of the RS/N noticeboard, but since its scope has been expanded only by two participants at RS/N opposed to its use, I don't mind discussion the BLP related assertions. To that extent, I have introduced some sources as yet unused on the Nuland article that say the same thing, basically, but don't quote the Russian Prime Minister. In the Nuland article we have German Chancellor Angela Merkel and president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy weighing in on a separate single remark, but people have a problem with an comment attributed comment by the Russian PM? Since you have dragged the material into this thread, you are compelling me to address the matters that should be addressed in the other thread. If an ADMIN would take a look at the situation, maybe the RS/N thread could be tagged onto the end of this thread as a subdiscussion.

Corroborating sources (from RS/N thread):

1. She made clear the United States supported the protesters’ fight
   "The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.
2. Western Diplomats Are Going to Disappoint Ukraine’s Protesters, Time Magazine, Deceber 13, 2013

   The hand of U.S. diplomacy swept down over Ukraine this week with an odd bit of American largesse — a plastic bag of bread. Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, bore the bag on Wednesday into the crowd of protesters camped out in the middle of the capital, Kiev. As her circle of bodyguards parted, Nuland held it out to an elderly demonstrator in a big blue parka. “Good to see you!” the diplomat chirped. “We’re here from America. Would you like some bread?” Smiling politely, the woman demurred, took a step backward and waved the generosity away.

3. [10]
   
4. video
   
5. first encounter with this site
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

連絡 , in the first instance, do you have any concept of what walls of text are? If not, please take a look at both this section on the noticeboard and the section on the RS/N. Take a look at the comments by others involved, then take a look at your own. In the second instance, I've yet to see anyone who hasn't encountered another contributor before leaving a comment actually invoking the term WP:COI. You should read their user page and familiarise yourself with their contributions in order to establish whether or not it suggests certain editing patterns. Thirdly, don't just look at one user box: if you'd bothered to look at a couple more of my user boxes, you may have noted that I'm a native speaker of English. Rather than spend your time writing vast tracts of 'evidence' in your favour, perhaps you should have the courtesy to actually attempt to pay attention to others. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LABEL says don't apply a label in Wikipedia's voice -- it should have an in-line attribution. The text in both articles said simply that Kagan is "regarded" as a neoconservative, and since the cited sources, Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian are influential opinion shapers, I think that this is ample evidence that Kagan is "regarded" as such. I think the problem could be easily settled by an in-line attribution, saying "Kagan is regarded by publications such as Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian as a leading neoconservative." And it is certainly worthy of inclusion in the Nuland article, since it is somewhat remarkable that Nuland turns up in an administration that most people expected to pursue a different policy than its predecessor. Here's a secondary source for that: [11] Joe Bodacious (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to find far more substantial sources than just Nicolas Davies writing for AlterNet, Joe Bodacious. AlterNet is, essentially, a blog. Nicolas Davies is an author, self-promoted journalist and not a recognised scholar. Kagan is one thing; trying to pin Nuland into the picture using spurious sources is seriously WP:TE, particularly when dealing with BLPs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I thought the fact that the article appeared in Salon.com might give it a slightly elevated status. Keep in mind that what this whole debate is about is whether Kagan and Nuland were "regarded" as neocons. There's also a book entitled The Fall of the House of Bush, written by Craig Unger and published by Simon & Schuster, which refers to Kagan as a "highly visible neocon activist/writer," and mentions also "his neocon wife, Victoria Nuland." Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like one RS, I don't know if we are at "Widely" yet with respect to characterizing Nuland as a "neoconservative", too, but this would appear to be one rS supporting such a characterization. I note that the sources is from 2007, quite a bit ahead of its time, and not based on recent events in Ukraine.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being Dick Cheney's top security advisor ought to be enough to establish her neocon-ness (provided, of course, that secondary sources say so.) Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. I totally agree that she is a neocon. I just don't have the time to search for sources. I am probaly more interested in the bag lady bread distributing incident time magazine describes as an "unusual display of US largess" or words to that effect. there are many sources on that and not a single mention in the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that both of them are neocons... however, this is Wikipedia and WP:RS is determined by principles other than the ones you're looking at. Take a little peak at this and explain to me how Salon.com or 'popular' political reads can be interpreted as being essentially anything more than equivalent to tabloid journalism (and that includes being published and having an article about you in Wikipedia: all it requires is passing the WP:GNG litmus test). That does not account for reliable sources. Get your noses out of making snarky remarks and try to find some quality research and publications. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did take a peak at this and if that were the standard for BLPs, it would have a totally revolutionary impact on Wikipedia, which I think might well be a good thing. I have seen plenty of BLP articles that featured allegations, by political opponents of the subject, which were a lot more damaging than being called a mere "neoconservative." This may be worthy of a separate discussion at WT:BLP. Joe Bodacious (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would drop an FYI regarding my post here. About 50% of this article about a marginally notable local California politician appears to be contentious material cited to op-eds, primary sources, and other low-quality sources. The article appears to have a contentious editing history from last year (some prior poor COI editing, etc.) and I have a potential COI (maybe, kinda, sorta) so I dropped a note on Talk regarding my concerns. I have not taken up the project to actually improve the article yet, because I'm not sure it would survive an AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

corporateM asked me to comment. It probably would survive an AfD, since he's mayor of a city of over 100,000 people. The current article does seem wildly disproportionate. Some of the sources are questionable, but others seem to be straight news reports. The article would be better in every respect if it were limited to them, and if a proper general bio were added. If he were not a politician, I would consider the present version as speedy A10 territory. I note there seem to be highly oromotional prior versions--it should be possible to do an article with proper balance. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @User:DGG. Just to clarify, I would not propose that all the negative material be wiped, but probably 1-2 sentences could be salvaged from the better sources. I might take a shot at a more balanced biography, but it doesn't seem to make sense to offer a re-write of the article if the BLP issues are contested. I've also pinged user:Cullen328 here, who said he/she would take a look when they have time. I am not in a position where I would feel comfortable directly editing the article in contentious areas. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am scratching my head here. The claim that 50% of the article is contentious material cited to op-eds, primary sources, low-quality sources seems unfounded; please specify which sources fail to meet Wikipedia's rules. My sense is the sources are fine. A suggestion about a possible AfD seems absurd. My sense is the article is in fairly good shape. The article is neutral, showing both pluses of Mr. Butts (bringing business to Inglewood, positive comments about policing) and minuses (questions about whether police observed proper procedures). The twenty-plus sources are solid. The only source which might be questioned is an op-ed piece in a local paper but I feel it is worthy of inclusion since it (1) was made by another local politician (not a crank) (2) concerns a public matter of interest to the entire community, namely, whether police adhered to proper guidelines while conducting investigations (3) is consistent with other sources such as NY Times and LA Times and Associated Press which suggest a pattern of deviation from proper police procedure (4) appeared in a credible media outlet. To suggest that the article is beset with serious BLP violations seems ludicrous.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, was asked to take a look at the article by CorporateM and I will start by answering Tomwsulcer's question about the sources. I object to several of the pieces from CityWatchLA, which are clearly opinion pieces and very negative toward Butts. On the other hand, we have "The Soulvine", an opinion column from the Los Angeles Wave, which vigorously defends Butts. We have several references that go into great detail about the early days of a lawsuit being filed in which he was the defendant, but very little from high-quality sources about the outcome of the suit. That is undue. We've got a court document - a primary source - which is inappropriate as a reference in a BLP. We've got an opinion column, and a guest editorial offering commentary regarding a BLP. Much of the sourcing, pro and con, seems highly opinionated and inappropriate for a BLP. We don't achieve the neutral point of view by battles among editors to insert either favorable unreliable sources and unfavorable unreliable sources. The more determined side wins such a battle. Also objectionable to me are the lengthy quotes in the footnotes, that seem intended to skew the article by inserting material inappropriate to the body of the article. The current version, in my view, gives undue weight to the controversial aspects of this man's career, and the article needs a complete rewrite, eliminating every single controversial thing sourced to unreliable or primary sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read CorporateM's proposed revamp here, read the comments above, and I am somewhat rethinking things. This article has seen a lot of back-and-forth, from pro-Butts people to anti-Butts people, and striking the right balance is tough, and I think most of us here are trying to do that. That said, my sense is the tone of the current article is somewhat negative, and that it should be fixed with words as well as more sources which stress accomplishments, and I think the article should move more in the direction which CorporateM proposed in his revamp (although there are parts of it which seem PR-ish, such as him leading the SWAT team, etc). At the same time, however, I do not think that simply because a news source is negative about an issue, that it immediately brings POV problems. In my view, the CityWatch and Morningside Park Chronicle should not be dismissed, but kept, without going into too much detail about the specifics of their charges. They are both newspapers, with dates and bylines, valid sources in my view, and they make rather serious allegations: threats/abuse/intimidation by a police officer. This is not something to be taken lightly. As we know, police officers have the legally approved power of armed force – they can arrest people, shoot people, jail people – but they must follow proper procedures when doing so. There is little to hold police accountable other than other police officers (who are almost always reluctant to accuse other officers), the courts and public opinion and the occasional unarmed journalist bold enough to challenge authority. That is what is happening here: several journalists, a community school board member, and others allege that Butts and the Santa Monica and Inglewood police went too far, abused authority, played loose with the rules. Clearly there is a pattern: a lawsuit by the ACLU which named Butts as a defendant, which went to the Supreme Court, along with reports from Seattle Times and LA Times about police abusing their authority. So, dismissing this because there is one primary source involved, seems misguided, as well as eliminating CityWatch or the Morningside Park Chronicle as sources. This is not a typical BLP, with a civilian being hamstrung by extraneous cranky charges; rather, this is a politician and former police chief, battling with other politicians and journalists, about the highly public issue of whether police are doing their job properly. I agree the article should strive for neutrality, but I disagree that the way to achieve neutrality is simply to eliminate any strong views, pro or con; for me, the views should be kept, since they're backed by reliable sources, but balanced against each other. Overall, I think the tone is somewhat too negative, and in that sense, I agree, but balance could be restored by writing and by adding more positives.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusations of abuse by the police force, in which he was one of the named defendants, my understanding is that City Hall said the accusations were misleading and a federal judge dismissed the case. Additionally, the accusers were two killers and convicted criminals that he arrested. It seems presumptuous to assume any abuse actually happened. In the proposed draft I did include Morningside, but I do not believe CityWatch is a reliable source. Their articles have disclaimers saying that the piece represents the personal views of the author. They are highly opinionated and have outrageous claims not supported by other sources. For example, one of their articles claims that Butts proclaimed "I'm on drugs" loudly interrupting another politician and it often says that the LA Times reported on these incidences of drug abuse and public embarrassment, yet I can find no such articles in the much more reliable LA Times. Their editorial team is filled with people with dayjobs, who are not professional journalists and don't even have an @CityWatch email address. All their articles on Butts are opinionated attack pieces. Regarding notability, now that I have found more proper sources I see how the article should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with CorporateM's characterization of the quality of the CityWatchLA pieces referenced in the article. These are clearly political attack opinion pieces which I consider worthless as references in a BLP about a politician. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal sense is the CityWatchLA source is good, and is good to counter-balance the pro-Butts sources such as Inglewood Today (which tends to align with Butts and city hall), but I can see how others might feel it was an attack piece (note: there is a video of Butts being thrown out of a meeting; did you watch that?). So I'll agree to removing the CityWatchLA source. However, I disagree with CorporateM's statements that the charges of harassment by Butts and the police force against homeless persons were dismissed; in fact, the charges were upheld by a federal judge, the case which named Butts in the title went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld the verdict against Butts. This is well documented in the reliable sources in the article, including by the Santa Monica Daily Press here and here, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Associated Press, and confirmed in leagle, a legal source here, and the decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer, can you clarify? I think what you're saying is that these sources verify that a court found that Butts abused his police powers, but none of them actually say that. These two[12][13] are labeled as opinion and the second actually says "has been dismissed by a federal judge" in the first paragraph. Additionally, the other sources you provided are all regarding the lawsuit being filed and accusations made, but I have not found any reliable sources for the outcome of the court case. This often happens when lawsuits appear significant at-first, but turn out to be trivial. The media covers the exciting part, but not the more mundane and boring part of the case being dismissed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM, there are numerous sources. The ACLU filed suit in 1995; in 1996, it was dismissed for lack of standing (and that may be what the Santa Monica Mirror article was referring to, but the decision was appealed. In 1999, the the 9th circuit court ruled against the officers; see here also. Check out this source. In 2000, a law firm advised their clients about the law firm advising clients about the ruling. Here is another source. In 2000, the ACLU applauded the Supreme Court decision. In 2000, the Santa Monica city council, in closed session, discussed the Butts case. Essentially, in February 2000, the Supreme Court, by deciding not to review the Butts case, let the lower court case stand (the 9th circuit). In 2004, Supreme Court Justice Souter cited the Butts case. It is a landmark case. It is considered part of the Miranda warning law. Police officers who continue to question a suspect after the suspect has already invoked their 5th amendment rights can be punished.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer Do you feel the sources above pass WP:BLPPRIMARY? The policy reads as follows: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Please also note WP:BLPREMOVE. CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM, there are secondary sources (NY Times, LA Times, Human Rights Watch etc etc) which can be backed up by endless primary sources (see above). The article uses both as is proper. The case went to the Supreme Court. It is a landmark case.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, Corp's version is much to be preferred over the current version, which isn't laid out very clearly and is much too negative. For instance, the alleged claims of racial bias are from a lawsuit reported on in a reliable source, but what matters is the outcome: we do not usually included charges if they are later dismissed or whatever, and doing so in the absence of an outcome is undue, seriously undue. In fact, when I'm done here I'm going to make that edit. I agree also on the long quotes. Now, if there are more reliable sources than those blatantly unacceptable opinion pieces, the rest of that lawsuit story can be included, but no primary sources, and nothing that's even remotely fishy. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Drmies, @Tomwsulcer I had somewhat the same thought, we usually look for an outcome of a court case to have reliable, independent sources before it should be included for reasons I explain here. If it was a landmark case, we would expect the New York Times or a similar source to have covered how it ended. Just a heads up, another place I was intentionally over-compensating for my COI in the draft is in the Personal Life section. While reliably sourced, it is not within the boundaries of how we normally cover such private issues. CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM, @user:Drmies, I agree; generally I am impressed with Drmies version, highly professional, solved the tone problems, maintained neutrality, cut out the dubious sources. I had been thinking of making similar changes myself but I felt that I was too close to this debate that I felt it was not right to make substantive changes, with so many contributors fussing over it. I don't think we need to bring in the private issues stuff; probably just the battling between spouses for parental rights; I added it earlier only saying there was a dispute, I think it's too much to even bring up words like molestation etc particularly when nothing was proven. What I mean by "landmark" is that the CACJ v Butts case is law, upheld by the Supreme Court; clearly it is not on a par with Plessy v Ferguson etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop a line here mentioning that I've moved into place CorporateM's version, and wanted to thank everyone who is working on this issue and indicate very strongly that my move was not and is not intended to undermine or remove any of the hard work done by Drmies and others in terms of improving the article. My primary interest here is in making it easy to see the differences between the two versions and I have a general principle that when we have a BLP that has been (by universal agreement in this case as far as I can see) problematic in the past, we should bend over backwards to make sure that the problems are dealt with and we should add back the good work of Drmies and others as quickly as possible where it is stronger than the CorporateM draft. As I mentioned on the talk pages, my edits are done here as an ordinary user with a keen interest in BLP and do not represent a decree or final decision of any kind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor added some controversial content in the article about a living person Imran Khan, that to me appears BLP vio, closely paraphrased, some of which is non neutral point of view not even supported by the inline source, but the editor is persistent in adding it. Can someone please have a look. Thanks -- SMS ^Talk 22:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That article has seen a lot of editor involvement and I note the good efforts by NeilN, Nomoskedasticity, and yourself. I agree that Yousha hashmi (hereby pinged) has edit-warred and has been inserting NPOV material (to put it mildly, very mildly). Well, they've been warned, so they know that a next instance is probably blockable, but I trust (from their comments) that this won't be necessary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Garcia (California politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Garcia is a candidate for Mayor of Long Beach. His opponent, Damon Dunn, made false accusations about Garcia during the campaign, just a few weeks ago. These accusations were briefly covered in the local press. The city prosecutor investigated and found no wrongdoing by Garcia. That also got brief coverage. There has been no more coverage of the false accusations.

I do not believe these accusations belong on Garcia's biography page. The election is 2 weeks away, and they serve only to muddy the waters. They do not meet the standard of lasting impact. They fall into the categories of sensationalism, breaking news, and criminal acts found not to be true. If Barack Obama's page doesnt include mention of the birth certificate "controversy", and George Bush's page has no mention of 911 conspiracy theories, which are unverified but have been covered in the press over many years, then Garcia's page shouldn't include these accusations, which have had no lasting presence in the press.

I have removed the material but an editor continually adds it, and has threatened to remove me for "vandalism".

108.0.207.171 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at both this page and Damon Dunn, the candidate's opponent. It's apparent they're both being edited by editors with conflicts of interest, or at the very least, the intent of making their disfavored candidate look bad. I've stripped material out and made notice on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Garcia (California politician) has frequently been in the Long Beach, California news since around mid-April, during which time there have been several news stories in area mainstream newspapers about:

1. The appearance of Robert Garcia lawn signs on private commercial property, frequently high up on poles or in other locations that made them difficult to remove.

2. An incident on March 21st involving the Garcia campaign bussing would-be voters to the City Clerk's office for early voting, the details of which resulted in an investigation for "voting irregularities" by the Long Beach City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor later dropped the case.

I have added these incidents to the Robert Garcia article in a neutral tone, presenting both sides of the issue(s) along with multiple, quality in-line citations for each from two of the area's major mainstream newspapers (The Orange County Register, The Press-Telegram), two of the area's smaller mainstream community newspapers (The Grunion Gazette, The Beachcomber), and well-known area news websites. These are not conspiracy theories, not "false accusations", and received much more ongoing press coverage from reliable sources than most of the other information present on Mr. Garcia's article. To quote from an article published in The Beachcomber newspaper (http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367), "Garcia's campaign has attracted unwanted attention on a variety of fronts". These are locally well-known issues and incidents, and the Long Beach area mainstream press has continually made mention of them in nearly all election-related articles about Mr. Garcia.

IP editor 108.0.207.171 has taken to removing all such information from Robert Garcia (California politician), and has also been adding unsourced, contentious material to Damon Dunn (these two are opponents in an upcoming election). I tried to discuss the situation with him/her at length on the Robert Garcia talk page, Damon Dunn talk page, on 108.0.207.171's talk page, and on my own talk page, and have issued him/her warnings: I strongly believe the blanking of well-sourced material to be a form of vandalism, and the addition of unsourced, contentious material to Damon Dunn is in gross violation of WP:BLP. I strongly suspect 108.0.207.171 to be the same editor as 71.9.35.34, who removes/restores the same material and was previously warned on his/her talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.9.35.34) by a different editor for vandalizing Bonnie Lowenthal (another of Garcia's political opponents)

I believe this to be a good faith misunderstanding of WP:VNT on the part of the IP editor, especially based upon his/her comments on my talk page and the Robert Garcia talk page, where I tried to explain the concept at length. He/she seems to be editing based on what he/she believes to be true, disregarding verifiability. Ibanez100 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, there was significant undue weight placed on those apparently-minor incidents. They merit brief mentions, if any, and should not overwhelm the remainder of the article. I'm also concerned about the tone of the sections, which clearly were written in a manner tending to negatively implicate the article subject - and frankly, one of them lied by omission, which makes them even more suspect. The campaign investigation was not dropped for "a lack of evidence," it was dropped because the prosecutor determined that no law was broken.

The section discussing that investigation was nearly 300 words - five times as long as the section discussing his entry to the mayoral race. The section about busing students in for voting is a news story, not an encyclopedic event. Not everything that appears in a newspaper belongs in someone's biography.

Frankly, based on your edit history - your only substantive edits since 2011 are to Damon Dunn and Robert Garcia - you appear, at this point, to be a single-purpose account whose sole goal is to depict Garcia as negatively as possible due to personal or political opposition. That is not how we write encyclopedic biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material I added used the phrase "insufficient evidence" (not "lack of evidence") specifically because that was what was used in the newspaper articles cited:

"Citing insufficient evidence, Long Beach City Prosecutor Doug Haubert has dropped his inquiry into one of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia’s get-out-the-vote efforts involving the city’s Cambodian community." (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-614323-haubert-garcia.html)

"City Prosecutor Doug Haubert said Wednesday he is closing an inquiry into alleged voting irregularities involving the mayoral campaign of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia after finding insufficient evidence to show any law was violated." (http://www.presstelegram.com/government-and-politics/20140514/long-beach-prosecutor-finds-no-irregularities-in-cambodian-voting)

Would you feel more comfortable if it were phrased in the Wikipedia article as "insufficient evidence to show any law was violated"? That would be fine with me, and a bit more descriptive actually. And again, I specifically tried to show the perspectives of both sides of the story, making sure to include sourced quotes from Garcia's campaign in regard to the incidents. The busing of students is a part of the March 21st voter-busing controversy. While I am curious as to why I am a "single-purpose account" (unfortunately true in effect, given that I don't have time these days to make major edits to multiple articles!) yet 108.0.207.171 (a.k.a. 71.9.35.34?) apparently is not nearly so offensive, it doesn't really matter in the end; this should be about how to improve the article at hand. As I said on the Robert Garcia talk page: while I understand that the incidents in question may seem trivial in the big scheme of national or world politics, such is the nature of city politics: I encourage you to read through the various mainstream Long Beach-area newspapers so that you see the extent of the coverage these incidents received. News articles about Robert Garcia are themselves weighted heavily towards these incidents, to the extent that excluding them from his Wikipedia article would be in itself a weight issue and a misrepresentation. But I will see what I can summarize, if that helps? Ibanez100 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for further input: The article has changed significantly since this notice was originally posted. As per the requests of User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I have significantly shortened the material regarding the campaign sign controversy and city prosecutor's investigation; they now appear in one concise, very well-sourced paragraph in the new mayoral campaign section that User:NorthBySouthBaranof created. I believe this now fulfills his/her statement (above) that they merit only brief mentions and should not overwhelm the article, though he/she is still blanking the material and referring to it as "partisan charges" by Garcia's political opponent, despite numerous articles from mainstream newspapers verifying the fact that the two incidents occurred and received very significant ongoing press coverage. Could additional editors please read the article's talk page and comment on this diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Garcia_%28California_politician%29&diff=609872053&oldid=609869182)? I have gone to great lengths to discuss the situation with the IP editor (who seems to have disappeared) and User:NorthBySouthBaranof, but this seems to be reaching an impasse. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have boldly inserted significant negative imputations about an active candidate for office and your editing history suggests that you have a conflict of interest in this matter - you appear to support Garcia's electoral opponent in this race. Your additions have been reverted several times by three different editors. It is now your responsibility to discuss your proposed additions and gain consensus that they are appropriate for the article before reinserting them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed the situation at great length with you, both here and on the Robert Garcia (California politician) talk page. My current proposal for the text, visible in the diff in my comment above, addresses all the complaints/suggestions I recall you making:

Make it a lot shorter? Done. Edit for clarity? Done. Keep it to only one place in the article? Done. Remove mention of Damon Dunn's lawyer's letter to the City Prosecutor? Done. Remove the pool party portion of the busing incident? Done. Neutral language? Done to my best ability: I thought the wording was neutral already, though I changed the wording again in hopes of finding something we both could live with, hewing more closely to the cited material by using a quotation.

Unfortunately, your response is still to simply blank the material and then tell me to discuss it, as if I haven't been doing so this whole time. Despite my repeated invitations, you have yet to edit or propose specific changes to the material you apparently find offensive; it amounts to a version of "I don't like it, you fix it!", but of course no amount of my changing it to comply with your stated preferences results in anything more than another blanking of some extremely well-sourced material. Despite my ongoing efforts to find consensus, you seem quite determined to see that consensus is never achieved, perhaps out of a desire to whitewash the article prior to the upcoming election.

Once more, the "significant negative imputations" are in fact two incidents that received significant, ongoing coverage in Long Beach-area mainstream newspapers and respected news websites. Here are some sources for the sign incident:

http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367

http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4331

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/signs-606820-campaign-garcia.html

http://www.lbreport.com/14elec/indie/indx3.htm

...and the voter-busing incidents and City Prosecutor's investigation:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-610495-garcia-haubert.html

http://www.presstelegram.com/government-and-politics/20140419/long-beach-looking-into-possible-voting-irregularities

http://www.lbreport.com/14elec/voteirr/voteirr1b.htm

http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367

http://www.gazettes.com/news/early-long-beach-voting-incident-prompts-examination/article_fdc2ce50-cb0b-11e3-8721-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2014/04/21/complaint-against-robert-garcia-suggests-voter-fraud-in-lb-mayor-campaign/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/garcia-611150-campaign-vote.html

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-614323-haubert-garcia.html

http://www.presstelegram.com/government-and-politics/20140514/long-beach-prosecutor-finds-no-irregularities-in-cambodian-voting

I think there are some I forgot to add, but that's a good start. Now it's your turn: could you edit the text in my diff to something you find more agreeable? Ibanez100 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed my opinion on the article Talk page, as have others. Not a single editor besides yourself has suggested that this material belongs in his biography. When literally nobody else agrees with you, it may be time to consider whether you should stop beating a dead horse. Just because you want something in his biography doesn't mean it's going to go on his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comment further illustrates my point: by your own admission now, you apparently have no interest in working toward consensus and instead have decided to simply blank whatever you don't personally believe is true, regardless of verifiability (WP:VNT). This is tantamount to vandalism, and the presence of multiple vandals (if they indeed have the same intent as do you) does not override the principles of WP:VNT nor WP:CONSENSUS. Ibanez100 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how consensus works. There is no consensus that your additions are appropriate for the article. Indeed, you are the only person who has repeatedly inserted them, while at least three separate editors have repeatedly removed them and expressed concern that the material misrepresents facts, places undue weight on minor incidents and is only tangentially, at best, linked to Garcia's biography.

Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we have to include it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything ever published in a newspaper. It is incumbent on you to justify its inclusion and develop a consensus that the material belongs in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to need some more eyes. At first glance it appears to be ripe for deletion under BLPCRIME. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to the crime-related information that several editors insist on adding (e.g. here here here here). Judging from the article, Ben Levin is "relatively unknown" and nothing has been proved in court, which must mean you're right. Incidentally the article's frequent additions and reversions about an alleged crime have attracted attention of bloggers. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just added some myself. Helpful material from LPI:

High-profile. Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication as a self-described "expert"... Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities such as book signings... Has appeared as a featured speaker for an event which garnered significant non-local coverage... Has sought or holds a position of authority in a field of research... Was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now attempting to be low-profile.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Dervorguilla here... this isn't a one-shot flash in the pan news item, it's someone notable for significant public activities (including high government office) who's been charged with an unrelated crime. Hard to see how we could omit mention, given the volume and significance of RS coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the Indian election over I had hoped the partisan nonsense would die down. Alas... An IP is trying to insert a corruption section here. Despite the edit summary, the sources are allegations by political opponents, not any RTI (right to information) report. Some eyes please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a current RFC that a porn actor's non-voluntarily disclosed identity and a misdemeanor charge should be cited in the lead. There's some BLP arguments that need addressing by experienced editors, including suggestions that someone who was in the porn industry forfeits other expectations of privacy; whether it's important whether we know if the subject is alive; whether long-standing material should be considered BLP-safe because the subject hasn't personally contacted us to complain; as well as other interesting arguments. The editor's have decided to leave the BLP-questioned material in the article during the RFC, which seems off to me.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP-questioned material comes out of an article pending discussion and consensus. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is being discussed. I see there is a claim of consensus in the edit summary but it also looks like it's saying the material should stay in while it's being discussed in the form of an RFC.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, NYB, looking through it in more detail, I don't see a clear or explicit consensus to re-introduce the material removed on a BLP referenced diff, so I'll remove it until the RFC works out whether it's compliant. You can let me know if it looks right to you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A) It seems some question if she is living, so under the BLP rules we assume she is alive until sources say otherwise. B) What exactly is an alias? Is that supposed to be her birth name, another stage name? If it is her birth name, it is germane to the article. I'm assuming that this is well sourced, but she appears to be a well known celebrity in her chosen field, so it probably exists. I hardly find this contentious. Or is there more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)

The citation is the Associated Press reporting nationally on a public-information arrest report. She was arrested while doing promotion for one of her films, and in the standard course of an arrest provided ID. Some editors are suggesting, with no evidence whatsoever but only their POV, that that she lied to police or falsified her ID. This AP report of public information is WP:RS WP:VERIFY that meets WP:BLP standards. Unless the AP reporting public-record information is somehow not RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desireé Cousteau report

Desireé Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• An ongoing RfC at Talk:Desireé Cousteau#Request for comment is not going well for the requester, so that editor has resolved to maintain the BLP violation in the article before the issue has been resolved. Editor Tenebrae is unwilling to comply with BLP policy, which indicates that a potential violation should be removed until and unless there is a consensus to return the content to the article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is only this editor's opinion I am "unwilling to comply with BLP": The citation is the Associated Press reporting nationally on a public figure's public-information arrest report. She was arrested while doing promotion for one of her films, and in the standard course of an arrest provided ID. This editor has suggested, with no evidence whatsoever but only his POV, that that she lied to police or falsified her ID. This AP report of public information is WP:RS verification that meets WP:BLP standards. Unless the AP reporting public-record information is somehow not RS. A misdemeanor arrest in the course of her public duties promoting her film is not contentious or a "violation". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source is not being used for the arrest, just for the "other" name, which is given undue weight by its inclusion in the lead of the article. It is an alias among several likely other names used by the subject. In any case, it is contentious material and should not be used in the article at least until the RfC issue has been resolved. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just commented at the RfC [14], and I encourage other BLPN regulars to have a look at the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in the lead of this Sri Lankan MP's BLP reads "He has been accused of and has been involved in several controversies ranging from fraud, criminal record, remand time, fraud bureau investigations, unpaid loans, spying, overstepping and unfulfilled promises." as I write this. I shall revert the latest edit shortly.

I'm no expert in how we deal with BLP's or good sourcing for Sri Lankan based articles, despite having lived there, but it seems to me that if this guy was sharp, he could probably take wikipedia to the cleaners in the US courts for the frankly astonishing things we are saying about him.

I feel like reducing the whole thing to "'Subject' is a Member of the Sri Lankan Parliament for Galle" and waiting to see what happens. Should I, or should I wait for comment here, or at the Talk page? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a BLP minefield. It needs to be pared down even beyond what you already did there. Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which you have done, thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was so utterly horrible that I just semi'd it for 30 days. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Messing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fake/defaced article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.75.140 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vandalism. I think the article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Cwobeel (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerry_Messing. Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Wecksell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Did huge edit and update on Evan Wecksell. After a few minutes it reverted back as if I did nothing. Explanation? Or help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanw219 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Evanw219: Assuming you are Evan Wecksell, please read WP:COI for some information about editing articles about oneself. Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:XLinkBot reverted your edits. Take a look at the bot's user page for guidance as to why.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now on AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Wecksell. Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me David Frum was removed from he toronto Sun for making up stuff when reporting about a conservative convention in Canada it would of been near the end of mulroneys tenure as prime minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.241.143 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this article to Ulysses Cuadra instead, as noted on IMDb that is how he spells his name. So I am just requesting that Ulises Cuadra be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeCakee (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it a redirect. Not sure about notability… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently has:

According to Rich Miller of Bloomberg News, Chris Giles of the Financial Times said the book relies on "transcription errors, unexplained statistical modifications and “cherry picking” of sources". “Some issues concern sourcing and definitional problems,” Giles said. “Some numbers appear simply to be constructed out of thin air.” Piketty responded by saying he had to adjust statistics from a diverse set of data. < ref>Piketty Book on Inequality Has Errors, Financial Times Says Rich Miller; Bloomberg News, 23 May 2014.< /ref>

sourced directly to Bloomberg News and indirectly to Financial Times, each of which outght to be RS for the quite bland material added. The issue has made all the major wire services here, and the wording makes no claims at all in Wikipedia's voice which should be contentious. However, there appears to be a belief that the section on the book ought to have no remotely negative comments therein. Ought a section on a major book include some comments relating to major news stories about that book? If the wording in any way accusatory of ill-doing on the part of the author in Wikipedia's voice? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are allegations of academic misconduct. For an academic, it might as well be a crime. So we should wait to see what sort of consensus emerges among economists about the merits of the accusations. WP:NOTNEWS, n'est pas? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are documented and admitted instances of incorrect or altered values being used (Piketty so states, in fact) - which is not a crime, but may be embarrassing for Piketty. It is now covered in well over two hundred RS sources, and should be covered in a neutral manner, but refusing to mention it at all is not being "neutral" AFAICT. It made the Guardian, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Slate, and every major newspaper out there. Each hour adds to the mass of coverage, and we can forget anything embarrassing, but we ought not say "IDONTLIKEIT" as the reason at all. There is no allegation of any crime - only of admitted errors which Piketty made, and of adjustments to data which Piketty states he made. Were the wording accusatory, I would be the first to remove it onBLP grounds, but I suggest that it meets NPOV as well as any item can. Collect (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so hard to reconcile Collect's desire to take the article discussing a controversy but not taking sides on it with his typically protective view on BLP's that I had to figure out what it was that was so different about this person than his usual whitewashes. Then I figured it out - he's a liberal! Given that the Bloomberg article uses specific attribution regarding the claims of malfeasance, and makes it clear that there are alternative opinions, to state the malfeasance as fact in Wikipedia's voice is inappropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor repeatedly inserted material copied from the Times of India regarding a police report filed against Chaurasia.[15] I removed the material, but the IP editor rewrote it.rewrite There are clearly major BLP issues here - we're violating WP:LABEL by calling Chaurasia "controversial", we say that he is "often" accused of accepting money to publish falsified news reports and to tarnish the reputation of others - with a citation to a report about only one such accusation - and we say that a First Information Report (FIR) has been filed against him. I'm not familiar with Indian law, but it sounds like an FIR is a complaint filed by a third-party before any official investigation has begun. I doubt that reporting this is acceptable under WP:BLP. I am at 3RR, otherwise I'd just remove it all myself.GabrielF (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not think that the issue pertaining the use of sockpuppets by him should be censored. An incomplete, positively biased bibliography would result. He does not risk anything since in Italy the acedemic system does not imply any actions for such a behavior: neither his academic position not his salary are at risk. The story is based on several independent sources which cannot be questioned. On which basis, say, a hypothetical article in New York Times would be reputed more reliable if it necessarily would be based on the same sources as here? Or, on which basis it would be decided to deliberately ignore also such a hypothetical article? What would be required to be considered as a reputable source to have this story in his article? 56OKLO34 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive discussion of this issue on the article talk page. I have reverted your bold edits to the article and you need to gain consensus for your proposal on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, please, answer my questions listed above? Thank you.56OKLO34 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should take place on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing at all inappropriate about bringing this issue to BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it helps to discuss things in one place and not duplicate it, considering that this is not the first time the issue has been discussed. @FreeRangeFrog:, @Headbomb:, @Cwobeel: should be notified if this is going to be brought up again here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications are entirely unnecessary and indeed counterproductive. The point of a noticeboard is to get new, uninvolved input -- not to have existing participants cover the same ground in another location. I get the sense you're trying to control this discussion, and it isn't helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time a brand-new single-purpose account has showed up to that article seeking to insert the same disputed material. It has been hashed over several times. If this editor is seeking to form a new consensus that the material is suitable, it is disingenuous to intentionally omit from the discussion editors who have experience with the material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There actually aren't "several independent sources" here. You have a primary source (an article by an involved person), an unreliable secondary source (anonymous blog) and a maybe-reliable science blog which does nothing more with the story than post a link to the aforementioned unreliable secondary source. "Elitesecurity.org" is a web forum and obviously not a reliable source. Your other questions are entirely hypothetical and I decline to answer invented hypotheticals other than to say that yes, if there was an article in The New York Times expressly discussing these allegations, then yes, it would belong in the biography. But that's not the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• From a first look, I'd say that the source by Iorio justifies some coverage of this incident. Editors should stick to good quality sources -- but it's apparent that there is at least one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existing talk page consensus is that there are no reliable secondary sources covering the issue. The Discover Magazine blog is anonymous, and therefore by definition not capable of being a reliable source for negative material about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User 56OKLO34 is forum shopping. This should be settled matter by now. Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What rubbish. Another complaint about an editor raising at BLPN a question about a BLP, after having raised it at the talk page but at no other venue. What exactly is your problem with this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alex S. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the information contained in this article is untrue. And other parts of things credited to him that were done by other people. I highly suggest that you take this page down completely. It contains a lot of false information, plagiarism and exaggeration of facts. It deliberately uses sources that are no longer in business so that they cannot be verified . My source is that I wrote it because he asked me to. And I am sure that you can verify this through the IT number of mine or my son's computer. Charie D. La Marr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.54.7 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used in articles should be published reliable sources. Using information directly from the subject violates any number of policies: WP:Primary sources, WP:No original research, WP:Conflict of interest (because you're writing at the subject's request), etc. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revdel requested of these two edits by Sixxfeetundr, clearly a violation of WP:BLP as it posts alleged personal information including residence address of subject and family members and phone numbers. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Personal information was revdel'd and oversighted. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Right Sector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Evidence from Ukraine suggests that re-publishing this material (diff) could perhaps harm some members’ lives:

"Other founding groups included the neo-Nazi (or neo-fascist) organizations Patriot of U—— and the Social-National A——."

Restoring the material would go against the response (Oppose 6–3) to the pertinent RfC: Should we say in the lead say that group members are neofascist?.

Only a single verified source has been cited for each allegation. Two of the four sources cited failed verification. WP:PUBLICFIGURE

None of the larger (non-Russian) mainstream publications make these allegations. Nor does the German, Russian, or Ukrainian Wikipedia. WP:UNDUE

Several group members have asked editors to remove the material. Two examples: Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014 and The main characteristic of the Right Sector is incorrect.

"Companies are, at the end of the day, just *groups of people*. And there are very strong BLP considerations for groups of people…." User talk:Jimbo Wales#Legal persons and BLP.

According to Reuters, the subject group believes that Wikipedia’s depicting it as having fascist and neo-Nazi views is producing unspecified "appropriate consequences." --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'm very unsympathetic to BLPGROUP arguments (it gives organisations too much power to spin themselves, regardless of what academic research might produce) -- but in this case there are plenty of good reasons not to characterise Right Sector this way. Mainly, because this characterisation is not used in a wide range of reliable sources. It is virtually absent from Google Scholar search results -- and the main result where it can be found comes from something called the Centre for Research on Globalization (have a look at that link to see where it leads). As a simple matter of WP:V, I think the assertion should not be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses Christopher Jafferlot as a resource who might not be unbiased. Please see the following article: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/debunking-the-facts-on-narendra-modi-and-muslims-1218661.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathanjacobs (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Jaffrelot vs. "Asifa Khan is a member of the Gujarat BJP, and Zafar Sareshwala is a Gujarati businessman who opened a dialogue with Modi to improve the lot of Muslims in Gujarat" Hmmm.... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article Laurence S. Cutler, an article on his wife Judy Goffman Cutler, and another on their museum National Museum of American Illustration are clearly promotional materials. They exclusively cite their own websites and use extremely positive language (completely lacking neutrality). They are also far more detailed the subject matters merit. I believe they violate both the NPOV and V provisions of living biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Please Let's Not (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the museum doesn't seem overtly promotional - it describes the museum in a rather positive tone, but given the fact that it's a museum... I'm not sure there's any reason to expect there to be "balance" in an article about an art museum. Is there someone significant who is *opposed* to the art museum? Also, a museum isn't a BLP.

If you think the biographies are overtly promotional, feel free to be bold and edit them to be less-so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see now that you tried, but were reverted by an anti-vandal bot. It helps when you make large removals of content to explain in the edit summary what you are doing and why - if you do not use the edit summary or make a post on the article Talk page when removing a lot of text, some may assume vandalous or inadvertent action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I'm a newbie. The issue with the museum is that the entry is used to promote their private gallery. I had more success cleaning up the promotional aspects of their biographies today, but the majority of the sources touting the importance of the couple and their museum are self-published. Isn't that a no-no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Please Let's Not (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts are basically sound, so feel free to keep hacking away. Slow and steady is better than trying to achieve everything in one go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article omits negative facts and issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.29.18 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruby Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ruby Andrews attempting to edit what is apparently an article about herself, and ignoring all advice about formatting and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It is inherently unlikely that she had a hit record at age 11 - but, she has been asked to discuss that and other changes, without any effect. Advice welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes please. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create redirects for victims of crimes, in cases where the victim is not likely to be notable? Or should it only be for perpetrators of crimes? example - we have Elliot Rodger (the killer) but not George Chen (one of the victims). This actually makes sense to me, but I'm trying to figure out the general rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]