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

In the article about Tipu Aziz it says in the first paragraph:

"Tipu Zahed Aziz (born 1956)" which is in contrary to the infobox, where it says:

"Born 1966 (age 47–48) East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)"

I can't find any reliable information about his age. If anybody does know his real age, please feel free to edit. Rosannn (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made by an IP address from Oxford University claiming to be Tipu Aziz.[1] Since no reliable source was found, I have removed both dates from the article. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Selvarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability

This article is misleading, It states that he has created a comedy series for channel 4 UK, yet it was a short pilot, shown once on channel4's experimental comedy lab. The references and praise refer to the "Comedy Lab" show itself & not the segment produced by Mr Selvarajah

Other than this I cant find anything else notable to hang an entire article off for this person.

His IMDB lists one credit as a writer/actor, one episode.

His page also mentions advertising awards and yet I find zero references to this on alengthy google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.174 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability concerns are dealt with here. I have nominated the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indy Selvarajah, editors will decide whether the article is deleted or not. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is pure coincidence that I'm on ANI again, but with User:BlueSalix reverting and insisting on calling someone a "child molester" who has never been charged let alone convicted of this extremely heinous crime, it seemed serious enough to warrant an immediate admin look-see. Additionally, the person he's citing never used the phrase "child molester," a label that implies a continuing pattern.

It is an ad-hominem attack to claim User:BlueSalix is insisting on calling someone a child molester. The issue is whether the statement made is true, well sourced, consistent with the source, notable, relevant and consistent with WP practices. It has nothing to do with User:BlueSalix and it is wrong to focus the argument this way.Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought before Wikipedia gives its imprimatur to a "child molester" claim against someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law, more eyes ought to look at this. [2], [3]. At the very least, we shouldn't call someone a child molester without talk-page consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 5:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Moved from WP:AN/I

 – LFaraone 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to quote the exact words, which according to at least one news report were "Missed the Woody Allen tribute — did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?" (see http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/ronan-farrow-takes-shot-woody-allen-tribute-article-1.1577594#ixzz2uqeBpO6O). Assuming that this quote is accurate -- and I rather suspect it is, although a 2nd source would be good in view of the serious nature of the comment -- then I don't find paraphrasing that as "Farrow called Allen a child molester" out of line. A molester can be anyone who has molested a child at least once, it need not imply a repeated pattern. In any case, edit warring over this is not a good idea. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a contentious claim but one that has gotten a lot of coverage for years. However it should be treated conservatively. It's handled well at Woody_Allen#Children, and that could possibly be a guide to how to handle it elsewhere. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I should add that there is a difference between "X is a child molester" and "A called X a child molester". The former we should not include without a conviction, but the latter, while needing clear and reliable sources, and some notability for the statement to be included, does not IMO require a conviction, though we should probably add "X was never charged with such an offense." DES ^(talk) 22:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and agreed. The edit User:Bob_the_goodwin (not me) made was to say "X called Y a child molester," not "Y is a child molester." BlueSalix (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with all of the suggestions in the previous paragraph. Agree that this should be conservatively written. I chose to be concise, which I thought was the more conservative approach, but am totally open to these other approaches.Bob the goodwin (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DE, while we have your attention, would you mind closing this RfC at Ronan Farrow: Talk:Ronan_Farrow#Mia_Farrow_.2F_Frank_Sinatra_Extramarital_Affair? I've filed a request at the requests for closures board but it's hopelessly backlogged. I think this is pretty cut and dry and in any other article I would close it myself, but I'm cautious on this article as virtually any edit I make gets me dragged to ANI. BlueSalix (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not "insist on calling someone a child molester." User:Bob_the_goodwin made an edit in which he inserted "Farrow is estranged from his father, Woody Allen, whom he claims is a child molester." which is true, Farrow called Allen a child molester. BlueSalix did not call Allen a child molester (nor did I even make this edit except to revert a series of unilateral undos made by above editor to what User:Bob_the_goodwin contributed). A discussion on the merit of the insertion was initiated on the Talk page, but above editor decided, instead, to engage in continuous reverting of User:Bob_the_goodwin and myself. That's that.

Second, to the likely forthcoming question of WP:BOOMERANG; aside from this gross mischaracterization of the issue to cast me as some kind of culprit, I will need to note that above editor regularly files voluminous reports against me in ANI and direct appeals to Admins. While these have never yet been upheld, they have become so time consuming I have a standing policy that I no longer monitor these threads beyond an initial reply, so accept my advance apologies if I do not reply to the barrage of new charges and refutations of things I just said that I know are forthcoming. You may want to review the talk page for Ronan Farrow, or the editor's most recent ANI against me here: [[4]], or one of his more particularly vicious outbursts of name calling against other editors in these Talk archives for the same article - [[5]] - in which he calls me a "liar," "a little kid," "dishonest," a "crybaby," and a variety of other names. I know I'm risking WP:CIVIL when I say this, but his tone in this article has become so over-the-top aggressive that any modification of this article has become impossible. Many of us are really at a loss about what to do. (Note that this article has so far had 15 single-purpose sock accounts blocked at my initiation, see here for once of several cases - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive - and above editor has been outspoken in requesting investigations into these sock accounts not move forward. This may be the source of his anger at me, I really don't know.) Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSalix, as he frequently does, produces a bludgeoning wall of text and makes bad-faith accusations. I happen to take child-molestation accusations against a living person very seriously, while he appears to be much more cavalier about the issue. He's saying that throwing around the label "child molester" is the most neutral language and the most encyclopedic tone. He and User:Bob_the_goodwin chose to use that blunt-tool phrase when more neutral phrasing could have been used.

I ask BlueSalix: How has modification of the article become "impossible" when you currently have the edit you want, calling Woody Allen a child molester? Methinks thou dost protest too much. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are, additionally, falsehoods and misstatements of fact in BlueSalixs post — all tangential, smokescreen issues not about his use of the phrase "child molester" against a living person who has never even been charged with child molestation. For one thing, the ANI posted about a fringe-science claim regarding a vaccine has been upheld with admins admonishing another editor and protecting the page. You can't just write falsehoods and then complain when someone calls you on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the bit of the article where Allen is called a child molester by BlueSalix, rather than reported on as having been called a child molester by Farrow? In my mind there's a pretty big distinction between "X is a child molestor" and "X has been called a child molester". Could you explain why they're identical to you, and counter DES's argument? --Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can call anybody a child molester. We're repeating a heinous, unproven claim against a living person who is innocent both legally and as far as anyone knows. We — Wikipedia — are choosing to include this accusation, which a prosecutor did not feel had enough credence even to bring to trial. Since we could chose not to tar a legally innocent man as a child molester, yet are choosing to repeat this claim, then, yes, Wikipedia is saying "X is a child molester." --Tenebrae (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DESiegel about using the source's actual phrasing. We should also state the allegation briefly but precisely (i.e. that it referred to Dylan Farrow) if we use it at all. If the source didn't include the phrase "child molester" then Wikipedia editors shouldn't wp:synthesize such a description and pass it off as a "summary". I'm neutral over whether there's already too much detail about Woody Allen in the article that's supposedly about Ronan Farrow. I do think the article should say something about the estrangement, but a shorter treatment may be enough. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was no synthesis. [6] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic.

Here now arrives another of the infamous Ronan Farrow IP editors. Right on schedule. BlueSalix (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a look at edit history, the above IP editor is most likely someone other than who you think.

The cited source did not have the term "child molester", so I changed the article text into a quote of Farrow's online post. Binksternet (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The M.O. of this PR agency's socks is establishing a minor edit history prior to engaging in this article, or the use of dormant accounts that were created in '07 and '08 and spring to life to grammar-edit miscellaneous pages a week before beginning full-time "BattleWiki" editing on Ronan Farrow. There's usually several keywords they use - and WP policies they invoke - that help you ID them, though. I can provide some examples of banned socks to demonstrate this pattern, or background from inquiries I've received off-Wiki from media who are looking into this article's extremely strange history, as I don't want to veer it off-topic. (Suffice to say I've become somewhat of an expert at identifying Bertelson's socks, though I think I'm about to throw-in the towel as I don't have the full-time bandwidth to devote to this like they do.) That said, this is a topic for another thread.

To your edit - I'm not sure Farrow posted "a woman publicly confirmed" that Allen "molested her at age 7" is functionally different from "Farrow called [Woody Allen] a child molester" but I don't have an issue with either version, so a warm thanks for offering this direction. My only real interest is that another editor made the choice to level the accusation at me in ANI that I (BlueSalix) had called Woody Allen a child molester (on the basis of me using the "revert" button to protect one of Bob the goodwin's edits). (Accept my apologies in advance if anything I just said sounds snippy; not my intent. Despite my best efforts, I have found my nerves getting a little raw due to having to daily defend myself from an editor, backed by a rotating cast of socks, who have seemingly devoted themselves to getting me blocked by spreading misrepresentations across ANI.) Anyway, thanks for weighing in on this, Binksternet! Best - BlueSalix (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was no synthesis. here is the link: [7] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic.Bob the goodwin

That would need WP:INTEXT attribution to not be synthesis, but before being used it should also be assessed for weight and relevance, compared with the totality of documentation about the incident and about Ronan Farrow. The current version avoids the charged terminology but I think I'd back off on the tabloidy sources and rely more on the Vanity Fair article or other more careful sources. I'd also cross-reference the relevant section of the Woody Allen article that Sportfan5000 linked, and possibly mention the outcome of the police investigation (which didn't find anything to go on). 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must not have understood the word synthesis, I had assumed that since all four words I used were in the article in almost identical context that I had contributed nothing but brevity. As for adding claims of Woody's guilt or innocence, it is a slippery slope. While it is correct that charges were initiated by his ex wife, and that there was no trial, there are also well referenced articles that use other court documents to paint a very different picture. I do not think that an Article on Ronan has any business going into the how much public evidence exists, but we should be careful not to seem to take one position if we aren't willing to expand on the issue. Perhaps a simple solution is to leave the conclusion ambiguous and point to a different article. All that matters to this biography is that this notable person has chosen to make this accusation, and then not leave the impression that the opinion is the last word. I agree with your preferences for other sources.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a more detailed analysis someplace but the issue is basically explained at WP:YESPOV under "avoid stating opinions as facts". The formulation of Ronan's tweet as calling Allen a child molester is a synthesis/POV done by the Daily News, which we can use as a direct or indirect quote; but if we present the synthesis in Wikipedia's own voice (even with a footnote) then we engage in it ourselves. Obviously we're looser about this if a topic is uncontentious or if there's lots of sources saying the same thing. But allegations that a living person is a child molester is about as sensitive as it gets, so we have to use the highest level of care.

I think you're right that the passage shouldn't go into the details of the controversy and should instead link to another article to supply the context. Omitting the context completely creates a neutrality problem, however. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: the reason "child molester" is a synthesis rather than a summary is that it's a highly charged phrase, so using it changes the sentence's pathos from what a straightforward quote would present. Adding this type of coloration is ok for secondary sources but not for us. We can't convincingly assert that a rephrasing is neutral just because the factual content is equivalent. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great observation and I stand corrected. I'm still fine with either wording. Your original word choice, "Farrow called Allen a child molester" is as accurate as the current version and simply reads cleaner and more succinctly than the current version which has the choppy pacing and timbre of composition-by-committee. But, since the page protection on this article is about to expire and the flood of resume burnishing about to resume, we have bigger fish to fry (and me, personally, am facing the unenviable new flood of block campaigns from Bertelsman's accounts I'll have to spend my time defending against) to worry about splitting hairs on this one. BlueSalix (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm a bit stunned by our current wording. We essentially are endorsing that Allen is a child molester of a 7-year old girl. We can equivocate about how we are directly quoting or not actually saying what we are indeed implying but the damage is done. If we're going to crack the defamation door ajar we better get into all the details and explicitly explain if any charges have been filed, etc. I think we have this one wrong, and need to back up quickly. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the contextual info is omitted is is a good point. As you mention further up, Woody Allen#Children seems to explain the situation pretty well. Maybe it's enough to link to that. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree it may be enough to link to the children link you referenced.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Are we bound to include everything someone writes about their father (on Twitter) in their article (even if it has been repeated by others)? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been a very good discussion. I put the original words in, and agree with most comments in this section about making sure that Wikipedia does not seem to be making an accusation, and thus the wording clearly matters. It was my initial opinion that a few words clearly written in the voice of Ronan best met this goal, but the consensus decision will be better than my initial judgment. On the question of whether this is notable, relevant, and well sourced, of course it is. I think DES gave us some good guidance above on where the balance between useful and inflammatory information is drawn.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the correct answer to that rhetorical question is a resounding no. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BlueSalix, if you think there is a PR agency involved with this, can you open a thread at the COI noticeboard (WP:COIN) and post your evidence? That is better than making ABF accusations here. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to RfC on this issue

Bob the goodwin at the Ronan Farrow article seems so intent on calling Woody Allen a child molester that he has just removed two sentences, ported over from Woody Allen, that balance this hugely serious claim by noting no charges were ever filed and that Allen has denied the allegation. Why? Because he says it's "POV" to provide this balance and context. Please comment at Talk:Ronan Farrow#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I have repeatedly asked Tenebrae to stop making accusations against me. There is plenty of room for debate on this wording.Bob the goodwin (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion was bad because it removed the info that the allegations are disputed. I commented on this at the RFC. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, two editors aside from me, here and here, are asking Bob the goodwin to stop making his disruptive and violative edits. This follows a blatant falsehood he posted about another editor, which I called him on, here, supplying a link as proof. We and other editors at the RfC are all frustrated with this biased and argumentative editor who brought what has become clear from the RfC is a baseless BLPN charge. Could someone talk to him about his behavior ... please. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the eldest child of Professor Juan Gomez-Quinones and I am writing to you on his behalf concerning the DEFAMATORY & LIBELOUS CLAIMS being made under his biographical entry.

Under the section entitled "Criticism" under the entry Juan Gómez-Quiñones there is an UNTRUE and PATENTLY FALSE statement made regarding an UNCITED L.A. TIMES article which attempts to SLANDER my still living father's reputation with a contrived story involving former UC Regent Ochoa. This alleged incident is based purely on malicious gossip meant to SLANDER my father's personal and professional reputation.

I request that all WIKIPEDIA references to this alleged incident be EXORCISED IMMEDIATELY and that any future attempts to post such libelous stories on the WIKIPEDIA site be denied.

Failure to do so will result in legal action being taken against WIKIPEDIA on behalf of Professor Gomez-Quinones.

I also request from WIKIPEDIA any and all information regarding the POSTER of this information, as I intend to defend my father's reputation vigorously via legal channels.

Please contact me immediately should it be necessary to do so.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Tamara Gomez-Quinones [e-mail address redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.171.173 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the cricism section from Juan Gómez-Quiñones as it was based on a site called Uclaprof.com which is run by Bruin Alumni Association and is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standard. Thank you for adressing the issue. Please don't make legal threats on Wikipedia though; legal issues must be dealt with off-line. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the proper thing to do, but primarily because of the sourcing issue. The event actually did happen and is documented in RS. Tamara, legal threats can quickly get you blocked from Wikipedia and they also upset editors here. The Streisand effect can be pretty powerful! Wikipedia will not be threatened into silence or self-censorship. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a regular editor here, so we can't expect her to know about the ban against legal threats. As long as it is not repeated, it isn't a problem. People have the right to become upset if they see what they believe are wrong or misleading information about people they know or even are related to. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone is inserting their names and changing information on Tracy Morgan's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmischke (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian Parenti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few eyes on this in case I miss more activity - an IP insists on adding unreferenced controversial/potentially defamatory material. Reported through OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been subject to campaign vandalism by certain group of editors on Wikipedia who may be acting for Senator Cornyns multimillion dollar negative advertisement campaign. They have removed Congressman Policy Positions and replaced it with misstatements and malicious libel. These editors Tillman54, Famspear, Fredkin and others have managed to engaged in bias on this site. They have also successfully managed to have Stockman page locked to outside and so they control the editing and have any editor who corrects their campaign vandalism be called a sock puppet and blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.168.218 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to article: Steve Stockman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman54, Famspear, and their cohorts have managed to engaged in bias, malicious misstatement and removal of objective content on this page. They have also successfully managed to have Steve Stockman page blocked from objective editing by having any editor who puts objective content be called a sock puppet and blocked. If Tillman54, Famspear and their cohorts Steve hate Steve Stockman they should not be given a free hand for editing this page based on their subjective bias and lock everyone from editing this page. Please remove the protection on this page and open this page for everyone to edit. Thanks Aflac123 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you? That's what you want to do on the article? No thanks! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is well documented both at Talk:Steve Stockman and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian/Archive. Persistent sockpuppetry has been confirmed by SPI. The blocked editor (1houstonian) has been unwilling to follow or unable to understand wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and sourcing and would rather engage in sockpuppetry and namecalling. Many attempts have been made to explain best practices to this editor without success. Due to the repeated disruption, I see no reason to remove protection from the article. Aflac123 is welcome to draft text that he would like to see on the article talk page, but he has to be willing to listen to experienced editors when it comes to the tone and sourcing of that text. GabrielF (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not a chance. Try using the talk page to discuss your edits. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the edit linked by Nomoskedasticity contains at least one copyright violation - the first sentence (made into gibberish by the omission of the word 'ports') is copy-pasted from the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a community project with objective point of view. All you have in here is subjective misstatements, out of context stories which do not reflect this individual's bio. By protecting this page you are closing this page for edit by anyone who wants to introduce a neutral point of view and you have opened this page only to allow edits by Tillman54, Famspear, GabrielF and cohorts who do not like Steve Stockman and can only put in a biased hateful POV as you can see on this page. If they had some questions about Steve Stockmans policy positions or wanted a citation they could have requested it as is done on Wikipedia. They outright removed his Policy Positions to belittle a man that has been elected by 70% to Congressional office. In 2014 Senate Elections the incumbent Cornyn missed being forced into runoff by 9%[8]whereas Cornyn outspent Stockman 14 million to 100,000. Instead Tillman54 and his cohorts focus the nonsense about TCR defense in the 2014 Election section.Aflac123 (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read through the many objections to your preferred text that were raised at Talk:Steve Stockman and try rewriting the text to address those concerns? We have a pretty high bar for what gets into the encyclopedia, especially when its about living people, and when we reject contributions its usually because those contributions don't clear our bar, not because we don't like the ideas that were expressed. Instead of making accusations, why don't you assume that the dozen or so experienced editors who have looked at this are acting in good faith and try to revise your contribution taking into account the suggestions that we've made?GabrielF (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielF if your suggestion is in good faith I suggest you the put Policy Positions of Steve Stockman back in the bio page even a reduced version with notes on why you removed the others and remove the protection to edit by everyone as Wikipedia is supposed to be. Steve Stockman bio in its current condition is totally subjective in every sentence from start to finish. It is the only bio of serving politician that starts "American politician and member of the Republican Party who has been the United States Representative" instead of saying who is the current.Aflac123 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's on AfD for a few more days but looks like a lot of !votes will keep the article. They noted (adn I agree) that the tone is exclusively negative and not about what he would be notable for. Per ATTACK page policy of someone that is otherwise notable but unbalanced, I stubbed it. Please let someone else take a look so I don't edit war over it. Thx. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor reverted to the attack page and Bbb23 locked the page as in almost completely negative tone about material the subject is not notable for. Please take a look. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His firing should not be in the lead, at least in its current form.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been pending edit requests to improve it. Despite other editor requests to fix it and/or stub, Bbb23 has not unlocked it or corrected it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he sucked off 28 guards, which is probably inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.149.129 (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Childish vandalism, subsequently reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Emma Sky

A lot of material has recently been added to this article's talk page, including at least one long quote from an unreliable source and some unsourced comments that seem to attempt to link her to various scandals. I'm unsure exactly which parts of it need to be removed from the page (and particularly whether links should be removed), so it would be good if someone more sure of what they are doing could take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKiwiDeerPin (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page just reads like an advertisement at the moment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.45.182 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is virtually a stub article, with very thin detail about why Michael Roach is notable, on top of which a huge controversy section has been added, which seems to be aimed at publicizing the POV of some people who disagree with Michael Roach (full disclosure: I used to study with Michael Roach in Arizona). It would be nice if someone who doesn't have an axe to grind could look at the article and consider whether it is really encyclopedic and gives due weight to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reviewed Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was certainly a good edit, but it still seems remarkably unbalanced. Do you really think it's just fine the way it is? Abhayakara (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hiya, yes I do - was his marriage to his student a reported controversy, did the Dalai Lama's people comment as such, was the death on his property a reported controversy, yes, yes. yes, I tried to make the reporting as neutral as I could Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current controversy section is almost as long as the rest of the article, which covers his entire career up to the time of the controversy, and apparently stops there despite the fact that he continues to do stuff. So apparently that stuff is not notable, which suggests that the stuff he did before the controversy isn't either. If the controversy section is the only thing that's really interesting about him, then arguably we should just delete the article, because that suggests that he's not very interesting. That is, if some random person did what is reported in the controversy section, but was otherwise not notable, we would never have heard about it unless it happened in our town. So do you think the article ought to be deleted, or do you think it has value. And if it has value, can you explain what about Roach is notable? Abhayakara (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as for the student's death, he died in BLM land, not on the retreat center property (at least according to the cited sources). Abhayakara (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he "continues ot do stuff" please add to the article the details and reporting sources. "The current controversy section is almost as long as the rest of the article" - there is no longer a controversy section. - " as for the student's death, he died in BLM land, not on the retreat center property" - please correct that as the reports, I do not know about this person previous to reading this report. Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhayakara was instructed at COIN not to edit this article; I'm sure he remembers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember, although I think the request was bogus and the Wikipedia article is probably actionable. Unfortunately, Buddhist monks take a vow not to engage in legal action, so Wikipedia is safe from lawsuit, but since only POV pushers seem to be interested in this article, it makes for a pretty non-encyclopedic article. Abhayakara (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the article subject has contacted the WMF requesting that the article be evaluated for content. In my opinion, the last section is just a coatrack of quotes and positions, without any actual structure. When viewed that way, I could see an argument that it is a violation of BLP. Would there by someone here who would be willing to take a look at this article? Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in the "Reporting and opinions" section need to be scrutinized individually with possibly the entire section deleted. Some are irrelevant to the bio, some are mainstream views worded to make them look fringe and some are just wrong. For example one states that Madsen "suggested" that the prosecution of Eliot Spitzer was partly due to intervention by Mossad. Reading the source shows that in the 644 word article discussing the prosecution of Spitzer, only 56 words refer to Madsen where he claims that US intelligence believe the call girl service to be a front for Mossad and that he believes that organized crime outed him, in fact it is now known that Spitzer was outed by a federal wiretap on the call girl service making this entry no longer notable if it ever was. Another entry implies that Madsen is a Birther when in fact he was the first journalist to publicly discredit the Kenyan birth certificate. Some entries are Madsen simply reporting what third parties have claimed. Due to long standing difficulties in editing the article I suggest an admin be involved in any review of content. Wayne (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• James Bradley (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was an adulatory press release, which I've cut somewhat. Could use further attention. Thanks, 14:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JNW (talk)

• I'd really appreciate more eyes on this, not only for further de-puffing but for the efforts of several accounts removing maintenance templates and restoring an unencyclopedic version. JNW (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watching. Where's the notability here? This looks like it could be AFDed. There are only two valid claims to notability (publications and being named to some list) and both are unsourced. For publications to matter we require citation indexes, and being somewhere in a list of 65 doctors is not too hot either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good points all. Under references there's one newspaper article about him [9]; the rest is rather thin, or includes tangential mentions. JNW (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Murthy

The final sentence of the article regarding gun control is not supported by the cited article ("US Senate Panel approves Vivek Murthy’s nomination as Surgeon General". IANS. news.biharprabha.com. Retrieved 1 March 2014.). The final sentence includes a characterization of Mr Murthy's gun control stance, which when looking at the cited article is clearly a quotation from a critic, the NRA. The Wiki article fails to indicate that this sentence includes a quotation from a critic of Mr Murthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.199.194 (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, quite right. I'll remove this, and leave a note on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the first draft article ever discussed here? Anyway, this draft BLP is languishing in draft status even though it's clearly ready for the limelight. There have been two AfD's and two AfC's and still it's just sitting there in limbo. Maybe an admin could give it a push?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recommend deletion. Page was created in farce about a minor local radio personality and is full of farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck, some of that had been there since 2010 with nobody apparently picking up on it. Reverted to what appears to be a clean version and redacted all the BLP violations out of the log. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This article has suffered down the years from POV editing in both directions and I'm trying to clean it up. I'd be grateful for some assistance at this talk page, where I'm trying to establish consensus. Please click this section. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of bitcoin was recently claimed to be a japanese man living in the US, with a tell-all Newsweek article that exposed tons of personal details about this fellow. The person in question never directly agreed to the link (and had taken great pains to retain his anonymity, even calling the cops when the reporter showed up at his door), so eyes of this board on this profile would be appreciated, esp with respect to privacy of the subject. [10] --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been created and repeatedly re-edited over the past three months to post false and inflammatory information. The comments in the edits and talk section imply a personal vendetta. Apologize in advance if I've not included enough information--am new to this process.

Kerrysg (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)kerrysg[reply]

Can you be more specific? What content is "false and inflammatory"? I have seen some unambiguously subjective expression of opinion in the article, and have removed it, and there may well be more content that should be removed. However, since you know what you think the problems are, it will be helpful if you can tell us what they are, rather than leaving anyone who reads this to search through the article's history, search through the cited sources, etc etc, in order to try to find what problems there may be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Blaylock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr Blaylock, as an anon (AGFing that it is really him) has complained about aspects of the article on the helpdesk [11]. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on Talk:Russell_Blaylock#Russell_Blaylock_Post - not here. Thanks. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone take a look at this? There's a large number of individual names, most living people, in an article which connects a genocide with the family as a group. I came to this through the article on Murat (now a redirect), I would hope my concern would be obvious. Thanks in advance. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section [12]. No comment on the rest. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That satisfies my biggest concern, thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Antonio Toriello article seems now quite well cited by reliable sources which cover information of his early life confirmed by highly reputed source like UN as well, and much more cited than so many other articles published on Wikipedia which have pourer citing reliable sources. Therefore, I don't see the reason of not removing the "alerting noticeboard box" on this article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.60.27.70 (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns with sourcing seem to have been addressed, so I removed the tag. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Haring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm having trouble cleaning up this article.

Large sections (most of it) are non-neutral and either completely unreferenced or only have a self-published reference (which is inappropriate for non-neutral claims).

My edits are being undone as "vandalism" - example.

I don't want to get involved in an edit war, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could look at these unref'd BLP claims. Thanks. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a BLP issue, as this person died almost 25 years ago. That's not to say that there's no problem, but it doesn't come under the remit of this policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I sympathise with trying to get the biography impeccably cited, the article talk page is the best venue for this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Tom Harrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

playing as a sideman with Phil Woods Quintet - Bop stew (Concord 1987)

Philip Catherine Trio - I remember you (Criss Cross 1990)

Moods 2 (Criss Cross 1992) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.116.70 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Hill (basketball player)

So I stumbled across the reference to George Hill being an all-state goalie in HS. I was the same age and played in the same city/conference as him. As far as I know, he definitely did not make all-state as a goalie. He went to Broadripple HS, and they were terrible at soccer. They didn't have anyone in the Top Scoring, Top Assists, or Top Save or GPG rankings, and they lost in the first round of soccer playoffs (sectionals) every year I looked up. That doesn't mean he couldn't be all-state, but he doesn't show up on any of the official IHSAA all-state teams from his time in HS (in the links below).

• http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-soccer/02Leaders.htm
• http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-soccer/03Leaders.htm
• http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-soccer/00AllState.htm
• http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-soccer/01AllState.htm
• http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-soccer/02AllState.htm
• http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-soccer/03AllState.htm

I know this is original research, which goes against wikipedia policy, but I would just ask that it be looked at for removal. He clearly played soccer but the only verification for him being all-state as a goalie seems to come from him. 18:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.202.215 (talk)

the page entitled j. michael shoemaker contains false and libelous information... i request that it be deleted.

sincerely, j. michael shoemaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamichetanananda (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Noticeboard and Response Team:

This page J. Michael Shoemaker was uploaded last night about myself by an editor named Joshua Jonathan User:Joshua Jonathan . It appeared after we had a discussion over a change request on another page (Nath), which has since been resolved.

This page's primary source is a biased and defamatory web-page, which makes accusations against me which were never substantiated nearly 14 years ago. This source does not meet the standards of Wikipedia sources for living persons. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I do not wish to have a Wikipeadia page about myself. I do not feel I meet the Wikipedia criteria of a notable public person. I feel this page is a deliberate attempt to draw attention to biased, defamatory, unsubstantiated and accusatory material to myself. Additionally, the page has incorrect information about my biography, even the year of my birth is incorrect.

I ask your immediate attention to this matter to please remove the entire page from Wikipedia and also ask Joshua Jonathan to stop posting pages about myself.

Thank you very much for your consideration,

Swami Chetanananda (formerly J. Michael Shoemaker)

Portland, OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamichetanananda (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources mention that Joey Moi attended a "CDIS School of Engineering", but I was completely unable to find any reference to such a school existing. There is a CDI College in Vancouver, but it appears to have no courses in engineering. Any idea where this erroneous claim could've come from, or what it might actually be in reference to? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This 2003 article from Canadian Musician magazine states: "Moi, who had taken a three-year program at Burnaby's The Centre for Digital Imaging and Sound (CDIS), when he met Nickelback in the mid-'90s..." CDIS is now known as The Art Institute of Vancouver.  Gong show 20:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a promotional page for CDIS from 2000.[13] Not something that's appropriate to source an article, but I think it's safe to say that it at least existed.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalized the introduction paragraph that you see upon typing in his name (it leads to the Wikipedia link). It is filthy and mean spirited and not a biography of him. Someone else's name is in the paragraph and it looks like a cut and paste for a portion of this paragraph. Since Juan Pablo is so controversial at the moment, this is even more demeaning and was put there by someone who obviously dislikes him and is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.26.141 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks okay to me, don't see any suggestions when typing in his name search on Wikipedia (or Google). Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some vandalism that was reverted already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the article subject of BLP: Rachel Marsden

My name is Rachel Marsden and I am the subject of this Wikipedia article. For the past week, this biography of me has been subjected to repeated outright defamation and fallacies by an individual who has waged an online campaign of harassment against me in various online forums, and through direct and indirect contact with my family, associates, employers, and clients, since approximately August 2013, the details of which have been included in at least two police reports and a U.S. civil court filing, and are available to anyone who might be interested in viewing them. The individual in question has posted on this article's talk page under both her IP address (resolving, as expected to Kansas City), and under the username "CammieD". A usercheck will serve to verify that this is indeed the same woman targeting me under different accounts. Moreover, this person has recently posted what she believes to be my home address and personal information on Wikipedia, in violation of all privacy laws of the jurisdiction in which I reside. She has made repeated allegations of criminality against a person who has never been convicted of any crime. She has further expressed a desire to obtain financial records related to my privately held company - a fact that should serve to underscore the nature of this individual's bad-faith intentions in targeting this biography. This biography was more or less accurate and complete, and the product of many years of Wikipedian collaboration, prior to this person creating a single-purpose account on February 27th, for the sole and intent purpose of targeting me for yet more of the same kind of ongoing online defamation, stalking and harassment to which she has subjected me, my family, and my employers for several months. Further details and documentation pertaining to this person's activities can be obtained via direct contact with me at rachelmarsden at gmail dot com. I kindly request, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances, that the stable version of this biography which existed prior to this person's targeted and bad-faith involvement please be reinstated and retained. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions. Many thanks (in advance) for your time, effort, and consideration. Kindest regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.58.181 (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what content does your biography contain that you believe should be removed? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - ANI regarding this IP user and page for legal threats at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_IP_user_claiming_to_subject_of_an_article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking was an appropriate response; note also that RachelMarsden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in 2008. I didn't report the situation myself because I wanted to give Marsden an opportunity to identify any specific problems with the article before being blocked. Of course, no reply to my question was forthcoming. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one of the problems identified by the OP has now been revdeleted with suppression (i.e. oversighted), ashamedly without my involvement even though I did see it yesterday and think it was a problem. The OP's commenting style and lack of diffs doesn't make it easy, but it's always helpful to see if the OP has mentioned anything which sounds problematic. For me, the OP did raise at least one obvious BLP red flag and although it wasn't so easy since the talk page is awfully long and the precise comment not that near the end, I did find it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Board:

This is regarding page J. Michael Shoemaker. You have previously been notified and asked to investigate libelous sources cited as sources to the biography on this page. This is a page of a living person, posted on Wikipedia without the consent or wish of the person, Swami Chetanananda, birth name J. Michael Shoemaker.

The contentious source citing keep reappearing. It is being posted by editor UKexpat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ukexpat

Please block this user from repeatedly siting the defamatory sources. This is clear and deliberate defamation of character and an aggressive attack on an individual.

Thank you for your very fair and quick action in this matter,

Monica O'Neal Research Assistant for Swami Chetanananda The Movement Center Portland OR Ratmcsc (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Ratmcsc (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that http://www.culteducation.com/reference/swamichet/swamichet2.html was used in violation of WP:BLPSPS. This link should not be restored. I offer no opinion about the other sources in dispute. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, please refrain from using terms such as "libelous" and "defamatory" when discussing this issue, since they could easily be misunderstood as a legal threat. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has now been deleted, I cannot see its history but as far as I can recall, Ms O'Neal removed the reference without explanation. I reverted during recent changes patrol, but obviously I should have looked at it more closely. I had no dog in this fight so was not motivated by any intention to "defame". --ukexpat (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have various users asking for speculation on the trial of the subject, and others saying what is obviously the case, almost none providing references for their questions, speculation, or answers. Given this is article space, not talk space, it should probably be entirely deleted, although some users seem to have a problem with applying BLP standards to comments regarding a living person. I have hatted it through here, but I am afraid it should probably be entirely removed. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the speculation in that thread? HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The various users seem to be confused that making statements at the ref desks about the supposed criminal actions of living persons don't need very strong support from reliable sources in the form of proper citations and neutral language in every instance. Offering first-person driven "explanations", rather than bare links to reliable resources, is indeed problematic. It's not my place to argue or explain this. WP:RS is our deepest policy. Those who think it so dire we expose WP to liability, moral or legal, for defaming any living person, have the burden on them and themselves alone to show why their comments are so important to the inquirent. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be your job to explain BLP to others, but when you claim a certain page contains a BLP breach, and when are asked now 4 times to point out exactly where the breach was, and you spectacularly fail to do so, then you have not succeeded in satisfying anyone that your claim has any merit at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's accusing you of being evul, Jack. You just don't seem to realize all that matters in ref desk space is article space, not talk space, and article space requires strong WP:RS to allow any discussion of defamatory material. Criminal accusations are defamation per se. Defamation per se. Deh-fah-ma-shun per say. I don' t need to prove otherwise--you and others need to prove your unsupported commmentary isn't defamatory. No one has given any relevant refs for the hatted material. μηδείς (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What defamatory material? What criminal accusations? Where did anyone on that thread ever accuse anyone of anything, or defame anybody? We are discussing a case that has been brought by the SA Police; THEY are the ones who have charged Pistorius with murder. He is defending the charge, and he's innocent until and unless proven guilty. We can ASK about details of the case that are on the public record, surely; or is that off limits now? Some ANSWERS provided may well be inappropriate, but a simple QUESTION cannot possibly be, unless it assumes things the questioner is not entitled to assume, and I see no evidence of that from Joseph Spadaro. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you need to know two things:

1. This matter is sub judice, commenting on cases oin progress may amount to contempt of court.
2. A statement can be defamatory even if it is true.

This is nto an appropriate discussion for the refdesk. Please just drop it. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I need to completely revise my understanding of the English word "comment". The OP asked for some factual material, viz. what exactly Pistorius told the police as his reason for doing what he did. That is a million miles from "commentary" in my understanding of the term. If this is still somehow an inappropriate enquiry, can you explain where the line is drawn? How come we can have an article on the case, but nobody seems allowed to ask questions about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind people, as I did on WT:RD that hatting WP:BLP violations is generally a dumb idea? The only common reason to hat relating to BLP is if you want to stop further BLP violations. But if a BLP violation has already occured, then there's rarely a good reason to keep it on the RD and hatting definitely doesn't help much with the BLP violation, it may even make it worse. As I also mentioned on WT:RD, I'm not commenting specifically on whether or not a BLP violation occured, simply dealing with silly hats. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting, Nil, the entire thread be deleted? Or the currently hatted beginning with its exposition of supposed facts? I have no problem with that. I think it's clear from Guy's comment whatever certain ref desk regulars want, the place is not a free for all in regard to BLP.

I'd like a comment from Guy or someone else here not involved with the ref desk comments themselves to either say it is fine as is with just Nil's restorations and the original hatting or if some or all of the entire discussion should be hatted or removed. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond ridiculous that on some obscure Ref Desk that almost no randomly picked person will ever have heard about, we would need to censor civil and well conducted discussions while in prominent reputable media like CNN you can have discussions on this very same topic that are less well conducted (like yesterday on Anderson Cooper's 360). Both CNN and we will make sure that no BLP violations occur in the articles or the news reports in case of CNN. Here on Wikipedia we do not tolerate gratuitous attacks on living persons on talk pages and other types of unproductive bad behavior. That's good enough and already a lot better than what you see in most news media. Going furhter than that by enforcing some ridiculously broad interpretation of BLP actually makes things worse, because that would bring in selective censorship leading to bias. Count Iblis (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone unfamiliar with Count Iblis, should read the screed at the top of his User talk:

Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there.

Count Iblis sticks to the guidelines in the essay: Editing scientific articles as if it were official policy.

Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds.

μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IAR, which also makes your question about the BLP violation moot if the thread in question on the Ref Desk can be argued to not be a problem from any reasonable perspective. WP:IAR really says that we are primarily here to build an encyclopedia and we use the rules to help us do that, not the other way around. My experience in recent years has been that this fundamental idea has been overturned by powerful Admins and Arbs, they have changed this place into their fiefdom imposing their rule by enforcing their authority by enforcing rules even at the expense good productive editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please help at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles R. Conn, this seems to me to be a person who meets our inclusion criteria (as Warden of the Rhodes Trust, a non-trivial position). There are sources, but they are numerous rather than substantial. It would be nice to be able to help here. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since 6 March there appears to be a consistent effort to degenerate a scientists work as parapsychological and non scientific (pseudoscience) by individuals with what appears to be a bias towards skepticism. The scientists work has never been labeled in this way in any academic or major publications such as newspapers. It focuses on the state of the brain during sudden cardiac arrest and surviving patients reports of their psychological state including near death experiences. The goal of the work includes saving the brain from damage and avoiding psychological injury. The scientists work which is well respected by the main stream has been published and presented at major mainstream scientific peer reviewed journals including the biggest medical journal (new England journal of medicine) and conferences such as the American heart association. This mislabeling borders which remains unsupported by credible evidence or references borders on lible. While this has been explained in the talk section to the individuals concerned they continue to link it to the parapsychological without justification other than their own opinions. They have also significantly changed the article contents which when i last checked was more accurate and better supported by credible evidence.

Please block the subject of the article from this type of activity and also remove the name sam parnia from any association with the parapsychological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.79.43 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been socking on various IPS, and you have been reverted a number of times for edit warring. This is already discussed on the talk-page of the article. Have you read the references on the article? Goblin Face (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parnia has talked on Coast to Coast AM writing:

• "The whole concept of what we are...mind & consciousness, doesn't seem to disintegrate after people have died, at least not in the first phase of death." [14]

• "Rather than the popular concept that death leads to unlimited knowledge in the afterlife, he suggested that "people take their own level of thought to the other dimension." Therefore, Parnia posited that perhaps the purpose of life on Earth is to prepare us to better understand this next level when we arrive there." [15].

Science is it? It sounds like paranormal speculation. Goblin Face (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding whether Parnia is first and foremost a parapsychologist, what it comes down to is that his research and frequent discussion of near death experiences is very much in line with the parapsychology article cluster. The parapsychology template on that page helps people navigate to other pages about people who study things like NDEs and the concepts underlying their study. Consensus is very clear on the article regarding the appropriateness of this, but certain IP SPAs [16], [17], [18], [19] have been engaging in an intense editwar trying to remove this template. As three of the four IPs in question are New York IPs I'm suspicious that this might be sock puppetry, suggesting a particularly aggressive edit-warrior. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on the talk page of the article. 172.254 is not reporting Parnia's paranormal experiments it seems this user does not want it mentioned on the article (but this is what Parnia is most well known for). Parnia has set up targets in hospital rooms to test the idea that if the OBE/NDE are not psychological and are "transcendental" then one should able to project their consciousness or soul out of their body and read the targets. This sort of experiment has been conducted by parapsychologists since the 1970s (see Charles Tart etc) and all have failed. Rupert Sheldrake has conducted similar experiments which have been heavily criticized by the scientific community (see psychic staring effect). This is fringe science, some may even call it pseudoscience. There's a section that covers these kind of experiments here (which mentions Parnia) [20]. The experiments have a long history of producing negative results. Goblin Face (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of use, from Susan Blackmore [21]. Goblin Face (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that policy demands we be very careful to give proper context to any use of material about individuals. Here the question is: a Nobel Prize winner in a NY Times article does not mention an individual's name but only links to a personal blog where that person is mentioned. Editors insist we can write it as if he mentions the individual by name in a New York Times article. This has been reverted back and forth numerous times on article, and discussed a few times, but not addressed by non-involved editors when it was brought here as part of larger issue in November. Since creeping synth is a problem in many BLPs, uninvolved editors' opinions would be helpful this time.

At this diff my change of

• "In December 2012 New York Times column Paul Krugman wrote that University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong had attacked "a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same" and linked to DeLong's column naming Murphy."
  

was changed back to

• "In a column criticizing economists "who stick with their ideology no matter how badly it performs in practice", Paul Krugman noted that University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong had attacked Murphy..."

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains information about living people involved with this woman. The article Charles, Prince of Wales doesn't mention her, and neither does Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I'm still wary about the system being gamed. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor wants to add negative information and also remove information about Schwartz having been exonerated by the US Justice Department on Bernard L. Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in a case where Schwarz was exonerated according to multiple reliable sources, including Google books. Relevant discussions are on the article talk and user's talk. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice from the regulars here? Or have they all gone on March break? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he was exonerated, then the article should obviously say so. The source used for that claim in the article, though, seems to say that his company was excused from investigation, which I'm not sure is exactly synonymous. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the article. Needs a lot of work to flesh it out! The subject text garbled two matters. There was a campaign finance scandal (allegedly Schwartz personally donated so heavily to get approvals to for Loral to do deals in China) and separately, a there was a specific transfer of sensitive data to China by Loral (not Schwartz personally). The campaign finance matter ended in 2000 with Schwartz exonerated as per the sources in the article; the scandal over the data transfer was settled in 2002 and was not discussed at all. I made that more clear in the article and introduced a source. Conflation of those two matters by both sides in the dispute seems to have driven some of the arguments. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for taking the time to provide your advice. I really appreciate your assistance. I also thank Jytdog for his edit which further clarified matters using a reliable source. As a further request, I would like to ask you if you could just keep an eye for any further developments from the other editor just in case he raises any other issues. However I am perfectly happy with Jytdog's additions and I do not seek any further modifications. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• María Luisa Piraquive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This bio has landed here before as problematic, with a bunch of IPs and SPAs that have pushed hard to curate wholly negative content, and another set of IPs and SPAs writing flowery praise in the Biography section. Piraquive is a controversial figure in Colombia to be sure - I would liken her to one of those megachurch preacher/pastors in the U.S. who tend to garner unusual amounts of bad press. There were several sourced "controversies" that I removed per WP:BLPCRIME, because she has not been formally charged or otherwise convicted of them. These include allegedly having been involved in the death of her husband (!), ties to organized crime and fraud. I left a comment in the talk page with some more info, I'd appreciate a few more eyes in case the IPs return to add more negative material without appropriate sourcing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unreferenced, potentially libelous content from the Joseph Mercola page (clearly indicated this was reason for removal) only to find it’s been restored. Specifically, the lede describes Dr. Mercola as an “alternative medicine proponent” with link to wiki page for alternative medicine which states alternative medicine is “not based on evidence” and “not based on scientific method”, while Dr. Mercola is a licensed osteopathic physician and as such would be trained in evidence based medicine/scientific medicine (ie osteopathic medicine does not qualify as alternative medicine) Additionally, the lede states Dr. Mercola is a member of numerous “alternative medicine organizations”. There are references attached to these sentences, but the references do not support either of these claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Mercola&diff=598922034&oldid=598697508

Talk:Joseph Mercola shows concerns that the article does not represent NPOV have been brought up numerous times, yet it appears vigilant editors have maintained a non-NPOV article. Added the unbalanced tag twice but it was repeatedly removed.

Quick summary of the rest of the article shows other concerns such as:

-What appears to be undue weight given to a negative opinion piece editorial from Business Week which is critical of Dr. Mercola.

-Using a source called “QuackWatch” which exaggerates FDA complaint against Dr. Mercola instead of simply factually referencing the actual FDA complaint.

-Using a dead link to a provocatively titled article called “Can AZT and Other “Antiretrovirals” Cause AIDS?” to make it appear Dr. Mercola doesn’t believe the HIV virus causes AIDS. Located an active link for this article and the actual article states Mercola believes antiretroviral medication side effects can include immune suppression with references included for these claims.

http://www.omsj.org/issues/can-azt-and-other-antiretrovirals-cause-aids

Could someone objective please look over this article? It appears not to be NPOV, and even more concerning, it appears it contains unreferenced, potentially libelous, content. Mendaliv, you were very helpful on Jahi McMath page, would you mind taking a look? Thanks.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction at all in the notion that someone with a proper medical degree might start selling bogus supplements and promoting ridiculous claims (e.g. that HIV is not the cause of AIDS). If the sources don't support the claims, then of course revision is needed, but I don't see a problem with the underlying notion that "alternative medicine" is the right frame here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BoboMeowCat is a relatively new user who is too eager to go to the boards. Jumped right into the Paracetamol article and tried to edit war in (received a block for it) content over-emphasizing side effects there and filed a COIN complaint against editors upholding MEDRS, which was snowball-closed. Now has moved to alt medicine topics and it appears that the same WP:IDHT behavior is happening there. This complaint, like the COIN posting, is without merit. Mercola is a proponent of alt med and much of what he advocates falls within WP:FRINGE; the article is well sourced and abides by BLP and NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BoboMeowCat is absolutely correct. The page seems to have been constructed by people who have negative, personal opinions on Joseph Mercola and his practice, and editors with similar viewpoints have contributed to this article getting away with being biased. The lack of proper sourcing and false information is concerning, and the page needs serious editing. Adamh4 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adamh4 is also a new user; has been an editor for about 2 weeks and was already complaining about this article on his/her 2nd day as an editor here and here and here and here - already getting into WP:IDHT territory on the Talk page there, and making very strong statements while just getting started. Two new editors going down the warrior path too early :( Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I am a new user, but I didn't realize any of my comments on any of these pages would be considered disruptive; I thought I was just acting the same as all the other users I was learning from! Maybe I got carried away with my comments, but that doesn't change how I feel about them, although it will change how I voice them. I guess I just believed I have been following the guidelines this whole time, and became over zealous after a certain amount of discussions. I apologize for coming off as I did, like I said, every day is another learning experience! I will be sure to tread more carefully from now on though -- thankfully I have experienced editors to help me out as I go! Adamh4 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you have not been dispruptive! you are just heading down that road. i characterized you to provide admins and editors reviewing here with some context. everybody is a volunteer here and very busy. (may have been inappropriate - i screw up sometimes) Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was pinged by Bobo's initial post. I'm really not familiar enough with the source material to respond other than to say I think this is the wrong board; the concern for libel is in my view mere window dressing of what is more of a series of NPOV concerns. But on those grounds, I can't really say much other than I know of Ronz and QuackGuru, and don't believe they're the type to intentionally engage in presenting an unbalanced viewpoint. I should say, further, that I agree with the statements of principles on the talk page, indicating that NPOV does not mean we don't present the opinions of others: we do present other viewpoints, balancing them according to WP:DUE. In fact, one application of WP:DUE would be to conclude that presenting no opinion viewpoints would be to give undue weight to the minority viewpoint. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is the improperly sourced or unsourced content. However, what appears to be NPOV concerns may have a lot to do with how such content got in there in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Mercola&oldid=598922034

For example, the lede states Mercola is an “alternative medicine proponent” referenced by this article –

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-25/news/0305250393_1_food-pyramid-diet-guru-osteopathic

This article does not support such a statement.

The lede also states Mercola is a member of several alternative medicine organizations supported by this reference.

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/apr94.htm

…but this ref only shows Mercola’s membership in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is not an alternative medicine organization.

That’s only the first 5 lines of text, which is all I’ve had time to go through, but as Adamh4 also points out, there appear to be serious referencing concerns throughout.

Isn’t it WP policy that improperly sourced or unsourced content is to be removed immediately on BLP (especially if potentially libelous)? I could remove again, but I’m fairly sure vigilant editors will restore it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't particularly wise to use BLP bluster to remove things on the basis of a faulty understanding. The reference that supports "alternative medicine" in this context is [22]. Per WP:LEAD, not everything in the lead has to have an in-line source, as long as the source is given in the body. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LEAD “The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.”

Also, the reference provided above is an opinion piece. It seems an opinion piece doesn’t authoritatively support the claim that Dr. Mercola is a proponent of medicine which is not based on research and medicine which is not based on scientific method. (There’s a link to wiki page for alternative medicine in the lead which defines alternative medicine that way). Seems maybe with the reference provided we could reasonably say something like “at least one commentator considers Mercola an alternative medicine proponent”, but it doesn’t seem this should be the opening sentence in the lead. Additionally, that reference doesn’t support the claim that Mercola is a member of several alternative medicine organizations. That statement is still unsupported.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh you can WP:wikilawyer all day long, bobomeowcat. Mercola is way way out there - not part of the medical mainstream. He brags about being out there, opposed to the mainstream. The laundry list of his alternative medicine stances is as long as my arm. (here is one of the many laundry lists you can find about him). As long as you keep refusing to accept that Wikipedia is very much mainstream with regard to health information (as you have been pointed to many times, please read WP:MEDRS, all the drama boards in the world are not going to help. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link on WP:wikilawyer and curious why you think it applies here. Nomoskedasticity brought up WP:LEAD. Quoted WP:LEAD.

Previously read WP:MEDRS and I'm not sure how it defends use of an opinion piece from BusinessWeek. Seems a much better way to comply with WP:MEDRS would be to describe controversial claims made by Dr. Mercola, and then use reliable medical sources to show how Mercola’s views differ from mainstream medical practice. I’m concerned you appear to repeatedly mischaracterized me, but I’d rather just stay on topic.

I agree Mercola is out of the mainstream. A statement regarding Mercola being out of the mainstream seems like it would be a much better statement for the lead than an improperly sourced statement regarding him promoting medicine not based on research or medicine not based on scientific method. Stating Mercola is out of the mainstream or even stating that Dr. Mercola is downright controversial seems like something we could actually support with solid references.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok... so medicine that is out of the mainstream, is "alternative medicine" on Wikipedia - by definition. That is the spirit and letter of MEDRS and FRINGE and NPOV. You can try to Wikilawyer away the content and sources that describe him as such, or you can work to improve the article so that he is described as per Wikipedia norms. No article on Wikipedia is perfect; all articles can be improved. Either way, this is not a matter for BLPN - this is a matter of you understanding Wikipedia norms and working within them. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on Wikipedia, according to the linked page for alternative medicine, alt med is medicine not based on evidence and medicine not based on scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&oldid=598490686

However, I can see why you assumed it meant that because in the popular press, the phrase “alternative medicine” appears to simply mean what you stated above as anything outside of standard or mainstream medical practice. This discrepancy in meaning adds additional problems to relying on non-WP:MEDRS sources from the popular press such as the Business Week article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if editors could take a look at Russell Welch. There are some extraordinary claims about CIA drug trafficking and anthrax which are unsourced or are sourced to what appear to be fringe publications. GabrielF (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says, "Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the U.S. federal government, the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users." This is a non-neutrally phrased misinterpretation of a misquotation of a mailing list post by a poor quality news blog that has been placed in a way that implies a connection between government research grants (attributed to another source) and covert spying (a baseless conclusion) on the part of Mr. Lewman and Roger Dingledine. The misquote by the source is egregious and taints the source enough to render it also unusable as a primary source about Dingledine.

The [source] actually says, "Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman wrote in an e-mail to users that just because the project accepts federal funding does not mean it collaborated with the NSA to unmask people's online identities." This is a very bad restatement of a [post] on the tor-talk Internet mailing list that is quoted by the source:

"The parts of the U.S. and Swedish governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future," Lewman wrote. "Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset."

Nothing about unmasking people's online identities, and no mention of the NSA. It wasn't even in response to a question about him spying for the NSA. These are the blogger's words stuffed into the mouth of Andrew Lewman.

It fails verifiability for that statement so poorly that its claim about what Roger Dingledine told the blogger is suspect. It is synthesis because it combines material on funding from one source with the NSA misquote by another, implying a connection between the two and insinuating that there could be something to it. It's POV because the paraphrase on Wikipedia has a different meaning and tone than the source. There is a difference between something not meaning something else and someone "not necessarily" doing something. The sentence has become evasive, self-incriminating doubletalk with the new meaning that his behavior is subject to interpretation, or that he neither confirms nor denies it.

Talk page thread

Archived WP:RSNB thread

Archived WP:BLPNB thread 178.8.154.86 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the super-secret imaginary BLP violation that 94.222.101.42 and 94.222.101.42 alone can see returns![23][24][25]

Once again 94.222.101.42 is talking about RELIABLE SOURCES on the BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is for discussing violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (which, I remind you, does not exist in this case other than in 94.222.101.42's fevered imagination). The fact that 94.222.101.42 appears to be unable to understand this basic concept is either a WP:COMPETENCE problem or an WP:IDHT problem.

I recommend closing this and sending it to WP:RSN where it belongs. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, RS, OR(synth), and NPOV. Please comment here if you disagree. Please don't chill discussion; this is important. Anything you want to say to me personally can go on your talk page. 178.8.154.86 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Guy Macon's comments above, there have already been several threads on this on the article talk page and multiple noticeboards, and in none of them has the IP been able to draw support, nevermind consensus. WP:BLUDGEONing. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon and Rhododendrites are the two editors who strongly want to keep the material. I dispute how both of them have characterized the discussion so far, and it's off-topic, biasing, and discourages community comment. Let's get back on topic. 178.8.154.86 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what is in that particular article and I think the existing editors are doing a fine job without me. Make a persuasive argument and get some editors to agree with you, and if you reach the point where there is a clear consensus for the changes you wish to make except for one holdout, and I will tell that fellow that he isn't going to get what he wants. Again, there is no BLP violation and your complaint about (in your own words) "RS, OR(synth), and NPOV" is completely off-topic on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azam Khan (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However, Khan was detained at the Boston Airport for questioning, over his Samajwadi Party finances, and its links to Al-Qaeda and D-Company." Above line is not verifiable and seems to be written with malice intention. Needs to be verified and removed, if content is picked from dubious source to spread rumors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.52 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that (a) the sources cited said nothing about Al-Qaeda etc, and (b) what was sourced was largely copy-pasted directly into the article, I've removed the section. If a section on the incident is merited, it needs to properly reflect sources - and avoid POV terms like 'ruckus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this at WT:LOUISIANA in 2011 and again on March 7, but got no answers.

Interesting thing here. I've searched all over and cannot find any proof that his supposed hometown of "Tiel Ridge" ever existed. Literally every hit I found on Google, Gnews and Gbooks mentions him and/or his brother, and I've found no outside mention of the town anywhere. Does anyone have any idea what the origin is of this supposed town, or if maybe it's a typo for something else? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]