Knowledge

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Adel Sedra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm writing to flag the biography of Adel Sedra, which was recently updated to include a "controversy" section, which is basically a link to two local newspaper articles about a dispute with a solar car racing team at the University of Waterloo (where he is dean of engineering). The controversy section now constitutes approximately half of his entry, entirely disproportionate for someone who is one of Canada's leading engineers and has been a vice president at the University of Toronto and dean of engineering at the University of Waterloo. Moreover, this issue is contentious and has not been settled. I feel like the inclusion of the entire newspaper article (and for that matter, the whole section) is inappropriate.

Many thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,

Geoff Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffrey.Burt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You were correct to revert the edit and remove the section for two reasons. It had greatly undue weight in the over-all bio as you surmised. It also looks like a cut and paste of a newspaper article. If I am correct about this, there were also copyright issues. The content could possibly be re-introcuced as a carefully phrased, reliably sourced sentence in the article, not its own section--though it seems like a minor enough incident I could argue that either way. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• - note to passing administrator - there is a Revdel request on a couple of edits at this article Adel Sedra - Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, in passing. -- zzuuzz 19:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Zzuuzz - seems resolved then, the article now has a few more active watching editors, so I think this can be marked as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(removed uncited personal details of what appears to be a not wiki notable person - Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjbaum420 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. As is customary, I have left a handy menu of links on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Critics of J. Philippe Rushton in several instances want to only present criticisms against Rushton while excluding opposing views.

The lead now states: "Since 2002 he has been head of the controversial Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been widely criticized for financing research that promotes Scientific Racism and has been frequently associated with racism and White Supremacy." This if of course an extremely serious charge. Despite this, the critics refuse to allow opposing views from sources such as the preface to Richard Lynn's book about the Fund The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. The preface which is available online: . Or a review of the book published in scholarly journal by the Rushton before he became head: . Or the view of the Funt itself regarding these accusations: .

Another section where the critics only want to allow critical views is the "Application of r/K selection theory to race". There are numerous supporting views. Around 26 peer-reviewed studies by around 40 different researchers and around 10 different lead researchers are listed here: Race, Evolution, and Behavior#Later favorable studies. To only include critical views is a gross misrepresentation of the state of research. Miradre (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources that Miradre is attempting to insert into these articles are generally questionable sources (and generally ones closely associated with Rushtom and/or his Pioneer Fund), employed in violation of the restrictions contained in WP:SELFPUB. It should also be noted that this issue has been extensively discussed at WP:FTN#J. Philippe Rushton. Hrafn_Stalk 13:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They are reliable sources with possible exception of the material by the Fund itself (the third source). Richard Lynn is a researcher who has written a book about the history of the Fund. Rushton's review was published in the scientific journal Personality and Individual Differences before he became head of the Fund. Regarding the Fund material I think it should be allowed to state its view on the very serious accusations against it. I take this discussion here because the critics continue to only want to include these very serious accusations without including any opposing views.Miradre (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Lynn serves on the Pioneer Fund's board, and that of its Mankind Quarterly (described as "a white supremacist journal"), his Ulster Institute for Social Research received $609,000 in grants from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1996. Further the reference is not to material Lynn himself wrote, but to the preface by "Harry F. Weyher, President, The Pioneer Fund". I think this qualifies as a "extremist, or promotional" source, per WP:QS. Hrafn_Stalk 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn is a widely cited researcher. That he has connections with the Fund does not make his research invalid. The same with the Rushton review which appeared in a scholarly journal. This material is not self-published and fulfill the criteria for WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Rushton's review" was published in Personality and Individual Differences of which Rushton's thesis advisor (S. B. G. Eysenck) is one of the editors in chief, and whose overly cozy relationship with Rushton, a third party (Knudson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society, at (I think) pp175) has commented upon. Hrafn_Stalk 14:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean to prove with a twenty years old article. Furthermore, your claims are just strange. Hans Eysenck died in 1997. The book and review is from 2001 and 2002! Miradre (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed that point (and pretty much everything else you've said here) on article talk. Hrafn_Stalk 14:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not. Your claim of a cozy relationship between Rushton and Eysenck at that time is obviously false. You have not replied regarding the book itself being published by a widely cited researcher. If you have a reply, then present it here for those reviewing.Miradre (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the best route at this time is to allow uninvolved editors comment if they feel there is some sort of BLP violation. aprock (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the best place to fully document charges and responses is the Pioneer Fund. The Rushton should only summarize the most significant charges, which it appears to do. The current state of the article seems to do this well. I think the deleted sentence "The Fund, Rushton, and the prior head have criticized these accusations and argue that the Fund has funded much important but controversial research." is a perfectly acceptable way of including a response, but I think this response belongs in the body. The lede shouldn't be the place to hash out competing claims but should be a summary of the consensus opinion. Since the Fund's opinion is a distinctly minority/fringe viewpoint, it doesn't belong there. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agree entirely with Hrfan's position here -- the article as it stands doesn't pose any BLP problems for Rushton.

Bill Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced, possibly politically biased or libelous information. I don't know anything about the guy but randomly looked him after someone I know made a comment about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.188.20 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of improvement - removed a whole critical section in this edit with the edit summary of - trim - unreliable citations - dead link unable to repair and primary comments. The article was basically a hatchet job attack article, still needs a little improvement, perhaps some actual details about his life and some work on the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind words, appreciated, best regards to you Epeefleche. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Huhne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP reads to me as if its a bit of a partisan attack. I did a few hours work on it last year only to be totally reverted by a user three weeks later. The situation is ongoing, users come along read it and get a similar feeling as I got and edit it to a less partisan position and it is just reverted to the previous position again, would anyone with a neutral position on British politics have a read over it, as I remember there were some low quality tabloidy cites and some content than needed a NPOV write, I have added a NPOV template as there is clearly a dispute but I have not recently edited the article, there is a little discussion on the talkpage. If it helps this is what I edited it to. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it, there are a few things that immediately jump out but I'm a little busy for now. The first thing I notice is that we are citing his full name from a grissly attack piece in the daily mail, is there not a better source for that? Bob House 884 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No hurry , no worry, I appreciate any opinions as regards the content for improvement and NPOV assessment. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob: I don't know enough about British politics to be of help re NPOV, but was there a particular BLP concern at issue? Must be frustrating, btw, to put in this much work and then to have people come along and just change it all... Um, that didn't sound right; I didn't mean it tongue-in-cheek, at all, but seriously. Anyway, was there any particular BLP issue that concerned you?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the issue as with don carlo above - when an article is edited to an undue weighted position amounting to what is basically a partisan attack article, that is the BLP problem, weight, npov and undue all build up to be the BLP issue. This issue as I have seen with involved contributors on the article reverting with the claim of all cited content is notable is a difficult issue to balance out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just so. I wish I knew something about British politics and could help sort this, but I wouldn't know NPOV from POV in that context without loads of research. I'd enjoy educating myself in that, actually, but no time to do so just now, I regret to say. Good luck, then.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a sad situation. I'm no politics expert (I don't even read a proper broadsheet newspaper every day any more), but just one look at the lead and the first section of that article, and it's obvious that it has major, major POV problems. Unfortunately I don't care enough about the topic to invest the substantial amount of time required for a complete re-write of what is a large and of course controversial article. Which leaves part of me thinking that people who care about politics more should do it, part of me thinking that I'm sure Huhne's political party have public relations staff that should be dealing with POV material like this ... and then I realise that the way I'm thinking is abandoning the article to people with vested political bias or people with obvious COI, and if none of them get round to it then it just stays POV. What a mess. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting a discussion here about a contentious section being added to The Video Game Critic's article. If this is the wrong venue, I apologize, and ask that you direct me to a better one.

Kajicat (talk · contribs) is proposing to add a section to the article that discusses alleged homophobia in The Video Game Critic's game reviews. This section is sourced to the reviews themselves, as well as to a forum thread on the Video Game Critic's website. I don't believe that meets our standard for reliable sourcing for such a claim, and I haven't found any reliable secondary sources that repeat the claim, so I've removed the section. Both Kajicat and I have reverted three times; I don't intend to revert again.

I would like an outside opinion as to whether this sourcing is adequate to include this claim. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is not adequate for the section as written (or any mention at all, in my view). Some people posting some things on a forum about David Mrozek's actions, and then David Mrozek asking for further feedback about that criticism of his actions, does not make a controversy. It needs completely independent reliable sources to discuss there being a controversy, otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, if I can name it as something other than "Controversy", will that be okay? Should I put it under the "Reviews" section then? Just as long as it isn't labeled as something so negative as "Controversy?" I'm okay with that. What would you be okay with me naming it as if you don't think it should be under the "Reviews" section? Also, you say the sourcing is not adequate for the section as written...well, I have about 10 more sources I haven't used yet, which are just like the ones I've used thus far (referenced straight to the actual reviews themselves). These distasteful reviews were brought to my attention, and it turns out others have brought it up before, even on The Video Game Critic's own website and forum, where he even created his own thread to ask his readers what he should do about it (in 2005). Thanks for your input, and I hope you can understand my viewpoint here.Kajicat (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat

What the section is called, or whereabouts in the article the material goes, is not the issue. If it is only you, me, other Knowledge editors, and people posting to forums who see this material as distasteful, then mention of it does not belong in the article. What you need are references to independent reliable sources that discuss the distasteful nature of the material (or discuss the existence of a controversy about the allegedly distasteful nature of the material). Forum posts and a request for comment by Mrozek do not meet that requirement, even if it's several thousand forum posts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. You'll need to find some sort of trade magazine or other independent source- something that is generally accepted as objective in discussing the issue- in order for you proposed edits to stand. Quinn 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a whole bunch of sources generally considered reliable in the field of video games at Knowledge:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List. The extent to which any of those have discussed homophobic material in the website in question, will decide whether it's justifiable for the topic not to be mentioned at all, to have a brief mention (half a sentence to a sentence) or a separate section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If I can't have a "Controversy" section, can I at least add a sentence or so in either the "History" or "Reviews" section that isn't so negative, but more along the lines of...confusion...as to whether The Video Game Critic was going to continue writing in the style he has been, or clean up his writings and act more professional and politically correct? Is that okay with you guys? It seems you might be some Video Game Critic fans, and I don't want to purposefully be stepping on any toes.Kajicat (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat

I'm not a Video Game Critic fan, I'm a WP:BLPN fan. (Sad huh?) I'd never been to videogamecritic.net (nor the Knowledge article about it) before this posting about it at this noticeboard.

I appreciate your attempt to compromise, but really if we want the best possible article then what we include should be based on reliable sources. Surely of all the dozens of reliable-for-videogames sources in the list I linked you to just before, one of them has said something about this incident/discussion/controversy? Find it, cite it, put it in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nadhmi Auchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this is long-winded, it's the first time I've posted anything on here:

In 2009, I edited the entry for Nadhmi Auchi to include his 2003 conviction for fraud, providing several links to verifiable sources. This information has been repeatedly removed by a series of anonymous or temporary editor accounts, without explanation.

The rest of the article is highly congratulatory in tone; I don't know whether this alone makes it non-NPOV, but it is perhaps of relevance given the repeated removal of less flattering information.

Auchi has also been the subject of a number of allegations involving his business dealings in Iraq and the US. Whatever their veracity (obviously this isn't the place to discuss), it's worth noting that Auchi has contested these allegations vigorously, and his lawyers have compelled various news outlets in the UK to remove material related to him from their websites as a result.

Given the above, I am concerned that these repeated edits are an attempt to excise negative information about Auchi from Knowledge, regardless of whether or not it's accurate and verifiable. Being only an occasional editor myself, I'm not sure what to do in such situations, but would urge attention be paid to his entry to prevent future vandalism.

Smells like content (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I ll add it to my watchlist, the details could use an update though, seems to be left mid air in 2008. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the lack of publicly-available information on Auchi after 2008 is at least partly due to the fact that more recent stories about him have been the subject of injunctions, as mentioned above. I don't think they're super-injunctions (i.e. the fact that an injunction has been granted is not itself secret) so I could perhaps add a sentence explaining this? Smells like content (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed some of the unverified information and an all-too flattering statement. There is/was some definite vanispam there. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is problematic: editors keep reinserting unsourced content, specifically, long lists of awards. The latest such addition is this one. Look at the history. I've twice reverted the addition of this material and in my opinion that was once too many already; it's put back again. I notified the last editor to do so on their talk page of this discussion, but the history of the article seems to suggest that this is a regularly recurring event, with editors who edit only a limited number of articles. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it the list or the lack of sourcing that you object to? If the former, why not create a List of awards and achievements of Sarah Geronimo (or something like that) article? If the latter, unless you honestly feel the information is wrong/inacurate, slap a {Unreferenced} or {Refimprove} tag on it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did slap such a template on it, yes. I kind of object to both. I believe that in an unverified state such a list should not be there--it smacks of fansite/promotion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved them to the talkpage and left some advice Talk:Sarah Geronimo#uncited awards - many of them will likely never get cited as they look of minor note to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I will keep my eye on the BLP also as simple replacement of uncited content to a BLP when disputed and removed is not an option. I will also offer the editor/s any assistance I can as regards, formating citations and such like. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, editors are edit-warring over this and I don't see any attempt by anyone to actually find a source for any of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting tedious. The only people I imagine have any energy or responsibility to look for a reliable citation for any of these awards is the users repeatedly adding them, and they seem unable or un-desirous of any kind of discussion. I would block them one by one until it stopped being re-added. I requested full protection but its so silly as to be unworthy of any action, so I withdrew the request - I think the best thing is, I will just remove it from my watchlist and let them add whatever they want. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. If you care enough to edit-war over this, you should care enough to find sources. Here's a start. You can also check her web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertions of uncited content into a BLP with a refusal to discuss is imo vandalism. If you want to add a cite then go for it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that meets the definition of WP:VANDALISM. And for the record, I'm not the one edit-warring over it. I gave you 2 sources so no one can claim that (at least some of it) is unverifiable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So go ahead and add it, I don't understand what you want here. Its clearly disruptive and vandalistic in nature to repeatedly insert uncited content into a BLP and refuse to discuss when multiple attempts have been made to assist you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• - update - I made an addition with the two cites provided by A quest for Knowledge and the user adding the large uncited seems to have got the message and is attempting to add some citations to support the content also. Another issue is that - mostly the awards are not notable but at least they are now getting some citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a mistake concerning the real name of Gilles "The Fish" Poisson. His real name was Gilles Poisson. My grandmother is her cousin and i am able to point out family sources (including Gilles himself) Also, an article was written by SLAM! Magazine in 2009 : http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2009/05/09/9406661.html. Please consider correcting this mistake. Mario Lévesque Grandson of Lucienne Poisson, cousin of Gilles Poisson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.255.241 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I found no reliable source for the "Berger" name at all. Collect (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• - detail - Charles Berger (wrestler) is currently the claimed WP:COMMON NAME - Gilles Poisson and Pierre Poisson are currently redirects to that name. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Without an RS for it being the "real name" as claimed, I think it ought be removed. Knowledge requires reliable sources for much less. Collect (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking more, I can't see any support for the claimed real name either. I tagged the name as citation required. I left a request for comment at the boxing project here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Chaikin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need verification of year of birth for Andrew Chaikin - doesn't seem like it is 1956 (1966, perhaps?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.80.183 (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd think that 1956 is much more likely: "A graduate of Brown University, Chaikin served on the Viking missions to Mars at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and was a researcher at the Smithsonian’s Center for Earth and Planetary Studies before becoming a science journalist in 1980". http://www.andrewchaikin.com/about/

The article is distinctly lacking in sources however, and needs some attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's 1956. I'll add the source I just found to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

His book gives a short bio which is likely better than relying on his SPS. Collect (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Was a stub. I added New York Times non-contentious facts. All of which are removed as being "demeaning." Frankly, I did not know that being from a major family was "demeaning" but it apparently is. Might someone else look there and see if the New York Times articles violate WP:BLP in any way whatsoever? I had thought I was doing the stub a favour, instead I get pounded on for somehow demeaning a person for giving a source that she came from a prominent family and was presented at a ball covered in the New York Times. The other rationale for deleting information is that it is "trivia" to mention that she comes from a quite notable family. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to the cavil that debutantes do not get that fact mentioned in their biographies - more than 100 do, and more than 50 men have their wives described as debutantes. And a large bunch of cricketers, though I suspect the term "rookie" is more familiar to many. Collect (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway about her attendance at a debutante ball in 1968 on the Talk page of the article. And as one editor said, the issue is not the prominence of her family, but just the ball. I think it's premature to come here. For what it's worth, I think it's trivia, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You removed "Roosevelt has a degree in history from Harvard University". She has two children." You then entered, "She was introduced to society in 1968 at the 33rd Christmas Cotillion at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York". This is code for saying she is an elitist. Her status as a debutante does not rise to the level of relevance in such a short article. TFD (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Try saying the truth as I did not remove her Harvard degree. Making such statements does not improve your standing on this issue one whit, by the way. There are literally hundreds of articles which do not view being a debutante as demeaning, and I know of no reason why you, of all people, suddenly appeared to make a comment. Collect (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to a request on the AT page, I listed some of the "elitists" who include journalists, crooks and Communists. Seems an odd sort of thing when no one contests the fact, that it is from a RS, and that it is about as non-contentious as one can imagine. Collect (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, everything the New York Times publishes should be added to articles. This just seems like trivia. Aside from the original announcement, no one else saw fit to comment on it. The subject is not known as a "debutante", and adding so much about one party gives it too much space in a short bio.   Will Beback  talk  09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I recall an editor posting: I don't see anything in there that's really applicable to this issue. The New York Times is not a tabloid, so following its example does not lead to tabloidism or sensationalism. It's not clear how this information, already published in reliable sources, could harm the accused individuals. No one is disputing that BLPs are important. The issue here is witholding information concerning notable people which has already been published by reliable sources . I, myself, seek consistency in how I treat all BLPs. Collect (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And I recall an editor quoting BLP:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.

The exercise of editorial judgment is what keeps out trivia.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I had not thought a New York Times article was "sensationalist" in this case at all. Especially since so many notable people including major authors have exactly the same sort of information in their biographies here. Nor is it particularly "titillating" as far as I can tell. Clearly you are far more easily "titillated" than I. Collect (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just part of a pretty self-evident campaign by Collect to denigrate a respected journalist, because he opposes the use of a quote sourced to her at Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#RFC:_.22the_nation.27s_most_prominent_funders.22. The RFC prompted me to create a stub, to which he first added a trivial cherrypicked article, claiming it was her most famous, and a mention of her family background (which I was about to add myself) along with a mention of a ball (which I wasn't). He summarised that as "Her most famous piece was on Pirates of the Caribbean 2 promoting smoking, as far as I can tell. Her society background is impeccable." (later claiming "Without the sources I found, the article said nothing about her in particular at all.", which is patently untrue.) I referred to that remark, in the context of the discussion of a quote from her, as "a cute way to demean a respected journalist." What I said there is in fact an accurate summary of what Collect is trying to achieve with the article (as is fairly obvious from his wikilawyering WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over mentioning a party. Particularly annoying is that when I moved the sentence to the talk page, I clearly left the door open for a serious attempt to justify inclusion with evidence. That has not been forthcoming. Rd232 10:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I added several reliable sources to the stub -- not just a "cherry picked article." And I would note that it was a stub for a while - and your edit was to mislink her mom! The fact is that I do not mention her 1968 graduation from a noted private school in New York (motto: (Founded 1964) "par les Anciens, pour les Anciens.") . In fact, however, the New York Times is generally considered to be a reliable source except here LOL! Collect (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note the Koch's have absolutely nothing to do with this article whatsoever. Trying to add that accusation into the mix is silly. Collect (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The frequency with which you write statements that bear a tenuous relationship with the truth* and making points that are irrelevant (eg nobody's challenged the inclusion on grounds the source isn't reliable! complete misdirection, and an editor of your experience cannot do this unknowingly) is starting to resemble a strategy of tendentiousness. *eg "the Koch's have absolutely nothing to do with this article whatsoever" is only true if you look at this article in isolation, and completely ignore my explanation which you are responding to and are well aware of anyway of how the article came about, via a dispute about a Koch-related quote by Roosevelt. Frankly, the sum total of the tendentiousness and untruth you have exhibited in relation to this episode verges on the disruptive. Rd232 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And why would you not add a standard bit of educational background if you have the info - especially when graduating from the Lycée Français de New York is relevant to her career (6 years in Time's Paris bureau). Rd232 19:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because in an attempt to ABF it appears, every edit I made has been subjected to some sort of claim that saying she has a background clearly sourced is somehow "demeaning" to her. I note that it was you who finally added her "private school background" to the article. Had I done it, someone would have claimed it meant I was showing she was "elitest" or some such silliness. When you do it, it is ok. Seems logical? Collect (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You're really not listening, are you? In case anyone else cares, the response to this silliness is already contained in my comments in this thread of 10.47, 18.42, and 19.06, 16 April. Except that it's worth stating that it is precisely ONE (1) edit in dispute. Now, I don't intend to respond to any more of this tendentiousness - it's verging on "don't feed the trolls" territory. Rd232 02:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nigel Farage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article on Nigel Farage, in the section "Outside politics", it is claimed that Mr Farage participates in sexual relations with animals. I do not believe this to be true. If it were true, then it ought to be properly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angolak (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, reverted. January (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the BLP is totally unprotected and will just continue to be defamed until it is semi protected. High profile UK politicians are vandal magnets. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Has some interesting views from some editors. as one example. as an older one. shows that editor's view of the living person Ardeshir Zahedi not hit so far. I think some strong defenders of WP:BLP may convince them that personal opinions should not be reflected in the article. Collect (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Gabori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - IP:2.125.51.86

Anonymous with the IP Address: 2.125.51.86 has made numerous edits to the biography of living person named Daniel Gabori. The edits were completely false and uncontstructive and dont conform with Knowledge's verificational policy. The edits are not only valid but are not approved of by either the original writer of the page on Daniel Gabori, or Daniel Gabori himself. This report was written in order to record the multiple deliberate misconduct and vandalism of '2.125.51.86' Further steps should be taken to avoid future notorious vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.135.152.7 (talk • contribs)

You might want to take a look at Knowledge:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism. For now I would just revert the changes. It looks like you blanked the section and removed information that was present before the vandalism? Niluop (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a dispute in the Soham murders article, regarding Maxine Carr. The article contains an infobox about Carr which lists 'conviction(s)' as "Perverting the course of justice, Benefit fraud & Deception". Until recently the benefit fraud and deception convictions were unsourced, though after another editor noticed this and deleted them, a source was found. It should be noted that these convictions are not discussed in the article text itself, for the very good reason that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Soham Murders. On that basis, I removed them again, making my reasoning clear in the edit summary: Unfortunately, another editor is insisting on reinserting them, and it seems wise to get outside input on this, rather than engaging in an edit-war.

It should be noted that the Carr case has been contentious, and given the number of threats to her life, and assaults on innocent victims mistaken for her, she has been given a new identity. I have also been in discussion with the same editor regarding this matter, as s/he wishes an image of Carr to be included, whereas it seems possible that there may be legal issues regarding this, as discussed previously on BLP/N:

Soham murders

The "Soham Murders" article notes that Maxine Carr "won an injunction on 24 February, 2005, granting her lifelong anonymity on the grounds that her life would otherwise be in danger from lynch mobs." Yet the article publishes a photograph of Maxine Carr. I believe the article is (1) endangering Maxine Carr and other women of similar appearance, and (2) in contempt of the court injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodnala (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the photo and watchlisted the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that for ethical reasons, as well as in consideration of WP:BLP1E provisions, and taking into account the possible legal ramifications (though this may need clarifying), the Soham Murders article need only discuss Carr in regard to her part in providing Huntley with an alibi, and her subsequent conviction regarding this. Any attempt to widen this to include other aspects of her life are in any case off-topic in the article.

I'd appreciate others taking a look, and perhaps resolving the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth bearing in mind that there could be a link between the fraud conviction and the case in that the fraud may have been discovered while Carr was being investigated for her part in trying to cover up the murders (as I believe it was). As far as carrying a photograph of her is concerned, I'm sure that ones of her from the time of the murders will be plastered all over the Web, so carrying one here wouldn't make a lot of difference.     ←   ZScarpia   01:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There were news reports of women being beaten up for resembling her. In this case, the fact that photos appear elsewhere doesn't really dictate that we need to have one in our article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen, Google returns a large number of image results for Maxine Carr, dating to the time of the murders and before. Mary Bell] is also living under a new, protected identity. As can be seen, the Knowledge article on her carries a photograph from the time of her trial.     ←   ZScarpia   04:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Google is not bound by Knowledge's BLP policy, and Google results do not tell us how to apply that policy. Mary Bell is not much more than an example of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here; it seems vanishingly unlikely that people will attack a 53 year old grandmother because they think she looks like a picture of a 10 year old girl on Knowledge. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The essential idea behind BLP is do-no-harm. If the pictures are common then there isn't any risk of harm. There's an argument that she's a minor enough figure in the article as a whole to not justify including a picture anyways. Let us ask, if this were a person mentioned in a random article with this level of detail would we include a photo given an opportunity? I'm not sure we would. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments. Firstly, we need to remember that the article isn't about Carr, but the Soham murders - her only role was in providing an alibi for Huntley - and the courts accepted that she believed Huntley was innocent when she did this. On this basis, I'd suggest that there is little justification for the infobox at all, let alone an image. We do not normally include images of such minor figures in articles where they have only peripheral involvement. Sadly, the UK tabloid media chose to demonise her in the days following her arrest - which has had long-term consequences for others, as well as for herself. Even if there is no legal reason why we shouldn't include an image of her (and I note that this has not been addressed), there are certainly ethical ones - do we want to encourage the sort of vigilantism that has already led to hounding and assaults of multiple innocent people mistaken for her?

Secondly, the issue of whether Carr's unrelated convictions for benefit fraud and deception should be included has not been addressed. Again, I suggest the this is off-topic and irrelevant to the article. Since, despite notification of this thread, the editor insisting on this being included has chosen not to respond, I am going to remove this again, per WP:BLP1E etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The fraud and deception are clearly relevant to the topic of the article as that is how she became employed at the school the girls attended and over her deception about living with Huntly to get housing benefit. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic (or your grammar). How were the fraud and deception connected to the murders? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I personally believe Maxine should remain on the article as per previous revision.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Second point first from Andy the Grumps latest big post; The news reports at the time of her secondary convictions noted that they were only in the public interest due to the linking with the Soham Case. As for removal please discuss on the talk page of the article before taking ownership and demanding removal.

As for the first point just because people do things based on factual information it’s not a reason for not doing something. Wheat next we don’t post articles about robbery in case there are copy cats or articles on murders in case victims families get upset that the victim and the perpetrator are in the same article. It’s just a non-argument for the removal. It was also said no harm is caused as the image at the time of the trial her image was plastered every when and the BBC still run her old image so I think this is a case of legal paranoia. The addition of her image on Knowledge will do no harm what so ever and did no harm what so ever when it was previously included.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

For-profit news outlets may claim all manner of things they do are "in the public interest", that doesn't necessarily mean we have to believe them or feel pressured by such often self-serving claims.

You assert that the inclusion of the image will do no harm to anyone and that it did no harm in the past. However, you offer no evidence for this, in fact it would be almost impossible to provide convincing evidence for this - we know that there have been attacks on innocent people in the belief that they were Carr, and we know that Knowledge is an increasingly widely used source for news and reference information.

Your use of a Slippery slope logical fallacy is not a convincing argument for inclusion - yes we do in fact have all manner of limitations on how we discuss robberies and murders, including WP:BLP1E. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The image was non-free; aside from the BLP issues for inclusion of this photo I don’t think it met WP:NFCC#8 ("presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"). January (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence to the contrary that the harm was caused. There is no way to prove a negative as proving the absence of something is nigh on impossible, take the arguments surrounding religon for example. There is no evidence of harm being caused so de-facto no harm was caused. I will take your argument more seriously if you can provide evidence that any form of harm was caused. Just because there are copy cats of things doesn't mean factual information should not be included. If copycat people are allowed to dictate what can and cannot be included then there is no end of what must be removed. I am not attempting to have a debate on the image itself but this is more of a discussion on a user claiming a legal injunction must prevent the addition of factual information on Knowledge. It is a slippery slope because the identical argument can be applied to similar cases such as other crimes; take the Jamie Bulger killing do we remove the information on the re-arrest of Jon Venables, because he has an immunity injunction. Just because we dislike something or we think someone might do something based on what’s in an article, is not a valid reason for the removal of something. The only valid reason is it is either not-relevant to the article or it is factually incorrect or un-sourced/not verifiable. The image is factual and relevant to the article, weather it falls in the fair use exemption is another debate as is the undue weight debate. Legal threats being spewed are just a form of legal paranoia and are not a valid reason for removal. If there are genuine legal concerns eg over copyright then they should be considered but being paraniod over a court injunction which relates to the presant and future and not the past has no weight in arguments as it is not relevant.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, your statement that "there is no evidence to the contrary that the harm was caused" is just plain wrong. Women have been hounded and assaulted as a result of being misidentified as Carr, by people who had seen pictures of her. Where they saw them is irrelevant - any further images can only increase the chances of this recurring. Regarding the legal situation, there have been no 'threats' as far as I'm aware. An editor (not me) suggested that including an image might be "in contempt of the court injunction". Either this is true or it isn't, and debates over whether it is "paranoia" can only be resolved by someone with appropriate legal training - our opinions on the matter are of no relevance here.

As for the image being "factual and relevant to the article", that is for us to decide according to policy, and by consensus. So far, I've seen policy-based arguments regarding why the image should not be included, but none for inclusion other than 'I think it should be'. As always, it is for those wishing to include items in an article to provide adequate reasons to.

Finally, I note that you have not responded to my suggestion that the benefit fraud and deception convictions are off-topic for an article on the Soham murders, and should therefore be excluded. Can I assume you agree? If not, can you explain your reasoning? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note silence is not agreement or consensus and also please see comments from others and my own which state "The news reports at the time of her secondary convictions noted that they were only in the public interest due to the linking with the Soham Case". also one of the convictions directly relates to living with Huntley and one direcdtly to working at the school. I shall respond to you above comments later. I would suggest reading more fully all of the comments by all users before making your own inferences and incorrect conclusions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it she claimed that she was living alone to gain extra benefits, and made some false statement on a job application (and who hasn't done that). None of which have anything to do with the murders. John lilburne (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The public interest test was based on her link to the murders. And Fraud is Fraud regardless. Lieing on a job application is still Lieing. The convictions were widely reported and her links to the murder are the only reason they came to light so with out the Murders and if the murders hadn't hapened she would not have been subsequently convicted.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again what does any of that have to do with the murders? I notice that the article also mentions two of the police officers in connection to operation ore and one of the unsourced statements in that section says "poor presentation of prosecution evidence by a computer expert caused the trial to be stopped." you do know that operation ore was based from the start of flawed evidence and that there are now compensation pay outs being awarded by the courts because of false prosecutions. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact the offences only came to light because of the Murder inquiries and related to working closley with the girls and living with Huntley. The other case is not a relevant comparison. The sources provided give ample linkage to the Murders and the discovery of the later offences.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And you are ignoring the fact that the offences still had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are being deliberatly obtuse, by not seeing the convictions would never have occured if the murders ahd not occured, so they are linked.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that it was good thing that the girls got murdered otherwise Maxine Carr would never have been found out. John lilburne (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What total slanderous nonsence.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahem cough cough. John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have stated I support murder as a furtherance of the criminal justice system which is a patnt ammount of tripe and is sheer loonacy. As for the other user they are being intentionally obstructive by not reading comments I post and are getting over the top over it. Both comments are more than justified.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm being obtuse? Really? Yes, according to your arguments, the convictions are linked. But then so are a multitude of things - like this debate. We wouldn't be arguing if the murders hadn't occurred. Should we include this discussion in the article too? Incidentally, how do you know that Carr wouldn't have been found out without the murder investigation? Either give a rational argument for why the convictions are relevant to an article about the murders, or stop wasting people's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Get off your high horse and stop making absurd claims of time wasting. She would not have been found out about living with Huntley and as such the benefit fraud would not have been discovered.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't going to tell us why you think the convictions are relevant to an article about the murders? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Read what i have said and you will find the reasoning. Stop being intentionally ignorant and actually read the comments. I shall state the reasons again just for you. The convictions would not have occured with if the murderds had not occured and the public interest test was based on Carrs link with the murders.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stop being intentionally ignorant". ROFL. Since you cannot come up with a rational argument (or even a rational insult), I can only assume you haven't got one. You clearly don't understand Knowledge policy regarding permissible article content. Since the majority of postings here seem to indicate that Carr only needs to be discussed in the article in as much as she was directly involved, I am going to remove any mention of the fraud and deception convictions from the article, and suggest that before you attempt to reinsert them, you read WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not worth trying to have a rational discussion with. It appears as if you are hell bent on dismissing other people’s valid points as irrational because they do not fit in with you ridiculous interpretations of Wikipolicy. None of it is OR it it is from reliable news sources and none of it is there for the sake of it. It was all widely reported and linked with the Murders, even if tenuously. I also believe you are taking a paranoia approach to BLP by removing anything which may hurt someone’s feelings or give an ambulance chasing lawyer his no win no fee, unwinnable and hopless case of the week. Finally as for any of it being Synthesis, you are blatantly guilty of that by taking an unrelated court injunction and applying it to a fact based account of an historic event. What next we stop the Encyclopaedia Britannica from publishing and article on the case and including her picture and convictions, give me break. It is time to stop Wikilawyering and return to reality. The reasons provided by now multiple users and not just me give more than enough counter balance to dismiss you nonsensical arguments based on Wikiparanoia. The legal argument has now succinctly been clarified by ianmacm, so stop being paranoid over the injunction.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My 2p worth: Despite the attempts of the British tabloid press to turn Maxine Carr into a new version of Myra Hindley, her role in the Soham Murders was limited to lying in an alibi for Ian Huntley. The mugshot of her is a famous part of the case, and it may be overcautious to remove it altogether. The benefits fraud conviction in 2004 is not hugely notable and need not be mentioned unless it impacts directly on the murders, which it does not appear to. The article stresses that bored morons have attacked the wrong woman while believing her to be Maxine Carr. This makes the use of an image of her less than ideal, but a Google image search will provide what are admittedly out of date images, as the case received huge media coverage at the time.

On the legal angle (IANAL), there is nothing wrong with using material that is already in the public domain (eg the photos of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables). The Maxine Carr injunction is designed to prevent people from giving her current whereabouts in the media. The main issue with Maxine Carr is WP:BLP1E, and whether this makes it unnecessary to show an image of her.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that as a BLP1E there is no good reason within policy and guidelines to include any detail about Carr apart from what is directly connected to the murders, that does not include her previous minor convictions.- the article is not about Carr's life story, it is about the murder of the two girls. I also don't see any reason for Carr to have an infobox in the article either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Lucy-marie seems convinced of the merits her arguments, and I am of mine, I suspect that the best way to resolve this would be via a WP:RfC. I'm not sure whether this should be done on the article talk page, or here. Basically, there seem to be two things to settle: (a) Should an image of Maxine Carr be included in the Soham murders article (assuming that a copyright-free one is available, and the legal situation is clarified by someone who is qualified to say), and (b) Should Carr's benefit fraud and deception convictions be mentioned in the article. It might be best if an uninvolved person started the RfC in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its really needed - there is enough support within policy to remove the previous convictions and there is no commons license and a non free use pic doesn't seem to have consensus to include so the outcome of a RFC seems pretty clear from this discussion already. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

note - user Lucy marie is requesting full protection of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are unlikely to be any legal ramifications, see also Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber. There are plenty of images of Carr in UK online news sources, the past cannot be airbrushed. What really matters is whether she is wikinotable enough for an image and an infobox. Also agree that this is best resolved on the talk page rather than here.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, legal ramifications are likely close to zero, but that is not a reason to relax our adherence to policy and guidelines (not that you have suggested that) Its quite insightful to read the so called BLP we used to have for Carr, and the talkpage is good to see that such issues as pic or no pic are nothing new.Talk:Maxine Ann Carr - Yes, this is washed up here, I think to end the issue a :RFC on the article talkpage is required. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots to digest - but I find no reason at all for the personal material about Carr to be in the article about the murders. And the trivia about 'how much it costs" is completely irrelevant. I commented out the material as a result. And, for some odd reason, I suggest that material not even tangentially related to the named topic of the article does not actually belong in the article. Collect (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Like the Murder of Sarah Payne, the Soham murders have become part of the British tabloid press obsession with naming and shaming "paedos". This needs to be reflected in the article. This aspect of the case has been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. The fact that innocent women have been attacked is largely due to repeated tabloid hype about the case, which the article makes clear.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge is not and ought not be a "tabloid." That a "tabloid" sensationalizs something does not mean that we also ought do so. We are not Enquiropedia. Really. Though some seem to think it is. Collect (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Knowledge is not a tabloid. What the article does is to show how tabloid coverage of the case has distorted public perceptions. There are citations about this aspect of the case from multiple reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To the talk page we go, where I explain why I reverted Lucy-marie's re-inserted of the offending material. I urge editors to refrain from adding possibly contentious BLP material while this discussion is ongoing. This is not some argument about the genre of some metal band or whether some long-dead person was a philanderer: this is a BLP, and we should err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• No justification for the photo. Per Drmies, this should definitely not be restored.--John (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted edits here, noting BLP concerns with the additions; however, the user makes the fair point that the prior version also has many issues. If anyone can help fix this article, I'd appreciate it. Best,  Chzz  ►  06:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now after your edits - It is so weakly cited though, and not biographical at all, trouble is she is not really independently notable a few of the soaps she has been producer of are notable and so there is the idea to write a Bio about her which invariably becomes a coatrack for content about the show, apart from that we know nothing at all about her, redirect is the best option imo. I watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes; after posting here (which is usually my first action when I see such concerns), I did then edit it myself, trying to explain why it edit summary what I was doing. I'll try to check back on it later, too - all I removed, at the moment, was the specific negative BLP content. It may be that the person isn't notable enough for a separate article.

Incidentally, I also just removed this from the talk page - which I'm pretty sure is a non-controversial action.  Chzz  ►  03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Harvey Levin - date of birth

IMDB says Harvey Levin was born in 1951 -- wiki says 1950.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.193.39 (talk • contribs)

• Our date appears correct imo, he was 58 in October 2008...the other article I have no access to be assuming that supports the other on it looks good to me. Although we have the greatest of respect for or friends over at IMDB, currently we do not use their data to support personal details such as DOB, other details such as career history we do accept as reliable, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors of biographical articles should really go to their local library and find out how they can access the Biography in Context database. I've found it quite useful to easily and decisively settle disputes like this. It's silly how long arguments can develop when people use unreliable websites or extrapolate from news articles. Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree Gamaliel, thanks for your efforts in this direction. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review. Pepstar (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• User:Pepstar/Giuseppe_D. - quick look, seems to be low notability asserted with a promotional overtone...perhaps I'm being a bit harsh...Record producers....you rather ask some specialist editors, try the Knowledge:WikiProject Music - Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Made up article of the beloved Sabrina The Teenage Witch TV Show needs to be removed. Article includes falsified story about a condom lawsuit with a chinese buisiness man found dead in tub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.0.75 (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced allegations from the article, and left a message on the user's talk page. This was the user's first edit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John Wardle (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has added the statement below to the John Wardle (architect) page:

John Wardle is often considered a terrible architect and is generally berated in Australia Knowledge is an invaluable resource because it is ALWAYS correctItalic text it should be deleted immediately, we consider it to be defamatory.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresca Cullen (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Page vandalism, already deleted by another editor. I placed some links on your Talk page which will help if you see something like this and wish to edit it yourself in the future. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Some additional eyes would be helpful at Jimmy Iovine. Recent edits about Iovine's role on American Idol may raise BLP and NPOV issues, since there is disagreement whether the proffered sources support the edits. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has been vandalized with homophobic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanp253 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, thank you for spotting this. January (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Laura Bryna's real birthdate is December 25th 1980.

We need help changing the date that is in the body copy directly under BIOGRAPHY:

Birth Laura Bryna was born on December 5, 1962. (this date is an error)Italic text

thank you

Lauren Stern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenstern1182 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Laura Bryna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The birth date in the infobox was the most recent edit (diff) and I have just reverted it because it had no source (which means no birth date appears in the infobox). The article states "was born on December 5, 1962" with no source, and I have removed that as well because it is not satisfactory for a WP:BLP to have unsourced information, particularly when it is challenged. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• - She doesn't look en wikipedia notable to me. her album doesn't look wikipedia notable either - Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Laura Bryna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Trying to Be Me (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Joel Bakan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with more experience please look at the "Criticism" section of the Joel Bakan biography? It seems to give undue weight to some writer's personal opinion, and the source referenced does not appear reliable. The source is inflammatory and contains unverified information. It raises WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BPL issues, but I am too green to address these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbennet (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree and I've removed the section in question. If some more sources can be found that discuss him in this way then it can go back in, but basing it on just one op-ed from a politically opposing minor regional source is not acceptable. Article is not in great shape otherwise either, but that section couldn't stay. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

There's some discussion going on in the Tom Robinson talk page regarding his sexuality. This is an important issue in Robinson's case, since he's famous largely for his queer activism. There are some secondary sources which claim he's bisexual, but Robinson himself states explicitly that he is not bisexual, that he is a gay man, despite the fact that he married a woman. This is cited right in the article itself. Queer theory says that if he identifies as gay, he's gay, end of story. On the other hand, WP:RS seems to say that Knowledge should simply repeat the claims of third parties about the man's sexuality. I have difficulty accepting the logic that anyone else would have better knowledge of Robinson's sexuality than Robinson himself. Could we get some opinions on this? Is there a formal Knowledge policy regarding classifying a person's sexuality when their sexuality is in dispute, but integral to the article? Right now the article states that he is bisexual, which strikes me as being original research, given Robinson's own declarations to the contrary. SmashTheState (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is one of the wiki conundrums. You know its a false statement but it is cited. Self declarations are given a lot of space and weight. As such good attribution is required, johnny says he likes apples but the peoples daily and the weekly news say he likes pears because... Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Being married to a woman is not something that by itself would make a self-identified gay man bisexual, and in the absence of a good source any statement along these lines would indeed be WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest if two or more sources, deemed by consensus to pass WP:RS, are conflicting, the a solution would be direct attribution in the article. Like, "In an interview with ABC, Robinson stated that he considered himself to be gay. Another article in XYZ magazine reported Robinson to be bisexual based on his previous marriage to a woman." Or something like that. We can present both sides if it is well sourced. Quinn 18:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Myself an now two other editors are rather locked horns in our views and I'm asking for those more able to discuss BLP issues to please have a look and offer an opinion. The other editors are citing numerous guidelines and policies but I feel BLP overrides them. The likely options are:

1. Do not include any of it.
2. Keep a brief-as-possible mention. (this is presently in the article)

Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and later admitted he had been up all night, the following day after the segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell used ching chong while comically describing newscasters worldwide covering the 'non-news' event. She then had to apologize the following show to "those who felt hurt" saying "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that."

3. Use a full version.

. On December 5, after the segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell used ching chong while describing newscasters worldwide covering the non-news event. She was criticized for her use of the term, and there was disappointment of her perceived insensitivity when she had fought for gay and lesbian rights and spoken out against homophobia. On December 14, O'Donnell apologized to "those who felt hurt" explaining that "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that." O'Donnell warned that "there's a good chance I'll do something like that again, probably in the next week, not on purpose. Only 'cause it's how my brain works." Time called it a "pseudo-apology". O'Donnell later wrote in Celebrity Detox that "I wish I had been a bit more pure in my public apology."

Any help is welcome, discussion is at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not? Jnast1 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ace Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is horribly sourced, and could be full of libel for all we know, especially at the parts about the 9/11 conspiracies. I thought about immediately putting a speedy on it, but am not yet sure of the process, so wanted some input here before doing so. ~jcm 18:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Complete rubbish BLP - Low notability - educationally worthless - detrimental to the reputation of the project. I made some edits, feel free to speedy. Subject is closely associated to their co writer Clair Marlo which I have also stubbed back. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Soosim insists on adding very serious allegations of anti-semitism to the article on Mikis Theodorakis, and then edit-wars to make sure they stay in . He uses ultra-partisan, right-wing sources, which I find unacceptable. I do not think these sources are sufficient to back such grave allegations. He also behaves aggressively, removing my talkpage posts . Any help in dealing with this would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have good news and bad news. User Soosim was way off base deleting your post on the Talk page, and I will place a note to that effect on his user Talk page. On the other hand, Jerusalem Post is an old line, mainstream and well-respected Israeli newspaper that would be considered a reliable source for almost any assertion. Besides which, Theodorakis is so overt about his dislike of Jews it is not hard to find a non-Israeli source, such as The Guardian ("this small people is at the root of evil"). Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I re-inserted the material in the article, sourced to the Guardian and Jerusalem Post,and also included Theodorakis' denial from his web site. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked and found a citation in the Los Angeles Times:

• "We're in danger!" warned renowned composer Mikis Theodorakis, who in the course of a television interview openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite. "Zionism and it leaders are here, meeting in our country!" "This is no laughing matter," he railed, berating Zionism and its "control over America and the banking system that Greece is now a victim of."
  • "Anti-Semitism flares anew in Greece; Strong sentiments have been revived amid the angst and anger of the economic crisis." Anthee Carassava. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 21, 2011. pg. A.3

I agree that the Jerusalem Post is also a reliable source and not a partisan rag.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here] is a thread from the showing consensus that Jerusalem Post fact reporting is reliable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An unfortunate situation, since I love the theme from Zorba, but Theodorakis seems to cross the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, even in his own recent declaration against anti-Semitism where he claims that "Zionists" control 99% of the world music industry. Jonathanwallace's edits look good, but they don't deal with the comments Theodorakis made this year, only those from 2003. Should some mention of the recent comments also go in?Griswaldo (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Although, as far as I can tell Theodorakis did not exactly "openly concede that he was an anti-Semite," despite making what are quite clearly anti-Semitic remarks. Indeed he maintains that he is not an anti-Semite. My point is that I think this should be covered, but we should not repeat the claim that he "openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite" without reliable sourcing that actually quotes him saying it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the whole thing started up again in 2011. In fact, I inadvertently mixed the two events together, referencing the Wiesenthal Center's 2011 allegation together with the composer's 2003 comments. A sentence or two needs to be added clarifying this. I agree we shouldn't say he admits to anti-semitism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry about the deletion. don't know how it happened. never have done anything like it before in more than 4 years as an editor. will try to fix it. Soosim (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask for an investigation of the sources that have cited or written the possibly correct or in some cases possibly incorrect DOB of some people (Such as Tom Kane, Jason Statham, Robert Pattinson, Kath Soucie and Martin Landau). Some people have tried to cite multiple sources, but it is quite possible that through a third party source unreliable info to have been spread.................or in this case someone wrote the first year that came to his mind in someone Knowledge page and from then on every other website start writing this.79.124.57.4 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The notion that information printed in one (ostensibly) reliable source is actually false would, of course, require a competing reliable source. For example, if the New York Times, usually considered a halfway decent paper, saif that John Doe was born on January 10, 1951; and you claim that the New York Times was basing its information on a faulty source, you'd better have something at least as good as the New York Times which says so, or else its just your word, as an anyonymous internet denizen, against the reputation of the New York Times... We'd need more than that. --Jayron32 20:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC):

All said is that it is strange to say that John Doe finished High School in 1943 and that he was born 1951 or the other way around and it's impossible to imply that this person is around 40 years of ag when in reality he is more close to 60 years of age. PLEASE investigate who wrote these DOBs, what source did they use and are they true or...........that is if that is not a problem79.124.57.4 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We aim at verifiablity not WP:TRUTH, with the caveats that we aim to write conservatively about living persons (see WP:BLP) and that we aim to get the articles right, so any obvious errors like the above would need to be fixed. You are just as well able as us to "investigate who wrote these DOBs" - see Help:Page history. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He's got a point about Martin Landau. The birthdate is sourced to space1999.net and veromi.net. Is this acceptable for a BLP? Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure its acceptable for any article... Bad sources are bad sources, and I wouldn't count either of those as bearing the hallmarks of reliability... --Jayron32 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

James Suckling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is repeated mention that "In 1992 Suckling suggested to Wine Spectator publisher Marvin R. Shanken to create Cigar Aficionado, a magazine dedicated to Cuban culture, specifically Cuban cigars." This statement is incorrect and has been acknowledged by Suckling himself as incorrect, yet is continually inserted. Additionally, no copies of the cited material can be found anywhere to verify the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnagara (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm a representative that works for Jessie Vargas and we have noticed that his name has been spelled incorrectly. Can you please correct this as soon as possible? The correct spelling of his name is: Jessie Vargas page url: http://en.wikipedia.org/Jesse_Vargas. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig2kenneth (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I left a request for comment at the Knowledge talk:WikiProject Boxing#name claim - Jesse Vargas - Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

C2k, We've no proof that you are, who you claim to be. Anyways, what name are you claiming to be correct? GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Every cited source I've looked at in the article (and I stopped after a few) uses "Jessie", not "Jesse".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is his Twitter account, although I don't know how to verify that it's "official". I have now seen sources that use the spelling "Jesse". I've even seen one source that uses "Jesse" and then points to his Twitter account that says "Jessie".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You get a little tick in a blue circle like this account http://twitter.com/#!/tinselkorey - some people are so clearly who they say they are, or and some have done real world verification, or on wiki verification such as this account did http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy wales in this post to his user page - Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob, the Vargas account doesn't appear to be verified.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and looking at it, nothing there suggest any reliability to support anything here on wikipedia. As a note, I have used unverified twitter accounts to verify content here when the account ownership is clearly indisputable, such as http://twitter.com/#!/peaches_g - Peaches Geldof, she actually posted on twitter in an attempt to correct her wikipedia entry when her name was being falsely altered. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb and Off2. We simply don't have the necessary indicia of reliability.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So that Peaches thing has finally been resolve then? Last time I looked in to it, it seemed possible her long name had been invented on wikipedia and spread from there and there was a denial in some TV show but it was difficult to find any decent denial and unfortunately there were a lot of sources all of which postdated us of course. Nil Einne (talk)

Eric B. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated notability, NPOV, quotefarm, citation, and resume issues -- appears to be a vanity article. robotrollcall 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion as a Google search disclosed no independent third party sources confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Barry Wellman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject has edited this article heavily - Bellagio99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and the article reads as a resume. Most of the sources are his own papers; the career progression reads as WP:OR from beginning to end. Please review this article and make it less of an advertisement. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the editor is Dr. Wellman himself, he might be advised of concerns under WP:AUTOBIO. However, the article is carefully written and avoids WP:PEACOCK words, and a brief Google search confirms notability, as he has been extensively quoted and covered in media articles such as this one. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • But the problems Guy describes are real, and the article should not remain as it is. It would be a shame to hack it down, but that might be the only option unless someone has the time for a more nuanced approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Jim Karygiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some recent edits to this article are concerning - could someone please review them? Prioryman (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I removed it . Undue weight to minor issues creating attack content and other such problems such as - this -- Karygiannis spewed out anti-Macedonian hate at a lecture entitled "Insight to Hellenism" at the University of Toronto. While praising the lecture, which glorified Greece's policy of denying the existence and persecution of its large Macedonian minority and which defended Greece's bombing of Macedonian civilians during Greece's Civil War, Karygiannis once again referred to Macedonians as "Skopjans". This is a term used by Greece to negate the ethnic identity of Macedonians and evokes Greeces horrific campaigns, past and present, at ethnically cleansing or forcibly assimilating its large Macedonian minority. As a result, Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI) calls on Canadian politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to demand Karygiannis' immediate resignation -- was cut and copied from this primary opinionated location(content posted from the citation for discussion only and not reprinting) - http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2011/march08_e.asp - Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Gary E. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article does not appear to have a neutral tone and is more of a puff piece for Johnson's announced political run.

Missing: 1. Democratic Viewpoint 2. Viewpoint of other groups, especially political analysts who are nonpartisan. 3. His critics 4. Affects of his decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.92.145 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It does read like a puff piece. I chopped out some of the worst bits, which were basically just lists of positive press quotes and campaign stops. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nikki Yanofsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sources seem clear enough to me in support of our stating in our article that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, yet it is being objected to. It is being discussed at Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views. Can we have further input from others?

It was brought here previously, by me. There is an additional source at this point in time. Here we have the previous discussion at this Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? Or is this just another example of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project. (BTW, has anyone ever seen him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the article, it is a prominent part of her parents life, though her parents are not notable outside of the fact of being her parents. I personally don't see anything wrong with the current version. I do think it is obsessive ethno-tagging, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning her family background.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Andy, I thinks this is indeed simply more of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project, and no, I've never seem him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities. It's clear from the sources that her parents are quite active in the Jewish community, but it's not at all clear that the daughter shares this self-identification. Many religions and religious people, including Jewish newspaper sources, assume that a child is of the same religion as the parents: however, this is simply not true and kids frequently rebel. Niki may well consider herself a Buddhist or a Pagan or an athiest, we have no way of knowing unless she says. Given that she's a minor and hasn't make any declaration of religious affiliation, the most we can state in the article is that she is born into a Jewish family. Most people will read that as a Jewish identification and we've not put any possibly false statements into the article in the process.

As for Bus Stop's weak synthesis using such details as going home for Passover: many people go home for social events such as Christmas, Easter, Passover, and join in even though they don't consider themselves Christian or Jewish. It's a social thing and proves nothing. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But we do have sourcesThe following 5 excerpts from 2 sources would I think pretty clearly serve to establish for Knowledge purposes that Yanofsky is Jewish:

"Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song".

"Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky’s career continues to blossom."

"Along the way, Yanofsky was mentored by many other Jewish artists, such as the composer Marvin Hamlisch, who featured her at age 14 at a Carnegie Hall performance in New York."

"“Performing in Israel was so moving. How can anyone, Jewish or not Jewish, not feel connected to the people there? I enjoyed not only performing there, but seeing all the landmarks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I definitely want to come back to Israel as often as possible,” Yanofsky said."

"“She comes from a close-knit Jewish family. Her parents, Richard and Elyssa, who manage her career, support many Jewish causes, including the Israel Cancer Research Fund. The singer will be home next month to celebrate a Passover seder with her parents and two brothers ." Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again... Can you explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? If you can't, then your obsessions are best directed elsewhere. Knowledge isn't intended to be therapy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

All the sources presented above which actually say she is Jewish (only the first two) are Jewish news sources which don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish, they make assumptions and don't provide sources for their claims. The rest are unusable because they rely on implication or interpretation, which we don't allow on any articles, much less BLPs. None of the last three directly state that she is Jewish. They say some other artists are Jewish, that Yanovsky found performing in Israel "moving", that her parents are Jewish, and that she will be at home for Passover. I attend seders, but that doesn't mean I'm Jewish. None of these are reliable sources for this specific detail, and none establish that even if she is Jewish that it is a significant part of her notability. Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish and how this relates to her singing career or otherwise contributes to her notability, that would be different. Having the Jewish community note that she is Jewish doesn't really mean anything for the general notability of her alleged Jewishness. The fact that other, non-Jewish, sources don't even mention it means it is not significant to her notability. If it were, it would get mentioned in the non-Jewish sources. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I also note that the "five" sources you present above are only two sources. The first two are one article, the last three another article. When you present sources, please try to do it in a way that is not misleading about the number of sources involved, hmmm... Yworo (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—the content of an article is not limited to that which shows a clear relation to notability according to my reading of policy:

"Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. What limits this is discussion on the talk page with regard to reaching an editorial decision regarding the significance of such matters. As always, it is for those wishing to assert significance to provide evidence of such. So where is this evidence to be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Yworo—you seem to call for "non-Jewish" sources. Do you find support for that in policies, guidelines, and essays?

And you say the 2 reliable sources I've provided "don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish". Do you have a source that would show that she might not consider herself Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not reliable source for this particular piece of information because they are sources which have a bias with respect to that particular piece of information. So you have no reliable sources. Furthermore, it's not simply a matter of whether or not she is Jewish, it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability. Jewish sources can't establish that. Yworo (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—you say, "…it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability."

I find at WP:NOTE that:

"Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

and:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list."

As applied to our article, wouldn't the above policy imply that "Jewishness" need not be "part of her notability"? Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It would imply that you should read the next sentence in the notability guidelines: "For Knowledge's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Knowledge is not, and Biographies of living persons". Now provide evidence of significance, or stop wasting everyone's time with your facile wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—we require reliable sources. You have not demonstrated that The Jewish Tribune and the Canadian Jewish News are not reliable sources. Like all news organizations they have their reputation to protect.

So far you have not pointed to wording in policies, guidelines, and essays that might guide us in evaluating sources in the way that you are suggesting. Where do you find differentiation between sources on this basis? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "provide evidence of significance". Note that at this point in the article's evolution, it is not being suggested that this particular characteristic be expanded upon. All that is being suggested, by me, is that it be perfunctorily noted. Do you think there has to be great significance—like she has to be basing jazz syncopation on cantorial rhythms? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have still provided no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate why Yanofsky's Jewish descent is of any significance, I'd assume that there isn't any. On that basis, there is nothing to debate here. Can somebody hat this section please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I am not seeing any support for her having any religious views, is there some support for that claim? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say you see no "religious views." Bear in mind that Knowledge is "not finished". If "religious views" come to light they can be added at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

note - the post above from user:bus stop is posted out of the timeline and confuses the discussion making it look like a post from user Griswaldo is a reply to the user bus stops post but this is false, the post above is actually posted after the one below - Yes, indeedy, but that is not the question - so clearly we have not reliable support for her religiousness. As I had a look at the content and the reliable support is very good at present and without more reliable reports this is well resolved, a quality update, thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you unhappy with the current state of the entry, which mentions her Jewish upbringing but says nothing about her own identity? If you are happy with the current state then there is nothing more to discuss. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you mention "religiousness" but of course that is not the issue. This was my edit to the Yanofsky article:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

I believe the above edit to the Personal life section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that "Yanofsky is Jewish" supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting in discussion format, engorged and elongated comments in links? what part of don't you understand? Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop this is a repeat issue with you adding "Nikki/Jonny/Harry - who is a Jew" as if it is a primary notability. George who is Christian ... its your primary interest but not readers or wikipedias. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. What we should be discussing is whether the fact that Yanofsky is of Jewish descent is of any significance to the article. Since you utterly refuse to explain why you see any significance to this, I can only assume that you consider imposing your own neuroses on Knowledge as more important than the stated aims of the project. On this basis, I would support a call for you to be topic banned from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - topic ban for user bus stop from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. its a repeat issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've brought this up on AN/I before and failed to establish as topic ban; however, Bus Stop's behavior appears to have gotten even more obsessive since then and I still support a topic ban. Yworo (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Off2riorob—do you want Knowledge to be a petty battleground? Two sources devote considerable commentary to Yanofsky being Jewish. One of those sources entitles its article, "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song". Are you sure it is not one or both of you that should have your editing activities curtailed? Jewish identity for the subject of a WP:BLP can be stated in a straightforward way—if doing so is adequately supported by sources. That is what this discussion should have been about. Unfortunately my intentions to keep this discussion civil and especially on topic are taxed considerably by the battleground mentality that utilizes calls for "topic bans" as a response that should have addressed the issue at hand. All Jews are not merely "from a Jewish family." If sources say that they themselves are indeed Jewish, it should be within the realm of possibility for Knowledge to adhere to such sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The petty battleground is your own mentality, even worse it that your battleground and issue is genetic and religious. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the issue at hand is whether Yanofsky being of Jewish descent is actually of any significance to the article. You utterly refuse to address this, and instead endlessly drone on about 'reliable sources', when reliability isn't the issue, but relevance. It is this refusal to communicate, combined with an endless pushing of the same absurd POV regarding labelling anyone possible as 'Jewish', that indicates your lack of concern for Knowledge, and your utter disregard for objectivity regarding this question. This is why I suggested a topic ban. I've no doubt you could do useful work elsewhere on the project if you ceased pursuing this obsession of yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, bus stop...are you interested in anything apart from jews? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple sourcing question. If she's sourced as being Jewish, having Jewish parents, being of Jewish descent, believing in Judaism, "growing up Jewish", etc., that's a biographical fact and can be included as such. Whether it's worth including and how you word it (and I'm offering no opinion there) is a matter of editorial discretion, but a blanket abstract claim that one shouldn't mention a person's connection to Judaism unless it's sourced as being relevant to notability is clearly not in accordance with our content policies and guidelines. "Relevant to notability" has been repeatedly proposed and rejected as a standard for content generally, and there's nothing special about Jewishness that would require a higher standard. If the sources are unclear you have a WP:V issue. There's no BLP issue unless the sources are weak or in conflict. This is basic stuff. Let's move on, please. I'll assume good faith about the original poster's asking of this question, but everyone else ought to lay off on using yet another forum as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for personal attacks or efforts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from the encyclopedia. If this behavior continues it's heading for behavioral RfCs or Arbcom, which is an unpleasant process unlikely to yield results that satisfy anyone.- Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the 'biographical facts' you state are not actually sourced, beyond her having Jewish parents. Secondly though, you are not addressing the question I have repeatedly asked Bus Stop: why is Yanofsky being of Jewish descent of any significance to the article? As for this going to 'behavioural RfCs or Arbcom' then if that occurs, so be it. Maybe this will finally settle the issue one way or another, and if the ethnio-taggers win, I'm sure they will all be happy in their endeavours to compile Tag-a-Jew-pedia, regardless of the diminishing credibility of the project. After all, it isn't here for the readers, but as therapy for the contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon - please read the citations previous to commenting, vague comments are worse than constructive, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec - before the above 2 comments) I've taken a quick look, and it's not entirely clear to me that there is strong sourcing to say she is Jewish in the first place. The sources are nominally reliable but the actual references seem to be passing and indirect - of the "like other Jewish artists..." variety in Jewish special interest publications, not a strong source flat out saying "She is Jewish" or "Her parents were Jewish" (in the latter case we would say just that, about her parents and not her). Weak sources do create a BLP question as noted. (after ec) Being of Jewish faith, background, religion, ethnicity, and/or parentage is a biographically relevant fact in its own right, like being born in a certain place or a certain year, attending a particular school, gender and nationality, or who one's parents are. We don't need to source the importance of any of these, we just report them when the sources do. The "tag-a-Jew" comment is rude and offensive; please desist from mocking people who don't share your opinion on the biographical implcations of being Jewish. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And you can demonstrate that there are biographical implications for Yanofsky being of Jewish descent ('Jewish' is ambiguous in this context)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no need to demonstrate the biographical implications of each biographical fact. That's not how biographies work here or anywhere else. If a person's parents were Jewish, or seamstresses, or from Poland, we just lay out the facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we make editorial decisions on which 'facts' to include in an article, based on their significance. Neither you nor Bus Stop have provided any evidence whatever in this regard. If you can't explain why something should be included, it shouldn't be. Or should we start adding shoe size to biographies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Start adding shoe size? It's already in Template:Infobox adult biography and Template:Infobox model, among others, and, assuming my memory isn't failing, I've removed a lengthy excursion on the subject from Uma Thurman. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know who this "we" is you're referring to, because it certainly does not reflect the practice of Knowledge editors or others writing biographies. I'm not going to engage you in yet another mock debate over your strange proposition that Jewishness isn't a fit subject for the encyclopedia. You want to compare it to shoe size and other nonsense, please take that somewhere else. We get it, you don't think Jewishness is relevant to people's life story so it shouldn't be mentioned. But this is a BLP notice board, not a vehicle for removing ethnicity from the encyclopedia. If the subject is reliably sourced, the subject is reliably sourced. If not, it isn't. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated that "Jewishness is relevant to people's life story", and in particular, that it is relevant to a biography that only exists because of a person's notability, then yes, if an argument is made that this is significant, then this should be considered for inclusion. What should not occur is what a few editors routinely engage in - looking for sources to demonstrate that person X is of their favourite ethnicity, in order to add another person to their list - this is basically stamp-collecting (or bus spotting?), applied to people. It us utterly unencyclopaedic, and serves no useful purpose other than to reinforce the ridiculous stereotypes that go with 'ethnicity'. It adds no useful content whatsoever to articles, except for those who share the same unhealthy obsession with shoving people into ethnic boxes - something that I'd have thought (perhaps naively), those with Jewish roots might be a little wary of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take derisive comments about other editors somewhere else, not here. If you think downplaying ethnicity will make the world a more tolerant place, you're perfectly welcome to that opinion. But insulting people who think otherwise is rude to your fellow editors, offensive to some, and off topic. Again, I'm not going to debate you. You've come to this board many times, and debated me before, over your campaigns to remove various ethnic-related content from the encyclopedia. If you have a content-related proposal that's what article talk pages are for. If you have a policy proposal to change how Knowledge describes ethnic identity there are plenty of policy pages to discuss that. If you're going to be realistic about things you've got an uphill battle there because most people are just fine mentioning that someone is Jewish (or some other ethnicity, parentage, or religion) if the sources say so. This notice board relates to poorly sourced contentious statements about living people, not a decision on whether to include sourced material or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"This notice board relates to poorly sourced contentious statements about living people, not a decision on whether to include sourced material or not". Exactly. The correct place for such disputes is the article talk page, where the significance of such issues can better be debated. Bus Stop brought the issue here because he was losing the debate. Mainly because his obsession with labelling people as 'Jewish' is seen for what it is - an obsession that has little to do with article content, and everything to do with his own wish to apply stereotypes. I note that like Bus Stop, you don't actually offer any reason as to why Yanofsky's ethnic background should be included in the bio, beyond the fact that it can be sourced. Since Knowledge isn't intended as an ethnobureaucratic database (as far as I'm aware), one would at least hope that those wishing to engage in such practices would offer a better justification for doing so than 'because I want to, and I've got sources...'. So tell us why it is of relevance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic background / religion / parentage / national origin / etc. reliably sourced -> ethnic background / religion / parentage / national origin / etc. can be mentioned in bio. If an uncontroverted plurality of reliable sources say that someone's parents are/were Jewish then we can say in their bio article that their parents are/were Jewish. It's as simple as that and I'm not going to jump down a rabbit hole debating the whys and wherefores of such a basic biographical principle or the larger social issues behind it. I don't particularly care what axe you have to grind about the motivations of Bus Stop or any other editor. You obviously care about this in the context of avoiding stereotypes and oppression. I've already said that the way you have expressed some of that stuff is off-putting and potentially offensive to some. It's obvious from the state of articles, and the policy / guideline pages, that most people are okay with mentioning ethnicity if sourced rather than systematically downplaying it. That's the state of consensus on Knowledge, and how bios are written off Knowledge. Aggressively confronting people on the subject is not going to help win them to your case to downplay ethnicity. At this point we're talking in circles, and we've talked about this exact issue a number of times before, here and elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

- This was resolved earlier, its simple biographical detail, she is from a Jewish family, thats worthy of note in her bio, a simple comment like what we have - basically, unless she was adopted its an ethnic claim, its her roots - we have a cite for that she was brought up in a Jewish home and that is in the article - I don't see any reason in the right context not to mention that. There is no citations that dispute the claim ...so ....What we don't know is if she goes to synagogues or is spiritual or religious or any of that, so we just add what we have, it just needs care and close reporting of the citations. One of the reasons such is an issue is because of the diaspora and the persecution, Jewish ethnicity was often hidden. If cited it is worthy of note in a simple comment. This is back here repeatedly, we need to give a little and just present ethnic issues like this in a reasonable way. Its not a part of her notability , just a simple fact of her life story and who she is and where her roots come from. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects to the current state of the article I'd like to close this discussion. This thread is not the right place for a more general discussion about the relevance of ethnicity in BLPs. I have my own opinion on that subject, but it's not worth sharing here. Can we please stop this discussion unless there is a current BLP issue that isn't resolved. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—are you an expert on Judaism? You say, "What we don't know is if she goes to synagogues or is spiritual or religious or any of that…" Sources say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. Why are you questioning sources? Sources need not provide the details that you request—unless you are presenting yourself as an expert in the subject of Judaism. If at some future point information becomes available to us, that is reliably sourced, concerning synagogue attendance or any of the other points that you mention, then at that point such material can be added to our article. Knowledge is not really ever finished. Related information that is unavailable shouldn't obviate inclusion of that information that is presently available and reliably sourced. In my opinion the salient question is: do we have sufficient sourcing to say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? I think we do. (AndyTheGrump raises what I think is a secondary question: should we include that even if it is well-sourced?) My argument is that we do not have to beat around the bush as far as Nikki Yanofsky's Jewishness is concerned. We need not consign her Jewishness to the present wording, "…was born and raised in a 'close-knit Jewish family'". There is more to it than that. In my reading of sources, they are saying also that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. While it is true that she was raised in a Jewish family, the more pertinent point is that she is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The way that the wiki works is that luckily all contributors edit articles - you are not required to be an expert of Jewish issues, luckily, such restrictive contributions would result in Jewish articles written by Jewish people for Jewish people, what we are looking for is a world view , a global understanding and presentation of this topic and not a narrow introspective involved position. As for your comments, you seem like a single voice with your position and as such your points have been rebutted previously and are unworthy of repeated response. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say we are looking for a "world view , a global understanding". I don't think that is correct. In my opinion we are looking for adherence to sources. Opinions can vary on just what constitutes a "world view , a global understanding". But the importance of adherence to sources to this project can't be overestimated. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that has been followed in this case extremely closely. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So once again Bus Stop responds with his usual 'Knowledge must list every Jew I can find a source for' blather. Wrong. Sources are a necessary requirement for inclusion. They are not however a sufficient one. This in an encyclopaedia, not your own personal ethnic database. If you can't come up with a better argument than 'It is sourced, and I want it', then find a Wiki that supports your obsession.

And BTW, Bus Stop, your "reading of sources" clearly falls under WP:OR too. Not to mention that your endless searching for such sources falls under WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to push an agenda, and distorts the project by marking a particular ethnicity as more worthy of mention. If you were attempting to insert ethnicity into all BLPs, I could take this as merely an obsession, but your confining it to Jewish people demonstrates just how skewed your outlook is over issues of ethnicity, and is further grounds for suggesting you should not be editing BLPs.

With regard to the article in question, I think the statement that "Yanofsky was born and raised in a 'close-knit Jewish family'" is unnecessary, but if the consensus on the talk page is that this should be included, I'll not object. A statement that she is Jewish would at minimum have to clarify whether this was by ethnicity, or faith - and if the latter be self-attributed, and shown to be of relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…your endless searching for such sources falls under WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to push an agenda, and distorts the project…"

Let me respond to that:

I didn't first add to the article that Yanofsky was Jewish. Nor did I bring the first of the two sources supporting that Yanofsky is Jewish. Nor did I initiate the section on the Talk page of the Yanofsky article called Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views—where the entirety of this discussion takes place at that article. In point of fact the statement that Yanofsky is Jewish has been inserted as well as removed numerous times, by others, before I ever became aware of this issue. When I became aware of the issue I posted my comments and opinions on the already in progress "Religious views" section of the Yanofsky article Talk page. And I also tried to insert the statement that Yanofsky is Jewish into the article. I was reverted. I did nothing for some months, then discovered that there was a new reliable source available that was also supportive of Yanofsky being Jewish. So I brought that to the Talk page and once again tried to insert that assertion into the article. That was about a week ago.

This is an issue that existed for many months at the Yanofsky article long before I even became aware of it. Don't forget that the first of two sources is from February of 2010; I first joined the discussion on the Yanofsky Talk page in December of 2010. I was not even aware of it before that point. If you look through the article history you will see numerous additions of the assertion that Yanofsky is Jewish as well as numerous removals of that same assertion.

I can bring diffs but I thought I'd just present the above as it is easier. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, if we set aside the broader implications and concentrate on the matter at hand (often a good idea) I think I agree with Off2riorob and AndyTheGrump. If we have solid sources as to simple biographical facts, e.g. Nikki Yanofsky was born to Jewish parents, it's fair to include that in the bio absent any particular reason not to. However, we cannot extrapolate our own declaration of identity from that (i.e. say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish herself) without sources. You could call that a BLP thing, or SYNTH, or opinion, whatever. The sources on whether she is Jewish herself are few, relatively weak, and subject to reasonable question (e.g. that passing comments in Jewish-related publications that someone is Jewish are often inaccurate and overinclusive). We don't have anything definitive pro or con - no contradicting sources, no self-identification, and no sources to say that any of this matters to her bio, so the default position would be to leave that out. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon—you say that, "...passing comments in Jewish-related publications that someone is Jewish are often inaccurate and overinclusive..."

Do you find support for anything along these lines in Knowledge policies, guidelines, essays, or anywhere else on Knowledge? Or is this an idea that has never received any degree of community approval? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge is not rule-based, it's consensus-based. In this case, the consensus is clearly against you. The applicable policies in this particular case are WP:CON combined with WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—it might be worth noting that nothing supports the notion that a so-called "Jewish source" is any less reliable than a so-called "non-Jewish source". If your argument hinges on such an assumption, might not your argument be invalid? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:NEWSORG, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Knowledge article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." That's what's being done here. Yworo (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—when you have two different publications supporting an assertion, that too counts for something. And they are publishing the same information approximately a year apart. These are factors that I think contribute to credibility. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of your opinion. I disagree with you. So do multiple other editors. Things are done by consensus here and the consensus is clearly and solidly against you. You have been repeatedly tendentious on this subject, and if you plan to continue further Wikilawyering on this subject, I personally hope someone starts another topic ban proceeding against you. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Simple question; does this person self-identify as Jewish? Tarc (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we have nothing presented for that, but she has not been/is not inserted in any cats in regard to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO that is a pretty lear case against Bus Stop's position, then. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—is it your understanding that a precondition to our stating in the body of an article that a person is Jewish is a statement from that individual that they are Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment What is the BLP concern being addressed presently? I tried to hat this discussion but Bus Stop unhatted it. If there is no longer a BLP concern being discussed take this somewhere else. I wont rehat this becuase I don't want to edit war, but seriously this is not a wikiproject about ethnicity or general BLP matter, but a noticeboard to deal with specific issues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What is usually the case here is we don't usually bother hatting discussions, in cases like this where there is a single user refusing to accept consensus we usually just ignore them and the thread will close on its own. This appears to be a repeat issue with user bus stop and that may well require addressing if the pattern continues.Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - i really don't understand. andy - you seem very headstrong that religion is not important in an encyclopedic article. we should go through every blp and erase christian, jewish, muslim, etc. because it is NEVER relevant to their importance because their voice is only what matters if they are a singer, and their acting talent if they are an actor, and their looks if they are a model, etc. but alas, the world we live in is not uni-dimensional, so an encyclopedia tells us the whole picture. she is of jewish parents, seems to be the consensus for now, so leave it. and if you really want to stick to the self-declared rule, i will happily start to edit lots of pages here, and people will not be happy about that! Soosim (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your threats to edit other articles are laughable - go on then - do your worst - Perhaps you don't get it as regards to en wikipedia - someone is a notable singer, their religion is irrelevant to that and is not a part of their notability , it might be what your interested in but that is irrelevant to this wikipedia, jonny is a notable singer, not a notable Jew that is a singer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

off - 'threats'? sorry. not me. but i am happy i made you laugh. that is important to me. and i see you don't get it. jonny the jew is a notable singer. on his bio page in en wiki, his date of birth did not make him notable. (he is not a notable april 1, 1994 birth that is a singer - as you would say). his city of birth or residence, etc - those are pieces of what we call 'information'. nothing more or less. enjoy them. learn from them. that's what they are there for. thanks! Soosim (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes your threats, laughable threats - not because they are funny at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, Knowledge policy is quite clear regarding making statements about the religious faith of living persons: this needs to be self-asserted. I'd assumed that this debate was about whether Yanofsky should be described as ethnically Jewish, where policy is less clear regarding sourcing. The point is that whether a persons faith and/or ethnicity are of significance to an article is normally decided by talk-page consensus etc. There is no hard-and-fast rule either way, though a few individuals seem to take the line that such matters are automatically significant in regard to particular faiths and/or ethnicities - usually their own. This is of course a gross breach of WP:NPOV. I suspect that one reason this debate is so contentious is because of cultural differences between US and other contributors. Certainly, in Britain, the need to identify everyone by ethnicity seems less pronounced that it would appear to be in the US. I also suspect that there are inter-generational differences regarding this issue, and of course educational level is of significance too. All of this tends to make for endless debate, and constant edit-warring over contentious cases. Frankly, I don't think that we will ever solve this issue entirely, but a littkle more honesty about motivations might help. Personally, I have no problem admitting to a bias against adding content regarding faith and ethnicity to BLPs where it is of little significance - but this is a bias acknowledged in Knowledge WP:BLP policy which states that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". There is very little 'regard for privacy' involved in drive-by ethnotagging, based on questionable sources. There is also the issue that Knowledge seems rather prone to getting such matters just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

andy - i edit many blps for christians and for jews. as i said above - not a 'threat' (oh my) but just a fact - i can re-edit them and remove all but self admitting ones. so many christians are listed as such, as are jews, but no attibution of self admitting. whatever. they might even be clergy, but have never said that they themselves where x. Soosim (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

so what - go and delete whatever you want - do it now, yawn, your squealing is nothing but empty worthless threats. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have to admit, I found this thread of interest, but became lost somewhere in the middle. Or perhaps, given its length, it was the beginning. But, I'm guessing that maybe it is resolved? (hoping ....). I'll just point out one thought I'm left with. If Editor x likes the Yankees, and seeks to properly improve all Yankees articles (but not the Red Sox articles), that's great. Same if he likes to edit about cities in Siberia (but not about those in Namibia). Or dogs (but not cats). That's all great. Some editors here may have a POV against the Yankees, or Siberia, or dogs, but that is not reason for them to be critical of Editor x. Our project is built by editors editing on subjects that are of interest to them.

The opposite is not ok. If Editor y hates the Yankees (perhaps he prefers the Red Sox), or hates Siberia (perhaps he dislikes the cold), or hates dogs (those cat-lovers!), and Editor y seeks to eviscerate those articles improperly, that is indeed a problem. Just a thought. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do you feel about Editor X running from BLP article to BLP article adding the assertion "A Yankees Fan" based on the fact that the subjects parents might once attended a game? Would that be improving the BLP articles. John lilburne (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. First of al, do you agree w/my initial premise? As to your second question, as you describe it I would think there may well be a stretch. If it is nothing more than that. But hey -- I am dealing right now w/an editor who says that "Wherever there is a Yankee fan, I have to insert it if his Mother is a Red Sox fan". And ... he then deletes the fact that the subject is a Yankees fan. How's that for odd?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the initial premise is, other than people should be improving the articles, which seems like a tautology, but perhaps I've missed something. Question is whether the addition of all factoids, if facts they are, improves the articles. My view is that they should only be added if, and only if, they provide insight into the person and why they are being listed in the first place. Otherwise one ends up with an article that is full of irrelevant nonsense. I don't want to know the names of Isaac Newton's cat, if he indeed had one, the name of Erwin Schrödinger's cat on the other hand might be interesting. In neither case does knowing what religion their parents were advance any understanding of either person, and quite frankly labelling Schrödinger as an Irish Physicist (even though he was naturalized) is bizarre, and labelling him Roman Catholic on the basis that his father was is equally odd, one might as well label him English too as his mother was of English ancestry. None of this improves the articles one iota. John lilburne (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you say, "In neither case does knowing what religion their parents were advance any understanding of either person…"

Are you aware that sources support that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? Why are you focussing on the parents?

We have two sources—The Jewish Tribune and Canadian Jewish News.

The source which is the Canadian Jewish News is found here.

The source which is the The Jewish Tribune is best accessed by downloading the PDF found here. After doing so, search for the word "Yanofsky".

Each of the above sources, about a year apart in publishing dates, support that Yanofsky is Jewish. I am raising this issue now because it has been mere weeks since the second source was published.

The following is version of the paragraph that I am recommending for our Nikki Yanofsky#Personal life section:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

As sources are abundantly supporting that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, I believe that should be stated in a straightforward manner. Bus stop (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge doesn't base its articles on what 'you believe', but on what the consensus is amongst contributors. Now shut the f*** up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…shut the f*** up." Less than a week ago we had a discussion at this section of the Wikiquette alerts page. Can we make renewed efforts to speak to one another in calm and measured tones even when we disagree? Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment struck out. But I consider your refusal to accept consensus, and endless insistence on pushing your ethno-tagging POV, to be entirely contrary to Knowledge norms. You seek every possibility to raise this again, even in totally inappropriate contexts, and seemingly have no understanding of why others find your attitude objectionable. It isn't a matter of 'disagreeing' but instead it is your refusal to accept that you can't have the final say in matters that is the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to go back down that route - I still support strongly what we currently have, it reflects closely what is in the citation. Actually, this is almost historic and its a shame to open it up again over exactly the same point.Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you have 1,000,000 references, the question is what relevance does it have to the persons notability? Explain why if she was Calvanist (or any other religion) rather than Jewish she wouldn't have made it as a singer. Any entry on the matter should be low key, such as the current version. John lilburne (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No reference has been presented that she is a religious person at all has it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Only in relation to her parents. But if the claim is one of ethnicity rather than religion then the equal argument applies does it not? What is it about her Jewish ethnicity that marks her out as singer or is a significant factor in her career. Its not as if being of Jewish descent affects the larynx in any way, nor is there a taboo against people of Jewish origin becoming a singer. Nor is her background a significant part of her life. One isn't writing a about some girl from a poor Jewish immigrant family battling against poverty, and prejudice and making good. John lilburne (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you say, "Only in relation to her parents" Can you please show me the source that says Nikki Yanofsky's parents are Jewish? Please show me the wording in the sources that says Nikki Yanofsky's parents are Jewish. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you contending that her parents aren't Jewish or that she has converted to Judaism? For a 17 yo with no professed claim of religion or ethnicity, any such claims by a 3rd party, that do not quote the subject as having self identified, are going to be based on the parental background. John lilburne (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Responses below to both Off2riorob and John lilburne:

Off2riorob—you pose a question: "…is (she) a religious person"? The answer is that it really doesn't matter. I will quickly add that I do not know if Yanofsky is religious or not—and if religious—to what degree religious. Please take careful note that no assertion concerning a degree of piousness has been suggested for inclusion in our article. The sentence (the entire paragraph) that I have been suggesting is as follows:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

The majority of Jews worldwide are nonobservant Jews. Sources are fully cognizant that a nonobservant Jew is still a Jew. I'm sorry to have to tell you but your opinion matters less than what sources have to say. Have you downloaded this PDF? In it we find, in reference to Nikki Yanofsky:

"Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song."

and:

"Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky's career continues to blossom."

There is also a second source—it similarly supports completely that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. Unless you are claiming special expertise in Judaism I don't think the article has to omit information because you may not regard it as credible. We don't assume that sources are saying that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish for no reason at all. Reliable sources obviously regard the term Jewish as having some significance, even though you may entertain doubts about the term's significance in the absence of assertions of a degree of religiousness. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you pose a question: "…what relevance does it have…"?

Content does not all have relate to relevance. From where are you deriving the notion that the content of a biography must all bear some relationship to a person's reason(s) for notability? Are you saying that it is inconceivable that a reader might not be interested in knowing that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? By most metrics, in my opinion, a person's being Jewish is not a completely insignificant fact. The number and types of stereotypes and assumptions that may arise in a reader's mind are to a slight degree predictable. We are not responsible for the pigeonholing that some readers may do with some information. But I think we do have a responsibility to provide material within certain parameters if such material meets verifiability and other requirements. Jewishness in many instances would tend to be one of those expected parameters.

Furthermore, sources to an extent serve as an indicator of notability. This source uses as its headline that the artist is Jewish. Have you downloaded that PDF?

You say that, "Any entry on the matter should be low key…" That is precisely what it does not have to be. The individual is Jewish. Just as we have a guideline against using peacock terms, so too would it be preferable to state in an incisive manner that the subject of the Yanofsky article is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So we have nothing to support she is religious at all, the strongest cite that includes relevance is what we have in the article now. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—there has been no suggestion that the article assert that Nikki Yanofsky is "religious", but rather that Nikki Yanofsky is "Jewish". Wording matters. We try to adhere to the wording used by sources. Since reliable sources are not saying she is "religious", we should not be saying she is religious. But on the other hand we should of course be saying that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish because that is what our two reliable sources are saying. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC

See, I am not getting that from you cites at all, its a unnecessary weak claim. - You know who is a Jew is different opinion by different people, you know nothing about her mother or her father, so its a weak assertion to simply insist on more than we already have in the article now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"to state in an incisive manner that the subject of the Yanofsky article is Jewish." For what purpose? Adding the label serves no purpose other than to forward some prejudice (positive, or negative). When ethnic labelling is simply the addition of a factoid it does not improve the article, it simply clutters it up, one might as well add in the brand of bikini wax if known. John lilburne (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—we take our cue from reliable sources. Reliable sources serve more than one purpose. They suggest the exact language, or at least within a range, the exact language—that we should use. Furthermore, reliable sources suggest to us what is notable about a subject. Two sources, a year apart, Canadian publications (Yanofsky is Canadian), have seen fit to report on Yanofsky being Jewish. That serves as a cue to us as to what material deserves inclusion in our article. The general pattern is that sources set the precedent, and Knowledge follows suit. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The emphasis of an encyclopaedic BLP is not the same as the emphasis of two special interest publications. Not every thing that capable of being sourced is worthy of inclusion in a BLP article. However, I realise that there are far too many here dedicated to rounding up all the Philanders, Jews, Blacks, Gays, Roma, Muslims, Irish, and Catholics, for any sense to prevail. John lilburne (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—Sorry but factors of attributes of personal identity are certainly reportable. We are not supposed to be writing opinion pieces or presenting just what our idealized vision of these factors should be. People have these identities ("...Philanders, Jews, Blacks, Gays, Roma, Muslims, Irish, and Catholics...") and they are reportable. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you are in no position to state anything about Yanofsky's 'identity' - it is up to her how she identifies herself. And whether we consider other peoples' opinions of the subject as relevant is a matter of editorial judgement. Just because you think that there is something important about being 'Jewish', is no indication that is significant (or even particularly meaningful) to others. Your insistence that there is something intrinsically essential about ethnicity is not founded in anything stronger than your own personal beliefs, and as such has no relevance to Knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "Your insistence that there is something intrinsically essential about ethnicity is not founded in anything stronger than your own personal beliefs…"

I have never stated any "personal beliefs" in Wiki space. Please don't convey the impression that you know anything about my "personal beliefs".

Further, you say "...it is up to her how she identifies herself" Do you have any source indicating that Yanofsky might not consider herself Jewish? If so, please bring it to our attention.

As concerns material for placement in the body of a biography "self-identification" is not required. You may be thinking of WP:EGRS (Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality), which would require "self-identification". Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that nonsense from? WP:BLPCAT refers to categories and says that: "should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" The final paragraph of that section says: "These principles apply equally to biographies of living persons, lists, navigation templates ..." So what makes you think it is OK to insert stuff into the body of an article when you can't add a category? John lilburne (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you ask, "…what makes you think it is OK to insert stuff into the body of an article when you can't add a category?"

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers. The same is true for lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements. None of these entities carry disclaimers or modifiers. Contrast that with the text found within the body of an article. Text found within the body of an article can contain disclaimers and modifiers. Using full sentences, editors can articulate exactly what situation applies to a given individual, especially where "grey areas" may exist. The requirements for reliable sources do not have to be as stringent in one instance as compared to the other. Categories for instance have no capacity for expressing "grey areas". Thus placement in Categories calls for greater stringency in sourcing requirements. Conversely, lower stringency of sourcing requirements applies to material found in the body of an article. In keeping with lower stringency of sourcing requirements for material found in the body of an article "self-identification" is not necessary. Bus stop (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

12 days ago you were told that no one gave a shit about your sources, that you needed to show why "she is Jewish" is more relevant to article than "she was was brought up in a Jewish household", given that there is no self identification. 12 days later, you are being told that no matter how much whining you do, baring self identification, you will not get consensus here to add "she is Jewish" into the article. John lilburne (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—your above post suggests that you still do not understand that policy does not require "self-identification" for placement in the body of the article of the sort of material we are discussing.

The second point that you dwell upon is that of "relevancy". Are you questioning whether a person's being Jewish is important enough to warrant mention? Biographies tend to mention that a person is Jewish if evidence strongly supports that.

This PDF contains the newspaper clipping with the headline: "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song". Its first sentence reads: "Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky's career continues to blossom." I believe that this article repeats the exact same message. We know in no uncertain terms from these sources that Yanofsky is Jewish. There is no ambiguity in the sources about this. And no editor has brought any source that might serve to cast doubt on this.

Therefore I don't think the argument can be made that a person's being Jewish is too insignificant to warrant mention in an article. This is the wording I have attempted to put in the Nikki Yanofsky#Personal life section, only to have my edit reverted:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

The above is straightforward, 100% supported by sources, succinct, and incisive.

"Relevancy" to notability is not necessary for the inclusion of material in the body of an article (as opposed to for instance for the purposes of categorization).

WP:NOTE says "…Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Further down the WP:NOTE page we read: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list.". Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still posting the same self-serving half-quotes, I see. You have already raised this, and it has already been pointed out that WP:NOTE goes on to say "Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". In other words, WP:NOTE isn't the relevant policy. You have clearly lost this argument, and repeating the same point after it has been refuted is nothing more that trolling. If you continue with this, I may consider raising your behaviour at the appropriate forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I don't think WP:WEIGHT would be an applicable policy to whether or not we can make a statement such as "Yanofsky is Jewish…" WP:WEIGHT is a policy which addresses a degree of delving into a side of a subject when two or more points of view are involved. WP:WEIGHT is a subsection of the policy of WP:Neutral point of view. There are no "points of view" involved. What does "neutrality" have to do with this question?

I find at WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." There are no "Neutrality" or "viewpoint" factors involved here at all.

By the way, do you or any other editor have any sources to bring to bear on the subject that is being discussed? I have of course brought two sources, above, both stating unequivocally that the subject of this biography is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue, earlier today I reverted an ip from Los Vegas, Nevada IP:24.234.241.239 (I have seen differing LAS VEGAS dynamic IP address come up in similar content issues but can't currently find the previous) - the edit changed her from being Canadian in the lede to being a Jewish Canadian - as you know we don't add ethnicity to the lede like that.Off2riorob (talk)

Off2--Not in the normal course, I agree. Though that is not a bright-line rule, as it does have exceptions. As to the general rule, I agree with Bus Stop, actually--he makes quite sound distinctions between cats and other items; distinctions that I recall having read time and again over the years, when efforts were made to change wp rules in this regard. I say this at the risk that new user John l will accuse me of whining, but expect my old friend seasoned editor Andy to not level any obscenities at me, even if he is in a grumpy mood. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: A new "Law" (call it "Collect's Law" if you wish)

The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct.

Copyright 2011. Collect (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently linked to on the mainpage as part of a DYK for another article. That makes these concerns slightly more time-sensitive: The section on his murder Bruiser_Brody#Death contains a large amount of material which may or may not be sourced well (some of the books may be ok, but at least one of the sources looks to be a personal website). A lot of the material concerning his death trial looks potentially bad such as the claims that Atlas lied. I don't have time to look at this right now (and I know too little about this subject to even judge what is or is not a reliable source about professional wrestling). I suspect that the solution may be just to prune away most of the content. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed of all contentious weakly cited content. I left a note on the talkpage linking to this thread and requesting discussion here if there is objection to the removal.Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Burton&action=historysubmit&diff=425338690&oldid=401364995

Why do you allow false, abusive and defamatory vandalism of this page?

Can you please lock it or delete it? I don't believe any value is served by allowing Knowledge to be used as an assault tool.

At the least please remove the offensive material posted by the anonymous troll and ban the IP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.241.95 (talk • contribs)

• - The uncited controversial looking content has been removed. Sections of the community support allowing such additions to be made and they sometimes revert them if they see them they sometimes don't - the anonymous IP address gets to vandalize four articles before we restrict their editing privileges and if I request protection of the BLP they will say that the biography has not been vandalized enough yet. If you care about defamation being inserted to that article I suggest the best solution you have is to watch it yourself. If the subject is unhappy with the situation as he is of limited note I suggest a course of action is to contact the wikipedia foundation and complain there and request removal of the biography from the project. See Knowledge:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation here for contact details - Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Greg Mortenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea and director of the Central Asia Institute, was the subject of recent exposés by 60 Minutes and author Jon Krakauer which allege that Mortenson has not been truthful about his past and that he misspends charitable donations. As Mortenson has been a highly respected humanitarian, the charges have been a shock to many. Mortenson has issued some statements in reply, but also underwent heart surgery this week so he has not given a full accounting. In any case, more eyes watching the article would help keep it balanced during this transitional period.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wali Razaqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page seems to be edited heavily and often, perhaps by Mr. Razaqi himself, in the interest of self promotion. It does not adhere to the protocol for biographies of living persons. Most notably, it seems that while there are a few sources, they are generally not of a high quality secondary nature as is warranted by wikipedia. Also, this article is extensive for someone relatively unknown, which returns the issue with this page to the lack of high quality secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.111 (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This was a fairly small article which you trimmed too heavily and left in unsourced personal details. I've done some fixing up. --NeilN 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lenny Schafer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "Lenny Schafer" biographical entry in Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/Lenny_Schafer is a hostile listing posted by political adversaries. As such I ask that it be eliminated. The very first sentence states in part that I have "generated controversy from the autism rights movement." This is a slur against me personally. My contribution to the autism movement, which spans over 15 years, is not defined by such claimed controversy. In addition, the "autism rights movement" as referenced is a small fringe political group that has little standing with the rest of the autism community at large. Thus, the so-called controversy exits only in the minds of a very small group of political adversaries. This attempt to frame me foremost in the context of "controversy" is a pejorative distortion and intended to defame me and to publicly diminish my contributions as an autism advocate. It is my understanding that Wiki is not to be used for political gamesmanship. This entry is a personal attack against me and as such I ask that it be removed. Please let me know how I can help make this change. If it is not the policy to remove entire listings, then I would ask that references made to "controversy from the autism rights movement." and to the self-described "Autism Rights Movement" section be deleted. Lenny Schafer. Schafer Autism Report(Contact information redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schaferatsprynet (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done as you asked. There was no explicit mention of you generating controversy in the source and the "Autism Rights Movement" section, based on one email, seemed to have undue weight. --NeilN 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On Dave Chappelle's bio page, there is a description of Dave Chappelle having an extra marital affair with the wife of Bill Schnarr, a Comedy Central co-producer on The Chappelle Show. There was no reference to this description and the word marital was misspelled. This seems fishy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmcduffee (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the affair sentences from the article. I've also removed some other very contentious material that is unsourced and violates BLP. There is still a fair amount of garbage in the article, some of which is sourced to Inside the Actors Studio. I've seen this before. Does it satisfy verifiability? It's one thing to say that I've seen a movie or a TV show and use that to describe the plot, for example, but to say that the subject uses drugs because supposedly he said so on an Actors Studio episode - isn't that a bit much? It could only be contested by someone who has access to the same episode.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not for controversial claims that are contested. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with that as a source? What better source than spoken statements from the subject of the article himself? Immediate access to all editors is not a requirement for something to be a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the copyright status, but the interview is widely available on the web, e.g. at this Google video link, and on YouTube. It's also available for $13 from Amazon, and shouldn't be treated any differently than an offline book source. Given this degree of verifiability, I have to agree with Gamaliel. I'll note the video's availability on the article's talk page, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Abdul Rauf Omar Mohammed Abu Al Qusin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone explain to me the value of this image?

I think it shows the individual in a disparaging light and it should be removed. What do you think? IQinn (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like my high school yearbook picture. I.E. it has no value. Remove/delete. Quinn 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

high school yearbook picture? What, the school for the blind? Seriously, it would be better to have a crayon drawing, that photo adds less than nothing, imho. Is it trying to make a point or something? Anyways, I removed it. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment - This whole sectors notability is exaggerated through primary citations and through wikipedia en being the primary vehicle reporting this - almost all of which has been created by a single account - User:Geo Swan - many of the articles the account has created are never even viewed - the subjects are so not-notable, wikipedia and its readers does not benefit at all from hosting huge sections of articles written by a single account, see here - in this sector over 2000 articles created by this single account (Geo Swan) - Most of them should be deleted and en wikipedia and its readers would lose nothing, in fact imo they would gain by not having to bump into such low notability primary sources only hosted here content. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Knowledge is the encyclopedia any one can edit, and Knowledge is not paper. You may dislike our project's foundational principles, but that's hardly a reason to disparage a productive contributor. -- Kendrick7 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not disparaging to state my opinion of that accounts contributions. Not talking about it won't make the facts go away. Its quite well known in such contentious contribution sectors that when they are dominated and massively expanded in such a way by a single account it creates multiple issues, notability is one in this sector, multiple primary reports and NPOV is another - the wikipedia wants articles and sectors created by and read by as wide a user base as possible as most of the articles created by this account are basically not notable and as such are being created and primarily hosted here here - there are clear issues with such massive sector creation by a single account. The other side of the position which I do not support at all and I don't see any support for in en wikipedia guidelines and the foundations educational aims and ambitions - is thank you very much for massively expanding this low notability sector, the two thousand articles although not often read and of low notability, perhaps they are a bit primarily cited to comply with our policies and guidelines but no one else has them, so if anyone wants to read such content at least they will be able to at en wikipedia and we are happy to host them here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't appeal to you personally doesn't it's not useful to others.

I once saw a conference about Guantanamo on C-SPAN where Knowledge was called an excellent resource. That's no doubt due in large part to Geo Swan.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

this worthless picture

I don't have any interest in if its appealing to me or not. Its about wikipedia policy and guidelines not having been applied correctly result ing in this massive not notable section - the fact that you say user Geo Swan was mentioned and wikipedia was noted as a fantastic resource for this low notability primary reported content is a reflection and verification of my complaints about this user and this content. Such hosting of low notability primary sources contentious content (much of which is about living people) is not a part of the remit of the wikipedia foundations project. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say they mentioned Geo Swan by name. I'm just crediting him with setting it up.

I'm not sure what you're saying is contentious here. I've disagreed with many of Geo Swan's personal opinions on Guantanamo itself, but I recognize the value in these articles, and they did, too.

As for the issue of primary sources, they tend to be government sources, and they're all properly attributed as such. It's not like a bunch of anonymous charges.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep until we get a better picture. The image is poor quality but it's not offensive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This issue is so reflective of the whole low notability rubbish sector that revolves around User:Geo Swan's contributions. - User:Kendrick7 replaced this worthless picture - with the edit summary of - "wikipedia is not paper" - what nonsense - its a worthless picture in a worthless article - Knowledge is being used as a publisher and a soapbox in this sector - delete delete delete. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear 3:0 consensus at the BLP noticeboard by all uninvolved editors Quinn1, Threeafterthree, Off2riorob to delete this image (no i am not counting Randy2063, Kendrick7 who are highly involved and known for jumping in to defend Geo Swan and Geo Swan's POV) and who re-added the image with a "nonsens" (my words) edit summary. Why is this image still there? IQinn (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, LOL @ "highly involved", considering I hardly even edit anymore, prior to last week I doubt I made 100 edits all year. But if you want me around that much, it can be done ;) -- Kendrick7 03:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note - if there is repeated meatpuppetry and or blind support of Geo Swan's contributions by named accounts that should be chronicled and reported as and when relevant. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm no one's sock. IQinn is simply being IQinn.

As I said, Geo Swan and I disagree on a lot of things, and perhaps Guantanamo most of all. But I personally believe this stuff is worth keeping.

A blurry photo disparages no one but the photographer.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello - that picture is total valueless rubbish - anyone supporting it has got issues. If I was blind I would appreciate seeing it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the image is not a BLP violation unless a low-quality image is taken when we have a better one available.

I'm not saying it's a good picture. If someone creates an article with a lineup of pictures, I think they'd use it rather than have a blank spot by his name. If that's all we have then that's all we have. I'm surprised it bothers anyone.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes The individual is presented in a disparaging light. "That picture is total valueless rubbish" (get glasses). IQinn (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This picture is laughable, and has been harvested from a primary PDF thumbnail file and is a non free file - The big issue here that I have seen is that in this sector over 2000 articles created have been created by this single account (Geo Swan) - Most of them should be deleted and en wikipedia and its readers would lose nothing of educational value. Look at what this User:Geo Swan account is producing multiple BLP articles with low notability, such as this Pir Sayed Ishaq Gailani - Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a meat-puppet either, but I remind you of yet another principle of the project -- which I suppose, like WP:PAPER, you are free to mock also -- to always assume good faith. As such, I'll always support another editor's contributions to the project (as opposed to deletions there from). -- Kendrick7 02:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see how this image "presents the individual in a disparaging light". Obviously it is unsatisfactory, but it is not worthless — it lets us see dark hair, mustache — gives us a sense of the ethnicity. And who knows what tricks of enhancement could be done on it? Don't treat an editor like he's a pariah because he wanted to cover in detail what some would like to keep secret. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I also wish we had a better image, Rob, but I disagree that this one is worthless. Even as poor as it is, I feel it helps personalize the accompanying text ... which is, after all, the only reason we use pictures of BLP subjects at all. Re your larger concerns about Geo Swan's contributions, this doesn't seem to me like the right venue to make those arguments. AN/I or AfD would seem more apt, for those purposes, to me. And the accusations of "meatpuppetry"? I understand that feelings can run high about issues one cares about, but if you want to make so serious a charge, I think it'd be better, also, to take that to AN/I than to just throw it out in passing, here. Doing so in this context seems needlessly provocative to me, especially if you don't intend to make a formal accusation of the same, in the appropriate context.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it relevant that the "source" is a 404 not found page on an activist website that doesn't strike me as a reliable source. So it may be that we shouldn't even reach the deep philosophical issues here: there seems to be no evidence that the photo is actually genuine. Without better sourcing, it should be deleted on those grounds alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What reliable source would provide such a crap image and say here is a photo of joe blow? The NYTs? Washington Post? No serious source would do that because they would be a laughing stock. And folks wonder why when Knowledge is mentioned in academic circles people just laugh. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Mr. Wales, we don't normally delete info from the project simply because a link breaks. I mean, we could be a victim of some elaborate conspiracy to make up a bad picture of this gentleman, but it just seems highly unlikely. I'd rather err on the side of improving the project until better info comes to light. -- Kendrick7 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

At least you admitt you are in error. I guess that is a small step in the right direction. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are folks either smoking crack or have some point to make to include that worthless piece of crap image. Its offensive to the project and people who contribute here, not to the subject of the article. The idea above that you can make out facial hair so you can tell his ethnicity has to t\be one of the more stupid things I have read here ever. Again, please come clean with what the real motivation for including a totally worthless image that adds less than zero to the project and whos inclusion makes all of us look like idiots. This is agenda pushing at its best. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)ps, also, the idea I want to keep this out in order to keep some secret is equally offensive and moronic. Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that the bad faith revision continues. Too bad. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3A3, it was certainly improper to cast aspersions on your motives, as was done above, but returning the favor is no more appropriate. When you find yourself using language and characterizations like the ones you've allowed yourself above it's an indication that you're too emotionally involved for the time being to contribute effectively. I understand that you care a lot about this, but these comments indicate to me that you've let that too greatly influence your perspective. This is not so crucially important an issue that it should prompt you to insult your fellow editors.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, I actually don't really give a crap about some crap image or the article in question. That is why I am going to try not to get sucked into some dumb edit war over this. I think I am now suffieciently on record as to my opinion about the image in question and the editor(s) involved. The folks who actually do give a crap and do have an agenda to promote, however, will continue as they always do. Its Knowledge's greatest fault. Knowledge, however, is like how Bill Graham described my favorite band "they might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do"....also, if I say something is stupid or whatever, just calling like I see it...cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The file fails also 1) WP:NFC#UULP. I added the "di-disputed" template to the file but Kendrick7 as involved editor who has repeatedly reverted other users on the article page deleted the template. "As per 1) WP:NFC#UULP The use of copyrighted images of people still alive is unacceptable as a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What's wrong with him? He can not simply delete the template. IQinn (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I don't care who it is a picture of because you can't tell who it is a picture of! I've nominated it for deletion: Knowledge:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_24#File:Guantanamo_captive_Abu_Abdul_Rauf_Zalita.jpg Gamaliel (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)