Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 22 November 2008 (Signing comment by 90.203.106.71 - "→living relation to liverpool manager bob paisley: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.



    http://biography.jrank.org/pages/3187/P-rez-Eddie-Alberto-1957-Political-Leader.html

    http://www.hartford.gov/Government/mayor/biography.asp

    https://www.cpbn.org/program/where-we-live/episode/mayor-eddie-perez

    http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/rankings/influential_hispanics/2007/9/26/the_stars_align_the_100_most.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk)

    You humans are always meddling with our plans! Outputting data, please wait...
    • These are your three edits to the article: [14] [15] [16]
    • These never contained any of the sources above, and actually removed this source,
    • You made claims such as:
    • "Mayor Perez lives the American Dream everyday and wants to make that dream a reality for all residents of the Capital City." and
    • "a loving family is the foundation for this effective leader"
    • This is the continuing problem with this article. My changes included portions of all the links referenced above. However, facts and reality aside, libelous statements continue to be posted not because any of the bots or humans have a clue about the content, they just need someone to follow their process to get to a "neutral article". Folks if you can source outrageous claims, do so, if not give it up. Don't defend the libel and slander of someone else because it was there six months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is another link that helped him win re-election in 2007 [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have continued this discussion on the article's talk page. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Occupation of Joe the Plumber

    Until recently, his occupation was listed as "plumber." It is now a bone of contention, with some insisting that his "occupation" is "illegal plumber" or "unlicensed plumber" or "plumber's helper" or "plumber's assistant." To what degree has such an argument occured before on WP? Is there a precedent for editorializing about occupations in the info box? The prior consensus was that "plumber" was clear enough, but the edit warring with the variants is becoming quite distracting, despite efforts to actually handle this in Talk. I would hope some editors who have absolutely no axes to gring would look into this. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be plumber in the infobox, with a section describing the reported nuance of his occupation/title. --David Shankbone 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you will find a huge amount about his occupation in the article, possibly too much. Collect (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Joe the Plumber" isn’t a plumber — at least not a licensed one, or a registered one. References refer to him as unlicensed.[18][19][20] Asserting that he is a plumber implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own. A qualifier is the NPOV way to go. There is serious disagreement with asserting he is a plumber according to the references presented. It should be attributed per WP:ASF. QuackGuru 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Asserting that he is a plumber implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own."
    I don't think there's any such implication - "plumber" simply refers to someone who fixes plumbing as a profession, and that is what Joe the Plumber is. It's less a matter of Joe the Plumber's legitimacy as plumber than a variance in licensing standard from state to state. As long as he's employed by a licensed firm, he is allowed to fix plumbing for a living. As deplorable as the use of Joe the Plumber as a campaign prop was, the licensing was, I thought, a non-issue. Why does it matter that he didn't have a license he didn't need? By that logic, a NYC cabbie who doesn't own a medallion isn't a cabbie because he can't pick up passengers on his own. Mosmof (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) If he plumbs he's a plumber, right? It's like if a restaurant doesn't have a health license it's still a restaurant. It's not like "CPA" or "registered nurse" where the "certified" part implies the license, or "Realtor" where the term itself is trademarked and reserved for those in the guild. He may be practicing illegally, and in contravention of a law saying he cannot hold himself out as a plumber, but apparently he is practicing. Further, the possible illegality is not part of his profession. Incidentally, this does sound like a content question rather than a BLP issue - although I would argue that adding a pejorative term like "illegal" before someone's occupation, without rock solid sourcing (in this case, a court ruling probably), is a BLP vio. Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he assistant plumbs he is an assistant plumber, and we have multple reliable sources that indicate that is what he does. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack and Red -- the purpose is to get NEW opinions, not to have you iterate what you have aready said on JtP. Tht is why I specifically asked for editors with no axes to grind. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can post here, so can any other editor. No editor is authorized to forbid those who disagree with him from posting while he is presenting his views in a new forum. If someone does not have a license in a field where licenses are granted in some state, and reliable sources say he is an unlicensed plumber, electrician, massage therapist, embalmer, dietician or beautician, then it is NPOV to note that fact in an article about him. Edison (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is an assistant plumber, then that's his title, not his occupation.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, no one practices "assistant plumbing" as occupation, just as a junior analyst doesn't "junior analyze" and a chief strategist doesn't "chief strategize". Either one fixes plumbing or one doesn't - Joe the Plumber, between his media appearances, works on plumbing for a living. He just happens not to have a license he is not required to have. Mosmof (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of posting here was to get fresh opinions. Folks who iterate opinions they have already iterated in the article talk page do not really offer new opinions. I agree that "title" and "occupation" are not the same, which is the main salient opinion shared by all those who were not already involved in the talk page discussion. Collect (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By all accounts the gentleman works as a plumber, so that is his occupation. Info boxes should not be use for editorializing. Also, we can only state (in the body of the article) that he was not licensed as of the date of the last reliable source that reported on the question. --agr (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a completely uninvolved individual since I've commented on the Joe the Plumber article before but just saying "plumber" seems reasonable to me. We can deal with any further subtleties in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, as a person who (as far as I can recall) hasn't contributed to the JtheP article, I'll reiterate, he's a plumber. That's his occupation. Whether legal or licensed, that's a different matter. The user box is not the place to make commentary on his profession.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question here is about the user box but that is not what the current content dispute is about. This entire discussion is mostly a waste of time when the discussion is about something else. Review the talk page if anyone is interested in answering the correct question. Since the relevant question is not a BLP issue this may not be the place to discuss it. The wrong question was asked here anyhow. So, that makes this entire discussion irrelevant. QuackGuru 04:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys -- I asked for new voices. Seeing a hundred lines which could have been cut-and-pasted from the article talk page does not add new opinions very well, which is why I avoid stating any opinion here. As for saying the "sicussion (is) irrelevant" it is here because of WP guidelines about asking for opinions from neutral editors. I am sorry that you only want to have the same stuff iterated in the article talk page, but asking here is not only proper, it is nearly essential. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just a tired voice, but here at least I am a fresh tired voice. The man plumbs, or less facetiously he does for payment what plumbers do for payment. Ergo, he's a plumber. Even though he's not personally licensed and even if a plumber ought to be personally licensed, "plumber" doesn't imply having a license to do his plumbing thing, and therefore he's a plumber. (Incidentally, it's my unsolicited opinion that the use/abuse/self-ab--, uh, forget that last one of Joe the less than optimally qualified or remunerated plumber have raised more serious questions, and I'm puzzled by the concentration on this niggle. S.W. is charmingly [?] contrarian: a right-winger whose talk visibly infuriated a Fox News person on air, and yet who a few days ago got a sympathetic informal interview in that alleged hotbed of pantywaist liberalism the [London] Guardian.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the vast majority of editors never even knew one had to be licensed to professionally clear clogs in toilets. Should we also add a qualifier for "Joe" since his name is Samuel? Regardless, I find this wrangling over semantic minutia in the info-box to be a waste of time. The issue is addressed appropriately in the article. We aren't talking doctors and lawyers here. We're talking sewage. That's what he does. I think this is the kind of issue that leads people to get burned out (on both sides) with editing Wikipedia. There are more productive and substantive debates one could engage in. My second of two cents. Hope you guys resolve it. --David Shankbone 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let me just say that I had a guy who does a lot of plumbing but never took course make a mistake on a drain pipe for a shower - too small for the water flow. So the shower pan would fill up! Had to pay a real plumber to come in, rip out the old pipe to fix it. I think there's a difference ;) Don't put down plumbers - you really appreciate them when they do the job right. Bruno23 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is putting down plumbers. But it is not a professional that always requires a license. It is often an apprenticed, family business. And the quality and honesty can vary widely. I do not think a license is what makes the difference. And there is a valid theory that some licenses, especially in places where government is prevented from raising taxes, ends up being a way to raise revenue instead of for any real necessity to regulate something. --David Shankbone 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'm uninvolved, as well. I went to the source, and the lead sentence of plumber specifies that "A plumber is a tradesperson who specializes in installing and maintaining systems used for potable (drinking) water, sewage, drainage, or industrial process plant piping." While various jurisdictions may have licensing requirements that Joe the (Alleged) Plumber may not have fulfilled, I would say that the argument that he is not a plumber fails our own definition of the term. Heck, "Plumber" is the guy's last name as far as most people are concerned. I see no issue whatsoever with referring to his profession as "Plumber". Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    psst - Wikipedi is not a reliable source
    Thanks RedPen -- but I do not think he was using WP as an RS in the sense of a footnote reference, but as an example of what "plumber" commonly means. Meanwhile, I think we know your position, but sign your comments, please. Collect (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already commented on the Joe the Plumber discussion page - I think there's a difference between someone who does plumbing, and a "Plumber." In Ohio, you need a license to be a "Plumber" but you don't need a license to "work for a Plumber." The local Union has pointed out the difference and that made an impression on me. And then another editor did some research and found an official occupation of "Plumber's Apprentice" which is pretty much Joe. I guess in the end, we could use the broad term "Plumber" to refer to what he does, but there's a more accurate term that's officially recognized. Why wouldn't we want that? Bruno23 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "local union" does not appear to be apolitical. "Occupation" and "Job Title" appear, at this point, to differ for many people. I think you were aware of this from the other page? Collect (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "local union" does not appear to be apolitical." - Got any source for that? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Washington Post. Usually you don't footnote comments here, especially when this has taken up more than 1000 lines in the article talk page. Collect (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You dont need to footnote your claims, but if you make statements as the one in question it is good to be able to show that it is not merely your personal opinion. And if you are referring to the same WaPo article that we are discussing at the JtP talk page, well such a claim is not supported. If you have a different WaPo article that actually makes a claim of Union bias, please let me know and we can probably insert that in the article and our quibble over inclusion of the Union endorsement can be at an end. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC
    To Collect: I'm not sure whether their politics matter. I've read some of your posts and I think their politics matters more to you, personally, than whether or not they have a valid opinion on whether or not Joe is a plumber. I think for the Union and their members, the distinction is a matter of professional pride. I've read with some sadness the low esteem some editors have for trade professions. It's not right. To dismiss the Union outright because they favor the Democratic candidate is unfair and unjust. Instead of examining why they might take a position you disagree with, you suggest we should ignore them just because they may prefer one party over another. That doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with other editors. Bruno23 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas -- everyone is iterating positions at length, I decline to do so. The sentence from the Washington Post which seems to indicate that the union might not be apolitical is: "Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, which had endorsed Obama, stated that Wurzelbacher has not yet completed the apprentice program he began in 2003." By the way, for those who ascribe political motives to any who demur on their positions, I was involved in no way with any campaign, and did not donate any money to any campaign. So much for that bit of sillyness. Collect (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Collect, while you've dismissed the Union with an Ad Hominem attack, you never address the point that "Plumber's Apprentice" seems to be a viable alternative. What say you about that? Mattnad (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to post the Washington Post quote. That is an ad hominem attack how? And the occupation, stated by every single new voice here (that is not counting all the iterations of views from the JtP page) is unanimous that the occupation is "plumber." Guess you do not like that. Collect (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When quoting the source, you may want not to edit quite so heavily... "said Thomas Joseph, business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, whose national membership has endorsed Obama. " [21] The source does not at all state anything about the local's endorsment if any. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um -- first of all, I did not say the union was biassed. I said it was not apolitical. I am amazed that you would parse "national membership" into not meaning the union endorsed Obama. Are you saying "national membership" is not the union? Interesting. Collect (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one who claimed this article supported your claim of bias by the local union. I am pointing out that the article does not support your claim. The article says that the NATIONAL union has particular political views and that it is you who are making implications about the local union. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)Collect, how dare you come here and repeat your previously stated positions at length, repeatedly, while seeking to forbid those with differing opinions to express their views. That is forum shopping, pure and simple. In many trades and professions, there are "assistants" and there are practitioners, Anyone could assist a plumber or a lawyer and they would not be a plumber or a lawyer without being licensed. If someone is an unlicensed "legal assistant" it would not pe correct to call him a "lawyer" in an infobox. Plumber likewise have a licensing requirement in Ohio. Screwing two pipes together does not make an unlicensed person a plumber. Edison (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh? I have not made a single comment about my opinion on the issue raised about "occupation". To say that I iterated something I did not say is interesting. To say I did so at length is even more interesting. I did ask for fresh opinions, as much here us uterations of other's opinions. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An argument over whether he should be called a plumber? I'm not 100% sure, but it may be the most ridiculous argument over a BLP that I've come across so far. Just like we put "executive" "lawyer" or "judge" as the occupation on other articles (as opposed to vice president for product development and market research, or public defender for misdemeanors, or superior court judge for family law, etc. etc.) we should use his obvious profession (plumbing) to guide us to the name of his occupation -- plumber. Avruch T 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And now the word "plumber" in the lede is marked "neutrality disputed." [22] Collect (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And the ones who insist on "unlicensed plumber" are still trying -- this is about the most futile thing I have ever seen considering the uniformity of opinion of the ones who were not already pushing their views ad nauseam. Please -- go the JtP article and set things aright someone! Even when a compromise was offered and accepted, they go right back. <sigh> Collect (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    New adamantine push is for "Plumbing" as an "occupation." About as good as "Plumber's Helper" going from a plunger to a toilet ... Collect (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And now to eliminate "occupation" altogether ... Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Question now placed: Is there a "consensus" here regarding what the "occupation" is? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Dezenhall

    Eric Dezenhall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - As the subject of the article, I am requesting an admin or other Wiki-editor familiar with WP:BLP to review and correct the Eric Dezenhall entry. The article violates Wikipedia BLP policy in several areas, including WP:ASF,WP:VERIFY, WP: UNDUE, WP: RS, False light and WP: NPOV requirements. NPOV issues that I raised a year ago [23] have not been fully resolved and since then additional false and strong POV information has been added. Additionally, it is my policy and my firm’s policy to never disclose who our clients are. The list of clients included in the article about me is inaccurate speculation, presumably by individuals who want Wikipedia readers to believe these are clients of my firm. The sources currently cited in the article are either reprints of or refer back to a single article published by Business Week that relied on an anonymous source, who later apologized for providing false information to the journalist. I would like to see any passages involving speculated clients of mine or my firm’s removed and the entire article to be better sourced. Would an editor please weigh in on these issues and leave any feedback on my talk page. Edezenhall (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I added an initial disclaimer to the client list, but most of the clients are sourced per WP:RS. Although not useful in the article, CFSA lists a Dezenhall email on its media page and numerous edits to Payday loan and related articles have been made by Special:Contributions/209.183.197.163, which resolves to Dezenhall Resources. Flowanda | Talk 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor wrote on my talk page and asked that I outline my specific concerns; I will try to do so below:

    1.The client section and any mention of specific clients must be removed.
    a. Because neither I, nor my firm, ever discuss who our clients are, any mention of clients in the article about me is inaccurate speculation.
    b. The references cited verifying the list of clients all refer back to and were published subsequent an article published by Business Week in 2006 [24]that relied on an anonymous source leaking false documents.
    i. This anonymous source has since apologized to me for providing false information to the journalist regarding the clients named in the Business Week article.
    ii. Wikipedia is clear on sourcing requirements for BLP material [25]and while these articles may have been published in reputable magazines, each relied on false information and do not offer new evidence to confirm the claims laid forth in the Business Week article.
    2. The entire article needs to have better NPOV sourcing.
    a. The articles used to criticize me do not live up to NPOV requirements and contain many Weasel Words that cast me in a False light.
    b. In every single article that is used to cite the list of potential clients, I declined to comment on the alleged clients. Even the Washington Post article[26] couched their allegations by saying they “reportedly included Enron and Exxon Mobil.”


    Because of the nature of my work, I am often associated with clients and other groups that I have never had anything to do with. A perfect example is an October 2008 Associated Press story that linked me with the practice of “astroturfing.” The original article is no longer available, but the AP’s formal correction can be found here[27]. It is difficult to clear my name entirely and I thank all the editors for their speedy attention in this matter. --Edezenhall (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any documentation (Business Week retraction, perhaps?) of what you allege the anonymous source apologized to you for? Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has never been a retraction printed for this particular story, nevertheless, after this story ran, the anonymous source came forward and apologized for spreading false rumors using the media. Unfortunately, libel law does not require journalists to print a retraction and these allegations have taken on an almost urban legend aspect to them. As the subject of this article I want to go on record and make it clear that I do not identify clients and listing them in the article extends the trafficking in inaccurate information. Please see the talk page of the article for further clarification of my feelings on this matter [28] Edezenhall (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The AP article is not mentioned in the article, and there's no reference to astroturfing either. The article does not indicate whether the quotes were from an interview conducted by the writer or statements taken from the books, but the correction concerned the subject of the books. The clients are sourced per WP:RS several times over, and they're included in accordance with Wikipedia policy, not your company's policy. I agree the article needs major work -- not to remove the sourced criticism, but expansion to provide info about Dezenhall's fiction writing and commentary -- but it's not something easily accomplished by just one or two editors. Flowanda | Talk 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand WP:RS and WP: Verify and that according to those standards the client list is sourced accordingly, however, because my firm does not disclose its client’s identities, listing clients in an article about me as fact is incorrect. This list of clients is speculation by reporters and anonymous sources and it needs to be clear in the article that this list of clients is “rumored,” “alleged” or “speculated” and should not be stated as fact. Edezenhall (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've followed a convention in dealing with contested claims to more visible attribution. (i.e. 'Stacy is a stupid girl' to 'Some people think Stacy is a stupid girl' to 'Critic Lucy Jones has identified Stacy as "a stupid girl"'). The content in the Wikipedia artilce is now beyond dispute - the sources cited did say the things we are saying they did; it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader how to read their papers, however. Mr Dezenall, do you have any published statement regarding the client list issue? If so, I think it would be suitable to include. the skomorokh 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I raised my objections to listing clients on my talk page and in multiple published sources I decline to identify my clients due to strict confidentiality agreements. (As demonstrated [29], [30]and [31] among many other places). I understand your argument for including the list of my firm’s clients, regardless of the inaccuracy of the list; however, I do ask that they not be presented as fact. If the Wikipedia convention is to say “Critic Lucy Jones has described Stacy as ‘a stupid girl.’” I would like to ensure that the same convention is applied to the rumored clients of my firm. I noticed that you edited the section and identified the sources that speculate who my firm’s clients are, but I think you should go further to keep with Wikipedia’s standards. By saying “TIME identified,” “Business Week reported” or “The Hill cited” it appears that these allegations are fact. Again, in the strongest of terms, I object to including a client section or any mention of clients in any way, in the article about me and/or my firm. It is my and my firm’s policy not to identify clients. As a result, sources that name clients of my firm are not reliable because they are relying on rumors and speculation to write their stories. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter. Edezenhall (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay Eric, I'm glad we are getting somewhere at least with this. I understand you object to the material, but you have no special status here more than any other editor, so repeating that you and your firm is opposed to including lists of alleged clients does not really carry much weight. Your point about citing things as fact is interesting; does "Time identified x as y" mean
    (a) That in the subjective opinion of Time, x is a y
    or
    (b) Time reports the objective fact that x is a y?
    When writing it, I assumed the first interpretation would be the natural one, but I am not a native speaker so I am perhaps in error here.
    If for the time being at least, the material is to be included in the article, would you (or any other native speakers of English) have any suggestions as to how to word the material without committing Wikipedia to asserting that the firm has such-and-such clients? Regards, the skomorokh 17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. It is my opinion that by listing speculated clients as fact, some editors of Wikipedia are attempting to link me and my firm with controversies associated with various organizations and companies. If the article about me was truly biographical and not a platform to discredit my work, it would include more information about the novels I have written, the blogging I have done for the Daily Beast and the other general commentary and consulting I am frequently involved in on cable news networks and in the press. Edezenhall (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "some editors". Are you referring to me? Flowanda | Talk 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harley Reagan

    Oh dear. Is there anything nice to say about this person (don't know of him but to me this really is an attack page). What do we do about subjects who perhaps aren't nice, it strikes me he has borderline notability and should be spared- on the other hand, maybe the public needs to know, and it does appear in part sourced. Sticky Parkin 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article reminds me of Jews for Jesus in that both were mainly about how other people dislike and disagree with the subjects, not about the subjects themselves. The other article has been somewhat improved. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    considering that the material here is essentially similar to that for Chuluaqui Quodoushka and he has no notability independent of that, i think a merge would deal with the situation. But making a comparison with a non BLP article about something interationally famous is besides the point. DGG (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, if almost everything one can say that is well-sourced about someone or something is negative that's life. Compare for example Kent Hovind a notable Young Earth Creationist who is now in jail for tax fraud and who is disliked by many of the other major YECs. There's no BLP problem with an article that reflects those facts. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how hateful the person, BLP requires material to be well-sourced and presented in a neutral manner. Collect (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Missing the point. That's completely true. For all articles. That doesn't mean if the reliably sourced material isn't overwhelmingly negative then we add false balance to it or delete the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say to add false balance? I said that the cites must be presented in a neutral manner per BLP. That means "Doe falsely claimed" etc. are not allowed except as cited statements of others. In the case at hand, the material, which is admittedly negative, was not presented in a neutral manner. That is, additional words not sourced were used to present an even more negative view than any sources provided. Collect (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry are you commenting on the original article or the one I referenced? It seems like you mean the Reagan article but I'm confused then by the fact that your comment is indented under mine. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I indented because you had indented under mine <g> so I trusted that you were referring to my post supra. The Harley article had and has many problems, including unsourced or unsourceable material presented with words which would not appear neutral to an outside observer. We can hate a guy all we want, but that does not mean an article should not be scrupulously sourced and presented. Collect (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? You indented under my comment at 22:43 which was a reply to Steve's remark. Also, while were here we might as well discuss the article. What is wrong with a) the summary sentence noting that Reagan has been criticized by both traditionallists and non-traditionalists and what was wrong with the ref on the sacred sexuality seminars? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Template positioning kerfuffle

    Over at Talk:Osama bin Laden, a mini edit war ensued over this edit, which placed the {{WPBiography}} at the very top of the talk page. This seems to be a somewhat unusual place for the template, despite User:SqueakBox's insistence that this is where it appears on every biography of a living person. So the current situation is this: the WP:BLP warning now appears there twice. Once because of the WPBio template at the top, and once because of the usual reason: that the blp=yes parameter of the {{WPBS}} template has been set. Now, in my own version of the talk header, the {{talkheader}} template is immediately followed by the {{WPBS}} template, with the BLP notice prominently displayed. However, SqueakBox seems either not to notice or care that the notice is displayed prominently and correctly in my version, in a manner which is quite consistent with most other BLPs I have seen, and that it appears twice and in an inconsistent and idiosyncratic way in his/her own version. Does anyone here happen to know what the stylistic recommendation concerning the positioning of the template is? Squeakbox seems to think that there is some policy to support the assertion that it should be the very first thing on the talk page, but this is surely not the case for most BLPs that I have seen. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I have repeated instance of the message, leaving SqueakBox's preference of the template at the very top. However, I would still like to urge someone here to comment. If there is a community consensus that the BLP template should go before any {{talkheader}} template, then it should be deprecated as a feature from {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. If SqueakBox speaks for the community on this one, then this feature runs against policy. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell} seems to say that the blp=yes flag must be set on biographies of living persons, and this seems to be at odds with User:SqueakBox's interpretation of things. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cindy Rodriguez

    Cindy Rodriguez wrote this entire entry herself. She advertises it on her blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymomma (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject is apparently reading this because she removed the reference from her blog, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article. I am new to Wikipedia, but I've never heard of anyone creating their own page for promotional purposes. Is this common? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymomma (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray Robinson

    Ray Robinson (British novelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was severely vandalized last March, an earlier attempt to remove the vandalism (he was said to be "raised by goats") was reverted by the vandal himself [32]. Now Der Spiegel makes fun of this article in [33] (german text). I'm not a regular here and edit mainly on de:wp, could someone please watch this article? (and, maybe, clean it up a little because it will get some attention as a result of this Spiegel article) --Tinz (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've trimmed the peacockery, but the article probably needs cut down, it is currently biopic.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Willis

    (Cross-posted to the reliable sources noticeboard.) Dan Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is an ongoing dispute over the consideration and classification of some sources. Specifically, there is disagreement over whether some sources are primary, self-published and/or independent of the subject. This has lead to further disagreement regarding whether or not notability has been established and BLP standards are being met. Outside opinions are needed to help resolve the dispute. Additional comments at Talk:Dan Willis#RfC: Notability would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richardson family murders

    I've removed the name and (non-free) picture of a twelve year old girl convicted of murder from this article. Under Canadian law, her name cannot be published. While that law obviously doesn't apply here, I think that Wikipedia should hold itself to at least a high a standard where BLPs are concerned as Canadian publications are obligated by law to meet. More involvement would be appreciated, both to review my edit and, if in agreement, to enforce it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the first time I've seen this issue come up this weekend, so I've mentioned this discussion, and the other situation, at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP and foreign privacy standards, to see if there is/should be a wider standard. As for this case, I'm inclined to agree with you about leaving out the names. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not operate under Canadian law. I am not clear if the law applies to just children. If not, we have always consistently ignored a similar UK standard on suspects names, and I think the rule should apply too. What rule would replace it--we honor the law of the place of the crime? the place of citizenship? any court who cares to rule on anything? would we honor Singapore's restrictions on publication, or China's, or Thailand's? It's a question of what standards we ourself should have more restrictive than the florida and US law under which we operate. I point out the Canadian legal restriction includes not naminfg the family name of the vcictims, a/c the Canadian newspapers--they talk about the"Medicine Hat murders". I see with relief that this hasnt been suggested here. Whatever we do here, should be what we would do in a similar case anywhere. I would normally say that if it's public information, and she's been convicted, publish -- except for two factors: first the girl was only 12 years old--now 13. Second, she's obviously not sane by any common-sense standard.DGG (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The law does apply exclusively to children. And I'm not suggesting that we subject ourselves to Canadian law; I'm only suggesting that the fact that publishing something is forbidden by a liberal democracy with constitutionally-protected free speech should inform our view of what constitutes "decency" when it comes to living people. If we're holding ourselves to a lower standard than Canadian media outlets are legally bound to abide by, it seems to me that we're not holding ourselves to much of a standard at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Our principle is "do no harm" balanced against the importance of the information in question to the reader. When a legal jurisdiction suppresses information, we don't automatically follow that (Iran?) - but it should trigger our "do no harm" question. Here the need for the reader to "know the name" is not so pressing that we shouldn't follow the lead of the Canadian court. I'd suggest, as a rule of thumb, a presumption that any law (or journalistic practice) originating in roughly liberal state, which suppresses information, on the grounds of protecting minors or vulnerable people, should be respected on Wikipedia, unless there is a pressing reason to feel that it is unreasonable or unduly restrictive to do so. (we are having the same discussion on AN over the Baby P case)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pankaj Mishra

    The User Zuppeandsalad has violated the BLP with regards to Pankaj Mishra. Pankaj Mishra is a public figure and the edit is a major WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Coatrack smear involving poisoning the well. I believe that it serves wikipedia well if the following remarks are removed

    "Mishra's polemics regarding Hinduism as a religion and the modern history of nationalist movements among Hindu people in India such as the BJP have generated some disquiet among some Hindu circles within India. His book Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond was reviewed by The Economist (1 July – 7 July 2006 issue) and provides an example of the analysis and commentary that have made Mishra controversial in India. His remarks against Hindus have earned him accusations of being an anti-Hindu, and of "pandering to white pro-Muslim audiences in the West"." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancrusader (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier blp by IP and new sock

    (blp violations by banned user Whereistheproof moved to history) RetroS1mone talk 00:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor has now been banned for a week and four socks indef banned. RetroS1mone talk 00:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also known as Brodie's Little Shits

    I'm not sure I'm comfortable with listing names of living people in an article called Brodie's Little Brats. Outside input appreciated. the skomorokh 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamel Agiza

    Lots of allegations, sourced to a broken link. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you google the name of the link, you will find mirrors of it. But WP rules don't allow the linking to copyrighted texts on outside websites that don't hold the copyright themselves. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP requires valid sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...yes, I'm aware. The sources are both from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and clearly meet WP:RS. As I said, because the official link to the files online location is no longer working, I could either link to one of the copies posted online elsewhere -- or simply give the name of the offline file. If you want to find the government report, look online and google the name -- you will see it. The only reason it is not linked is because we do not want people linking to off-site copyrighted content. For example, if United Nations Resolution 1267 is no longer hosted on their website, but is hosted on many other websites -- we should not link to those other websites, we should include the dead link to the official version (Archive.org to the rescue) and include the names of the offline files. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Go look for a source" is not a reliable source. It's the responsibility of the person creating the article to provide a valid source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...at this point I'm working off the theory you don't know WMF policies. It's a moot point since the article is now a redirect -- but you are aware that all sources don't have to be online, right? I suggest a refresher, m'dear. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abraham K. Biggs

    Recent suicide, so not quite a BLP, but you get the picture. The outside world will be looking to Wikipedia for info on this and it would be best if trolling was dealt with quickly and decisively. the skomorokh 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Naming of suspect who is not a suspect

    An article made use of this bbc news report source that named an individual as a suspect in a murder case. I investigated further and found a more recent source also from the bbc that said the individual in question had been found not guilty. On the basis that when dealing with BLPs we should always use the most recent and correct source, I swapped them out as it contains the same details as the earlier report but also makes it clear that the named individual is *not* a suspect in this case and indeed has been found innocent of involvement. This has been reverted and I have reverted it back on BLP grounds. I do not want to get into an edit war about this and would like outside views. I actually no problem with both being present as long it's clear that the suspect is *not* a suspect. The presence of the first reference alone is misleading. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The important questions here are
    a) is the source reliable?
    and
    b) does the source verify the text?
    The initial report verifies the death date, address of the victim, fact that the victim had been living as a woman for several years and that she was strangled in her home. The later source does not explicitly verify either the death date or the fact that the victim had been living for several years as a woman, although it comes close on both accounts. For that reason, your change did not improve the article. All first BBC report says about our LP is that they were remanded in custody, which is true, so I think focusing on its negative impact would be an overreaction. Sincerely, the skomorokh 16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    so we shouldn't focus on the negative impact of not presenting the most update information about someone's involvement in a murder... I see.. oh wait I don't.. and the problem with including both of those would be? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't present the issue as a question of whether or not both should be included, you presented it as a question of which of the two sources ought to be used. Our article says nothing about the accused; if it did, then certainly the most recent and accurate references ought to be used. There is no reason to add the later reference unless there is unreferenced text in the article that including the later reference would verify. the skomorokh 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    living relation to liverpool manager bob paisley

    my mother of 88 years born 10/01/1920 is still alive and the full cousin of bob paisley. here father johnheal whi died of cancer at thw age of 42 was the sister of bob paisley's mother, she also has one sister catherine 10 years her junior still living. they reside in wigan lancashire uk. i am wilhelmina's yougest daughter of five children. i am on 07946177175 or 01942525607. uncany as it may seen my son is now studying in sunderland,almost next to hetton le hole. i have lots of info if you are interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.106.71 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=253302204"