Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive65

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Murad Topalian

User:Chippolona who started to edit with different editwarrings at Armenia-related articles and is a possible sockpuppet, currently is adding harming accusations to a BLP of an Armenian, using the eraren.org site of "Institute for Armenian research" which is known for its anti-Armenian propagand and was criticized for its Denial of Armenian Genocide: "In order to institutionalize this campaign of denial and try to invest it with an aura of legitimacy, a "think-tank" was established in Ankara in April 2001. Operating under the name "Institute for Armenian Research" as a subsidiary of The Center For Eurasian Studies, with a staff of nine, this new outfit is now proactively engaged in contesting all claims of genocide by organizing a series of conferences, lectures, and interviews, and above all, through the medium of publications, including a quarterly". (America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, by J. M. Winter, Paul Kennedy, Antoine Prost, Emmanuel Sivan, 2003, Cambridge University Press, 332 p., ISBN 0521829585, p. 54) Chippolona also adds harming information that is completely unsourced [1]. Can anyone check if the article is in line with WP:BLP rules? Gazifikator (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, please mind WP:BLP, be civil and stop calling other editors sockpuppets. Admins, please, do check the article to resolve the issue once and for all. The Turkish source that Gazifikator is complaining about has been replaced with a neutral one. Instead of constructive editing, Gazifikator just removes entire paragraphs. He could just google the information and add sources, instead of deleting paragraphs. Please look into the matter. Thank you. Chippolona (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well regarding this edit, the first removed part does seem to be unsupported by the source, while the second removed bit is supported. I suggest you slow things down a bit and discuss each bit of info separately. I've done a bunch of cleanup and merged refs, which will help sort things out a bit. Rd232 talk 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A general concern is that I'm not sure how much detail there should be on things which prosecutors only alleged, but didn't prove in court (and he didn't admit), which is currently the bulk of the article. Anyone apart from the two editors previously involved have an opinion on that? Rd232 talk 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The article should be nuked under WP:ONEEVENT: it is a sickening ltlle piece of soapboxing and POV-pushing, just as so may ONEEVENT articles are. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Conor Molan

Resolved
 – At AfD --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Conor Molan is a stub on which I did some cleanup back in February after encountering it during new page patrol. It was recently vandalized in a fairly unpleasant way by its creator, to whom I've given a level 3 vandalism warning, and blanked several times by an editor who has said he is the article's subject. For now I've removed everything without a direct cite from the article and left a note on the talk page of the editor who says he is Molan; I'd appreciate someone else's eyes on the page and what I've done so far to handle the situation. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you were involved in editing the page as well he can't simply ask for its deletion through blanking. He appears to meet WP:ATHLETE as he plays for a professional team, but per BLP policy we can consider removing his article by his request if he is marginally notable. Personally I would oppose the BLP-motivated deletion as I'm not sure what harm the cited stub is doing. If he can give a pressing reason why the article should be removed then we could bring it up for discussion in AfD as his notability does appear marginal. ThemFromSpace 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just to clarify my request for deletion. This was mainly due to the previous vandalism but the information is inaccurate anyway. I havnt played for Limerick FC since Nov 2007 as I have been playing in Australia. Its not a big deal I would just prefer the page to be removed altogether to avoid having to go through this hassle again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingback3 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just on the notability point. WP:ATHLETE requires the athlete to "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". I don't know whether Limerick FC is a professional club or not, but the League of Ireland First Division certainly isn't a fully-pro league, so if Limerick is his only club, then he doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE because he hasn't competed at a fully professional level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I have listed the article for deletion at AfD on the basis that Mr Molan does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:ATHLETE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title "Julian McMahon"

It is listed that Mr.McMahon is married to Ana Sofia (2002-present). This fact is not listed anywhere else in Mr.McMahon's Public information.

It needs to be flagged for violation, unless ligitimized.

It is not copyright.

Thank you for notifying us, I have removed the disputed claim as I could not verify it. Please let us know if there is any other questionable material in the Julian McMahon article (or any other). Regards,  Skomorokh  06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

There's been an issue with Warren Kinsella's article again, though it's a different one this time: now, two different anonymous IPs which have both claimed to be Kinsella himself are repeatedly removing sourced content from the article without explanation. I'd like to request that a neutral party — having been indirectly involved in this article's edit disputes in the past, that isn't me — take a look at the article and judge what needs to stay and what needs to go when it comes to BLP issues — I know that it's also a COI violation, but I still think the article should be checked for BLP conformance so that we can either resolve the situation or have an appropriate remedy if it continues. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's all sourced. I question the necessity of the blog quote about "rice and cat" or whatever, but I would say, overall, the removals are not within policy. لennavecia 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fake IPL Player

Fake IPL Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article lists nickname used by this blogger for various living persons which contains significant defamatory name calling. The nicknames added are taken from the blog itself (i.e. based on primary sourcing) with significance defined as to why this list is important at all. My knowledge of BLP is rudimentary but I feel this is a severe violation of the policy. Could someone else weigh in? LeaveSleaves 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While some of the nicknames used by this blogger in this blog are derogatory, they are definitely not defamatory. One can make a viable argument that one of the reasons for the popularity of the blog (with over 150,000 views during its peak) is the humor factor imparted by the use of the nicknames. In addition, knowledge of to whom these nicknames refer is critical to understand the blog itself. To that effect, I believe that including the nicknames section in this is critical, as it will provide knowledge and a sense of understanding of the humorous nature that made this so popular. By itself, it is not slanderous or harmful. I would greatly appreciate deeper clarification of this matter. --Ant80 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether the names are derogatory or defamatory might be arguable (where would you characterize racism and human genitalia?), but they are certainly not verifiable. LeaveSleaves 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
First off, where does racism come into play? He has mentioned racism in the blog, but the nicknames Fake IPL Player gives doesn't seem to be racist. Now, I said "doesn't seem to be racist" because don't understand Hindi, so I might have missed the racist nickname, but I went through the entire list just now and didn't find anything overtly racist. Also what is the issue with mentioning human genitalia when wikipedia has things like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urethral_sounding) and other equally explicit stuff? In my opinion, this is simply a matter of freedom of speech, by American law. In any case, going by the simple definitions of the words, it is quite clear that the names themselves are not defamatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation), but simply derogatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogatory). However it is arguable, depending on the accuracy of the blog, that the blog themselves are defamatory. But then again, we are not talking about entering the incidents themselves in to the blog. --Ant80 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding verifiability, the stories themselves posted are not verifiable yet, but the nicknames are quite verifiable to the reader that is fairly knowledgeable in cricket. Just because the blogger hasn't confirmed them yet doesn't mean that one can't make use of public domain knowledge of individuals' behavior, team ownership and other corroborative news articles to arrive at the conclusion. For example, everybody and their mother knows that Shah Rukh Khan owns KKR. We know who their coach is, who their skipper is, and also the identity of their ex-skipper whose demotion became front page news all around India. We know that Sreesanth's antics with the team and the incident with Harbajan last year, we know who owns Punjab XI, we know Warne's craziness, we know Ryder's drinking problem, and the list goes on. The names ARE verifiable. The incidents themselves, the ones mentioned in the blog, are not. --Ant80 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability does not come simply from interpretation by the readers/followers of the blog but by citing reliable sources which confirm such interpretation. The blogger himself does not subscribe to these interpretation for obvious reasons. The media hasn't accepted those interpretations. Then why should an encyclopedia subscribe to this information? Especially since it is clearly objectionable. And we are talking about biographical stuff, not biology. LeaveSleaves 06:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll try to make it clear this time. The interpretation of names is not simply the readers' inference. Certain anecdotes are cited in the blog that correspond closely with knowledge available in public domain such as the itenerary of the players, previously known incidents, other media stories and knowledge of the team status and personnel. To claim that it is not verifiable is akin to George Bush claiming that there is no evidence that shows that global warming is anything but a myth. The doctrines of NPOV and no original research are well met in this article. Regarding the "objectionable" nicknames, this brings the question objectionable to whom? To the person the nickname refers to? And that brings us back to the fact that this is governed by American law, and therefore, by freedom of speech. Just because it contains references to genetelia doesn't mean it should be removed. Clearly, whether this is "objectionable" is immaterial. --Ant80 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Free speech. See also WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. However the reason why I mentioned free speech was simply to counter the argument that it is "objectionable." I am not saying that it should be included because it is "objectionable." I am saying that removing something because it is "objectionable" to some is invalid, and is a form of censorship. That being said, I have been taking a confrontational approach in this argument. I'd like to apologize for that. However, I am still under the opinion that this is not a BLP violation, and even if it is, it should be ignored for the sake of improving the article. I definitely don't buy that it doesn't improve the article in any way. --Ant80 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sleaves: I'm inclined to agree with you on verifiability, except for a few names which have credible references in thew news media; in the absence of credible references, I guess it looks more like original research. However, I don't believe this is a BLP vio. Clearly, this is not part of the biography of the person, it is a reference list of names an author uses to refer to some other people and portrayed here in an NPOV, with no information of such names (whether they are demeaning/degrading/well-meaning or otherwise) within the profile of the said people. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP not only concerns biographies but also any biographical information written in any article on Wikipedia. And in the absence of explicit sources for these nicknames, this remains a BLP vio. LeaveSleaves 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a blog authorised by an Indian newspaper, which is under the editorial oversight of the paper. If I confirm these nicknames on the blog, will you accept it? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have some sort of supreme editorial oversight over here. All I'm asking for, and everyone else should be asking for, is a reliable source for the information per the requirements of this policy. LeaveSleaves 04:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with a refimproveBLP, and have "cn'd" it in all the appropriate places that I can see. There is also a line I have tagged with "OR" and one with "who" which need sorting. SGGH ping! 11:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Valeriya Novodvorskaya

The said users are repeatedly edit-warring to depict the subject as an apartheid supporter, based on their own interpretation of a single ironic remark by her, taken out of context. They are also trying to add the Category:Apartheid to the article. See e.g. [2]Colchicum (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is insertion of defamatory WP:OR in BLP, as has been alredy confirmed by many at talk page of this article. All said users (PU, BFF and O) should be warned about the importance of BLP rules.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The new information helps, and the points about your edits and other thnings are all laid out at Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya – a discussion in which you declined to participate once I'd given my rebuttal of your completely inaccuarate initial revision (complete source misrepresentation) weeks ago. Among my many suggestions were doing a rewrite, using direct quotes and context for the sources in question, together with any sources refuting or denying it you could provide.
Here, I am only going to suggest Biophys take care to avoid carelessly slandering other editors – one of his many attempts at block-shopping and belligerently acting against a number of users in only the past one week. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The story is still developing. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reluctant to stop. Given the composition of his contributions (90% POV reverts, 9% mockeries on talk pages or so, and little else), an unusually cruel administrative action has been long overdue. Colchicum (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Clear case of block shopping. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Perfectly justified block shopping, as you are reluctant to stop even now, aren't you? Colchicum (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Better mind your language. "Battle Fab Four", "mockeries on talk pages", etc. are at best very inappropriate chatter. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar spurious BLP violations are here and there in, e.g., Berlusconi, Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Chernomyrdin. Citation "she openly supported apartheid" may be too strong, but the apartheid story definitely deserves to be mentioned. Yes, category "apartheid" is not for this article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone else does something wrong, does not mean that you can. "He did it as well" is not an excuse to break the rules. If another page violates BLP, then it should be fixed. Martin451 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I said SPURIOUS violations. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have explained on the talk page ad nauseum that Novodvorskaya in her comments which editors are quoting "supports" neither discrimination based on race, re: Africa, nor discrimination based on ethnic background, re: Russians in the Baltic states. If one reads the entire passage, this is completely clear. Nevertheless a number of editors insist on using "supports apartheid" and "supports discrimination" as just indicated, minimally insisting on injecting quotes out of context, any and all of which leave WP open to defaming someone. Please see my comments on article talk or contact me on my talk page. BeatleFabFour (among others) insists on reverting to the WP:BLP violating text. PetersV       TALK 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am a Latin nerd, that should be ad nauseam... – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the activity in this article and I must say the attempts by PasswordUsername, Beatle Fab Four, Offliner and Russavia to depict the subject as an apartheid supporter based on their own interpretation of a single ironic remark by her taken out of context is a particularly egregious violation of BLP. --Martintg (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Age fabrication

This article is a real mess. Many of the examples are completely unsourced. Perhaps some of them are mentioned in their respective articles but I doubt all, indeed I suspect a lot of it is OR with no evidence for a fabrication other the evidence of the real age and evidence of the person having said something else. Also despite the article being called age fabrication, it includes a large section of "Age disputes and discrepancies" where it says "(data here is more vague)" when in many cases, there's no evidence for anything other then some sources somehow getting it wrong. Some of the people there are no longer living, so aren't BLP problems (even if their listings are still highly problematic but it appears many are Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete the lot, as pointless and unnecessary for the article. An alternative would be to move all the examples to a List of something pointless and define some criteria for inclusion, and check each entry. Rd232 talk 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted most unreferenced living person entries, and the section
Age disputes and discrepancies (data here is more vague)
which has cut the article size from 45k to 20k. However a lot of the references are not what I would think as being reliable Martin451 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I was too, but I doubted I would have had any success so didn't bother trying Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson

  • Gretchen Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am trying to include the fact that Gretchen Carlson has been criticized by left-wing organizations for what they view as her right-wing reporting and my edits are being repeatedly reverted. Although Gretchen is regularly criticized by left-leaning commentators, two editors (Arzel and Nunh-huh) are attempting to remove all descriptions of the political dimension of Carlson's notability. Gretchen Carlson is famous in many ways because of the controversial statements she has made in the past on Fox & Friends - statements that many on the left consider right-leaning as opposed to neutral. I have tried to take as NPOV a position as possible, but the editors do not consider Gretchen to have been criticized at all, which is a minority view. Any help would be appreciated. // Mangala3 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    The editors in question have requested that you discuss the issue with them on the article talkpage, and, this seeming to be a rather ordinary content dispute, that would be the most appropriate path. By way of advice, I would point out that it's generally frowned upon to start a new section in a biography devoted solely to negative aspects of the topic, as well as sections that exist only to make one point. The best way to include criticism of a person in their biography is to weave it into the larger narrative of their life, give it context so that the reader can make their own judgments. "Carlson is criticised for her right-wing views" would be an example of a statement of little informative value that is little better than name-calling. It would be better to answer, in the article, the questions "What are Carlson's views? Why does she hold those views? What do her critics say about them? Her sympathisers? In what way are they important in this person's story?" You say that Carlson is famous due to the nature of her political opinions; if so, this ought to be shown by the weight of media attention to her. Producing evidence of this point in the form of reliable sources is a great way to win over sceptical editors. For more ideas, you might find it instructive to read Wikipedia:Criticism. Regards,  Skomorokh  14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    But I answer this question: "What do her critics say about them?". I used MSNBC as a source, and yet the users still consider this unworthy. Do you believe that MSNBC is unreliable? I have been discussing this issue on the discussion page for a week now, and two of the other editors seem disengenuous about trying to reach a NPOV (they seem like they are simply trying to remove her controversy on this subject). Would it be better if I went into more detail about what exactly commentators have said about her? Why is it important exactly what her views are but no description about what makes her significant in politics? This leaves out relevant information. Originally the line added was weaved into the career section, but I changed it when a user suggested it could be added to a separate section. Why is noting criticism from other sources name-calling? On an article about Bill O'Reilly there is certainly a lot of information about his criticisms, and that's not name-calling, surely? Mangala3 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Mangala3. The MSNBS source is a transcript of KO giving her his bronze for worst person for wondering if pictures of Obama smoking should have been released prior to the election. Seriously, is this what you view as valid criticism? Arzel (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Crier

Resolved
 – everything potentially controversial is sourced.--chaser (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Crier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm new to BLP guidelines, but this is looks like something we should look at [3]. The article is Catherine Crier, which violates BLP Verifiability. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 5 days, to prevent further instances of vandalism from anonymous editors creeping into the article in the aftermath of this blog post by the Dallas Observer. Thanks for drawing attention to this situation. AGK 20:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's rather odd. I've looked through the history and I cannot find any edits of the kind described in the blog. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I also couldn't find anything when I checked the date in the complaint and the IP's contribution logs. The only thing I can figure is that the diffs were oversighted before we got the public oversight log. BLP issues seem to be resolved by recent sourcing efforts.--chaser (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Paulo Costanzo

Resolved
 – Article stubbed and tagged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted a large-scale copyright violation on Paulo Costanzo, but the version I reverted back to has no reliable sourcing. Should this be reduced to a stub? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. Tag as unsourcedBLP and hopefully some sources can be found. لennavecia 06:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

David Hyde Pierce

There was an uncited claim he'd gotten married to his boyfriend, so I added an AP cite. I also semi-protected this for the weekend (3 days). I do not protect presumptively, but it is fairly controversial. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I added another citation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

CfDs on "Category:Teen love"

Category:Teen love and Category:Romances between adults and adolescents are up separately for deletion. Persons watching this noticeboard may wish to chip in. [4] and [5].--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Eugene F. Lally

This article appears to be self-promotion and appears to be written entirely by the subject himself and thus a conflict of interest. This article appears to have no value historically or technically. This individual does not appear to be a registered user and makes all of his edits using various IP addresses without disclosing his relationship with the subject matter. This individual also has been inserting claims about himself into various science and space articles as the sole originator of various important technologies, such as his second attempt at addition to the [Kepler mission] article. Usually these additions are removed by the article editors upon discovery. All of his sources are from long ago and difficult to verify. Even if the references exist none support his claims of sole origination and none appear to be anything other than a few non-refereed conference presentations and trade magazine articles. He has received no awards or professional recognition for his accomplishments other than those he has given himself. None of his work is cited in any later papers or in textbooks on these subjects (that he did not write himself!). Beware; at least one editor has taken his statements of achievement as fact. Aldebaran66 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Henson

Editors and various rapidly-changing IPs chronically add unsourced information to this article. In addition, the article itself contains many unsourced statements. It'd be appreciated if some previously uninvolved editors could take a look at the article, watchlist it for unsourced additions, and also help to clean it up. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Knowing nothing of the facts of the matter, I judge the article to be mostly neutrally phrased until the section dealing with Henson's trial. Applying Raul's Law, the article gives the impression of selectively including claims to present the subject in a better light – there is a conspicuous absence of presentations of points of view critical of the subject. The article really needs editors familiar with the topic area and willing to trawl through the sources. If such contributors are not forthcoming and disruptive additions continue, stubbing might be an option.  Skomorokh  05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly Support stubbing. The majority of the article is wholly unsourced and should be removed anyways, as it is a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
With a little work, I found sources for some of what Cirt eventually tagged with citation-needed tags, when I objected to some of his removals. This is an old article (2003) on an old internet hand. I'm familiar with his older history, pre-Scientology wars, because I knew him and worked closely with him and Carolyn Meinel (I was, for a time, administrator of the L-5 Society) and for him (Analog Precision), but I'm pretty much where everyone else is at about the later stuff. He's quite well known in certain areas. The allegedly disruptive unsourced additions Cirt was talking about; He reverted marriage dates for the marriage to Carolyn Meinel, brief reference to Analog Precision, that Henson had four daughters with Carolyn, and the name of one of them, and also spelling and formatting corrections. This is all easy to verify, but some of it not so easy to verify from reliable source available on-line, but all that stuff would be primary source public record if anyone cared to check; for example the divorce record from Tucson in 1981 or 1982 would certainly have the marriage dates and the actual divorce dates. From ubiquitous sources of lower quality, I'd say, there is no urgent need.
This is a BLP, but on trivial facts like this, it should be treated the same as any other article. There is lots of very hot stuff about Henson that would require very strong sources, but all this was trivia comparatively, and not worth a report to the BLP Noticeboard. Cirt also removed sourced material, including a reliable source with a divorce date. Which is probably wrong, by the way, 1981 is likely the date of separation, not of actual divorce, which Meinel reports in an interview as 1982. I have no idea why he got a bug about this article, it's much better than the average BLP, even though it clearly needs work in sourcing and a bit of other cleanup. Like a lot of our articles.
Cn tags encourage sourcing. Removing unsourced material discourages it, overall, unless an editor prepared to do the work happens to be there right then. Sure, sourcing is specially important with BLPs, but only with controversial material, as the template says: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. None of this was contentious, potentially libelous, or harmful. --Abd (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Per WP:BURDEN, unsourced information should not be added back into WP:BLP articles. And we should not tolerate having WP:BLP articles with unsourced information or poorly sourced information to tenuous sources that are inaccurate (as admitted above by Abd) and to sources that fail WP:RS. We should not violate WP:NOR to add original research sourced to primary sources to WP:BLP articles. The unsourced material in the article Keith Henson should be sourced, promptly, or removed, and per WP:BURDEN, not added back in again unless sourced to WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is odd to ask for sources to be added to a protected page. On Heinlein being an influence.

http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2099

R.U.Serius is a well known journalist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._U._Sirius

This is published interview. You can certainly draw the conclusion that Robert Heinlein had a large influence on Henson's life from that interview.

On University of Arizona and EE degree,

http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacemovement/chapter05.htm#desert

"The blunt, energetic Keith, who has a degree in electrical engineering,"

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Condition/dp/0201567512#reader Page 188 associates Henson with the University of Arizona.

"Henson also programmed geophysical type cases and wrote data reduction programs for the company"

http://books.google.com/books?id=QGkgGwAACAAJ&dq=H.+Keith+henson+geophysics&client=firefox-a

"Theoretical Induced Polarization and Resistivity Response for the Dual Frequency System Collinear Dipole-dipole Array: Volume 1 & 2. By Chris S Ludwig, H Keith Henson, Heinrichs Geoexploration Company Published by Heinrichs Geoexploration Co., 1967"

There isn't a published source I can find for how many daughters Henson and Meinel had.

"Henson became familiar with the System dynamics"

http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news/L5news7510.pdf Someone at L5 News, probably Henson, was up on system dynamics.

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2007/02/keith-henson-talks-about-memetics.html

RU: How did your participation and leadership in the L5 society come about?

KH: It was indirectly related to “Limits to Growth” memes that were so active in the early 70s.

"Limits" was based on system dynamics.

"Patents were issued on both subjects — vapor phase fabrication and space radiators.[citation needed]"

From Drexler's web site:

Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler. (1988) “Heterodensity heat transfer apparatus and method” U.S. Patent Office: #4,759,404

Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler. (1984) “Method for processing and fabricating metals in space” U.S. Patent Office: #4,480,677

"article by the name of Star Laws, jointly written by Henson and Arel Lucas and published in Reason Magazine.[citation needed]"

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/3654d08deee4f4f0?hl=en&

"It was originally published in *Reason* Magazine, Aug., 1982."

Link is right on the page.

Nerble (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi

Italian prime minister BLP is oversized, with too many meaningless details. Many sentences need citation or are biased. Following a long lasting anti-berlusconi slandering campaign some editors write sentences that presuppose a prejudice, disguising them as NPOV. Many sentences include negative words like "failure" that recall the George W. Bush Google bombing associated to the sentence "miserable failure". Negative terms are not used directly: "He failed" but as a premise "His failure was due to..." The article is so overgrown that it is almost impossible to improve. How can we shrink and unbias it? dwdp (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "failure": the word is currently used four times on the page, once in a quote by B, once in a neutral context, and twice as criticism/judgement. On the broader question, I think that the problem is structural - there's political and electoral history, business, showbiz and personal information, leaving the whole shapeless. One possibility would be to move most of the business text to the relevant company pages and to prune any text summarsiing otehr content. Re-writing the lede with less detail would help, too.Martinlc (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
My citation of "failure" is an example of the use of negative wording in a manner not to look POV. dwdp (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Noemi Letizia

There is a scandal brewing around this young ladies relationship to Mr. Berlusconi, the article could use some more eyes on it to find and remove improperly sourced controversial information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Aleksandar Kolarov

The "Controversy" section of the biography on Aleksandar Kolarov contains several allegations of criminal activities and conspiracies regarding a transfer of this football (soccer) player from one club to another. While there is some sourcing, it is very little imo, particularly for such serious allegations. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section, tagged for blp sourcing issues, and watchlisted the article. Thanks for the heads-up,  Skomorokh  14:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can a newspaper editorial citation be removed due to BLP?

I would like some advice on BLP requirements for citing information. A fact about a writer (his dual citizenship) is being removed from that writer's WP bio with a claim that it is unsubstantiated. An attempt to add a citation that discusses the writer's dual-citizenship is being removed by another editor with a claim that the RS newspaper article being cited is an op-ed and therefore fails BLP. In fact it is not an Op-ed, but a newspaper staff editorial (New York Observer). And the WP editor removing the citation does not dispute the veracity of his dual-citizenship, only whether this citation is usable in a BLP. The WP bio does not include any quotes from the editorial; it only has a citation so that the veracity of the writer's dual-citizenship can be checked. And the sentence in the WP bio that contains the information in question is decidedly non-sensational - it merely states that he is a "FirstNation-SecondNation journalist". Questions:

  • 1 Is a newspaper staff editorial suitable as a reference in a BLP?
  • 2 Surely it is, but if it is not, is it nevertheless suitable as a citation to refer an interested reader to a discussion of a fact that is indisputably true?
  • 3 With all the un-cited and un-substantiated statements in WP bios, does it make sense for WP editors to try to attack information like this that is both cited and substantiated?

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
The claim is not disputed, correct, merely the reliability of the source? Not everything has to be sourced, only contentious material. Of course, sources are always best. Regardless, from what you've described here, the information and the source are good. It would, however, be best if you could link to the article and the source. Thanks, لennavecia 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond. That it correct, the claim is not disputed. Here's the first removal of the citation by an editor claiming a BLP violation: [[6]]; here's a second editor questioning the veracity of and removing the statement itself now that the citation has been removed: [[7]]; here I added it back along with the citation and my claim that it does not violate BLP: [[8]]; here is the first editor acknowledging the truth of the dual-citizen statement but again deleting the citation claiming it violates BLP: [[9]]; and here is the citation itself: [[10]]. This is not a big issue - we are talking about a single word here - but I see this whittling away of facts from WP articles all the time and wanted to make sure that the high standards applied to BLP were not even higher than I understood them to be. Cheers, Jgui (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. New York Observer is considered a tabloid, thus not a reliable source. لennavecia 19:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh? According to the WP page on Tabloids [Here], "The tabloid format is used by a number of respected and indeed prize-winning American papers ... the New York Post, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Boston Herald, New York Observer, ... Are you saying that it is against BLP to cite (and not even to quote) ANY of these publications in any BLP? Really?? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
We should draw a distinction between supermarket tabloids like National Enquirer and mainstream newspapers that just happen to be published in the tabloid as opposed to the broadsheet format. For example, in the UK The Times is printed in tabloid form factor but no one would seriously argue that it is as equally unreliable as the National Enquirer. – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, then the argument that it should be removed simply because it is from a [tabloid] is invalid, right? Because I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to argue that we should remove all BLP citations to The Times, Chicago Sun-Times, etc. Do you agree Jennavecia? Jgui (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole stuff is maybe a little bit badly explained by Jgui. The controversy concerns the way the political views of a man (I don't know) are introduced : [11]. Ceedjee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Ceedjee, you provided a link to a completely different article about a different writer that is completely irrelevant. Are you confused or did you link to the wrong diff? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"In fact it is not an Op-ed, but a newspaper staff editorial (New York Observer)." I don't think you understand what "Op-ed" means if you think saying that it is a staff editorial argues against it being Op-ed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, *maybe* I'm the one who doesn't understand the term, but my understanding complies with the WP definition [HERE]: "An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members." By that definition this is a staff editorial, not an Op-ed, exactly as I stated. So what is your understanding of the term that makes you think *I* am confused? And what exactly does this have to do with whether The Times, Chicago Sun-Times, etc. must not be used as citations in BLP's? Thanks, Jgui (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What an odd conversation. No editorial (op-ed or not, quality tabloid/broadsheet or junk tabloid/broadsheet) should ever be considered as a reliable source for matters of fact -- at minimum you'd have to specifically cite, i.e. "according to an editorial in the New York Observer, tktktkt." Editorials are riddled with slant, fact-fiddling, and just plain old fibs, since editorial writers are trying to make (and win) an argument. They are very different beasts from the news pages in terms of quality control on matters of fact. As to any confusion about "op-eds" and "eds"; an editorial in a traditional newspaper is one written by the editorial board, and it is typically unsigned. Op-eds are outside opinions that are almost always signed. I would probably think we can have a little more leeway with op-eds, because they're frequently written and attributed to prominent and/or expert people but again, that's more for matters of opinion than matters of fact.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Bali, thanks for returning to the original issue. Your response is very surprising to me. Are you basing your comments on real-world experience at any real newspaper, or are you basing it on the way you *surmise* it works? You are aware, are you not, that editorials are subjected to the same fact-checking that other articles in a newspaper are? And that if anything the level of care should be even higher, since the writers of the editorials are themselves responsible for checking the facts in the actual news articles in the paper submitted by the writers, and since there is typically yet another overseeing Editorial Page Editor whose job is to oversee the content of the editorial page [[12]]. Clearly there are opinions in editorials - but an opinion is always based on a foundation of facts which are presented as such in an editorial. Do you really think that the New York Times knowingly lies about the *facts* it presents in its editorials? Really??
Here's an example editorial fragment from today's NYTimes [13]:

General McChrystal, who goes before the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, ... Highly trained and motivated task forces under his command captured Saddam Hussein and called in the air strikes that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ...

Do you think that we should mistrust that McChrystal will appear on Tuesday - that it might really be on Friday - or that his task forces captured Hussein - that maybe it was really General Jones' forces who did it? And do you really think that WP should remove from all its BLP's all facts attributed to Editorials? Certainly the *opinions* in editorials should be treated in the way you describe - but can you point to any WP policy or precedent that indicates the *facts* presented in editorials should be treated as non-RS? Thanks, Jgui (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I assume that all of the above was written by jgui (the threading/signing is a little confused). No one has any reason to believe me but, yes, i have extensive real world experience in journalism. From 1993-2007 I was a full time reporter and bureau chief for, in order, one of the two major american newswires; a major news magazine; and a national daily US newspaper. In the late 1990s I also wrote a number of long, heavily footnoted reports for the International Crisis Group (an excellent resource i recommend to all wikipedia editors; they do excellent, obsessively fact-checked work -- though the op-eds by various higher ups at ICG are another matter). I wouldn't ordinarily mention this, but since you asked... There are of course many true things in editorials, but the definition of a "fact" for an editorial is not as stringent, there is much less editorial oversight (oddly enough) in regards to fact checking editorials and op-eds, and in some publications the editorials amount to little more than heavily slanted, wildly inaccurate rants. I'm 100% confident that the statments attributed to mcchrystal in your example are accurate ones, and if we were editing an article together and that editorial was the only way to source that statement, i wouldn't object in that instance. It's a case of claime of "the sky is blue." But, as we both know, Mcchrystal's claims and comments are widely reported in the news pages, so using an editorial here would not be neccessary -- i would argue for the use of the more reliable news pages to source this. As a matter of best practice we should never source anything but opinion to opinion columns. Notable, verified facts will be in the news pages, and if they're not in the news pages that should give us pause. All of this is to say while there are many accurate things reported in editorials, just as many accurate things are reported in anonymous blogs (and by the fellow sitting next to me at the bar last night, and in press-releases issued by governments, etc...) we should not falsely then assume that all editorials are as reliable as news articles. They're not, not by a long shot.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just one more thing directly to the substance of this request. While i stand strongly behind my position on the meta question of what constitutes a reliable sources if the edit in question is that Foo holds dual citizenship, but the only source that states this is some editorial somewhere and no one contests this fact or finds it controversial I don't know why you couldn't explicity source it to the editorial ("An editorial in the new york observer said Foo has dual citizenship") until a higher quality source becomes available. If no one is contesting the accuracy of the claim, and it is in fact a widely accepted fact, i wouldn't have a problem in this case (though i don't know who the subject of the BLP in question is or what the possible issues surrounding this might be).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Betty Tancock

Resolved
 – reliable secondary source confirmation found Rd232 talk 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Betty Tancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - So a bit of a strange situation on this page. A while back Tancock was believed to be deceased, but her daughter contacted OTRS and provided evidence that Tancock was alive. Now an IP address has posted claiming to be the daughter with a date of death. I'm not certain that leaving a message to the IP would be useful; can someone at OTRS confirm that the IP and the account that was originally used are the same individual? There's no obituary that I can find that would make for an easy solution... // Cheers, CP 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The death date wasn't supported by the cited sources, so I have removed it. I think we should wait until a reliable source picks up on the (alleged) death; better late than trolled.  Skomorokh  05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually going to delete her edit because I just realized that number is probably her phone number and that doesn't need to be out there in public. All OTRS people have access to delete edits so they can check the IP. I have left a message on the IP talk page in hopes. Cheers, CP 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the same thing. Are OTRS aware of this thread? I tried to follow their contact procedure from WP:OTRS but its basic tone was "go away".  Skomorokh  05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll point the user who handled the original OTRS case here... he doesn't edit much anymore, but it's a start. Cheers, CP 05:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Email sent out. Thanks for the help Skomorokh! Cheers, CP 05:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. Hopefully there is some overlap between the readership of this board and OTRS volunteers. I'll keep the article watchlisted. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone sent me this link, claiming that it has her obituary in it, but the link does not open for me, it just keeps loading. Can anyone confirm that it's her obituary? Cheers, CP 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't open for me, nor does a Google search for "betty tancock" at that domain turn up anything current.  Skomorokh  17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, her name is showing up on the list of death notice links at http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/life/deaths/ -- but like everyone else, I can't get the link to open.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Now the Globe and Mail link works. Here is the text for anyone who still can't get it to open:

ELIZABETH A. TANCOCK (NEE EDWARDS) Born February 22, 1911. Wife of the late Frank Tancock (d. 1994). Mother of Brian Tancock and his wife Jeannette, and grandmother of Suzanne Adalsteinsson, all of Houston, Texas. Grandmother of Brian J. Tancock of New York City. Mother of Beverley Stewart of Beausejour, Manitoba, and grandmother of Michael Forbes of Winnipeg. Sister-in-law of Valerie Perkins of Toronto and the late Bert Tancock. Elizabeth swam for Canada in the Xth Olympic Games held in Los Angeles in 1932. She competed for Canada in both the 1930 and 1934 British Empire Games (now Commonwealth Games), winning silver medal in 1930. Canadian Individual Ornamental Swimming Champion, 1939. Graduated from the University of Toronto (B.A.) in 1933. Member of the University of Toronto Sports Hall of Fame and the Ontario Swimming Hall of Fame. Member of the administrative staff of York University, 19621980. Introduced to the Ontario Chapter of Olympians as Canada's oldest living Olympian, June 2005. Friends may call at the Turner & Porter Yorke Chapel, 2357 Bloor St. W., at Windermere, east of the Jane subway on Friday from 5-9 p.m. Funeral Service will be held in the Chapel on Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 1 p.m. Interment to follow at Mt. Pleasant Cemetery. As expressions of sympathy donations may be make to the Hospital for Sick Children.

R.I.P. --Arxiloxos (talk)

Works for me too now. I guess this one is resolved. Cheers, CP 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry McAuliffe

A lot of POV content was added, copy-pasted by a single-purpose account on May 29 from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Terry_McAuliffe The article is not balanced at all and the "business experience" and "controversy" (deprecated anyway) sections, that are copied, are not at all structured and simply put in from the original article without context and without consideration for the original article structure. The article is an attack page in its current state and not balanced. Attempts by me to remove the material outright were reverted. I added a POV tag and removed POV statements from the lead, but the tags were removed before a conclusion could be found. Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of it is POV, or sections were changed, but the wholesale deletion of any changes made in the past week is unacceptable. I added in changes this morning, and there were other changes made recently, which do not meet the criticism above. The attempt revert back all changes made for the past week is what is in question here. BellForner (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Lomas

An editor calling himself Apostleman is posting untrue, unsubstantiated and defamatory comments about Dr Lomas's views on religion. As as one time student of Dr Lomas's, who is aware that Dr Lomas has been a church organist for many years, I am quite sure that Dr Lomas has never been associated with any attacks on religion or religious belief. He is far more tolerant than the "editor" Apostleman who appears to be a religious bigot who doesn't bother to check his facts.

As I was adding the titles of Dr Lomas's two latest books I noticed the comments and removed them, as they appear to be putting Wikipedia's reputation for avoiding posting unsubstantiated and untrue comments about living persons at risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.68.134 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Apostleman only made the one edit to the article in February, so it's probably a nonissue at this point. But I'll keep an eye on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material at Qaboos bin Said al Said

I am having trouble removing poorly sourced and highly defamatory and harmful material at Qaboos bin Said al Said, the king of Oman. Please see the edit history of the article. The defamatory material is based on a source which does not directly support the claim and the source is talking on the strength of three unnamed persons. The talk page is also full of discussion on the defamatory material and it too may require cleanup. (I have not participated in the talk.)Civilizededucation (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cut down the material in question and added a comment on the talk page.Martinlc (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Martinlc, I apreciate the fast response and support. I am still somewhat concerned about keeping the link because it indulges itself in a baseless allegation. The talk page also contains such links.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My intention was to limit the influence of material from a marginal source as evidence of fact in the main article WP:UNDUE, but the existence of the source cannot be denied.Martinlc (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(Although I have some mild reservations) I think we may regard this as resolved.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the Talk discussion of the topic, but don't know what the procedure is.Martinlc (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything that needs deleting. Rd232 talk 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The section on Sexuality which retails unsourced or poorly sourced rumours: it seems inconsistent to remove then from the entry but keep them on the Talk page?Martinlc (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's normal to keep things like that on the talk page, as part of a discussion archive. Exceptions are sometimes made, but only rarely. Anyone else want to have a look? Rd232 talk 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(deintenting) The guidelines regarding Talk pages are here.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Epstein

Marcus Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Thegoodlocust has recently removed a negative paragraph from our article on Marcus Epstein, with the edit summary "BLP violation using biased source based on a biased source - I could find no substantiating news source for this claim and his criminal record doesn't show this event". I reverted, due to Epstein seemingly pleading guilty, according to the court documents scanned in the source for said paragraph. A Google News search returns a few more sources covering the case, and a regular search provides others. However, due to my own relative inexperience in BLP-related articles, I would like more BLP-experienced users to review my edit, the article and the content in question, such as whether the source is reliable, whether the court document scans are genuine, and so on. Thanks. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this addition for a day, and I think that it should be removed pending coverage in a reliable secondary source. (I may be mistaken in thinking that Daily Kos, Center for Independent Media's The Washington Independent, and Talking Points Memo are not considered relaible sources. They are all blogs so I assume they aren't). For articles in general but especially for BLPs, we don't include assertions that are solely based on primary sources. Including crimes that haven't been reported in reliable secondary sources is against the principles of the BLP policy. That said, this crime does appear to be relevant to the subject's political activism and I'm surprised that it hasn't been picked up by a mainstream news source. I suspect it will be and we could restore the material when that happens.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Few newspapers give much coverage to misdemeanors at all. The apparent plea bargain means he will not face any jail time (the plea was two years ago, and appears to have stipulated that at the end of two years without problems that it would be dismissed). Not really very newsworthy at all. Which explains why the main people yelling are quite possibly with partisan interests. Collect (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright guys, done. Thanks for the input. Care to keep it on your watchlist for future additions? Dreaded Walrus t c 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever interest there is stems from the confluence of Epstein's professional relationships with Buchanan & Tancredo and their critique of the Sotomayor nomination. (The partisan debating point being that those who level the charge of racism have/had a racist in their employ.) Billbrock (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably so, but even Tancredo's comments haven't made it into the mainstream press, so maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.
Some anons have been busy re-adding the material. I've been reverting under the BLP exemption to 3RR and have asked for semi-protection.   Will Beback  talk 
Talking Points Memo should be considered a reliable source, as it's staffed by professional journalists and editors. Bay Buchanan confirms the story. [14] Certainly it is appropriate to err on the side of caution. Billbrock (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If TPM is considered a reliable source then that changes everything. Has it been considered reliable before, in other articles? I don't see any sign that Brian Beutler has a reputation as a journalist outside of blogs.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably an intern. TPM is edited by Josh Marshall, who linked to Beutler's story from the main page. Billbrock (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
TPM is widely considered to be a reliable source - they won a Polk award last year for their attorney general-gate coverage. Combined with official court documents, an official employer response and news-worthiness, I think the hate crime information should be put back in ASAP. --TheSJoe (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Have to agree with User:Billbrock. As the news industry is rapidly changing, as newspapers are dying left and right, we have to be dynamic about what we classify as WP:RS. TPM is not simply an opinion blog -- it has real verified reporting, an investigative unit and has won the prestigious journalism George Polk Award for Legal Reporting. Other fellow Polk winners that year? NY Times, Wall Street Journal, McClatchy Newspapers, The Washington Post, ABC News and The Chicago Tribune [15]. While this means we should take a greater look at WP:RS, this type of change happens from the bottom up (like most things in Wikipedia) and this should be the start of respecting TPM's status on the media landscape. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Standards certainly change over time. It'd be nice if there was a history of considering TPM as a reliable source before using it for a negative assertion about a relatively minor figure.   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
By that definition, there will be no more new sources, ever. And again, it's not just TPM. It's official court documents and it's on-the-record statements from his employers. I also don't consider a speechwriter to an influential house member and one of the most visible pundits in our country (Pat Buchanan) to be a minor player, especially in light of their steadfast opposition to the Supreme Court nominee on grounds of racism. --TheSJoe (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The siubject is due to be sentenced in a little over a week, so there's a good chance that there will be more coverage then.   Will Beback  talk  05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
One difference between TPM & traditional media: TPM is upfront about its political biases. But if Fox, the NY Times etc. are not upfront yet are similarly biased, who's more reliable? Just warning that that TPM aspires to fairness, but not to NPOV. Billbrock (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Also covered in the conservative blog Little Green Footballs, with additional details. [16]
  • As the administrator who placed the protection, I want to make clear that any administrator following this discussion is free to remove the protection at any time, if the discussion seems headed that way, and I will not object. --causa sui talk 02:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The material has now been reported in the Denver Post (or at least on its blog). "Tancredo PAC chief part of nominee tiff". That qualifies as a reliable source. If there's no objection to using that source I think this is no longer a BLP issue.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This was nicely handled throughout: thank you. Billbrock (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Travis Lane Stork

Travis Lane Stork should be renamed to "Travis Stork". Ronald Mckay (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Katherine Freese

Hope this is the right place and way to do this, but I was wondering if the image on Katherine Frees should be removed. Galoubet (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elucidate your concern? The edit history and file data indicates that the subject produced and added this picture herself, which would seem to obviate any BLP concerns; it might be a COI issue, but she does seem to be notable, and the picture is charmingly informal (to my taste, anyway), so I'd be inclined to think say it's fine unless/until there's a better one available. Maybe the infobox could use some expansion, though.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This is newland for me, hence my concern, but if the subject added this picture herself, there is of course no problem with the BLP. And yes, the infobox could use some expansion, but who does this generally? The best person to do this, is (in my opinion) the author, but wat is the procedure to get to her? Galoubet (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually while someone adding an image of themselves is IMHO fine provided they aren't removing existing images without discussion, adding stuff to the infobox is a BLP and COI issue. Generally speaking, we should only add such details if they appear in a reliable secondary source. Self published (primary) sources are occasionally acceptable (See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown) but should be avoided as much as possible except as a backup supporting ref to a secondary source IMHO. In any case, there needs to be a source, e.g. a website and not just the person adding it to wikipedia. While it may seem true that if the person adds it to wikipedia one of our key concerns, that of the person's privacy is no longer so relevant it's worth remembering that if we choose to accept it now, that means we should always accept it even if the person later takes down the site if we have an archive. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Try emailing her.--chaser (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

William Oefelein

William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein's article continues to state that he was "fired" or "dismissed." This statement is false. William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Wikipedia has been informed, and it would appear that Wikipedia's article titled "William Oefelein" continues to be intentionally, maliciously or at least negligently false and defamatory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 3 June 2009

I was about to come here and comment on this article. Without judging which side is correct, this article has been going back and forth between variations of fired and retired. This includes a couple of named accounts as well as the IP who started the section. I'm at work and I don't have the opportunity at the moment to do the research to give an opinion on who's right. However the article could benefit from an experienced user or two taking a look at the dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: "He is retired from military service, and his status should read, 'retired'." The "status" field in the Astronaut infobox refers to the person's status as an Astronaut, so Oefelein's retirement from the US Navy is not relevant. As to whether he retired, resigned, was dismissed or fired from the NASA Astronaut Corps, I'll stop back and provide some references. Rillian (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
NASA Fires Astronaut Oefelein, Fired astronaut in love triangle shows up with new girlfriend, Second astronaut fired in NASA love triangle, NASA requested a reassignment. Rillian (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

James Allen (journalist)

This page has been vandalised on many occasions in recent years by malicious people. Recently a paragraph was added which alleged that Mr Allen's' website is infected with a virus which sends child pornography links to the FBI (see edit history)

Page protection should be applied here.

Pmorley505 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending material again. It could probably do with a few more people keeping an eye on it. Pages only tend to be protected when they are being repeatedly vandalised over a short space of time, which doesn't seem to be the case here. --RicDod (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Pimentel

Richard Pimentel's story is very interesting and inspiring, and he has even been the subject of a movie, but the article needs a lot of help. It is currently based almost entirely on his own business website, with no in-line reliable sources to speak of, and it's written in a very un-Wikipedian tone. I've added a general link to an interesting New York Post profile of him, but much more is needed. Thanks.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Garrett

Resolved
 – Article deleted at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Garrett - This seems to be more like advertisement for a business than it does a legitimate entry // —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poormanspantheon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notification; given the lack of reliable sources in the article and the dubious claims to notability, I have proposed the article for deletion. The article was previously proposed for deletion but survived. The search term "Chris Garrett" gets many hits on Google News but it is unclear whether any of these lead to reliable and significant coverage of this topic. I would send it to WP:AFD but I haven't got time to trawl through the sources.  Skomorokh  06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alan Harvey

Resolved
 – Moot as article has been deleted citing OTRS:2009012810029024 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is quite likely despicable, but I would hope that WP:BLP still applies. He is currently repeatedly tagged as "racist" albeit there seems remarkably little in the way of RS cites to make that tag currently apt. (actually, there is remarkably little in the way of current RS cites in that article) What criteria are required to label a person as "racist" on WP? Is a current reliable source required? Or is the holding of "right wing" views sufficient? Collect (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, he isn't tagged as being racist but as being a topic of the racism debate. Looking at the template, I don't think it belongs on any articles similiar to Harvey's because of the BLP concerns. You did good in removing it. I can think of very few situations where we can label a person as racist (perhaps if he claims so himself and this is documented by reliable sources). We can document that people are alledgedly racist but templates assert facts that couldn't be reasonably contradicted. I don't think that racism template should be used in any biographies, which thankfully it appears not to. ThemFromSpace 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I take ThemFromSpace's point that no one else is included under this category so it would be wrong to add someone else. I note however that many biographies show the category "racism", e.g., David Duke. So while we are here, I wonder if we could resolve whether that would be allowed in this case.
According to the article (and its links) Alan Harvey has been active in the far right, racist British National Front, the National Party (UK, 1976), the Herstigte Nasionale Party, and the Conservative Party (South Africa). He was editor of the South African Patriot in Exile, that advocated "British and European Imperialism" and "Separate Development" while opposing "multi-cultural societies". He is currently chairman of the Swinton club that advocates "the re-establishment of civilized European rule throughout the African continent," and was condemned for by the British High Commission in South Africa for spreading "hate literature". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You need reliable sources for making charges in BLPs. And the fact is that the categorization of people as "racist" is not to be undertaken without exceedingly good basis. Therefore I would consider any such tag on a person to require striong consensus as well as non-questioned sources. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I put the template there and I offer apologies if it was incorrectly put. What I was looking for was some sort of general template category for 'white supremacy'. I saw there was one called 'White Nationalism' but it seemed specifically American whereas the 'Racism' one included white supremacy and apartheid. It seems to me that the subject holds views on race and dominance but I accept that does not automatically indicate that the subject is a 'racist'. Is there a 'racialism' or some other more appropriate category instead perhaps? --JHumphries (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ching Hai

I would like to report constant edits in violation of WLB by 59.167.40.111. This user has consistently casts a negative light on subject claiming lack of 3rd party source over a period of time. He/She has removed entire Biblography section, deleted entire wiki text over the years and added many totally wrong information that I need to keep correcting. The final straw is putting a new Cult section which I believe is total violation of living bio because the claim is personal opinion without any proof and is thus defamatory. I have no wish to enter into a reversion war and thus I hope for neutral party evaluation on this matter.Truthexplorer (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has suffered from significant issues regarding reliable sources and has been until recently a worship page for followers of Ching Hai with far too much un-encyclopaedic and non-noteworthy content including the aforementioned bibliography of self published material. I have not been able to find ANY 3rd party references casting a favourable light on the subject but plenty of articles from newspapers etc varyingly critical of the person and her enterprises, hence the expanding criticism section containing cited examples. The objection here is by someone who obviously has a positive bias towards the subject and although the article needs more work in particular in relation to better quality references, I believe it is heading in the right direction. I welcome some independent assessment. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The objection is that your edits are a violation of Living Bio policy. If your logic is good and reference quoted is 100% reliable and verifiable then please add "Cult" section to all notables he has listed such as Dalai Lama etc. This is where the objection lies. State facts not opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthexplorer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have made some amendments. To clarify, negative comments about subjects of BLP articles are allowed if overall the article is balanced, and the comments are notable and reported in third-party Reliable Sources. If there is a particular objection to the word Cult, that is a content issue.Martinlc (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Juan Chastang

I've removed the worst, but the rets needs sorucing.Martinlc (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young (author)

The Robert Young (author) page is undergoing a dispute between Honest Research and MastCell over the content in the "Nutritional Microscopy" paragraph in the Robert Young (author) article. MastCell has argued that the content is "fringe" and Honest Research has argued that the statements against live blood analysis and alkaline diets that MastCell is including do not have to do with Robert Young directly and should not be on his page but should be included on the live blood analysis page and the alkaline diet page; unless they specifically say something about Robert Young's claims about live blood analysis or alkaline diets. The statments that do include Young have been included. The issues is with the ones that don't include Young. This dispute is not heated. It is simply two different opinions on how the format should be. I would petition a wise person who is unbiased to come in and mediate and inform both Honest Research and MastCell how the article should address these concerns and why. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Geir Høgsnes

Not really a BLP anymore, but thats kind of what the dispute is about. This person was found dead earlier today. This has been confirmed by Verdens Gang, a Norwegian newspaper. 98.207.253.209 (talk · contribs) keeps removing this information citing that the family does not want the information to come out, and that it is ethically unacceptable. Your opinion? Rettetast (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the cited page in (slightly garbled) Google translation, and based on that, I guess the details of his death might turn out to be a bit icky (though not necessarily in any way that reflects badly on him). However, I don't see anything wrong with Alansohn's version here (which on further review of the history appears to be the same as Rettetast's previous version), straightforwardly stating the simple facts. What's more, it seems to me important that a reliable source needs to be included for the statement that he's dead. In other words, not only does reporting his death not violate WP:BLP, but it may actually violate WP:BLP to report that he's dead without including a reliable source for that report. I assume that the best source is this Verdens Gang article, so it ought to be cited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Graham and Sayuki articles

There are currently two Wikipedia articles, Fiona Graham and Sayuki, related to the same person. Fiona Graham is an Australian anthopologist who became the first western Geisha in Japan, taking the name "Sayuki". The Fiona Graham article has existed since 2005, but a separate article titled Sayuki was created recently by a new editor, User:FiG8, who from the choice of user name and editing style, possibly has close connections with, or actually is, the subject herself. As "Sayuki" appears to be the name that the subject of these articles currently goes by, I boldly merged the content from Fiona Graham into the Sayuki article, leaving Fiona Graham as a redirect. User:FiG8 has subsequently (twice) reverted the redirect at Fiona Graham, and has repeatedly removed any references to Sayuki's real name (Fiona Graham) from the Sayuki article, saying that Geishas' real names should not be revealed. That might be true in the case of a regular geisha, but in this case, Sayuki's former name has been published in all of the news reports and interviews about her (sourced in the article), and as she had notability (e.g. publishing books as Fiona Graham) before becoming a geisha, I feel it is essential that her real name also be mentioned in the article.
This risks degenerating into an edit war, so I wonder if some other editors could have a look and make sure this all conforms to BLP standards. I would have no problem with the material all being merged into Fiona Graham, but either way, I don't see that continuing two parallel articles about the same person is an acceptable option. --DAJF (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that there should only be one article about this person, and that there is no problem with publishing her real name with her geisha name (as she has been identified by both names in at least one reliable source). However, my inclination would be to have the one article under Fiona Graham, with Sayuki as the redirect, since she had published under her real name before becoming a geisha. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

I am entangled in a nascent revert war on this article. I have removed some material per Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. The media has mentioned that she was assessed under the Mental Health Act 1983, I have removed mention of this as I regard is as an unwarranted invasion of her privacy but was reverted. I have reverted again but feel that an assessment by editors here used to operating this policy will be useful.

Some expert knowledge is relevant here. I have worked as an Approved Social Worker assessing people under the Mental Health Act. Sometimes we assess people and decide that they are not suffering from a mental disorder or at least not of one of a nature or degree that justifies depriving them of their liberty. In Boyle's case, the professionals involved have decided not to detain her under the MHA. However, readers are likely to read things into her having been assessed. The inclusion of such material is therefore likely to be detrimentla to how they view her.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is reporting that Piers says she voluntarily entered hospital suffering from exhaustion. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Stay away from the tabloids and gossip web sites, but if nominally reliable newspapers are verifiably reporting on this, I see nothing untowards about citing what's happening to her. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the content. The matter is germane to the nature of her sudden and stressful rise to fame and is clearly notable and relevant. It is also sourced from a reputable source that does not sensationalize or speculate on the matter. There is no reason to censor something that is a matter of widespread public knowledge and discussion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that someone has taken out much of your edit - correctly IMV. The section of WP:BLP to which I have referred above and in my edit summaries opens:
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
Statements about an individual's supposed mental health are a prime example of what this is intended to cover. Add to that that people can be assessed under the mental health act with the professionals deciding that there is nothing seriously wrong with them and a reference to such an assessment runs into a real risk of being libellous. (Remember true statements can be libellous.)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe my addition was "sensationalist" or "titillating". It accurately reflected what the BBC were saying and was being widely reported. However, I now notice that the cite I used on the BBC website has since been itself edited to remove references to the Mental Health Act. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This must be written with great care, but is becoming wholly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The best thing is to pick a couple of non-tabloid British newspapers, which understand the nuances of the Mental Health Act, and repeat what they say without elaboration. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that non-tabloid UK sources are more likely to be the safest for context and language. These will show up sooner rather than later. Straight quotes also come to mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the blp policy quote it cannot be said that the wikipedia article is likely to hurt Susan Boyle when this story is currently widely reported in the press. The bit about wikipedia blp's that hurt the subject is referring to material not widely published or material published in the past and subsequently forgotten about, where the resurgence of that material is likely to be damaging to the individual, and this is where wikipedia becomes the primary source spreading the information. None of this applies here. Of course we must be careful and use non-tabloid sources but right now this material is appropriate for this article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Frankel‎

I don't have the time to source this guy, I know the story that is told is essentially true (I did a graudate research paper on his frauds). The problem is that essentially nothing is cited. Right now, I don't know if/when I will be able to work on it, but this article needs help desperately. Probably needs to have over half the article deleted (if not the whole thing) due to BLP concerns. As I wrote a paper on him, I feel that somebody less familiar with Frankel should take a look and make that judgement. This guy is notable. When he was on the lamb, he was called the "Billion Dollar Man" because the early estimates of his fraud placed his schemes at over a billion dollars.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Beganlocal

The user Beganlocal appears to be a SPA intent on inserting ethnicity/religious affiliations into the lead section of articles (example [17]). He has also created a new category which seems unnecessary[18]. It appears that his previous attempts at inserting the contentious material on May 26th were all reverted, so I am bringing it to your attention as (in my opinion) the additions are not being made in good faith. ponyo (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor needs to read WP:MOSBIO where it notes ethnicity should not be included in the lead sentence unless it is the reason the person is notable. --Tom (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The editor actually quotes WP:MOSBIO in the edit history of previous changes [19], so although I'd like to assume good faith, I can't help but believe that the edits will continue regardless of policy. ponyo (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's not if "it is the reason the person is notable" but if it is relevant to the person's being notable. (Eg Martin Frankel above was known because of the frauds he committed, but his Jewish identity was relevent in the perpetuation of those frauds as he explicitly used racial stereotypes about Jews to garner trust, "Of course, I know about money, I'm Jewish aren't I?")---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Leona Lewis

Is it proper to detail how much a person is thought to be worth? I seem to recall a parameter (personal fortune) being added and removed from the Infobox template some time ago, presumably because calculations are speculative and imprecise. There is a summary dispute on Leona Lewis in any case. (diff) The reference provided appears to be solid enough. The Times blogger credits as his source Current TV and indeed the entertainment channel appears to have conducted its own survey, alongside such other illuminating studies as "The 20 Sexiest Ugly People". [20] Is this good enough? The same information has been inserted across a number of different pages by editor Daytona2. Dynablaster (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone able to answer the question -- is it proper to detail how much a person is thought to be worth? Dynablaster (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a consensus discussion

Folks, can anyone point me to the discussion or discussions where the consensus was that WP:BLP applies to the recently dead? I have searched for it high and low but to no avail. I know it exists because I remember reading it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this, not sure if this is the 'consensus' you're looking for though...ponyo (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking about the recent discussion of poor Rachel Corrie? I took from that discussion a sense that some editors believe BLP should apply to the newly dead, but it wasn't clear how long it would apply (maybe 6 months or so) and many other editors disagreed. And it's not clear (to me, anyway) how much it ultimately matters--WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. all apply either way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that such concerns should apply to all articles about people, living or dead. I don't know why one would include poorly sourced speculatoin about, say, Shakespeare, just because he's been dead a long time, for instance. I know that the legal issues are different (dead people don't threaten to sue, and their heirs are much less likely to prevails) but as a matter of internal wikipedia standards, I don't know why we should lower the bar when someone dies. As to interpreted policy as it now stands, i think arxiloxos take on that discussion is correct; no clear consensus that i could see (from memory).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks but neither of those discussions were the ones I was thinking of. I think the rationale for BLP applying for a period (IMHO it should be short, say 3 months) after death is the effect that BLP violations may have on friends and family. It is clearly not a legal issue as you cannot defame the dead and no one else has locus standi to sue with respect thereto. Why yes I am a lawyer, what gave it away?! – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Most discussion will have been at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, I think. Try this search[21]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike Murphy (sports radio personality)

Can I get some help at Mike Murphy (sports radio personality)? User:Oldy75 has been adding poorly-sourced content about Murphy's "feuds" with other sports personalities, along with other questionable edits. See [22], [23]. Frankly, I don't even know if Murphy deserves an article, but I thought I might as well bring the issues to your attention. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "Feuds" section. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks... although he'll probably be back eventually. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Justus Weiner

In the article on Justus Weiner user:skywalker is inserting extreme prejudicial statements about the subject such as "Weiner said he was an associate in White & Case but he is not listed in that firm's directory." (the directory is for current employees of course). Mashkin (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's at AfD. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It is still a violation of BLP. Mashkin (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Jefferson siblings

See Archie Jefferson, Betty Jefferson and Mose Jefferson. Are their positions notable enough to have articles on them? As of now, the vast majority of the articles are accusations of crime. I've already db-blp tagge the Archie article, but I'm not sure if the lot should go. Their brother, the former Congressman, should stay, but the criminal accusations should be toned down due to WP:WEIGHT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a question of notability, but perhaps consideration should be given to consolidating the articles into one article, with redirects from the current titles. The indictments and trials mostly share the same body of legal arguments. They probably gain some sensationalism from the close connection with the former Congressman, but he faces his own trial, not the one(s) involving certain family members and associates in New Orleans; thus collapsing their judicial proceedings into the article on him alone would be to depart from the subject there and to lengthen an article which already has a lot in it. But a selfstanding article on the other indictments and trials, yes, that's worth considering and, IMHO, a way to save space overall and bring everything together. Put the (Virginia) case involving William J. Jefferson into his article; put the (Louisiana) cases into a consolidated separate article. Rammer (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ashton Lundeby

Resolved
 – Moot as article has been deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across this article when patrolling prods. The prod rationale by an IP raises a red flag about potentially harmful information about this user. Can someone look into this, please? MuZemike 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

General question about userspace

Resolved
 – Page has been deleted as a copyright infringement since it it was a c&p of the deleted article and thus violated the GFDL. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If we have a BLP article that is then deleted, how long can a version of that article live in user-space for Re-editing/adjustment? As far as I can determine this was AFD'd and that decision was confirmed by DR. Obviously someone can become notable in the future - but can a BLP article sit forever in userspace? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is a G10 BLP violation, it should be nuked immedately. If it's promotional or otherwise unacceptable, it should go away, but perhaps through MfD, as this is currently nominated. However, if it's just a not-quite-notable person, and meets WP:V but not WP:N, then I'd see no reason for an artifical timeline for removal. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

Resolved
 – Article is now back on the good side of wp:blp and wp:undue thanks to CliffC. Seems to be resolved, for now at least. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems imbalanced, with an oversized Controversy section and a Quotes section that contributes to the imbalance even after this rather mean-spirited chunk was removed. Could someone please take a look? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed most of it. Neutral does not mean 50% criticism. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

New Kadampa Tradition

New Kadampa Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yonteng has made repeated ad hom.s today (6th June) on this article's Talk page, including some highly defamatory statements regarding various individuals connected to the article's subject (not other editors). this editor was warned and asked not to do this, but responded with more. see here: [24]

the editor's been involved in ongoing disputes on this article (including, i should say for transparency, with myself), but this is really unaceptable behaviour now, in my opinion - would appreciate some Admin. input. thank you. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just removed another violation at [25], for which Yonteng admits no 3RS yet exists for the claims he is making about Jim Belither (JB). Emptymountains (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
And, he just put it back, replacing the initials "JB" with "X": [26]. Emptymountains (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
And, he's added more, using the initials "JB" again: [27]. Emptymountains (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

Resolved
 – Fully protected by Tom harrison. Will await reliable sourcing and expect {{editprotected}} to be used until the conflict dies down. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A month ago, opinion apparently sourced to CNBC was added into the Carly Fiorina article by User:86.151.43.30. (The opinion was actually published by Condé Nast Portfolio, since defunct). The content relevant to Fiorina was essentially a photo caption. Condé Nast indicated it compiled the list through a survey of business school professors, but no further information was provided as to who any of those professors were, or what methodology was used to compile the results. wp:blp is clear that we should stick to the facts, but the photo caption was all about opinion, in addition to being poorly sourced. After the discussion a month ago on the matter, the content was left out of the article and User:86.151.43.30 went on his way. Yesterday, a new editor to the article, User:Benignprank, began reinserting the material, and has since reverted to enforce the inclusion of the content. Would really appreciate additional help, especially more eyes watching the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


initial inclusion
reinclusion
first revert to reinclude
second revert to reinclude

Update: The article was just semi-protected by Tom harrison. Unfortunately, User:Jgm decided to reinsert the material anyway, with an edit summary that included: "add link to article on source so readers can gauge import." The simple fact we're including it adds credence to the "import" of the source. I think wp:blp is clear: stick to the facts (and, perhaps, include notable opinion when it can be impeccably sourced and clearly named). It's about as clear a poorly-sourced, controversial statement as you can get, and adding a link to it doesn't make it any better sourced or less controversial. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the reinserted content and posted {{BLP removal}} to the talk page along with specific relevant sections of wp:blp and wp:rs. Unfortunately, this would be my fourth revert today, so I included (in my edit summary) the section of wp:3rr that exempts reverting the insertion of material proscribed by wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've full protected and watchlisted the page. Tom Harrison Talk 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your keeping an eye on things there. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Denny Rehberg

Resolved
 – Semiprotected for a week by Mifter. Working on talk page to find sourcing and neutral language. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet management 71.225.223.62 constant reversion to hide congressman's actions and words against minorities72.160.27.31 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems necessary here until we can sort this out. Will request momentarily at wp:rfpp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Lawrence

12:38, 7 June 2009 -- 90.194.37.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added this to Claudia Lawrence.

12:56, 7 June 2009 -- I reverted: diff

16:22, 7 June 2009 -- Same IP has now added the "growing speculation that Miss Lawrence worked secretly..." line a second time, with the edit summary "Added factual information obtained from a trusted source and indexed a reference. The Thai user at 58.8.9.* please refrain from removing *FACTUAL* information." diff This time a reference has been included -- Sky News reference.

Maybe someone else would like to look at this and perhaps watchlist it. Thanks. 58.8.9.187 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary detail that also seemed quite awkward out of context. This is a wp:blp1e, which can be particularly difficult to address in terms of our guidelines for biographies of living people. I will keep it on my watchlist, but if you notice something further that needs to be rewritten or removed (including anything that I may have missed already), please address it further here. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is most definitely a wp:blp1e since she is not known for anything other than her disappearance. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment.

I have requested a comment here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies regarding the infobox on the Ma Anand Sheela WP:BLP article. I have noticed that answers to these requests are not very regular, and I feel that I issued this request in the wrong place. As my question is specifically about BLP policy I would ask to have the comment from here.. here is my request... Talk:Ma_Anand_Sheela#Appropriateness_of_Infobox_Criminal....(Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment: There is already an ongoing Request for comment, at the article's talk page. It has been open for over two weeks. Consensus is that the infobox usage is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell Means

Resolved
 – Editor deleted entire section started with his own comment; no WP:RS provided to back up his serious allegations

Hi. Could somebody take a look at the comment on the talk page of this article in the section titled "What separates Russell Means from moderate AIM members". Should this comment be removed from the talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to allow things to be mentioned on the talk page makes it impossible even to discuss whether they should be mentioned in the article. It should be avoided except in extreme cases. In my opinion this is not quite an extreme case, but it's getting close, and I've added a comment to that effect on the talk page. (For people's convenience, the link is Talk:Russell Means#What separates Russell Means from moderate AIM members.) Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

William Oefelein

William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Wikipedia is now informed of this libelous statement, which continues to appear in their article titled "William Oefelein." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 31, 2009

removed "dismissed" from the astronaut infobox; the sources given merely said "reassigned to the Navy". Rd232 talk 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein's article continues to state that he was "fired" or "dismissed." This statement is false. William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Wikipedia has been informed, and it would appear that Wikipedia's article titled "William Oefelein" continues to be intentionally, maliciously or at least negligently false and defamatory.

Please point out any statements from NASA that you think contradict the article. I searched through NASA's press release archive and could find no release on this subject. I saw Oefelein's press release from his attorney (you?) but that cannot be taken as a reliable source. Mangojuicetalk 04:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was a previous report on this article, but there was no resolution and it was archived. Currently, there is a debate on whether or not to include a quote made by Perez Hilton where he called Prejean a "dumb bitch" after she answered a question of his about gay marriage in the 2009 Miss USA pageant. The argument for inclusion boils down to the quote being the main reason for much of Prejean's media exposure. The argument against is that the quote is a clear personal attack and it violates WP:BLP. It should also be noted that the incident itself with the full quote has its own article titled Miss USA 2009 controversy. I personally think the quote should be included, but I'm certainly not 100% on it, so I thought I'd bring this back here for some more input. There is an RfC in place as well. Of note, InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is insisting on characterizing Hilton's comments as "hate filled" (or some variation) and as "misogynist" in discussions on the talk page. This also seems to be a WP:BLP violation to me, though as I understand it some latitude is given for talk page posts. InaMaka is making the talk page a toxic environment, though the fact that I disagree with them may be coloring my interpretation. Outside opinions are most welcome and needed, and any uninvolved, neutral administrators would be welcome as well. AniMatedraw 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say something along the lines of "Hilton insulted Prejean", to avoid both the polemical quote as well as the offtopic commentary on the commenter? Declarative language is our friend. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
AniMate wrote on the talk page, "I've left the note as neutral as possible" -- but AniMate has written in this BLPN notice, "InaMaka is making the talk page a toxic environment."

That's not, "as neutral as possible."

Search the talk page for the word, "misogynist", and you'll find InaMaka referring to Hilton's "misogynist comments." AniMate accuses InaMaka of writing that Hilton is misogynist. InaMaka replies that s/he had written that Hilton's "COMMENTS are ... misogynist."

AniMate goes on accusing InaMaka of "Describing [Hilton] as ... misogynist," even though InaMaka hadn't done that -- and had pointed that out!

AniMate is part of a disruptive tag team that campaigns to drive off productive editors, that try to edit the Carrie Prejean article or its talk page, that do not share the tag team's POV.

Caden, who wrote this was hounded and quit Wikipedia. Members of the tag team, including AniMate, were a big part of making that happen.

Just before Caden said, "adios", he complained that AniMate had written that Caden, "goes on to threaten to kick Keltie's ass."[28]

What Caden had really written, was, "If all else fails, you can send him my way and I'll kick his ass for free. Joking."[29]

AniMate's sneaky removal of the word "joking" was egregious, and turned a joke into a simple threat.

The tag team's multiple attempts to hound and drive off InaMaka, another good editor, have been less successful.[30][31][32] They've made several attempts to shift the focus from the debate to me, personally, too.)[33]

Understand, too, that that's all it is, a debate. It doesn't take long to figure out that the tag team has zero interest in consensus-building.

There's a war going on all over the talk page. It's been here on the BLP Noticeboard, on the edit warring noticeboard, and now on the Requests for comment/Biographies.

There's been a book written on the talk page, debating whether it's worthy of inclusion -- in several different places in the article at once -- that an openly homosexual gossip blogger called Miss Prejean a "dumb bitch."

Seriously, what must be the mentality of the people that have fought so incredibly hard for this inclusion?

Can you imagine?

The mob seems to win everything, via tendentious editing. Even though consensus is not in numbers, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, the tag team lines up on the talk page on every issue[34], and then claims consensus.[35][36]

They brazenly violate WP:Own.

They often offer no real analysis for their conclusions[37], or just write something nonsensical.[38]

What happened was:

An openly homosexual gossip blogger, who was serving as a judge at the Miss USA pageant, asked Miss California USA if she thought laws in 46 states should be modified so that same-sex marriage would be recognized/valid.

She said, "... I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

Same sex advocates vilified Miss Prejean. She replied, "On April 19, I chose to answer a question during the 2009 Miss USA pageant in an honest and personal manner that expressed my views of the long-established definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet my comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street."

The Miss California USA co-directors stated, "we do not condone the subsequent inappropriate and unbecoming attacks against Carrie, and we believe that at no time should anyone -- especially a 21-year-old beauty queen -- be subjected to this type of scrutiny, regardless of what her beliefs are."

Even one of the gay-activist, Miss California USA co-directors stated, "many people felt she was vilified and targeted. I don’t think she deserves that."

In the media ...

The Miss California USA organization leaked, and then the Miss California USA co-directors -- both gay activists -- confirmed that Miss California USA had had a boob job.

Risqué modeling application photo(s) of her, in which she appeared scantily clad -- but that were explicitly not intended for publication -- were leaked.

On Wikipedia:

Instantly, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean -- who had at that time been a redirect -- became allegedly notable enough for her own attack page.

Editors that were previously interested in Anal_sex, LGBT_slang, Gay_bathhouse, and Same-sex_marriage[39] decended on the new attack page to try to do to Miss Prejean exactly what some in the gay/liberal media had done to her.

What was published in the media, was copied into the 'encyclopedia' article.

The boob job, the so-called "controversy" (over an answer that represented the majority), the photos, the fact that the openly gay blogger called Prejean a "dumb bitch" -- it's all there, and then some.

Most -- the majority -- of the real estate in this article is filled with content that just serves to make Carrie Prejean look bad, and the worthiness of inclusion of most of it is being debated.

Seriously, how many models and beauty pageant contestants have had boob jobs?

The Miss California USA co-directors, both of which were gay activists, suggested she'd entered the pageant under false pretenses.

The Miss USA contract reportedly contains a clause asking participants whether they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

The Donald looked at the photos, said they were "fine", and that was the end of it. It's his pageant. He owns it.

All of this has been declared worthy of inclusion by the same-sex marriage activist tag team, and they have fought tooth and nail for the inclusion of every detail that serves to tarnish Miss Prejean's reputation. -- Rico 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch half of that, but there's one thing I don't understand. Why do people think that using Hilton's accurate quote makes Prejean look bad? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's the other way around. That Hilton's crude language makes himself look bad. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with that...it is only somewhat in jest that I would suggest removing the quote as a BLP violation about the source of the quote, Hilton. Really, it says more about Hilton than about Prejean, so on editorial grounds seems to be superfluous, per WP:WEIGHT or even in a stretch WP:COATRACK (I mentioned not quoting it above the WP:TLDR above). That said, it's not really a BLP violation if in can be meticulously sourced. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't read all that above, but this isn't a BLP issue. NPA applies to editors, not content. It's a quote. A sourced quote. So, argue about the relevance of it, but don't call it a BLP issue. لennavecia 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither did I but I agree it's not a BLP issue, but rather WP:UNDUE and related guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the following cut from my talk page: Speaking on the matter of undue, the controversy is very much relevant, and if anyone removed that section it would take the next out of context. The whole article could do with a good copy-edit, as the prose is not impressive and there is some redundancy, but the information contained within the article is relevant and very much a part of her notability. The neutrality of the article can surely be discussed, but I don't think (at least from the version that currently exists) that it's to a point that it becomes a BLP concern. She made the comment. The fallout from it is presented, including both criticism and support. لennavecia 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Boyd K. Packer

Could some people weigh in and/or suggest appropriate action until consensus is reached? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Same stuff reinserted, different context using an evangelical wiki on Mormonism as a secondary source. Acceptable or not? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No wiki can be RS. Collect (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Belinda Neal

This article has serious WP:UNDUE issues, the "Controversial incidents" section is 50% of the article. There is also a related OTRS ticket, otrs:2009052910016029. BJTalk 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the incidents text to make it NPOV and removed speculation.Martinlc (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier Page Edit War by a paid PR Agency

There is presently an edit war in progress. a pr Agency representing Paul Traub, the co-chair of the Bankruptcy unit in Dreier's firm is reverting all sourced contributions including court documents and notes.

The Saylor company has been retained and is being paid to revert the edits on the Dreier page in the Traub, Bonacquist and Fox section, retaining only a promotonal advertisement for his present digs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saylorcompany

When she was admonished she created her own screen name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W_Cwir_at_Saylor and continued to revert edits related to his history and backstory with Dreier, regarding an ongoing and current case. Mr. Traub is protecting his reputation from further damage, but that is for Who's Who among American Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell.

This is an objective page, not a biased one with an agenda. She has been warned she is biased, and the vandaliam must cease. I have advised her I will gladly start a Paul Traub page which will not be abridged as this is; he is now a public figure appearing in all media venues. Please ban her because of lack of objectivity. She is being enriched by her endeavor to protect Mr. Traub from the Court of Public Opinion.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It appears to be that you're not exactly objective with regards to Mr. Traub as well -- conflict-of-interest and non-neutral point-of-view issues can arise even if one isn't paid. Also, both you and W_Cwir appear to be running afoul of the three-revert rule. For myself, I don't think that the level of detail you are entering is appropriate for the Dreier article, since the article is about Dreier and not Traub. I've made a couple of entries on the talk page, and removed the Traub edits until discussion can take place (which were immediatedly reverted by Furtive admirer). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Page protected and PR person blocked (by different admins). Sounds like the point is now moot. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Same PR person on behalf of Mr. Traub here again (same account, new signature), unblocked by a forgiving editor, and now knowing better than to engage in an edit war again. Sadly, this matter is not over -- the material has moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Traub. Weronix (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes and advice on the ongoing acrimony and conflict on this article over sourcing, questionable negative/trivial content and COI/disruptive editing and disagreements. The latest disagreements are discussed beginning here Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Americanchronicle.com and TMZ.com (again) sources removed. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Flowanda is the chief "disagreer". Nothing that is being added to or removed from the article is contentious, but Flowanda's pursuit of my every move is becoming irksome in the extreme. ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Alas -- you are the only "agreer" -- the TMZ.com issue was raised before, and it was quite clear that no one supported your iterated use of it. Use of RS is required even for "non contentious" material, and the use of sites which violate copyright ("magictelevisioncom" etc.) is contrary to WP policies, guidelines and more. And use of PA is not a valid system of argumeent, ever. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what consensus is: TMZ is not a reliable source for negative or unflattering content in a BLP and shouldn't be cited even for neutral content. Moreover, TMZ text cited to support neutral text on en.Wikipedia may have negative or unflattering content: Citing such text to lead readers to that kind of content is also a violation of BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Which was my precise position. Collect (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: the Oprah/Copperfield transcript carried at magictelevision.org is essentially a convenience link. That transcript, which is no longer available from Oprah's site, is not copyrighted AFAIK. It's been at magictelevision.org for years. It's even included at dmoz, which gives you some idea of its longevity. ► RATEL ◄ 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Now adding info to the talk page with a link to a page that doesn't support the claims.[40] Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I redacted that as a BLP vio. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Directory pages do not make anything lose its copyright status. Collect (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cherwell.org - Student news and reviews at Oxford University

Is http://www.cherwell.org/ considered an acceptable source for making biographical claims about living people? I'm uncomfortable with it since it is a student website. It isn't subjected to the same editorial rigour that a professional news site is subjected to and the people who write for it aren't subjected to the same sanctions (i.e. possible dismissal etc). I would welcome some impartial opinions, so thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's always nice when asking questions like this to be more specific about what article you're talking about and what claims. Leaving out such information may lead to concerns about trying to game the system. Looie496 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it's either a trustworthy source or it's not, isn't it? But the issue in question is the Pescetarianism article. All people listed as pescetarian have a citation to validate the claim. Remembering back to my uni days there was absolutely nothing to stop me making untruthful claims about people and publishing them on the student website. As long as you don't call them a paedophile or a rapist or something liellous it is likely to go unchallenged. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jovan Vraniškovski

The civil name of this person is Jovan. He was baptized as Zoran, but when he was tonsured a monk, he changed his civil name too, and now in every civil and church document he has only one name: Jovan Vraniškovski. Here are some references that prove this:

Referring to him as Zoran is not only incorrect, but has most often the sole purpose to discredit him.

The page was correctly set at the beginning, but it was later moved with an explanation which is incorrect (and, of course, cannot be proven).

Kpant (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Jon_Peters

The article for Jon_Peters seems worrying, on a brief reading. It's pretty much only criticism and attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.36 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it ever! Minor trim of the worst stuff now done. Collect (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Bogdanovich

I've just removed several lengthy, mostly unsourced sections from this article, which were devoted to making highly derogatory comments about the director's work and career. This leaves a large hole in the article, and I don't know anything near enough about the subject to repair the damage. If no one better suited than me fills the gaps within a week or so, I'll try to add a short neutral section. But it would be better if someone more familiar with the subject could take a stab at it. And there's still probably stuff in the article that should be toned down or balanced off with more favorable views. Since we're talking about the merits of his work, which I doubt was universally panned (although the Cybill Shepherd singing movie might be an exception to that). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a journalist. The article had a number of assertions about her views that were sourced solely to her blogs. An editor claiming to be the subject, User:Bigspringswillson, has been editing the article in an unconstructive manner (deleting sourced material and adding unsourced assertions) and hasn't responded to requests to discuss it on her user talk page or the article talk page. Since so much of the article was unsourced or poorly sourced, I deleted most of it. Another editor, perhaps just trying to reset the article, reverted it back to the version that bothered the subject. I'd like to stub it and protect it for a week or so, and try to get the subject/user to discuss her problems are with it. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted and I would agree with stubifying and protecting. There's a clear COI here. Enigmamsg 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I User:Bigspringswillson am Bonnie Erbe. Someone keeps linking to some of my webposts but distorting what I wrote in the rest of the posts. Someone also keeps linking me to an out of date and erroneous page on fairus.org.

I want the following posted to my bio and want it locked in this manner or deleted as distorting my views and therefor libelous. I also want a phone contact for Enigmaman and an answer from Wikipedia as to why this person is able to control what is published about me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bigspringswillson (talk • contribs)

  • Replying below-
Collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bonnie Erbé

Bonnie Erbé is an nonpartisan, award-winning American journalist and television host based in the Washington, D.C. area who has covered national politics for decades. She writes a weekly column for Scripps Howard Newspapers, a daily blog for USNews.com where she is a contributing editor and is working on a novel about religious symbolism in Washington, D.C.

She focuses in her journalism issues affecting women, families and communities of color, environment, religion and animal compassion. She has won more than 20 awards for her journalistic accomplishments.

Most recently, she was honored for her "pioneering: contributions to women's media by creating PBS' To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbé and keeping it a vital part of PBS' program offerings for 18 seasons. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/press_releases/051909.html

She won the 2008 Conference Board's Work Life Leadership Council Media Award for coverage of work-life issues. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223429+26-Feb-2008+PRN20080226

She also won the 2008 Council on Contemporary Families Media Award for Outstanding Coverage of Family Issues http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org

Prior to that, she has won more than 15 (total) Clarion Awards from Women in Communications, Gracie Awards from American Women in Radio & TV and EMMA awards from the National Women's Political Caucus and formerly from Radcliffe College.


Personal

Erbé was born in New York City, but moved to Washington D.C. after graduation from college to cover politics. She graduated from Barnard College in 1974, Columbia University with an M.S. in Journalism in 1975 and a J.D. Georgetown University Law Center in 1987. She was on law revue at Georgetown and graduated cum laude. http://www.shns.com/index.php?title=results&type=column&wire=SH&query=B1/BONNIE_ERBE

Professional career

Bonnie Erbé is host and Executive-In-Charge of the PBS program, To the Contrary. She is also a contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report, where she writes for the Thomas Jefferson Street blog. Earlier, she covered the Supreme Court and Justice Department for NBC Radio, the Congress for UPI Radio and worked as an NBC TV National Correspondent covering breaking news out of the network's Atlanta Bureau.

Views

Ms. Erbé is non partisan and toes no party line. She is not an affiliated Democrat or Republican, nor is she uniformly progressive or conservative. Ms. Erbé finds partisan politics tiresome and believes she represents the majority of Americans who think for themselves and do not subscribe to any partisan or ideological prescribed way of thinking. She believes the only people who think that way are either angling for political appointments or trying to impose their moral beliefs on the nation's laws.

She is, however, passionate about women's advancement in the U.S. and worldwide, about preserving green spaces and an environment that can support the human race and animal species for millenia to come, and animal compassion.

References

{{US-journalist-stub}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Erbe, Bonnie}} [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:1950s births]] [[Category:American bloggers]] [[Category:American journalists]] [[Category:American television personalities]] [[Category:American women writers]] [[Category:Barnard College alumni]] [[Category:Columbia University alumni]] [[Category:Georgetown University Law Center alumni]] [[Category:People from New York City]] [[Category:People from Washington, D.C.]]

I've stubbified the article with the consent of user:ADM. I'm in contact with User:Bigspringswillson and have explained a bit of how WP works. I expect there are sufficient sources to to properly add more material on the subject, and her own official biography or resume are probably sufficient for her awards and achievements, so long as they aren't extraordinary claims. There are many newspaper articles about her show, notable as an all-female current events panel program, and some about a dispute she had with a regular panelist. If we find secondary sources describing her views, or an intereview in which she discusses them clearly, then we might add something about that, but I think in this case we should avoid summarizing them ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Corinne Alphen and Ken Wahl

The user has been making edits specific to these two people who are now divorced; user has removed a valid statement with reference (on Corinne Alphen) and has repeatedly replaced it with contradicting text and a link to a file on google docs or more recently, one on a personal hosted site. I've exchanged a couple of messages, here and here but I don't think I'm getting through. I asked a third editor to check this and she also reverted one of the edits and suggested I bring it up here. I'm just a vandalism reverter, so if someone in the know can handle this, it'd be good, thanks :) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Friends of the Western Buddhist Order

Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Arrived at through a request for a WP:Third opinion, could someone with more knowledge of BLP have a look at the article for violations wrt the ex-leader, Sangharakshita? Especially this section. Thanks. // Bigger digger (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material at Asaram Bapu

Indef blocked by Mentifisto, who beat me to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Mentifisto...they are faaaaaaast! Thanks to both of you. Now, what do I do about the next batch of IPs inserting the same thing? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

Resolved
 – Removed as 'POV unsourced commentary'

Disembrangler (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Compare these two versions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard?action=edit&section=new

The final section of this entry appears to just be a personal attack on Blumenthal, added after a recent video he posted online of young Israelis. It isn't sourced and I think it should be removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideonprewett (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

COuld you repost the link correctly? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still getting used to this!
This page compares two versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Blumenthal&diff=295312236&oldid=293452914

Gideonprewett (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub

Paul R. Traub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) on 6 June. It uses this site as a source, as well as court documents, and was entirely written by Furtive admirer. Less than 3 days later, the article was given a prominent link on the same site. His writing style and the one on petters-fraud.com are practically identical. The article, in my opinion, is original research, and is not even close to neutral.

I am concerned that Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) runs petters-fraud.com, or at least has a conflict of interest. In this discussion, initially regarding an employee of Mr Traub whitewashing the article, Furtive sees himself as "superman", believing in "truth, justice, and the american way". He's quite adamant about 'outing' the alleged crimes commited by several people, leading to to believe he's not exactly neutral himself, even though he may have no link to the people involved. I'm very close to removing the page from mainspace, or possibly deleting it, unless/until it can be scrutinised for BLP problems.

Can someone provide me with a second opinion here?

Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Traub. Disembrangler (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rich Mullins (musician)

The references on this article, as well as much of its contents, seem off the wall. Can someone give me a second opinion? Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ow. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh oh. The listed sources seem either wholly worthless or have aught to do with the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing one of them. Off the wall barely describes it. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing all negative uncited material, and anything that I should be able to verify but can't. There's not going to be much left in a few minutes... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Drat. I tagged it for CSD A7, but forgot to tell Twinkle not to actually delete it. Should I bother restoring it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We've already got a page on Rich Mullins, the now-deceased Christian musician and songwriter. Was the page being discussed here some sort of content fork, or was it on some other musician with the same name? (I didn't see it before it was deleted.) John Darrow (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have been someone else entirely. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
According to article it was a different guy, bassist of the band Year Long Disaster.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy

Amongst other issues raised in the email OTRS (#2009060810041897) received regarding this article, the person emailing us - who was not the subject - insisted that this article was "self-promotion" and "advertising". Personally, I disagree, but I stated I'd raise it here for evaluation and assessment by the wider community. Regards, Daniel (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not look that way to me, either. But I do question the individual's notability—none of the sources seem to actually be about him. They are all things like "78 Ways to Cut 100 Calories", and not direct coverage. — Jake Wartenberg 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dean Graziosi

--Neoursa (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dean Graziosi - Article appears to a self-serving advertisement; no useful bio information. Subject seems to manipulate the search engines on the net to bury bad info. Sites amazon links to books and his website as references. Article should be deleted or completely revised to fit standards of wiki.

Juggalo

There is a claim on the Juggalo page by ICP founder/Psychopathic records exec that a few third party people are fans of his music. Here is the actual sentence, "In his book Behind the Paint, Joseph Bruce claims that British band Chumbawamba,[22] rock bands Foo Fighters[23] and Slipknot,[24] guitarist Slash,[25] and John Cafiero[26] have identified themselves as Juggalos." Well the book, Behind the Paint is a self-published book (by his record company, Psychopathic Records) and it shouldn't be used as a primary source on the claims because it goes against the self-published sourcing rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves I believe that it violates both rules one and two for self-published sources and is therefore not an acceptable primary source. The rules are as follows, 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;2. it does not involve claims about third parties. Could somebody please weigh in on the issue. I would like to see secondary sources for each claim or a disclaimer at the end of the sentence stating that these claims have not been independently verified. The editors on the page accuse me of being on a "crusade to belittle the article" which is ludicrous. I apologize if this is improperly formatted or hard to follow. Thanks 72.66.109.24 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The material is not self-serving in any way. There's nothing wrong with the source at all. Behind the Paint is not "self-published" by any definition provided by Wikipedia. Please stop. You do not own the article, and you do not get to edit the article to fit your own POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry, Behind the Paint fits the definition of self-published very well. It was published by the author's company, he paid to get his book published. I don't know where pov comes into this because I would be quite happy to have it in the article with corroborating sources. If any reliable sources back up his claim than I have no issue with self-serving claims. The material itself could very well be true, I just want to see proper sourcing in claims related to third parties. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again, the material is in no way self-serving. Bruce doesn't profit from any of the cited individuals being Juggalos. That's ludicrous. Secondly, there's no difference between Behind the Paint and any other music biography in terms of reliability. "Self-published" would only apply to material written by non-notable individuals and published out of their own house. Psychopathic Records is a popular independent music label. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
Unless I'm missing something, Juggalo isn't a biography of a living person. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but the third party claims being made are in direct reference to living people. I was sent here from the talk page, is there a better place for this? 72.66.109.24 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is really a question of Reliable sources: WP:RS, but Ibaranoff is corrext that WP:SPS does not apply to books like this.Martinlc (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How is this not a self-published source. The guy published it himself. From the page, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]" The book was published by "Psychopathic Records" which the author just happens to be one of the owners/founders of. How does that not fit the situation? 72.66.109.24 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't fit the situation here because the purpose of the policy WP:SPS is to exclude from encyclopedic content material that is the product of a single individual. Any fool can write a blog, and many do. The policy recognises that when looking for verifiable information from reliable sources, those sources must also have some credibility. There is no simple way to assess whether any given SPS statement is valid or not: it may be the result of careful thought over many years, or it may have written as a spoof or fiction in seconds. Publishing a book, even by a company someone owns, is a more complex and serious undertaking: it has involved more people, more checking, and entails some corporate risk (for a company to publish a book whose contents are worthless would damage its reputation). The policy therefore allows the use of this type of source as more intrinsically likely to be reliable than SPS. This is a separate question to how much weight the statements it contains should be given; obviously they will have a certain bias. But that is not an SPS issue and to discount it as a source is wrong.Martinlc (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually believe this is a clear-cut case of a self-published source with self-serving material that involves claims about third parties. Let's make sure this is clear. The author is Joseph Bruce, who is a member of the rap group Insane Clown Posse in which he performs under the name "Violent J". He wrote a book which was published by Psychopathic Records, a record label of which he is one of the founders. Psychopathic Records' most prominent recording artist is the Insane Clown Posse. The book claims that various famous people are fans of the Insane Clown Posse. It is in both the author's interest and the publisher's interest to promote the idea that respected musicians are fans of the Insane Clown Posse, because that brings more respectability to the group. Psychopathic Records has no particular reputation as a book publisher that I can find; in fact, I looked at their online store, and ICP: Behind the Paint is the only book they have for sale. [55] Hence, I would not support including the claims that Chumbawamba, Foo Fighters, etc. are fans of ICP unless that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. I generally agree with the points made above by User:72.66.109.24. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much Metropolitan90. You said it better than I could. I've been saying it so much for the past week that I have a hard to properly articulating/summarizing the situation in one go. What you've said above is exactly how I feel about the situation. I think this is a clear cut case and I would respectfully ask Martinlc to read Metropolitan90's statement. I'll have more of a reply soon, work is interfering with my personal life and that includes disputes on wikipedia. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
perhaps a hypothetical example would clarify my position. Brown publishes a book in which she describes her expedition climbing Mount Everest; she describes various sightings of rare bird species in the book. If the book was published by herself through a vanity press, Wikipedia would say that this information cannot be used to demonstrate the distribution of these species if controversial. If the book was published by a university press (who presumably would undetrake some form of checking and review of the content), then Wikipedia would allow it to be used (note that this would Primary Source and its used would be limited). My point is that SPS as a policy is intended as a shorthand to rule out information of unknown reliability. In terms of specifics, the issue appears to be quite narrow - do these other artists identify themselves as fans? If they don't, and there are no independent sources saying they do, we are left with various formulations of "X says that Y is a fan of my work". In which case the neatest solution, accepting the book as Not SPS but not independent, is to re-word the text to read "X in his autobiography says that Y, W and Z are fans of his work" which is true as a statement even in X is wrong in saying this.Martinlc (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Martin, I see what you are trying to say and I've also seen the changes you made to the page. I, for one, am okay with the changes. I've always been open to a compromise and am fine with dropping the issue as long as the text stays how it is. However, as Metropolitan90 outlined above, I still believe this to be a very clear cut case of a self-published source that is self-serving and makes claims about third parties. The reason that your hypothetical example above doesn't directly compare to the situation is that the Juggalo quote involves third parties who fall under the BLP rules. The BLP rules are far more strict than the normal sourcing rules and for good reason. Wikipedia could hypothetically be sued for libel because of the "he said, she said" nature third party claims. It really breaks down to just being self-serving gossip about another person. That being said, I don't think wikipedia would be sued over this information but I think it's necessary to keep the disclaimer I added to the end of the sentence. I am fine with that but other editors would like to remove that and claim it as fact. So, really, I believe that the quote is a clear violation of BLP rules and should be immediately removed, but since I don't have that power, the disclaimer is fine. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You claim that you are open to the compromise offered, which already appears on the page. Yet you've repeatedly tried to add a disclaimer even though more than one editor has told you that the current text, which states who said that the individuals listed are Juggalos, and where he said it, is fine. This is why I do not believe your claims of good faith. You say one thing, but your edits reflect a completely different viewpoint. I wonder if you are just a fan of one of the individuals mentioned, and don't want to believe that they are Juggalos. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
That is so far from being "previously established" that it strains my belief that you are editing in good faith. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As opposed to the anonymous editor whose only apparent goal is to ridicule an article that he does not like and has made no attempt to collaborate or cooperate with other editors, and has refused all valid compromises? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
So weird. How am I trying to ridicule the article? I've been trying to collaborate and compromise throughout this entire process. You make zero sense. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you have been responding to every post by editors who do not agree with your opinions by telling them that they "make zero sense" proves otherwise. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, it's because I don't assume good faith with you anymore. I've tried to work with you for weeks. You're not trying to improve the article, find better sourcing or have a constructive conversation. You're a detriment to the conversation and you really don't make any sense. That's just how it is. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that I've been a respected editor on here for a long time, and you've essentially been trolling these pages for about a week, and have made your presence incredibly difficult to avoid by reverting any edit that you personally do not agree with. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
Except that you've been blocked for editor warring, 3rr violations and contentious editing. I have been respectful,using the talk and leaving edit summaries. Not so much from you. All I've been looking for is proper sourcing and trying to compromise and find consensus. You seem to have true ownership issues. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing you've said has any basis in reality. What you've been doing is repeatedly reverting to your own favored version and telling anyone who doesn't agree with your edits that their statements make zero sense. I have had several articles featured, and you are a troll. Don't play the blame game here. Your edits have been more contentious than any edit I have ever made. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
I don't know what User:72.66.109.24 has posted elsewhere, nor does it matter to me in this particular case. But 72.66.109.24 is correct about the use of the quote under discussion. The fact that the band members call themselves juggalos is not really relevant to the quote under discussion. Even if the band members would not be described as "fans" of themselves, they certainly are supporters of the music and subculture surrounding Insane Clown Posse, since they themselves promulgate that music and subculture. The question is whether the say-so of one of the group members is sufficient to identify other people as supporters of the ICP music and subculture. According to Wikipedia policy, it isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
72.66.109.24's claims that the material is self-serving are nonsense. If you were a recording artist, what would you gain by claiming that the members of Slipknot are fans or supporters of yours, or share a similar belief as you? Bruce could have claimed that Pearl Jam were fans of his, being that he is a fan of that band, but he didn't. I removed the disputed text because I am tired of this editor's persistent edit-warring and harassment, and I wish to focus on other projects. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
Pot meet Kettle. Plus your argument probably makes less than zero sense. I really don't understand why you won't listen to anyone else. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't go away mad, just go away. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

SELF-PUBLISHED, PRIMARY SOURCES SHOULD NOT BE USED WHEN MAKING REFERENCE TO LIVING PEOPLE. This is black and white, people. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you have left the IP several vandalism warnings, mind sharing the diffs of the vandalizing edits? Also, Ibaranoff, you know better than to be calling someone editing in good-faith a troll, like you did above. This seems like a very clear-cut issue, if a better source cannot be found the claim needs to be removed. The allegation this IP is harassing you seems unwarranted as well. Landon1980 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Good faith cannot be assumed when the editor repeatedly responds to other editors who disagree with him by telling them that they "make zero sense", that they "won't listen to anyone", and clearly seems to have an agenda. The editor has shown to be more interested in ridiculing the article than for editing in good faith. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
This si definitely a SPS, and the information must be removed unless another source can be found. Those arguing that it's not a SPS because a major label published it are POV-pushing. The author is partial owner of the publishing source, therefore, the book is self-published. it's not too hard to understand, people... Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
POV pushing? It's a simple fact that this does not fit the rule. The Psychopathic Records and Juggalo-related articles do not adhere to any POV. They are neutral and present all viewpoints, even including events that ICP fans dislike. There is no rationale for claiming that anyone is pushing any POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Malcolm Hooper

Please note that all comments to-date have been by "involved" editors. We would appreciate a third-party interpretation. Thanks! --Rob (talk)

I have a dispute at Malcolm Hooper, i love to get comments from people that know more then me about BLP. The two versions are [56].

User:RobinHood70 says the "chronic fatigue syndrome activist" parts are libelous or potentially libellous bc they are from the Guardian that says Hooper is in a group of "activists" and has "vendetta" against Simon Wessely. Rob says his concerns make a 3RR OK.

My views, the article is totally from an article in the Guardian, RS, [57]. The "vendetta" is Guardian word. Guardian says Hooper is "infuriated" and says his "salvo" is personal bc Wessely did not "acknowledge" him and Hooper was angry and Hooper defied "protocol" and bc Hooper fought with Wessely about another illness, Gulf War Ilness. And it says the deabate, is a "battlefield" and Hooper's writing is a "cry of rage." The Guardian says there is a "vendetta" by a group of patient activists and a "vendetta" by people that attacked Wessely, one from those people is Hooper.

The article has the word "activist," it does never say "advocate" is not advocate a lawyer?? Hooper is not a lawyer and the article is obvious, Hooper is activist. Hooper is notable for his activism about GWI and CFS, I do not think activist is a bad word, I have friend that is AIDS activist and I am proud to know them.

I think we can change word vendetta or activist when you say it is necessary, i do not think the section should be censored and i am concerned on the implying legal threats. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen in the Vendetta section on the talk page for that article, the word "vendetta" is never used directly in reference to Malcolm Hooper, only to "a group of patients". It's that part that I'm concerned could be construed as libellous if Malcolm Hooper were to look at it. It's unlikely based on just the one word, I'll be the first to admit, but BLP certainly advocates a "better safe than sorry" approach.
It was clearly explained on the talk page (same as above) when I deleted the section that the removal was only temporary and that I believed it had merit and should be reinserted after a consensus was reached as to the wording. Despite the ongoing consensus discussion and BLP guildines, RetroS1mone took independent action to revert it. [58]
I've also tried to explain to RetroS1mone that there is no legal threat of any kind here, particularly since I'm not Malcolm Hooper (nor was the name even on my radar until a week or so ago). However, as I explained when I reverted the section, BLP guidelines dictated that I take pre-emptive action until we could come up with a better wording.
Finally, as for the "activist" wording, I don't really consider that libellous, though it might be construed as a negative bias, and there are no sources that support referring to him as an activist at this time. That has also been discussed and the reasoning explained on the talk page. Again, consensus is being worked towards. --Rob (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Rob says "the word "vendetta" is never used directly in reference to Malcolm Hooper, only to "a group of patients" but the article says vendetta two times, the second time they are talking about the authors of critique against Wessely. Hooper is the one author of a critique they are naming in article. Vendetta is a personal thing against a person, Guardian article says it is Hooper is motivated by personal history w/ Wessely with Gulf War debate and is angry w/ Wessely bc W. did not name him. They do not talk about, any other person that has personal history w/ W. I am ok, can we say "Guardian reports about Hooper's personal conflict w/ Wessely" or like that, but "vendetta" is a very simple way, and it is the word the Guardian has. RetroS1mone talk 22:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think RetroS1mone has hit on the heart of our disagreement here. My interpretation of the article is that the vendetta is by the group of patients, as previously mentioned, but that those with the vendetta delivered Hooper's work to the journalist, not that Hooper himself was grouped into that vendetta. Hooper clearly has strong views, as presented in the remainder of the article, but that's about as far as I think we can go. I would say that the words "personal conflict" are less negative, but since the article continues on to quote Hooper as disclaiming "no personal animosity whatsoever directed at Dr Wessely" in his paper, we need to be careful even there. Certainly the rest of the article makes it sound like that's basically a disclaimer to avoid a lawsuit, and for all I know it is, but that's entirely the point of BLP: "take particular care" and "use high quality references". --Rob (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the other concern here is the use of neutral, unbiased wording on a BLP. Is "vendetta" really a neutral, unbiased word? --Rob (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of issues. The Guardian article doesn't say Hooper is angry with Wessely because Wesseley didn't name him. It's simply not there. Also, the article doesn't state Hooper wrote the paper that included the words "no personal animosity whatsoever directed at Dr Wessely". Here I can find on the internet, "In the frontispiece to the 1996 manuscript "Denigration by Design", it was clearly stated that no personal animosity whatsoever was directed at Dr. Wessley." And here it states Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams wrote Denigration by Design. Hooper didn't write it.
I found, Concerns About The Forthcoming UK Chief Medical Officer's Report On Myalagic Encephalomyelitis (ME) And Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)...[59] that appears to be the "devastating critique on the internet". This is further supported by Concepts Of Accountability ?[60] by Hooper. If Concerns... [61] is the proper critique (and I don't know for sure that it is) than the Guardian has its facts wrong on the date. The more I read the Guardian article, the more I realize how poorly it's written Ward20 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Ward20, I've struck out those portions of my commentary (as best I could, anyway) so as not to cause confusion for any future readers. I found the entire article quite confusing though, especially with the frequent lack of names and vague references to things. Besides which, the article is 7 years old...is it even relevant to Hooper's and Wessely's current positions? Still, a third-party comment on this would be nice, if we can get it. --Rob (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of what I'm going to say seems covered already above and on the Hooper talkpage by other editors, but here it is for additional support.
  • It does not say "Hooper is in a group of activists" or call any group of people "activists". The Guardian article in question never uses the word "activist" to describe Hooper or anyone else. The word (or any variation of it) only appears once, in the sentence "Calls for legal and disciplinary action filled the internet news groups for weeks. It is worth remembering that these are not political activists, but many are desperately ill people - the debilitating effects of CFS have been described as worse than having a heart condition." (emphasis added).
  • The only reference to Hooper being "infuriated" is in response to the leaked early draft of the CMO report, and it never says that Hooper's "salvo is personal because Wessely did not acknowledge him", as RetroS1mone claimed. It actually says he "fired off his salvo" because "the need for extensive testing would again be underplayed". Later in the article it implies that Hooper was called to action because of what the report omitted (presumably the lack of biological evidence). As for what RetroS1mone wrote on the Hooper talkpage, "Hooper's response to Wessely", again, it was not Hooper's response to Wessely, but Hoopers response to the leaked CMO report (of which Wessely is not a lead or even visible author?).
  • And as for the alleged "vendetta", it says "There was no mention, say, of a vendetta by a group of patients against one of the leading consultants in the field." (emphasis added). The author of the Guardian article implies that being sent a copy of "Denigration by Design" was a document which was part of this vendetta. However, the article never says that Hooper authored this document. i am taking out blp, Tek has names of people he says are authors of a conteroversial attack writing, there is not a source. Pls have a source, no not a personal web site or a ME conspiracy web site. RetroS1mone talk 09:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ... I'm restoring part of the text you deleted, because it doesn't mention names, and is relevant. - Tekaphor (TALK) 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
_Tekaphor (TALK) 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Activism ranges from peaceful debate to unlawful violent action. Advocacy tries to persuade through writing and speaking. That is why advocacy is the correct and NPOV term for what Hooper does. QED.Sam Weller (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yah except the source doesn't say it, the only word it says is activist, and only indirect to Hooper, so it is not QED and Wiki is not a source for us. Pls can we let uninvolved people say sth?? RetroS1mone talk 09:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
From wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:
activism: a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal.
advocacy: active support of an idea or cause etc.; especially the act of pleading or arguing for something. Sam Weller (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How many dictionaries did you use to find one w/ "Militant"? hahah. It is getting very funny. RetroS1mone talk 11:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The top Google hit for 'define: activism', natch. ROTFL. Sam Weller (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
While it doesn't use the word "advocate", it doesn't use the word "activist" either, to describe Hooper or anyone else, indirectly or directly. The word is only used once in a sentence which says "not (political) activists". If anything, that's a reason not to use the word "activist". - Tekaphor (TALK) 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
My desktop dictionary, Collins English Dictionary (the only one I have, so I can assure you, I didn't go searching through multiple ones), also uses the word "militant". It uses very similar wording to the definition Sam provided, in fact. And looking at the Google definitions provided, many of them, though certainly not all, also use the term "militant". --Rob (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Penguin English Dictionary 2002: activism: a doctrine that emphasizes vigorous or militant action, e.g. the use of mass demonstrations, in controversial, esp political, causes. advocate: 1a. somebody who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or court. 1b. Scot = barrister. 2. somebody who supports a cause or proposal.
I believe Retro's point about lawyers is answered in 1b. The Scottish legal system is in some respects close to French and European law. In England and Wales, and the countries that adopted our legal system, notably the Commonwealth and the USA, we have lawyers, barristers, QCs etc. - not advocates. I cited wordnet because it is the top Google source, available to anyone reading this, and because it aims to represent current usage. It's possible that activism had a less provocative meaning in the past, but nowadays it implies militancy. I think more than enough evidence has been provided to close this case in favour of the NPOV advocacy. Sam Weller (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jared_Jackson

Resolved
 – speedy deleted as "pure vandalism". Disembrangler (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jared_Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unnotable? unsourced; defamatory!? // Kay Dekker (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I haven't got the process quite right, this is the first time I've used the BLP board.

Firstly, I doubt the person concerned is actually notable, in the WP sense, but on the other hand I can't be sure whether that doubt is due to him actually being unnotable, or because the material presented just makes him appear that way. I found the page, BTW, by link following from Rick_Wakeman, about whom I do know something :)

Secondly, there are only two sources cited, neither of which evidently relates directly to the person: the first is to a "Prevention Education Foundation" web site, and the second to a WP mention of a Debra_Barr, whom the article asserts (without evidence) that she is the person's sister - there is also no mention of the person at Debra_Barr, by the way.

Thirdly - particularly see the section on Drug Addiction - the article doesn't portray the person in any good way. Who knows - if it's true, the person may be quite proud of it - but if that were my bio, I might feel disturbed or distressed by much of the material.

I've had the article templated for sources and suchlike for the past couple of weeks, but, though people have been editing it, the causes of my concern really haven't been addressed at all.

I honestly don't know the right way forward. At times I think it's a good candidate for Speedy Deletion; other times, I keep hoping that a good article could be made from it, but I know that I'm not the right person to do that. I'd really like some advice, please, because I'm about at the end of my rope with respect to this article. Kay Dekker (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, you may want to read over the applicable sections of WP:NOTABLE. At a glance, it looks like the article would fit those requirements, but I do stress that I only gave it a quick look. There seem to be sources and references within the article. Perhaps the best course would be to add a {{notability}} tag to it and see where that goes.
Oh, I should add that a lot more citations are definitely called for in a BLP article, but it's good to draw attention to that fact with the notability template and give other editors a chance to respond. I'm not an expert on Wiki guidelines, but I don't think it would qualify for speedy deletion. --Rob (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I followed here from Malcolm Hooper up there where a user deleted a whole part of an article bc he did not like one word a reliable source used, but here it is OK, keep a defamatory hoax quote from Bono and total Wiki vandalism?? No it is not ok. At a glance for WP:NOTE this article does not fit any requirements, i am finding no source for "Jared Jackson" at News or any reliable second sources. The article has NO RS. Myspace is not a source, Wikipedia is not a source. The Drug addiction part is serious BLP violation when "Jared Jackson" is a real person. The Bono quote is a serious BLP violation. The article is an obvious hoax, it is vandalism. I will ask for speedy deletion. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

Serious Harm Against Living Persons Geoffrey Edelsten Wikipedia BLP RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Edelsten

Geoffrey Edelsten may be noteworthy for his achievements in the fields of medicine and sport.

The Wikipedia article about him is extremely harmful and disheartening as at most times it is wrong and/or distorted. It is an article that concentrates on media sensationalism, media trivia, and media inventions. It discusses trivia, most that are, in fact, lies. It continues sensationalism and blurring of the facts to purport a poor and negative view despite having facts easily accessible and available. Geoffrey Edelsten’s noteworthy achievements are found in medicine and sport, it is concerning that contained within this article even his achievements read in a poor light due to the uninhibited distortion of fact and propagation of trivial lies.

Facts versus Lies/Sensationalism (example) 1) On one hand we have newspaper sensationalism and lies about a charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Edelsten He subsequently spent a year in jail for soliciting an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[2][3][4]

2) On the other hand we have the real charge. As seen in the court report. http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf Charge - Preventing course of justice – Whether restricted to obtaining improper adjournment - Whether differing from committal - "Tendency" to pervert. Soliciting F to assault another and of perverting the course of justice by improperly obtaining an adjournment of F’s trial by falsely certifying that he was unfit to attend.

On one hand we have the truth, on the other we have a sensationalized version containing lies and the twisting of the charges to appear more negative and sensational.

One is true the other is not.

On one hand we have brief mention of achievements. On the other hand we have trivia and sensationalism that distorts the overall view of the subject. Insignificant trivia and often lies make large positive achievements look invisible, and, after-all, these medical and sport achievements are what made him noteworthy.

This article is subjective in the extreme while Wikipedia is understood to be objective.

I have tried to enter the arena of Wikipedia and assist Wikipedians to pencil in a suitable encyclopaedic article about him. These attempts have been mostly removed and discussion ultimately falls on deaf ears, no real action is taken.

Underhanded techniques such as anonymous editing by anonymous IP addresses have removed attempts to bring neutrality.

Geoffrey Edelsten formerly requests the articles removal

Geoffrey Edelsten formerly requests Wikipedia to have the article about him wholly removed. It only generates harm and directly affects him, and any good work he strives to achieve in day to day life, be it in his long appreciated charities, medical work or other businesses.

Regards, Dean Walters Geoffrey Edelsten Representative dean@geoffedelsten.com.au --Gepa (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a forum for informally asking other editors to help with WP:BLP issues. If you want to formally make requests to the Wikimedia Foundation, see here: WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about yourself. Disembrangler (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the Talk page from January 2009 - Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten#Defamation - which seems to address most of the concerns you raised then. You've neither sought to edit the article (last edit 8 Jan [62]) nor follow up outstanding concerns on the Talk page. Anyway the main concern now raised seems to be the difference stated above between 1 and 2, which seems on the face of it a perfectly reasonable difference in style and emphasis from how a court report presents issues and how a newspaper or encyclopedia does. Maybe the difference in fact isn't reasonable but this needs explaining, and you haven't done so. The appropriate place would be the Talk page. Ditto for issues you raised in the 8 Jan edit but seemingly not discussed elsewhere, like whether Flannery was considered an underworld figure when he was solicited, and whether the subject of the solicited assault was a former patient or not. Feel free to raise those for discussion. In addition, the article currently doesn't give any indication of why Edelsten solicited Flannery to assault, and that context (assuming it can be reliably sourced) would both improve the article and probably address some of your concerns. Disembrangler (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive65&oldid=1140155059"