Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.183.125.210 (talk) at 23:22, 4 January 2009 (→Settled?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    |- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |



    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

    Lyndon LaRouche

    An editor keeps adding non-notable and probably defamatory accusations to the lede. I have called the BLP policies to his attention on the talk page numerous times now[1], but he keeps re-adding the claims. I would appreciate it if someone could intervene. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the text in question:
    Number OneNineEight has repeatedly deleted the phrase "an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist". Those assertions are highly notable, having been made by such notable individuals as Senator Patrick Moynihan, writer Mike Royko, and DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, to name just a few. The subject himself has commented on them. The editor above is not assertin that the material is poorly sourced, or taken out of context. BLP does not prohibit reporting well-sourced, commonly made assertions about public figures. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. A selection of sources that support one of those terms is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#"Fascism" citations, and more sources can be found at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive15#Section on anti-semitism is incomprehensible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With just 6 edits (1 on this page) we have to be careful not to WP:Bite #198. As long as the citations are there WillBB seems to be correct. Smallbones (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten edits, if we include those before he registered.[2][3][4][5] Whether he is a new user is also open to question, given the facts that almost every new user on that page has turned out to be a sockpuppet of a single editor and that this user seems familiar with policies and noticeboards. But either way I don't think there's anything "bitey" here. If there is I will gladly retract it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Undue weight?

    Please note that I am saying that these claims are being given undue weight by being included in the lede. I am not suggesting that they be excluded from the article generally. They are also claims that were made by some notable figures in the late 70s and early 80s, but are not made by any notable figures today, and the formulation that Will Beback keeps adding creates the false impression that these views are widely held now. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't object to changing the tense. His supporters have regarded him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics have seen him variously as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult. That would keep readers from thinking that all of those assertions were made today. As for what he was called 20 years ago versus what he's called more recently, that's irrelevant. The subject was most prominent in the late 1970s through the 1980s. Nobody has retracted their comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing the tense does little to correct the false and derogatory impression created. Please explain why the difference in what LaRouche was called 20 years versus today is "irrelevant" -- the fact of the matter is, accusations that were made erroneously are no longer made. As far as retractions are concerned, Royko and Moynihan are dead, and newspapers don't issue retractions unless there is legal compulsion. They have however changed their tune. Your claim that the "subject was most prominent in the late 1970s through the 1980s" is unsubstantiated and false. LaRouche probably got more press coverage this week in Europe than in any typical week in the U.S. back in the 70s-80s. Why would you want to give special emphasis to outdated information? The material in the lede is supposed to be proportional to the emphasis in the article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is not false. It is entirely correct that the subject has been described in the ways listed. Each of your complaints has been addressed: first you said that the critics were insignificant people, then it was shown that prominent individuals have made the charges. Then you said it should only be what appears in "newspapers of record", and it was shown that these terms have appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times. Next you said that the wording made it seem that these were current charges and the text was changed to put it in the past tense. Now you are complaining that some of the commentators are dead so presumably their opinions expire as well. The bottom line is that this is neutral, well-sourced, relevant material which has the proper weight in the article's introduction. It has been there mostly for over a year and a half, and has been discussed at length on the article talk page. Your recent deletions have been reverted by several uninvolved editors, so this isn't a solo campaign on my part. Please either point to a specific policy or guideline violation, or stop deleting the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of the disputed sentence, the various positive and negative comments in the lede are all attributed to specific notable persons. The claims of "fascist" and "anti-Semite" are merely footnoted to a list of non-notable "critics." I think that we would have a better balance if these claims were attributed, like the others, to someone notable (like for instance Moynihan.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When one or two people say something, it's worth attributing it. When numerous people say the same thing, from a variety of backgrounds, then attribution makes less sense, especially in the introduction. We can include the entire list in the main text if folks think it's desirable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you are extremely scrupulous about attributing favorable comments about LaRouche, even going so far as to insist that comments in a newspaper article be attributed in the text to the author of the article[6], presumably to avoid conveying the false impression that some editor there might have agreed with it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the "fascist" claim has not been there for a year and a half. It was added last month. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact forumulation was most recently added November 1, but it's been in the article and even the intro for years. Here is a July 2004 version: He is generally seen as an extremist or a cult leader, frequently accused of being a fascist and anti-Semite. [7] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    listing?

    Listing every accusation is not really the same as NPOV -- as long as the charges are made in the body of the article, enumerating them all in the lede seems a tad like overkill. And I don't like LaRouche one whit. Collect (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These aren't "every" accusation made about LaRouche. Not by a long shot. They are the most frequently and prominently made charges. If we limited it further to only the most widely held views we'd have to delete the sympathetic views, which appear mostly in self-published sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC, WP policy is that the number of charges made in the lede should be kept to a minimum (I think Hitler was given as an example). There is plenty of room in the corpus proper for listing all the sins of the subject, all the lede need do is indicate that some such criticisms exist, not to enumerate them. Ditto positive comments or paeans made about the subject of an article. I do, of course, assume that there is plenty of room later in the article to include all the desired criticisms of the subject. Collect (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Godwin's Law! If we limit ourselves to the minimum, then the assertions that were deleted should be kept, and the phrase "political cult" should be removed. And the unsourced part about him being "a brilliant and original thinker". This isn't a matter of including "sins", but of widely held viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A minimal version, including only the most widely used terms, would be something like, He has been described as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-semite, and a fascist. Any obections to that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I object, because it is incorrect. The most widely used terms for LaRouche, based on my informal survey of Google News, are "perennial candidate," "maverick Democrat," and "economist." You indicated earlier that you had some sort of special interest in Dennis King and Chip Berlet, and I think you are going overboard trying to put a spotlight on their claims. BLP says that criticism must be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." --Number OneNineEight (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't write articles based on informal Google surveys. The text in the article that you keep removing is in a neutral tone. It is not irresponsible, as it is well sourced. Regarding King and Berlet, you said that none of his significant critics had made these assertions. I asserted that they are significant critics. They, along with prominent individuals and "newspapers of record", have made these assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion doesn't make King and Berlet into significant critics. They are obscure and inconsequential. And the newspapers of record stopped making these claims for a good reason. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What good reason is that? Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wriggling?

    This all seems to be wriggling around a bit. First the accusations were characterised as defamatory, and then when they were shown to be cited statements by others, the objection was that they shouldn't be in the lede. The lede needs to be our best shot at describing the topic if that's all the reader has time for. So the question to me is, how important to understanding LaRouche is it to have a fairly wide range of views represented in the lede? I'd say it is pretty important, omitting them would leave a fairly incomplete picture in the minds of readers. I know this will make me unpopular with some folk, but oh well. I think BLP policy isn't being violated here, and the material, as modified, should remain in the lede. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying that accusations cannot be both defamatory and "cited statements by others"? Number OneNineEight (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some sort of attribution would be appropriate, as well as making them time specific, for example, "at one time, LaRouche was called x,y, and z," or better still, "in the 1980s." --Leatherstocking (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be fine, except that it'd be more like, "in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s." "At one time" implies these comments were made on only one occasion rather than over a long period. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "At various times, he has been" I think would be the most elegant formulation, but I agree with 198 that the lead is unbalanced. It's one of those leads on Wikipedia that one reads and thinks, "Heh. Someone had an axe to grind!" 86.44.18.218 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plainly the dispute was always about the info in the lead, not the article, and 198 said "probably defamatory", presumably with an eye on these claims not being current. So you've prefaced your opinion with some gratuitous badmouthing, why I know not. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. At various times from the 1970s to the 2000s, his supporters have regarded him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics have seen him variously as a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, a fascist or neo-fascist, and the leader of a political cult.
    Aside from repeating "various" twice, that's fine with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to dispense with all the unattributed comments. Just say he's controversial, that opinions about him vary widely, and then provide a sampling of those opinions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are a sample of the opinions. They are widely held views, so attributing them would make it look like the attributed person is the only one holding the view. That level of detail belongs in the text of the document. The intro should just be a summary of the most significant points. Saying that someone or something is "controversial" tells the readers little. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not widely held views, but including them without attribution makes it look like they are. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    lol i'm sure that is fine with you. You're an administrator? And that's your effort? Fascinating. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you getting at 86.44...... (whoever you are)? I'm not sure you're contributing much to substantive discussion here. Let's stay on point, hmm? Does the lede need to present an array of the widely held views? Or should it focus only on what supporters think? If not, how do we pick and choose what to include? The rule of 7 might help here. Further, is it true, as alleged here that the negative assertions are "slander"? That they're result of a "lavishly funded" disinformation campaign? Or is that itself disinformation? Seems to me that allegations, if widely held, are relevant even if they're not true. If only to let the reader know that they exist. We should not lead the reader to making prejudgements. But I don't think it's unacceptable to let the reader know, for example, that George Bush II was widely held to be fundamentalist, intellectually incurious, or more concerned with legacy than impact,(picking some stuff at random here without regard to my own personal views) regardless of actual truth. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is unacceptable to let the reader know those things about George W. Bush, but under my reading of BLP, it would be undue weight to put them in the lede of his biographical article here, and sure enough, they are not in the lede. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparable information is included in the Bush article, in the last paragraph about his popularity and controversies. To take a different example, the article on David Duke (who achieved greater success as a politician than LaRouche), includes this material: Duke has been criticized as an antisemite for his public statements that assert Jewish plots for world domination, and as a white supremacist, while Duke claims he is a white nationalist. We can find all sorts of examples that include or exclude this type of assessment, so I don't think it's a helpful strategy. Getting back to the issue of weight, it's always hard to define what the proper weight for an issue is. But since these terms have been used so often in regard to LaRouche it appears that placing them prominently is the correct weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Do no harm"

    At BLP it says "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The accusations of fascism and anti-Semitism are clearly intended to damage the reputation of LaRouche. LaRouche has repeatedly stated his opposition to fascism and anti-Semitism. The motives of those who make the accusations need to be examined (for example, DP Moynihan was being challenged in an election campaign by a Jewish member of the LaRouche organization when he made his comment.) Lar says that the lede is supposed to serve as a "snapshot" of the article for those who are too busy to read the fine print. Therefore, putting these accusations in the lede does harm to LaRouche's reputation without providing the reader with information which might correct a false impression. I'd like to hear from Will Beback why it is so important to him that these accusations be in the lede instead of being in the body of the article. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Larouche has been described as an original thinker, and as a cult leader, as anti-Fascist, and as Fascist, and far more by his supporters and his critics." Collect (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could OneNineEight explain how placing this material in the lede, versus the body, would harm Lyndon LaRouche? LaRouche is a public figure. People have been saying things like this about from for thirty years. That appears to be the weakest argument. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was submitting what I would consider a valid compromise -- then give the details in the corpus of the article, but leave the lede a summary. Collect (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand the meaning of the last clause in this context. With the addition of "anti-semite" that compromise would be fine with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It lists two distinct sets of comments, "anti-Semite" would be the third discrete item. I would suggest "and far more" covers it well enough, and gets past the impasse. That is why I suggested it. Collect (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, the term "anti-semite" has been used more commonly than "cult leader", based both on my own research and on an informal Google search. However, Collect is right that it's one of many labels that get applied to this subject. If it'll settle this dispute I'll agree to his proposal, which is an accurate, brief summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reality check: "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" are all defamatory, period. It doesn't make any difference who said it or where it was published. The courts in the U.S. are notoriously lenient towards defendants in defamation cases, which is why LaRouche doesn't get sued by the people he attacks. The correct wording for the intro would be:

    There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics variously see him as a conspiracy theorist and a political extremist. --72.251.91.14 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the above is a responsible wording which also reflects the most common criticisms. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Do no harm and reality check - LaRouche's reputation can not be hurt by what's in this article. It's just saying that other people (in widely distributed publications) have said these thing. The reality check is that these other people have said "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" and that LaRouche has not successfully sued them for defamation, and since we are just quoting them there is no possibility of defamation. This is well within the rules, get over it. Smallbones (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He has sued repeatedly but has never won, so far as I recall. In one famous case, he sued the ADL for calling him a "small-time Hitler". The judge ruled that it was a "fair comment". Another time he sued NBC for defamation. But his group played dirty tricks on NBC reporters and they countersued. He lost and they won, and when he refused to pay the damages they were able to investigate of his finances, the results of which were used in evidence during his criminal trials. (And that's not to mention his group's harassment of journalists.) Press relations have never been the movement's strong point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In those cases where the courts have ruled against LaRouche defamation suits, Wikipedia and its editors are free to write things like "anti-semitism" rather than "allegations of anti-semitism." This is no more against Wikipedia's rules and policies than reporting that somebody is a convicted felon. Smallbones (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is just a game to you, isn't it? In the real world, Wikipedia does enormous harm to countless reputations, because the Wikipedia article is generally the first thing to come up on Google. According to Rachel Marsden, who should know, "Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known." For the gamers, like yourselves, it's OK to publish defamatory material if you can blame it on someone else (e.g., a "reliable source.") And as I point out above, no one wins defamation suits in the U.S. It isn't "not defamatory" because a court hasn't ruled against it. I wish that Wikipedia were governed by persons of honor and integrity, rather than by editors gamers who do whatever they think they can get away with. --72.251.90.203 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Defamation is a legal concept. A statement is "not defamatory" when the court finds somebody innocent for saying/print it. Defamation is certainly not the same as saying unpleasant truths. Please consider the case of John R. Brinkley, once he sued the AMA for calling him a "quack" and lost, anybody was free to call him a quack. Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    72.251.whoever.you.are (why are there so many IPs commenting here? no, don't answer, I already know why...) for many LPs that have BLPs here, Wikipedia is a huge source of concern, because it's an aggregation of information that almost no one would have seen in one place, they're marginally notable and perhaps shouldn't have articles at all. However, for Mr. LaRouche, I suspect that Wikipedia is a rather small concern, as the further damage that can be done to his reputation is... almost nil. The balance in the lede needs to be kept about where it was before all this started. Mr. LaRouche has some interesting ideas to be sure, but if a judge ruled that "small time Hitler" was a "fair comment" than I don't think the lede is unbalanced when it points that out. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment is also a legal term, which doesn't exactly mean what you might think. It is used as a defense in defamation cases, and it can mean that it is permissable to make "a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false," so long as the statement cannot be proven to have been made in "actual malice." --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plaintiffs [LaRouche group] have linked prominent Jews and Jewish organizations both in this country and abroad with the rise of Hitler, Nazis and Fascism, the international drug uade, and a myriad of purported conspiracies that have bedeviled the United States and the world at large, including a conspiracy to assassinate the U.S.L.P. leader, Lyndon LaRouche. At a minimum, under the fair comment docuine, the facts of this case reasonably give rise to an inference upon which the A.D.L. can form an honest opinion that the plaintiffs are anti-Semitic. (p. A-13)
      • U.S. Labor Party et al. v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, No. 79-11470 (N.Y. App. Div., 1980). Quoted from Secret Agenda - The United States Government, Nazi Scientists and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990 by Linda Hunt (1990); pp. 149 quoted on laroucheplanet.info
    That's from the actual verdict. It doesn't appear that the judge thought the ADL was making a statement with "reckless disregard". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly doesn't say that LaRouche is anti-Semitic. He says that the ADL may be excused for drawing an "inference." --72.251.90.240 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing the point from that spam-sponsored proxy of yours. The lack of need for the judge to rule conclusively on the anti-semitic (not a fact relevant to any court proceeding, after all) nature of the LaRouche movement is irrelevant to the legal fluff that your allies have diverted this topic along. Nevard (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anyone hear coming up with how this actually violates WP:BLP. I do see a new account and IPs apparently using a proxy. The compromise offered by Collect has been ignored. Unless there's something new I suggest that we close this thread and leave the text the way it was. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would favor the more conservative version offered by Mr. IP address: There are sharply contrasting opinions on LaRouche. His supporters regard him as a brilliant and original thinker, whereas critics variously see him as a conspiracy theorist and a political extremist, also endorsed by OneNineEight. In any event, I don't support the idea that if there is no consensus, we default to the most extreme version. The BLP policy says that we should be careful. You have been asked to explain why it is important to you to have the most damaging claims in the lede, where the reader won't see the "fine print," and you have yet to respond. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add this by way of explanation: LaRouche's supporters make a number of fairly outlandish claims about his prowess as an economist, statesman, scientist, etc. These claims are not specified in the section that is being disputed; instead, a rather mild, generic formulation of "brilliant and original thinker" is used. I think that to achieve NPOV an equally mild and generic formulation should be used to describe the other side. All the stuff about him eating babies can wait until later in the article. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the material repeatedly removed by Leatherstocking and the IPs is well-sourced, relevant, neutrally presented, and noteworthy. Including this material in the lead is appropriate because that is due weight. The proposal by the IP omits important information and thus provides a skewed view of the subject. This material has been in the lead for years, and has been discussed numerous times on the talk page. Just because a few proponents of a public figure wish to minimize negative information does not mean that a neutral encyclopedia should accede to their wishes. This article has been the target of years of sock puppeting (see WP:LTA/HK), and even now an obviously experienced user is probably using an IP to evade a block.[8] Based on earlier postings to noticeboards by LaRouche editors, I expect that this thread will continue for months, if allowed to, without any resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have said several times that "this material has been in the lede for years," but this is not true. I went back through the history two years, and the claim of "fascist" is not there until it was added in November of this year. You have been asked several times why you think the most extreme viewpoints should be in the lede, and you haven't answered. I made another point, which should be discussed also: these extreme claims should be seen in context. The charge of anti-Semitism, when examined, boils down to complaints that LaRouche is attacking neoconservatism, or the right wing in Israeli politics, or something like that, and somehow that gets construed as "anti-Semitism." That's the "fine print." As far as the ADL is concerned, its parent group, the B'nai B'rith, opposed the boycott against Nazi Germany that was organized by the American Jewish Congress under the leadership of Jacob Chaitkin, father of one of the top researchers in the LaRouche movement. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And here I thought that the simple proposal I made was actually going to work. Seems IPs are stubborn folks ... Collect (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are talking about me, I don't believe that I have been any more stubborn than Will Beback. But I offer this as a compromise: a return to the version that was there for the past two years, before November 1. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly when they are on free ISPs and spyware-infested proxy tools and acting in a manner consistent with our long-time LaRouche POV-pusher. Nevard (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this what you do when you can't think of an intelligent argument, you fabricate malicious rumors? I use Copper.net, a well known conventional ISP. Look it up, doofus. --72.251.90.68 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article history

    Except a single deletion by User:Leatherstocking, all of the deletions have been done by new users and IPs. The material has been restored in one form or another by five established users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Based on their edit summaries, Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Dking and John Nevard appear to all be one person (just kidding -- see nonsense below.) --72.251.90.181 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Users

    Consider these edit summaries:

    Accounts blocked as sockpuppets of User:Herschelkrustofsky, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky

    Recent accounts

    • 01:16, November 2, 2008 Dynamite Dan (remove "fascist" per WP:BLP -- you can't say that with one sorry source! esp in lead)
    • 23:10, December 15, 2008 198.147.225.21 (Undue weight on these minority views violates BLP. They are adequately covered later in article.)
    • 07:20, December 16, 2008 198.147.225.58 (Undue weight. See talk page.)
    • 22:02, December 16, 2008 198.147.225.20 (just because a claim is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the lede. See WP:UNDUE, WP:LEDE, talk page)
    • 22:52, December 16, 2008 198.147.225.20 (Undid revision 258441520 by Zweifel (talk) Undue weight by placing these claims in lede violates BLP. Please excercise caution.)
    • 22:34, December 18, 2008 Number OneNineEight (revert per BLP, see talk)

    Due to the content and style of the edit summaries, the shared POV, the familiarity of new users with policies and noticeboards, this expertly made edit, and the history of sock puppetry on this topic, it appears that these new accounts/IPs are operated by the banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is every bit as lame as John Nevard's "proxy" tactic. Seriously, are you completely unable to engage in a discussion about BLP policy? Or is this tactic something you resort to when things aren't going your way? Merry Christmas, by the way. --72.251.90.181 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easier to believe that you are a return user than that you are a new user, due to your mastery of Wikipedia editing and policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While not disagreeing about the likely socking, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (once a day if you're european :) but I digress)... we should evaluate the comments based at least in part on what they say, not just who said them. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about that, to a point. But I have spent more hours than I care to tally arguing with HK and his socks. This exact topic has been discussed by HK for years now. If these are more of his socks then I really don't think we need to entertain their tendentious editing further. Rather than a broken clock it's more like a broken record (if anyone can remember what those were).   Will Beback  talk  17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it, I guess. Point is though, if it's broken records, go with "asked and answered"... if it's new ideas, then let's hear them. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add that the fact HK is closely watching this discussion and commenting on it daily, and that the "new" users here make the same points that he does, is further evidence that it's all just HK again.   Will Beback  talk  18:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... if we AGF it's possible that HK is aware but not active. The LL organizations have more members than just HK. Other organizations that some have characterised as POV pushing have multiple members that coordinate, after all (you know... the Internet Anti Defamation League, Nasdaq, the US House of Representatives, Hamas, IBM, etc... OK maybe not IBM) it's not always just one guy. But ya. Occam and all that. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People who have been banned for years of sock puppeting lose the right to an assumption of good faith when it comes to sock puppeting. For years I assumed that these accounts were different people, but it turns out I was wrong and that there have only been two significant pro-LaRouche editors. Foll me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me 26 times, that's the end of AGF.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Settled?

    The new users and IPs have not shown that the material added in November violates any aspect of WP:BLP. It has been shown that the material reflects the opinions of a variety of notable individuals and is presented neutrally with proper weight. Unless the aim is to keep filibustering, I suggest that we close this thread and mark the matter as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You may have been preoccupied with making personal attacks, so I will recap that evidence for you. The edits which you desire violate the following provisions of BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented... so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." Your favored edits give disproportionate emphasis to the most extreme of the accusations made against LaRouche, attributing to him beliefs which contradict his expressed beliefs. As I have said, I don't object to those being placed in context, later in the article, where the reader may see the "fine print," but putting them in the lead overinflates their importance, deprives the reader of context, and can hardly be considered responsible, conservative, or neutral writing. I hope that is clear enough that it can't be missed. Also, all the "filibustering" is yours, lengthy and off-topic. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do any uninvolved editors have anything more to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the matter is as resolved as it is ever likely to be. Collect (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not uninvolved since I commented here before. But while I generally support the lede changing to include major criticisms (that is, moving to include more than it did), and have said so above, some further reading on this topic at WR (and from that thread, in particular this post) has brought me to desire to include this thought: ". More notable (and less single-note) criticism should get higher billing/weight than critics who focus on not much else."... that is, if the NYT or other mainstream media have criticisms, they should get more weight than the criticisms of an author who has focused on little else and is way less notable... That's a general principle I think we should be adopting for all BLPs, actually... reduces hatchet jobs (of course it needs to be applied with reason). Now, applying it to THIS lede, I don't think we've actually featured, for example, Chip Berlet's, criticisms head and shoulders above the Washington Post's. SO generally I'm supportive of the changes, as I said, but I want to go on record. And if in future we start to feature criticisms of less notable critics first (in any article), we probably ought to think hard about that and have a good reason for it. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To recap, if I understand you correctly you support the change made by SlimVirgin in November to add back the criticism of being fascist? (I say "add back" because it turns out she was the one who'd deleted it from the lede two years ago, after it had been there for two years.) Regarding the criticisms by Chip Berlet versus those by the Washington Post, they don't take particularly different positions on the subject. Of the major critics, the only one who takes a position that's noticeably different is Dennis King. While many people, including Jewish groups in at least three countries, have called LaRouche anti-semitic, King is known for a taking that view further than others. Even that is more of a difference of degree rather than of kind. But aside from that there isn't much disagreement between the views of the various critics. When there are one or two critics who say something, it may make sense to include a short discussion of their known biases. When dozens of people, from across a wide spectrum of political or social positions, say the same thing then it seems less necessary to discuss individual critics among them. I totally agree that criticisms should be weighted according to their proponents.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do support adding back the criticism of being fascist... what I'm driving at here, is that if it's necessary to source a particular criticism, it should be (preferentially, there are surely always exceptions) sourced to the Post or the NYT, or something similar, if at all possible, rather than to a relatively obscure writer. Chip Berlet gets 50,000 ghits? I myself get 5,700 ghits, or 1/9th as many, and I absolutely do not consider myself notable, or a reliable source for anything (except perhaps in my own narrow work specialty, if that!!!... the NYT gets 104M ghits. Absolutely no comparision. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghits are a very crude measure, but quick. The better, though more difficult measure is to count how many times Berlet and King are quoted about LaRouche. Even harder to measure, would be how frequently they are quoted versus anyone else. Aside from reciting blurbs from Moynihan and Adlai Stevenson III, it appears to me that Berlet and King are quoted more often than any other commentators. HK has attacked these investigative reporters for his entire career on Wikipedia, including starting both articles. (Which he now falsely says were vanity creations by their subjects.) The LaRouche movement has attacked them for decades. Despite those attacks, they are still quoted as experts on LaRouche. Now I don't see a problem with finding other sources for this bit in the intro, but the assertion by HK that Berlet and King (and their "collaborators") are unsuitable sources for Wikipedia biographies is unfounded in reality.   Will Beback  talk  18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You make several blatantly false claims here. First of all, the Washington Post is in no way similar to Chip Berlet. The last big WaPo attack article was in 2004, and although it is nasty in tone, it does not call him a cult leader, an anti-Semite, or a fascist. Chip Berlet, on the other hand, makes those attacks constantly, as does King. King and Berlet are identical in their line on LaRouche. Also, King is not a "major critic" -- he is a virtual unknown. I notice that your sources for the material you want in the lede are exclusively Berlet, King, and their close collaborators, not "dozens of people, from across a wide spectrum of political or social positions" (as if "dozens" would be sufficient under BLP.) It looks to me like you are trying to "launder" Berlet and King into the lede with a sort of "bait and switch" approach, where you claim that these views are held by the Post or other notables, but in fact they are claims of Berlet and King. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Chip Berlet" get over 50,000 ghits, so he isn't exactly obscure. King is the writer of the only book length 3rd party biography of the subject, which was published by a leading publisher, Random House. The two of them are routinely quoted by other journalists on the topic of LaRouche. But this material is not just from them. There is a long list of sources for the "fascism" criticism on the article talk page. We've been over this again and again and again.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not use those other sources instead of Chip? Or for every 1 of Chip, use... um... 50K:104M, 2000 from the NYT. I think 198/LS/HK/whoever is perhaps unfairly accusing you of trying to sneak stuff on... but he has a point. Use major sources, they're out there. This is a side issue. With major sources used, the lede will be pretty solidly the way it ought to be, not whitewashing or slamming. Do that and the main argument drops away. Et voila. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see your comment before. Yes, it'd be easy to use other sources besides Berlet for this material. They are "major criticisms" in part because they are made by so many different people. But I note that now the complaint isn't just about Berlet, but also about his "collaborators", a term which apparently includes anyone who criticized LaRouche. (see below).   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's become sort of a mantra for you, hasn't it? But meanwhile, "Lyndon LaRouche" gets 225,000 Google hits, had a book published by a leading publisher, Heath, and is routinely quoted in newspapers. He also likes to call his enemies "fascists." Should we commence using him as a source in the intro paragraphs to BLP articles? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is germane to the issue. So far, no one has presented any evidence that there is a BLP violation. The material is well-sourced, relevant and has due weight. There's nothing more to say here, and let's not keep repeating the same arguments over and over.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar's suggestions are very reasonable (except that the NYT and Post do not call LaRouche a fascist.) However, in response to these suggestions, you went charging back to the article and re-added your Chip Berlet stuff, which reinforces my suspicion that this was the real issue all along. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as I can tell, Lar suported the version that contains the major criticisms. Further, this isn't "my" version. It is is the material added by Slimvirgin. If you prefer, we can remove the Berlet citation entirely, since that seems to be the main sticking point. There are plenty of other individuals who say the same things, which is makes them major criticisms.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar supported the use of major critics, which would not include Chip Berlet or his collaborators Matt Feldman, Clara Fraser, Helen Gilbert, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth (the sole sources for the "fascist" claim.) SlimVirgin isn't here on this page advocating these controversial edits, nor is she edit-warring at the article to keep them, so for the purposes of this discussion, it is "your" version. The only person here who has explicitly supported "your" version is you. You are trying to make a controversial change without consensus, and it does violate BLP, for the reason I state at the beginning of this section. You haven't responded, you just assert that no reason has been given. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please list, by name, five major critics of Lyndon LaRouche in your opinion.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said, I think that institutional affiliation is more important than the volume of criticism. If it were just based on frequency of attacks, then LaRouche would be Dick Cheney's most major critic (as Leatherstocking points out, more or less.) I have suggested, when we are dealing with inflammatory and possibly defamatory accusations, that newspapers of record be the standard. Therefore two names that come to mind are John Mintz and April Witt, both of which authored lengthy articles (not signed editorials) for the Washington Post. --Number OneNineEight (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to answer the question... there ARE major critics extant, and those are what should be cited. So which do you agree are? Naming names will avoid a fair bit of pussyfooting around later, I suspect. I support a version of the lede that contains the significant criticisms and virtues, cited to mainstream sources, that is neither a hatchet job nor a whitewash, but a fair and accurate reporting of the views of LL. I don't think that leaving out that LL has been charged with antisemitism is appropriate, for example. But we can skip citing Chip Berlet, and the rest... 100% across the board, and yet not lose anything in balance from the lede. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mintz and Witt aren't critics, they are reporters. (Not that reporters can't also be critics- but these folks aren't known as critics of the LaRouche movement.) So far as I know, Witt has only written one article on LaRouche (albeit a long one). Signed editorials are just the place where people express opinions and criticisms. That's what we should be looking for, not excluding.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just posted excerpts from 14 33 71 periodicals, mostly mainstream newspapers, covering a 24-year period that make reference to anti-semitism in regard to LaRouche, his organizations, or writings. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research That's in addition to the 18 55 excerpts on the topic of fascism, posted on the same page previously and subsequently. Those should be sufficient evidence that the criticisms have been made by a variety of sources for decades.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will's "fascism" list is a joke, a hodgepodge of mostly fringe commentators and disguised quotes from Berlet. On the other hand, the ADL is a notable critic of LaRouche, and they were still calling him anti-Semitic as of 2003. I propose that we accept the compromise that OneNineEight offered at the end of the "Do no harm" section (i.e. "conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, leader of political cult",) and be done with it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So your plan is that we "compromise" by going along with the deletions by the sock?[9][10][11] As the sock would say, "I'm unimpressed". As for the sources for the "fascist" criticism, do you consider Jesse Jackson, Arthur Schlesinger, Daniel Moynihan, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Kirk, Jonathan Kaufman, Roy Meachum, Steve Chapman, and the ADL to be fringe commentators? What makes them "fringe"? And please define "disguised quote".   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's my compromise proposal. It doesn't completely satisfy anyone, that's what makes it a compromise. At this point, I've seen you accuse every last editor who disagreed with you, including a half dozen completely different IP editors, of being socks, so I'm not getting too excited about Dangerous Dan. And thanks for providing a much shorter and more credible list of people who say "fascist," but I still am not persuaded that it belongs in the intro (Jesse Jackson, of course, recently said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off, but I don't expect to see that in any BLPs anytime soon.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that the term was used by fringe commentators. These are not fringe commentators. You still haven't explained what you meant by "disguised quotes". What are those?   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually from Dennis King, not Chip Berlet. I have seen somewhere the original comments by LaRouche, where he is denouncing his political enemies as fascists, and says that it isn't necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist, it is only necessary to be one. Then, in a bit of sleazeball malice, Dennis King snipped that quote out of its context and tries to pretend that LaRouche was referring to himself. This then gets propagated through the press, in a typically irresponsible manner. It shows up in your "fascist" list, without attribution to King. That's what I meant by a "disguised quote." --64.183.125.210 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving forward

    In light of the dozens of sources added to the research page that make similar assertions, I propose this text:

    • Supporters have described him as the greatest living economist. Others have called him an extremist, a theorist of conspiracies, a political cult leader, a fascist, or an anti-semite.

    I don't think there's any benefit to defining who the "critics" or "supporters" are - expressing an opinion doesn't assign a place in either column automatically. We could add a few dozen sources on the "political cult" assertion that has not been a point of contention, if need be.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's hard for me to fathom why my compromise proposal is so painful for you to accept, because it was the way the article read for two years prior to November 2008. However, I would accept your proposal with these modifications: "critics" instead of "others," and more specifics on what the supporters say. That would make it:
    Dennis King and Chip Berlet are critics of LaRouche. We're not quoting them. That term doesn't apply so much to the people whom we are quoting. As for your embellishments, what are the sources?   Will Beback  talk  18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the lede - I would still suggest the minimalist approach. All the other terms are fine for the corpus of the article, but conservative wording in the lede is, IMHO, the best course of action. Collect (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is conservative wording. I've just spent many hours researching a couple of those terms, and in the course of that I came across all sorts of other phrases also used to describe the subject. These are just the most common. "Political extremist" has been used so frequently that LaRouche once wrote to a newspaper to complain that the phrase isn't part of his name on his birth certificate.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is sort of what I was afraid of, the "balanced hyperbole" approach. I would much prefer the more encyclopedic "balanced understatement" approach, along the lines of supports have described him as a brilliant and original thinker, while critics have called him a political extremist and conspiracy theorist. However, it doesn't look like understatement is going to fly. Incidentally, who is kidding whom -- anybody who calls LaRouche a "fascist" or any of those other epithets is a "critic." --64.183.125.210 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Poorly sourced accusation vs. Yasmin Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

    Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown#BBC_debate_with_Sean_Gabb alleges certain inflammatory comments allegedly made by Ms. Ablibhai-Brown to Mr. Gabb, using as a source a (edited??) download of a BBC article on Gabb's organizations web site. The second paragraph is critical comments by Gabb about her which are published only on Gabb's group's website. I opined on poor referencing when I put in a tag, but I do have a bit of a conflict of interest being a libertarian who has edited their wikipedia article, so I may be a tad less reluctant to just delete whole section per BLP as I would be in other cases, not to mention get in a debate about it. If someone else could take a look and appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed it - if it's an notable incident in her life, RS would have reported on it, so someone can provide it. As for the Libertarian alliance - reads more like a neo-nazi site and doesn't seem to be a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Though your comment does sound like you went a little to other extreme of POV; we have to be careful what we say about subjects of articles as well as other editors, for civility and legal reasons. That said, a lot of libertarians do get exercised about the state imposing any kind of view, speech or behavior on them, but the way they express it, rationally or bigoted sounding, is the nub. And that entry certainly was questionable to me. I haven't studied their site to see if they really are more libertarian neocons than real libertarians. (Hmm, probably could get sued for saying that too :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's back, with a different anonymous IP putting it back. It would be helpful if others opine, including on the talk page, about this. Reading it again it does look like he was trying to incite her, instead of having a rational discussion, so that makes their web site comments being included on the page particularly obnoxious; but I said they can always bring it to WP:RS/noticeboard. Talk:Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown#BBC_interview_poorly_sourced.3B_must_be_removed_per_BLP Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't mess around with BLP articles - if they can't provide a reliable source, it's not going in - it's that simple, as you rightly point out, we have no way of knowing if and how that tape was edited (it could be entirely true but we don't care about "truth" we care about verification) Remove on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    name as per birth certificate

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Myung-bak

    on the above article, I wish to include his original name - it is correctly cited - it is not OR, it is to me the same as including a maiden name for a married woman, or including an original name for a celebrity who uses a stage name. Are there any issues for using the original name in the lead (seeing that most wikipedia articles do so)

    oh and as the president of south korea, he is a highly notable individual with information such as this being far from hidden from the public view

    똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    People who don't speak Korean will have no way of verifying that the source given is sufficient, but it doesn't seem to be a BLP issue on the face of things. Perhaps you want RSN? How/why did his name change, if you don't mind explaining? Avruch T 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) omits a lot of his own behaviors. Talk:Lee Myung-bak#RfC: isn't it WP:BLP violation to include the Japanese name of Lee Myung-bak that only used for 3 years in the intro? has more info on this. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I used an online translator which was enough to verify the name (the name was already in the article with a citation and had been for a while - I just put it where it should be - in the lead) despite the source being in Korean, the name was not in Korean.
    He was born in Japan, had a Japanese name/birth certificate.
    To be honest, I get the feeling that there might be some political reasons for editors not wanting to have his (Japanese) name in the lead, seeing as he is the president of South Korea - just the same as some Japanese editors might love to see his Japanese name in the lead - I just see it as the obvious choice, even when ignoring all political motivations.
    Also in response to Caspian Blue, I don't really see him only using the name for 3 years to be grounds for not using it, it is not as if the use of the name is in dispute, or as if there are any privacy issues with the usage カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a BLP issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like this is something where there ought to be a Manual of Style determination - whether and how to use the Japanese name of a Korean citizen born in Japan, if its a common occurrence with a political background. Avruch T 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks melonbarmonster, I agree this was never a BLP issue - I think one editor just used BLP as a reason to revert. That was the only reason I put this here, I could not see any BLP issues, but when an editor is whining about my edit and screaming BLP, it seems sensible to cover all bases. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a BLP issue provided the 'birth name' is adequetly sourced. If it is not, then yes, it is a BLP issue. We shouldn't be adding alleged birth names of people which are not already widespread. And yes, this applies even if that name is probably correct. This is the same as the perennial issue that comes up a lot particularly with porn stars. In this case, I think it's even more clear cut. This guy is the goddamn President of a South Korea for heavensakes. If his birth name can't be sourced to a dozen reliable sources (Korean or not doesn't matter although you would assume there are some English sources) it seems highly unlikely the birth name is of any relevance or interest. If it's not sourced to a reliable secondary source at all, then it most definitely is a BLP concern and should be removed ASAP. In other words, if the only source is a primary source like a birth certificate then yes it's a most definite BLP issue. Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns#Porn actors' birth names where this was discussed extensively Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a BLP issue. Of course, Lee_Myung-bak was born in Japan, and the Japanese authorities issued a birth certificate with a Japanese name written in it. This is stated in his autobiography and at the beginning of the article. The BLP problem, as I see it, is an WP:UNDUE weight that edits of Sennen Goroshi place on this fact. There is no evidence that Lee_Myung-bak has been ever known as Akihiro Tsukiyama. By not ever known I mean that nobody has ever called him by his Japanese name. I am pretty sure that in his Korean family he has always been known as Lee_Myung-bak. Continuous addition of phrases like known as Akihiro Tsukiyama or formerly Akihiro Tsukiyama into the lead by Sennen Goroshi misleads readers, and places an undue weight to this minor fact from Lee_Myung-bak's biography. Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really a BLP issue but, I agree it is an UNDUE issue in the lede. There's no reason to include it there; it's appropriately included in the Early Life section of the article, where it's relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SG seems to have been blocked regarding this issue and does seem to be pretty aggressive. As I understand the BLP issue, it has to do with Japanese nationalism/colonialism and the forced use of Japanese names on non-Japanese. I can see where including this in the article would be considered a type of humiliation of the subject, and thus a real BLP issue. Smallbones (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Roman Polanski

    Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1 editor feels strongly that the lead sentence needs to end in "film producer, and convicted child rapist." rather than simply at "film producer." Another has decided to restore the content as well.

    I fear this is excessive, as this important event is covered both in the lead-in and the body, but I am in NO WAY an expert on BLP... but I fear them. I would like much more knowledgeable editors to give the addition a look over. I would also appreciate any feedback on this submission. I learn.

    I "have no dog in this fight", only a concern, and thank whoever looks this over for their work.sinneed (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like this is being dealt with. It would be completely inappropriate to have "convicted rapist" in the first sentence of the lede, not least because its factually inaccurate. Avruch T 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. The main proponent of the change is on 24 hour edit vacation. I am hopeful the editor can take a step back and either see the consensus against, or change the consensus.sinneed (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cornelius Plantinga

    Allegations of sex discrimination by a disgruntled former employee are being repeatedly added to this article and/or its accompanying Talk page.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornelius_Plantinga&diff=261130575&oldid=261003727

    At BLP it says "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The accusations are clearly intended to damage the reputation of Plantinga. These have been posted by two usernames: Hungaryson and Katharineamy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.148.55 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Eric Wone

    I've put a speedy deletion tag on this article, but I'd like second opinions. This article is one huge BLP violation, by listing several people who have not been charged with a crime, and for writing an article which violates WP:BLP1E. If he wasn't notable before his death, and just being general counsel for Radio Free Asia doesn't seem to make that notability standard, then he isn't notable after his death. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This murder is the topic of numerous articles in the Washington Post and DC Blade. Every article and news broadcast on the topic mentions not only Wone, but the three housemates Price, Ward and Zaborsky. As the Washington post article [12] states "The document was filed to support the obstruction-of-justice charge filed against Dylan Ward, one of the housemates who have drawn much scrutiny from police" The three have been charged and arrested for obstruction of justice, and are the subject of a civil lawsuit by the man's surviving wife. The article does not include any information not already published by notable news sources. The Vincent Chin case is another notable civil rights case even if the person would not have been notable before the incident. Bachcell (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this article is likely to be deleted at AfD if it cannot be significantly improved. Much more information needs to be included about the subject, if it can be found, in order to survive a deletion discussion. On the other hand, it is not a CSD candidate. The BLP issues should probably be dealt with by removing the other names, although they will still be available via the given references. Avruch T 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why should the names be removed? They're covered in major media, as Bachcell pointed out above. If the Washington Post is not a reliable source for negative BLP information, what is? Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with the sourcing, really. Not all well sourced negative information about even the subject of the article belongs in the article itself, and in this case BLP applies to people other than the subject. The object of BLP1E is to prevent damning people for a single bad event, particularly when it relates to criminal complaints that have not been concluded. That applies to tangentially related people as much as it does article subjects. Avruch T 01:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So other than renaming the article to Murder of Robert Eric Wone I'm not seeing anything in WP:BLP1E that would discourage linking the names of defendants to the case, nor from naming them in the case's article. I'm welcome to admit I'm missing something... show me! :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm not explaining it very well, I'd like to see some other people weigh in on it. My point is that linking them to the murder in the way we do, and including their names, risks doing them unnecessary harm. Naming them is not crucial to the article, they haven't been convicted of anything, and even though reliable sources choose to name them we have our own set of policies that govern negative / potentially damaging information about living people. (Realise that sounds argumentative, perhaps I'm a bit too tired to be debating this...). What I try to do on BLPs is balance the usefulness of given information with the likelihood that the subject will be harmed by including it. In this case, including the names with the text we have is highly suggestive of their involvement in the murder. If they were convicted, certainly we'd include their names - but in this case, only one has been charged with anything and it is simply obstruction of justice (and that guy was far away at the time). Given all of that, it makes more sense to me to leave their names out until events progress. Avruch T 02:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, all three were charged with obstruction of justice, one was extradited from Florida, and they are all the subject of a civil lawsuit from Mrs. Wone. I'd generally draw the line at indictment or charges being filed. I agree that we should be clear that they've only been charged with obstruction, and if they'd merely been arrested and released the case for excluding their names would be much stronger. Using the "do no harm" standard, I don't see how Wikipedia can possibly harm the reputations of these three defendents by truthfully recording what RS's have reported: The Washington Post all but calls them murder suspects. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Media Coverage

    It's pretty clear to me after looking at this, that it's receiving substantial RS coverage:

    That's all in addition to what's in the article currently. I don't normally go to "attack pages for speedy deletion" looking to get involved in an article rescue, but it's become clear to me that this is reasonably well sourced already, including the defendants' names, and has received significant RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still a WP:BLP1E violation. He wasn't notable before he died, his manner of death is not notable, either. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated the article for deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the specific BLP violation you're alleging? If it's that Wone himself wasn't particularly notable before his murder, fine. I've already agreed that the article should be renamed to "murder of..." because the murder and its aftermath is most certainly notable. That is, it passes the WP:GNG as having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the men arrested and charged with crimes in connection with his murder shouldn't have redirects pointing to the article and/or shouldn't be named in the article, that's a separate issue and about the only one which might have some merit. Jclemens (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the fact that Wone was not notable prior to his death, his death itself is not notable, and the other people involved are not notable, and the use of their names in this article is an egregious BLP violation. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things: 1) Could you please explain how an event which has received coverage in multiple articles in the Washington Post, Washington Blade, Asian Week, Richmond Times Dispatch, and Washington City Paper is somehow not notable? (note: there's more RS coverage beyond that--that's just the print sources which are currently referenced in the article) 2) Please provide some current documentation (policy, guideline, or even essay) from en.wikipedia that supports your contention that including the names of people (when those names appear in multiple reliable sources, as these do) charged with multiple crimes in connection with a notable event is a BLP violation at all, let alone an "egregious BLP violation". Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1- Could you please explain how an event which has received coverage in multiple articles in the Washington Post, Washington Blade, Asian Week, Richmond Times Dispatch, and Washington City Paper is somehow not notable? - murders always make it into the local papers. That doesn't mean there should be an article on every murder that gets reported on. 2- The fact that this is not a notable event, as I have indicated, explains my answer to your second question. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's been reported nationwide by multiple outlets. Since your argument entirely rests on your spurious and unsupportable notions of the event's notability, there remain no unique BLP issues: If it's notable, it's not a BLP issue, and if it's non-notable, it is. I'm marking this thread resolved, we can continue to discuss at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens, it's not acceptable for a person with an axe to grind in the discussion to close it as resolved. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's someone with an axe to grind here, it's certainly not me, and that's not a particularly civil thing to imply--AGF warning posted to your talk page. Two key facts demonstrate this thread should be marked resolved: 1) you have not chosen to cite a particular policy, guideline, or essay aside from general notability concerns which can be addressed in the AfD which support your assertion that the inclusion of reliably-sourced names of persons charged with a crime is a BLP issue. If there's nothing but notability to discuss, then this BLP/N thread is WP:FORUMSHOPping. 2) No other editor has recently weighed in saying that they believe your position deserves further consideration. The only other editor who thought your position might have merit hasn't commented in 40 hours, during which time the article has expanded by 10k characters and 15 RS references. For both those reasons, this discussion is pointless and fruitless, and should be closed in favor of the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More data points:

    • Googling for "joseph price" "robert wone" yields 762 hits, all of the first page's hits reference this event.
    • Google NEWS search for the same string yields 15 hits.
    • Google NEWS search for "joe price" "robert wone" yields 7 more hits.
    • Google web search for the above string yeilds 335 hits.
    • Google web search for the above string plus "arent fox" (Price's employer) yields 179 hits.

    Thus, it's abundantly clear that Price's name, and even his employer's name has been dragged through the mud already, by virtue of being the owner and resident of the house where Wone was found murdered, and over the last 2-3 months as he's faced criminal charges and a civil lawsuit in the matter. In all fairness, a small number of these hits are primarily in relation to a later burglary at the same residence, which bring up the murder. If that's not a clear case of an event which has traveled beyond the borders of WP:BLP1E, I'm not sure what is. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I do have an axe to grind here, as do you, which is why I wouldn't even think of closing the discussion. Especially since you actually told me on my Talk page to come here to discuss this, and then you immediately attempt to close the discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability has never been my chief complaint, and although I think this particular article is perhaps not going to stick around for the long haul I have no quarrel with it remaining today. I would prefer that the names of the three men be excluded from the article, for reasons I've explained above. While the article has certainly gained an enormous amount of detail, due to the industrious efforts of Jclemens, the issue relative to including the names of murder suspects has not changed.
    I'm hopeful that we can get one or two more people involved in discussing this issue. If none happen by, I'll ping some people over the weekend. The subject of this thread is separate from the issues being examined in the AfD, and I don't think we need to be hasty about closing this. Threads on BLP/N are archived when they become inactive, and more aggressive attempts to close things down are generally unnecessary. Avruch T 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Should add this: If it turns out that Eric Holder is in fact the attorney for Wone's widow, and he is appointed attorney general in a couple of weeks, that could make the whole issue a bit more high profile. Avruch T 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for revisiting this. Two points: first, the three housemates are not murder suspects at this point, and I have gone to some lengths to mirror the RS' careful efforts to avoid naming them as such. All they are accused of at this point is obstruction and conspiracy, with a hint that evidence tampering charges will be forthcoming. Mrs. Wone's wrongful death suit doesn't accuse them of murdering Wone, either, but of simply failure to render appropriate aid (of course, that's a layman's summary of a journalist's take on a lawsuit). Secondly, Holder's involvement is sourced to multiple different RS over multiple years--Google "holder wone murder" for a smattering beyond what's in the article. I agree that that's a rather interesting twist to the case, and I used that as the DYK hook for the article.
    One final question, however... can you point me to any policy, guideline, or essay discouraging the use of RS'ed names of criminally charged defendants in a notable case? Prior relevant precedent from discussions on this board would be great, too. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the article is (ostensibly) about Robert Wone. BLP applies to naming the accused in this article, mostly because they haven't been convicted yet. Secondly, the article, it turns out, isn't about Wode; it's about the criminal charges against the accused, and the lawsuit filed by the victim's family.
    Can you please point me to a policy, guideline, essay, or normative discussion from this board or elsewhere, which discourages Wikipedia repeated the reliably-sourced names of those indicted for a crime in relation to a notable event? I've yet to have anyone explain this to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be able to rewrite and rename the article to be primarily about the murder, but then it'd still need some edits for BLP (namely focusing on the accused, who are not convicted). I really think this is another flash-in-the-pan news filler that won't prove to be notable in a week, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Tourism World

    There's a long-running edit war over accusations of living people committing crimes that has been just under the boil in this article since September 2008. More eyes are needed. Let's proactively head off the otherwise inevitable OTRS complaints. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I revised the article. -- Suntag ☼ 23:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Janelle Pierzina

    This is by no means the most serious violation of WP:BLP or of the spirit of WP:3RR. However, the persistent disruptive attempts by a single IP editor to insert a piece of unsourced information into the article, while ignoring requests, whether in the edit summary, or in the talk page of the said user, was annoying to start with, but is beginning to get tiring. Any suggestions would be welcome on what can be done about this... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It look like your back and forth with the IP has been going on for at least a month.[13] Jossi's 16 December 2008 protection seems to have had an impact on the problem while the protection lasted. Once the anon disruption protection expired on 21 December, the same games were started again. Since Jossi's now is retired, perhaps post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Suntag ☼ 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the reason why there is not more vicious warring is that we are operating from different time zones. I just wake up to find my changes have been reverted, click undo; the IP user does the same when xhe wakes up. As the disruption is coming from a single IP, would it not be more focussed to target that address? The offending IP address seems to be static, so a permanent block may do the trick. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

    The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathy Griffin

    There are a lot of people inserting references that Griffin made a profane remark on television (example). Right now the text of the remark is in the lead of the article. I'm not sure the incident is notable enough to be included at all. Kelly hi! 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanthalas39 changed the protection level at 17:14, 2 January 2009, which expires 2 February 2009. Griffin using that profane remark on TV doesn't seem to be a major detail and doesn't seem to be needed to place the subject in context. -- Suntag ☼ 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Horrible privacy violation, oversight or other action needed on Ona Zee

    There has been an unsourced claim in this article identifying the subject as a realtor of similar name/appearance. It was originally added by an SPA. The account's only edit. The edit included a link giving the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc. A few weeks ago, User:Epbr123 changed the article to make the privacy violating information more prominent and the workplace link more conspicuous. Although he did remove other unsourced statements. The named realtor whether or not she is this porn star has no notability as a realtor. There is no justification for including personal information like this. Either the bad edits should be oversighted or the article should be deleted and recreated to make this violation inaccessible. I deleted the info and link but it still sits in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must be missing something here. Maybe the history has already been deleted? All I know is that I can't find anything about a realtor anywhere and that User:Epbr123 is a pretty good editor. There was some very direct material that I'd guess is standard for porn stars. Does Wilhelmina modeling agency have anything to do with this. "the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc." should of course be removed, but I can't find that material anywhere. If somebody sent this info into the ultimate deletion bin, please let us know here. In short, please explain this a bit better. Smallbones (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the talk page now explains a bit more, and watch out for the 1 year gap if you are trying to figure out dates. Note that the escort service stuff is still linked to in one of the "porn industry" links. How do you judge reliable sources in this industry? Also when somebody formerly xed on film for a living, is it really that big of a mistake to say that she xes for $'s now? I'll leave this for others. Smallbones (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epbr123 used AWB to clean up the article on 27 December 2007. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz appears to have removed any offending info on 2 January 2009. Lucasbfr protected the article on 3 January 2009. -- Suntag ☼ 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennifer Lopez

    Biography on Jennifer Lopez is well written except for the fact that she comes from an area in the Bronx, Castle Hill area considered to be a middle class neighborhood for most Puerto Ricans. Castle Hill area is NOT considered the "South Bronx." I know that to be true because I come from the South Bronx myself. Therefore, Jennifer Lopez did NOT come from the South Bronx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickylizf (talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more of an issue for the article talk page. In any event, Google books seems to have sources related to Jennifer Lopez and South Bronx. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    James David Manning

    He is a clergyman in New York who is said to have called Oprah Winfrey a "Babylonian whore." People who know at least a little about the New Testament will understand that he was refering to the Whore of Babylon, not a literal whore, not Babylonian, and probably not even a woman. I don't know how to deal with this BLP-wise, especially since the source seemed to have not understood what he was talking about. (Note: Calling someone the Whore of Babylon is probably protected religious speech. Calling someone a whore could be slander.) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and changed the wording of the sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries here; although Whore of Babylon should be used disquotationally as it's not the phrase Manning used. Skomorokh 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not perfect. Changing the wording is, strictly speaking, original research by me. But clearly the source made a mistake which seems like a BLP problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dame Ruth Runciman

    This biography needs attention. I would gladly fix it if I knew what it was trying to express, but the grammar is so mangled that I do not understand it. Also, at least one fact is woefully out of date (chairmanship of an organisation). I have corrected that, but suspect other facts may similarly need correction MMGarth (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave it a copyedit, but I don't think there is too muh to worry about from a WP:BLP perspective as there is no negative info in the article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Skomorokh 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe the Plumber

    This article was almost stable until one editor decided he would try adding material to the lede and infobox to see if he could start an editwar.

    By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lede.

    By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." The editor has now added the license issue to the lede, and intends further changes per his post to an admin where he stated his desire for an editwar.

    He now claims that the old consensus is gone, and he intends to add all he can to "restore balance" (his words) in an article which finally was almost NPOV. All I ask is for some independent eyes to review this (last time, the vast majority here said if a person acted as a plumber, his occupation was "plumber" but that wisdom is now totally elided from some editor's ken. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you post diffs of the declared intent to edit war? This may not need BLP/N intervention if everyone else except for one disruptive and edit-warring editor has reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Inferentially: [14] and [15] Lots of canvassing posts to his friends. I trust he is quite disappointed that I did not take any bait on this. Several possible SP/MP problems on the page, but they stick out like a sore thumb if you wish to look in <g>. Collect (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect just had his butt handed to him in a series of RFCs and now he's forum shopping. This is not a BLP issue but a content dispute. Check out the Talk page before you accept this. Revelant Sections include Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licensing, Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RfC:_Current_Occupation_of_Samuel_Joseph_Wurzelbacher_.28aka_Joe_the_Plumber.29, and Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#taxes_again.3F. Mattnad (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Try AGF and WP:EQ someday. Contentious issues are BLP disputes. Collect (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as I explained to you on Talk:Sarah Palin, which you are forum shopping below, they aren't. Otherwise, people could get BLPs whitewashed just by arguing about anything not flattering, then scream "BLP vio! Remove it!" and we'd have nothing but peacock phrasing and hagiographies left. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still waiting for this headline: "Wikipedia editors decide Joe the Plumber is not a plumber: Editors JimbobHarleyD1340 and SuperOverLordXXX authorities on the subject." Avruch T 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Classic.Mattnad (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll link this [16] for consistency and in case it was missed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon, Jim - that alphabet soup stuff is a little beneath you. You're a linguist, I know, but in this case I'm not sure what point you're actually even arguing. If its that we should say he isn't a plumber, I don't know about that - even if an RS says he's not a licensed plumber in his state, I don't think the definition of plumber (either formally, or as commonly used) is "a licensed, employed plumber in state of XYZ." Even so, more a content dispute and an issue of rationally constructing an article than anything related to BLP. As such, it probably shouldn't return to this page until an actual BLP problem arises. Avruch T 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I think of plumber I think of licensed plumber, but that could be a geographical distinction as we in Philly have been "trained" (as it were) to make sure people who are plumbers, electricians, HVAC folks, contactors, etc., are licensed. The alphabet soup is standard, and I prefer linking those items rather than spelling it all out. Bottom line, is that is that the licensing issue does matter -- most (if not all) states issue licenses for a reason: licensing provides a safe feeling (ephemeral/tangible/intangible/whatever) to the public at large.
    I'm not clear what the reference to "linguist" has to do with anything, unless my post was really written that badly (which is possible). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for actually proving my case. And also for showing everyone how "canvassing" works: "Collect is forum shopping again [15] Mattnad (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC) " on your talk page. Similar solicitation on other talk pages. Collect (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "case" was proved in what way? As for canvassing ... meh, it's known as iforming people who have an interest in a certain article of recent developments. Well, in the real world it would be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting away from the personal sniping by Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, and Mattnad, I think Collect is correct in his initial point. Kelly hi! 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin

    Currently in this BLP is the following:

    Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]

    Is this a contentious issue per BLP? If it is contentious, would it require a clear consensus for inclusion, or a clear consensus for exclusion? Is what ammounts to a "no evidence" statement sufficient to counteract any potential mis-association of Palin with "rape kits?" Is the term "rape kit" intrinsically NPOV when making such a statement in a BLP? I trust I have asked all this in a fully neutral manner. Collect (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really not impressed with the Forum shopping here, Collect, and would have preferred you actually work with your fellow editors. If this were a clear BLP violation, on such a highly watched article, it would have been removed weeks ago if it were a BLP violation. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you most kindly. This was suggested to me in one of the earlier disputes, and the concept of getting fresh eyes I had hoped would meet with your approval. As for catching material, that is up to every single editor, and I have been active in the discussions about using the German style "flagging" of articles. The concerns about long-lived errors are apparently of more concern to those editors than to some others. And if you look at my stats on edits in article space compared with talk space, you would find that I have one of the highest percentages of seeking opinions in talk space around. Hence my desire to get as many different voices as possible, rather than hearing the same dozen iterating the same positions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
    For what it's worth, I don't think Collect is forum shopping, but trying to get more uninvolved admins looking at this article. Kelly hi! 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some background - a straw poll at the article[17] showed that 15 editors favored removal of the rape kit material, as opposed to 4 editors favoring retention. The material was subsequently removed (at least temporarily) by an uninvolved admin.[18] It was then promptly re-inserted by KillerChihuahua,[19] even though she was previously involved as an editor in this exact content dispute.[20] We really, really need uninvolved admin eyes on this article. Kelly hi! 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No I really, really wasn't involved before, any more than I am now, Kelly, nor any more than I persecuted you, or whatever the wild accusations you were slinging then, because I'm a member of the "ID cabal" when you 7RRd on this very same article and I warned you. You really need to back off and stop tossing around accusations at me, I'm beginning to think you're harassing me and that your "olive branch" at Christmas was just so much bull. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoah - um, OK. Are you saying you don't want uninvolved admins looking at this? Kelly hi! 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, why would you poison the well with that question? Yes, I have stopped beating my wife, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then please stop assuming bad faith on the part of people who ask for extra eyes on this. That's all we want. Why would you say I'm harrassing you? Kelly hi! 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See [21]: the same principles apply. Are there sources that meet WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV? If so, the WP:CON and WP:BLP concerns are moot. Especially WP:CON. If I could build a consensus that the sun is not an oblate spheroid, would that override all of the sourxes meeting WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV that show that it is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the primary concern of the editors opposed to inclusion[22] seems to be undue weight and coatracking. Kelly hi! 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly is correct about that: Undue and Coatrack are the usually stated concerns. However, neither of those are BLP violations, they are different issues, and Collect posted here about a BLP concern - which is a horse of another color entirely. I believe Jim was attempting to address the BLP aspect as, after all, we are on the BLP board. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless, the intervention of uninvolved admins (preferably ones who have never heard of Sarah Palin - maybe there are some in Outer Mongolia or Zimbabwe) would be greatly appreciated. I do believe that coatracking is a BLP issue, though. Kelly hi! 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Coatracking is just wrong, IMO. Shouldn't need to cite BLP to clean up a coatrack. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, just asking for other opinions. Kelly hi! 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ri) Yes, KC you were correct re my intentions. As for undue weight, that can be a contentious issue on both BLP and BDP articles. In this case, however, I fail to see any logic in the undue weight arguments that are raised: as long as WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV (whence undue weight) are met, we are fine.
    BTW, WP:COAT is an essay, not a policy nor even a guideline hence it has no force of authority and can safely be seen as no more than the representation of an ideal held by some editors. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An article in the Frontiersman newspaper is the main source on this "rape kit" stuff, and that article is the only contemporaneous news report that I'm aware of.[23] That Frontiersman article does not mention Palin even once, so this subject is WP:Undue weight in a section of the main Palin article dealing with her mayoralty (the main Palin article also has a section on her 2008 campaign).
    Additionally, per WP:Summary style, the rape kit business is currently covered in the sub-article Mayoralty of Sarah Palin, so it's not as though we'd be banishing this stuff from Wikipedia by removing it from the main article. Not everything in the sub-articles can fit into the main article.
    If we descibe in the main article what her police chief (Fannon) said or did, then it seems like a matter of fairness to also mention that she herself has explicitly condemned making victims pay for "rape kits", which would take up even more space in the main article and exacerbate the WP:Undue weight problem.
    Although some people may come to the main Palin article looking for details about the rape kit business, they can currently find that info in the sub-article on her mayoralty. By analogy, Saturday Night Live used the word "MILF" in reference to her, but no one's suggesting we need to include and explain that term in this Palin article, or even in the sub-articles, for people who may come looking for info about it.
    Wasilla was not mentioned during the state legislative process (see sub-article) on the rape-kit issue, nor was Palin or Fannon mentioned, which is why there wasn’t much press about it at the time vis-a-vis Wasilla or Palin. It only became an issue in 2008, when “Bloggers ... portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims.”[24] I feel that this is definitely a WP:BLP issue, and improperly suggests that Palin has some kind of "blame the victim" mentality. I agree with Kelly that an arguably involved admin has reverted a clearly uninvolved admin here.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=261983032"