Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive40

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frank LaGrotta

A while back an editor was reading a news story about Frank LaGrotta and decided to create[1] a BLP page to report the news of Mr. Lagrotta's legal troubles, apparently the editor had political motivations for doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_LaGrotta&oldid=183004782

Another editor administrator had already cited "Wikipedia is not news" to no avail.

The editor who created the article subsequently acknowledged that his reading the newspaper account of LaGrotta was the reason (s)he created the page, and created it on the very same day the newspaper story hit. Despite my removal of the potentially harmful material from the article, it was restored. I added and cited balancing material to indicate that Mr. LaGrotta's legal troubles were the result of a politically motivated procecution. These were removed.

I posted extensively to inform the editor who created the article about Wikipedia's policies for BLPs, to no avail.

A look at the edit history and the contributor histories indicates this "Wiki-expose" is politically motivated.

I am "courtesy" blanking the article and talk page per WP:BLP, and awaiting review.

See

I will post other diffs shortly riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for blanking the article. The motivation of the original editor is irrelevant so long as the end product is NPOV and verifiable. The material is well-sourced. If there are sources that say the prosecution is politically motivated then those should be added. The impeachment of Bill Clinton may have been politically motivated too but it still happened. While poorly-sourced material, if any, should be removed the article itself should not be blanked. WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't to apply to incidents that have lasting notability beyond a brief flurry of coverage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (1) Bill Clinton was notable before he was impeached. (2) Evidence for lack of notablilty here is the fact that PA legislators generally do not have Wikipedia articles. (3) are you suggesting that Wikipedians should, as a general rule, create Wikipedia BLPs immediately upon the appearance of a name in a newspaper, or from police blotters? Especially as the report of an arraignment, not a conviction. I think this article, and the timing and motivation for it's creation clearly "does harm", by spreading nationally/globally what is merely "local news" in Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading the policies differently, specifically with respect to (1) creation of an article specifically to report news about an arraignment of a person who was not formerly notable. (2) pleae read my post, the "balancing info" was removed. (3) in a BLP, the burden of proof for "lasting notability" is on the person adding the potentially damaging material. Additional background here riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
More diffs to follow, please be patient.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who created the article or why. All the matters is the current state of the article. What specific, unsolvable problem requires that the article be blanked? If you think the subject is not notable then bring it to AfD. In regards to a person's life story, being indicted for criminal charges is a notable event. I fail to see what harm is done to the subject by mentioning he indictment in his biography. He's a public figure who has been indicted for actions he took while a public servant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As an admin, if you are ready to make the call, make it. Whether you wait for the diffs, or investigate further is up to you. I blanked it and posted here because this is where the experts are...and I'm not going to waste another two hours researching balancing material and seeing it tendentiously deleted for political reasons. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The page appears fair and balanced to me, including references to the political side motivations. If the politician is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then the article should be suggested for deletion. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you continue to impugn my motives, despite my denials of any political motivation? I have said multiple times that I had no political motivations in creating it — I simply believe that we have too few articles on state legislators, and when I find a bit of information about one, I'm apt to create an article on one (see Bob Lyon for another example). Who made the last edit to the page before it was blanked? I did — restoring a cited comment (originally added by Wndl42) that supports LaGrotta. Anyway, this article has been debated back and forth (the talk page is over 28KB), and we've worked hard to ensure that the article is balanced. As was stated before: blanking is not the solution, especially since a lot of the article is altogether unrelated to the indictment. Finally, regarding the notability question: Wikipedia:Notability (people) lists politicians as inherently notable — unless it can be proven that he wasn't really a state legislator (something I believe that would be quite difficult!), there cannot be any notability question. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (break in) Nyttend, I should have been more explicit, and I will apologize now as I did before. (1) The article you created was created in response to your reading the newspaper. (2) The political nature of the article you read indicates apparent political interest was involved, but (3) WP:AGF and your edit history leave the matter "inconclusive" in your favor. My summary above did not make this clear, and my summary did have the effect of attributing an apparent motive to you, and while I explicitly said "apparently", it still comes off as speculation, and your protest against my characterization here is well founded.
  • However, to be clear, the article absolutely and almost immediately became a "political magnet" for a number of "politically interested" (in some cases, single issue) editors, and very quickly the article went way overboard on the WP:UNDUE scale, for example the article went from November into January without any balancing information. Along the way, a month after the LaGrotta "news" first appeared on Wikipedia, a tangent article appeared, created by a single-issue editor, and this IMO supports the assertion that neither LaGrotta, nor the larger investigation were WP:NOTABLE enough for Wikipedia on the day the LaGrotta article was created. What I wish to point out (as I have before) are the "unintended consequences" that result from creating articles solely to report the news. Note above that my use of the plural "contributor histories" was meant to refer to those editors who worked the article between November and January, and not to you exclusively or in particular, and in that group of editors some are clearly politically motivated. If you say you are not among them it's good enough for me, should be good enough for anyone, so again, my apologies to USER:Nyttend. WNDL42 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
E/C If the issue is the deletion of "balancing material" then let's focus on that. Blanking the entire article isn't the right solution for an edit dispute. Regarding your points above, 1) Many people become notable for doing bad things. Creating an article in response to reports of bad activities is not, by itself, a problem. If that were the case we would not have an article about Seung-Hui Cho. 2) If you don't think he's notable then the correct action is to nominate the article for AfD. In fact, that was done three weeks ago and the community decided that he was sufficiently notable for an article. This is the second time you've blanked the article.[2] Continued blanking of sourced, NPOV material in the absence of a consensus becomes disruptive. 3) It's the job of Wikipedia editors to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view in order to create an encyclopedia of articles on notable topics. This article appears to meet the description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, or other BLP admin, please comment on people notable for only one event
Although I'm not a BLP admin, please note my opinion that as a state legislator he's not notable for just this one event. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Further, the allegation is that he engaged in a longterm criminal endeavor by hiring his relatives as ghost employees. The court case has already been going on for months and probably won't be finished for many more months. So the criminal charge, which is only one element of his notability, is much more than a "single event". Lastly, that section specifically refers to a "relatively unimportant crime". Felony corruption charges against a career politician are not relatively unimportant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the article was created specifically to report news of LaGrotta's indictment. I said the motivation "appeared" political, as the following discussions on the talk page and your following comments seeemed to indicate. I find it difficult to believe that I'd be sitting around one day reading the local Beaver County Times, read about a local politician's indictment, and think "Wikipedia needs an article" in the absence of a political motivation. Also, please note that "politicians are inherently notable" at the statewide level and above, and LaGrotta is not a statewide representative.
I really don't have a "horse" in this race, I just can't believe that Wikipedia should be used as a million watt national bullhorn for spreading the news of a politically-motivated prosecutor's charges, innocent until proven guilty.
Will, make the call if you don't see a problem with using Wikipedia as a "news amplifier" in the context of WP:BLP, I'm outta time.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we really need to unindent! You are correct that he wasn't a "statewide representative", but the listing includes "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature," and he is a former member of a state legislature. And yes, occasionally I do read something and think "Wikipedia could use an article on that". Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Google news analysis: For all this time, Lagrotta did not merit enough notability for an article on Wikipedia (yellow timeline bars indicate hits for "Frank LaGrotta" from Google's News Archive through 2006). Then, a politically motivated prosecutor files politically motivated charges for stuff that (as I understand it) has been commonplace in PA for years in both parties. Now, Wikipedia was used in November to "bullhorn" Corbett's charges nationwide. Could "wiki-bullhorning" Corbett's allegations have damaged LaGrotta's case, or weakened his ability to negotiate? THAT is how using Wikipedia to report/amplify the NEWS specifically "does harm". LaGrotta could make case against Wikipedia on this basis, and that is why this noticeboard is here, and THAT is why BLP is so strict.
Will, if you have a horse in this race, you should probably recuse, and let an uninvolved admin have a look. I will do one more revert and suggest that only an uninvolved ADMIN weigh in with a definitive opinion. If that admin wants my opinion, please leave a message on my talk page.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no "horse in this race". You've repeatedly asked me to "make the call" and I've repeatedly told you that blanking the article is inappropriate. The community has already given a strong response to to your assertion that the subject is not notable. Ignoring the consensus and blanking the article is disruptive. I've protected the article to prevent disruption. When it expires please do not make wholesale blanking of neutral, sourced material against the community consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are any specific sections of text that you think must be removed to comply with BLP, please give the exact text and justification here or on the article talk page so an admin can make the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll not make any such edits while it's protected: not as a matter of spite, but because as an involved party, I don't think I should be making any edits of any sort to the page while it's protected, even though as an admin I can. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in some editing of this article. Mr. LaGrotta is a Pennsylvania State Represenate (that makes him prima facie notable), and is currently under indictment by the Pennsylvania Attorney General for corruption. A while back, certain editors tried to have mention of this indictment scrubbed from the article, citing WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, even going to the point of an [nomination], which was overwhelmingly KEEP.

Frankly, I am annoyed at the failure to assume good faith here by User:Wndl42. Just because someone created an article on the day he was indicted does not prove that it was solely to be mean to him. There are 203 State Representatives, and very few of them have article. This guy was in the news, so why wouldn't he get an article before some 1 term backbencher?

I even went so far as to add a bunch about his bio and prior electoral history to balance against the WP:UNDUE concerns. If someone is indicted by the Attorney General, why wouldn't we mention it in his article? --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the editor's argument that the subject is entirely non-notable and therefore the article constitutes news rather than encyclopedic content? Or is the argument that while the subject is notable, the ongoing investigation makes inclusion of the article completely invalid? Those would seem to be the only logical arguments.
One would think that if the argument was the former, then efforts to delete or blank pages of virtually all PA State legislators should be underway. That would certainly be an interesting undertaking.
If the argument is the latter, then at what point does the "news" become history and therefore encyclopedic? I can only assume the conclusion of the case. So maybe the discussion should be put on hold until 9:00 AM EST when LaGrotta appears in court to plead guilty. Or does conclusion of the case occur after his sentencing or completion of the sentence?Montco (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's just wait until he pleads. Either way, "not guilty" or "guilty" it should be in this article. For those editors that still think that the article should not mention this episode: Do you really think that a wikipedia should have a higher reporting standard than the grand jury, the magistrate who gave the original warrants, the state Attorney General, and the trial judge who has refused to dismiss the charges? Come-on!
Maybe we should also blank Michael Jackson's article, since he was never actually convicted of anything. Is that the standard we should have?--RedShiftPA (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He pled guilty today. End of story [3]--RedShiftPA (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue presented here has nothing to do with what he did or didn't do today. The issue here is WP:BLP in the context of WP:NOT#NEWS (read point five), see also WP:HARM#TEST. This is the only issue raised in my original post. Please don't Straw_Man my intent.

I still have not heard a definitive position statement from a BLP expert on the creation of this article in the context of the policies above. A simple answer to the question "was the article created in violation of these policies?" is all that is needed, and a simple "yes" or "no" will do (as long as the admin has reviewed the case history, with reference specifically to the creation of the article in November 2007). Again, "yes" or "no" will suffice. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"No". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Will. Now, if we can reverse administrator ≈ jossi ≈'s original opinion, apparently to the contrary, so as to create an administrator's consensus of two, then I will feel comfortable knowing how to understand and apply WP:NOT#NEWS in the future. I do, sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions about WP:BLP in this context. WNDL42 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made that comment the article was very unbalanced. Now it includes substantial information about the person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, I agree the article is better now, but that is not the question I raise(d). I guess I'm still confused, and will remain so, about the creation of articles solely to report the news, specifically, in the context of WP:NOT#NEWS, "do no harm", and for living persons who are otherwise not individually or categorically notable enough to merit an article, as happened here edit. Also, I apparently misinterpreted your cite of "NOTNEWS"; "can put it in after he's convicted" apparently this was not intended by you to apply to the creation of a BLP for reporting news. Anyway, it's a dead discussion now, other than for my remaining confusion. WNDL42 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (revised) WNDL42 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ilchi Lee article

I could really use some help on the Ilchi Lee article. I was the one who originally added it. At the time, I kept the controversy section very minimal, in keeping with the "do no harm" policy about living people. The essential problem is that the controversies have not been covered by reputable journalistic sources, but plenty of allegations have been made on various finger-pointing sites, like Rick Ross' and Steve Hassan's. One editor came in and completely deleted my version of the section and then rewrote it using highly questionable sources, including quotations from a highly derogatory court document from prosecution in a case that was ultimately dismissed. He/she also added a number of unsubstanciated accusations from the finger-pointer sites. I really have a hard time believing that most of this information is appropriate for a biography of a living person. I would really appreciate someone with experience with biographies of living people to chime in on this.Nicola Cola (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no! Nicole, a great person by all means, has it all wrong. We want to bury this controversy. Don't all of you out there understand- it will be too difficult for us to gain new membership if this so called controversy persists. Therefore, I would like to ask that all unsubstantiated controversies related to Ilchi Lee or Dahn Yoga be terminated as soon as possible. Thank you all for your time, may you have bright futures!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing- Hassan and Rick Ross must go!! Find just one other source on Wikipedia that quotes Ross or Hassan. You can't find one! It's not possible!!!!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

E. Annie Proulx‎

E. Annie Proulx‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated addition/reverting of controversial and uncited section by 76.167.197.251. Also POV, Original research, against long-term consensus on talk page and undue weight on trivial episode. Anon editor at 76.167.197.251 refuses to discuss edits on talk page and blanked user page when contacted.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger - new issues

Heath Ledger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the last few days, one editor has dominated the editorial decisions on this page, unilaterally making decisions that conflict with content-related discussions on the article's Talk page. Attempts to discuss issues with this editor have been met with dialogue, but general resistance to collaboration; the discourse on the Talk page is particularly bogging down into long diatribes about appropriateness of content in the Death section. I hope it's not premature to bring this up on the noticeboard, but it's a live issue that shows no signs of bettering on its own. Townlake (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to this presentation of my editorial work (and work it has been). I have spent much time correcting formatting problems in citations and adding sources and updating. I have also discussed any of my own changes that relate to controversies on the talk page and have provided editing summaries. My attempts to improve the article are exactly that. I've moved the discussions of the article from my own talk page to the talk page of the article, where they are more appropriately placed. This is an article about a person who died on January 22, 2008, and it is important to be wary of the still-living persons who are being referred to in the article and on the talk page; WP:BLP and especially WP:BLP#Sources pertain to them, as it did to Heath Ledger until very recently. See the templates on both the article page and the talk page. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[In case others do not realize it, the article already has archived section on this project page at Heath Ledger above. Just providing the link for convenience. --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)]
It would help to reference what material is problematic as the issue seems to be about content rather than a user one. Benjiboi 05:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If someone could look at this section, to me it seems BLP-violating. There does seem to be some WP:OWNership and WP:TENDitiousness issues with NYScholar in regards to the lengthy Heath_Ledger#Memorial_tributes_and_related_public_statements section. Benjiboi 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I myself am the editor who has called for total removal of the section that appears to me to be violating WP:BLP in Talk:Heath_Ledger#For_futher_discussion--moved_to_talk page ("this section" above). I moved the section from the article to the talk page and have asked for the entire quoted material there and discussion of it to be removed. I added an "Alternative proposed" subsection for one to consider, though I myself would prefer the whole matter left out of the article, due to the way that the tabloid news sources (now in talk) violate Wikipedia's WP:BLP if cited and linked in the main article or its talk page.
  • The second claim appears absurd to me: I do not feel or think that I "own" the article; I've just spent a lot of my own time trying to "clean up" its citation problems (which have been many; many of which remain); my editing summaries and talk page comments explain my reasons for providing two block quotations in the talk page (I centered them so that the illustration would post better: I did not originate putting in these quotations; they were already there as block quotations just prior to my centering them; [later they were also removed, restored, etc, w/ disc.]) I have not engaged in violating any Wikipedia policy (including 3RR) in my editing of the article, and I have explained my edits throughout. The article has been subject to considerable vandalism ever since Jan. 22, 2008. --NYScholar (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. Agree that issues are persisting. Townlake (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly let's get rid of the BLP-stuff and those interested can produce a non-BLP-violating text w/exceptional sources to reintroduce any of it. Secondly, NYScholar, the issue since I've posted there seems to be a strong consensus to greatly reduce or remove entirely the memorials with quotes section with you countering removing any of it. I also added a {{too short}} template as the lede is ... too short and you removed that. Personally I'm not familiar with the article so am not familiar with the content. The talk page was quite full and thus I mistakenly started a new section to trim the quotes when at least one already existed. I'm sure there's some handy policy guide that says that wikipedia is not a memorial. If that doesn't suffice perhaps we could lean on that we don't, "out of respect", generally print entire quotes and statements, we use the parts needed within context to move the narrative along. Benjiboi 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the good faith efforts at addressing the concerns. Benjiboi 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Please see the reversion of my recent dev. of the lead by another editor, who is beginning to attack my edits in a personal way; the reversion is unwarranted, given the development of the article (currently), which it summarizes, and the sources cited there and throughout the rest of the article. Thanks. --10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYScholar (talk • contribs)

David Allen - editing his own page.

David Allen seems to have made the most recent edits to his biographical page, including adding a picture with an erroneous fair use tag.

Requnix is the user name used by Allen on the various sites he's owned/operated over the years. see and see.

I'm not suggesting he's committing a terrible crime and needs to be executed for it, but I thought I'd point this out just as a heads-up. Peter1968 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at his changes to the article. I saw that the editor changed a statement about the subject's being fired to the more neutral released. When I went to check the source, I found it a deadlink (blocked by bot, no less) and removed it altogether. Otherwise, his changes seem innocuous. I see that the question of his picture has been addressed at his user talk page with (as yet) no response. At this point, I'm not sure further intervention is required. :) If he persists in editing the article, you may want to drop him a note either consisting of or borrowing language from {{uw-coi}}. If that doesn't discourage further editing, you can tag the article with {{COI2}}, unless his edits seem to unbalance neutrality, in which case you'd tag it with {{COI}}. In that latter case especially, you might open a section at the conflict of interests noticeboard. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Bath

This article is constantly being vandalized and reformatted, making it hard to read and understand.

I ask you lock this article for a period of time because the article exhibits constant bias and misinformation.

Thanks,

A student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.228.223 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. If it is vandalized further by variant IPs, it may be appropriate to protect it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cecilia Cheung

The section about the "Scandal" is extremely poorly written, and potentially liabilious. Should be edited heavily or removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders80 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed that section, which was only about nude photos that might or might not be her. I also removed the "personal life" section was was uncited and trivial. If she is notable as a singer then that is what the article should be about. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a whole article on the scandal, see Edison Chen photo scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'd expect similar passages appearing in the articles for Gillian Chung, Bobo Chan and Yu Chiu, if they exist or are created; and of course, for Edison Chen, too. -- TJRC (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone else will deal with it. As I said on the talk page, everyone takes off their clothes sometimes -- that is not notable enough to be the focus of an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't make that decision, reliable sources do. Relata refero (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that. WP does not need to repeat every story the press does, otherwise no real need for WP at all if it is just a mirror for other media. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not every story. Those reported in a significant number, yes. Once we decide people notable for pop culture are encyclopaedic, we have no choice. Relata refero (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If the "scandal" changes the person's life significantly then it should be mentioned, if it is just a trivia then it probably does not deserve a place in the person's article.--Skyfiler (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hill (journalist)

Peter Hill (journalist) was subject to a slanderous revision from an IP, which led to a complaint from the subject - I've deleted the revision (and spoken to them and relations are good :-), but if people could watchlist this and keep an eye on it for rubbish that would be good - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox

wikipopuli.com

What is our opinion of using http://wikipopuli.com/ to transwiki non-notable bios? I've seen it done on at least one article. If we do accept it, then it should probably be incorporated into the db-bio and afd-bio cats and templates. MBisanz talk 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipopuli seems to be a worthwhile experiment. But regarding transwiki, see m:Help:transwiki. It appears that wikipopuli.com has only one sysop, and just 49 bio articles at the moment. The operation 'Special:Import' can only be performed by administrators, even on a wiki that permits it. It is hard to imagine that transwiki between en.wp and Wikipopuli will soon be a big-volume activity, and perhaps simple re-creation of an article by its sole author on the other wiki is better. In case of a non-notable bio created here, you could suggest they go over to Wikipopuli and create the same thing. If they are the sole author, all the license-compliant machinery of the transwiki step becomes unnecessary. If there are multiple authors, they might be able to satisfy the GFDL requirements by dumping the en.wp edit history into the Talk page of the newly-created bio on Wikipopuli. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Good points. My main concern is that its not a Wikimedia operation, and should we formally (at least by template) endorse 1 outside project over others. And given that it only has 1 admin, I suspect it couldn't handle our daily load if it was made policy. Maybe an optional statement somewhere in the Bio Notability standards, with other sites like WIkia Annex, that serve similar functions. MBisanz talk 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Andre Vincent

At first glance, this article seems to be full of questionable and unsourced material. I've removed a claim that he voiced Dobby in a Harry Potter film (that was Toby Jones), but the style seems to suggest that much of the material may be tongue-in-cheek. Could someone take a look and see what they think? --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly suspicious that neither of the external links on the page works, at least for me. :) The myspace link is dead. The biography links to a different person. I'm going to poke around and see what I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There. I've done what I can for him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding Orson Scott Card

There's a minor content dispute at the above article, regarding the use of the word "homophobic" in reference to Card. A link to the discussion thus far can be found here. I find the term itself quite incendiary in a BLP, even when sourced, but especially when it's only sourced (as it is) to an opinion piece from Salon.com. I'm of the opinion that if the article clearly elucidates his views through his own writings, and secondary sources reporting on his writings, that the reader should be left to judge whether or not these views constitute "homophobia." We've agreed that seeking an outside view from the regulars of this board is the best course of action here. Thanks in advance, and best regards, Bellwether BC 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When the article is not calling him that, but merely reporting the accusation, I don't feel it violates BLP. (And believe me, there are lots of sites and publications out there for whom "homophobic" would be flattering compared to what they do call him.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you are directly involved in the discussion/minor dispute at the talkpage--and have clearly made your position known there--I'd rather hear some outside views. Regards, Bellwether BC 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the comment does not pass the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid test. There is only a single source offered by the editors wanting to included the content and that one reference does not appear to be clearly a reliable source and there is no indication that it is anything more then a titillating claim that does not add to the articles quality. Jeepday (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeepday, your comment appears to be based on incomplete information. There are three (3) sources cited in the proposed edit, and none of them fail to meet the standards of WP:RS in any way I can see. Furthermore, I don't see anything "titillating" abut reporting that many people have characterized Card's views as homophobic.
To follow up on Bellwether's original comment here, he states that "secondary sources reporting on his writings" are valid for inclusion. Well, the proposed edit is exactly that: secondary sources reporting on his writings. RedSpruce (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. That many people say Card is homophobic because of his publicly-expressed views, carefully described by quotation in the article, is not at issue - that's substantated by multiple references. That Card has been attacked for being "too tolerant" is not substantiated except for Card's own claim in the Salon.com interview, which is also linked to. That Card thinks of his position as "the middle way" is substantiated by quotation. When Card himself acknowledges that his views lead people to describe him as homophobic, I can't see any reason for an encyclopedia article on Card not to quote those views and note what people say of them. Yonmei (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He said that only in disputing this characterization. The author herself admits she'd never heard this charge against him before (though she clearly thinks it's true now). It would seem that before readding the information (as you've now done), you'd wait for something like consensus from a few people who frequent this board. So far, two have weighed in, one thinking it's not necessary to include the word, and one saying it should be included. Why would you think it acceptable to add it back after such a short discussion? Bellwether BC 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Orson Scott Card has asserted that he does not believe that it is homophobic to want to have LGBT people criminalised and harassed for their sexual orientation and denied equality under the law. We should certainly include Orson Scott Card's assertion in the article, and it has in fact been included. I'm still not seeing your problem here: consensus was reached in January via the Talk page, and your new objection seems to be to an editor adding a list of references to provide a cite to the assertion that people say Card's views are homophobic.Yonmei (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two of the sources are at about.com, the Wikipedia entry for this site starts with About.com is an online source for original consumer information and advice, and WP:V says self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.. That leaves you with one potential reference at Salon.com, and I could find nothing that suggested that salon.com was a third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally the default for any questions of WP:BLP where there are questions is to not included it, and the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds. As presented the content does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:RS. As to the comment "show how it's NECESSARY" from Bellwether BC in the edit summary given, I am not aware of any requirement that puts a burden on an editor to show that content is necessary before including it in an article, that would put a whole new spin on WP:AFD. The question is are there reliable sources and is it relevant to an encyclopedia article given that there is sub section "Homosexuality" that is not currently questioned at BLP, I would say that well referenced content on the subject of homophobia would be relevant if it was referenced in multiple reliably sourced. If any of the content at Orson Scott Card#Personal views is relevant for an encyclopedic article is another question. Jeepday (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also added the link to the article in the School Library Journal about the issue of his homophobic views with regard to his winning the Edwards award. With regard to the argument that this section should be eliminated entirely, I think that the controversy over Orson Scott Card being awarded a "lifetime achievement" award by YALA demonstrates that the issue of his homophobic views will constantly recur. To simply not include them means that the edit war will happen again and again every time the subject comes up, someone looks at Orson Scott Card's wiki article, discovers they're not referenced, and adds them in again. This is public information about Card which is sourced in material Card has himself written, and it becomes a public issue which people expect to find in a wiki article, because Card's views are regarded as homophobic by many people. Yonmei (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeepday -- Although some of the columns on About.com are called "blogs" as you can see here, the authors are not self-published. The authors (called "Guides") are selected via applications, undergo training, and are salaried for their work. Whether or not the site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is difficult to answer, but it's a very large and well-maintained site, run by The New York Times Company. RedSpruce (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather then entering in to a discussion about quality of questionable sources, do a search for better reference.[4] At the top of the list of 25,900 is "I have been savaged both for showing too much sympathy for the "abomination" of homosexuality and for showing too much "homophobic" opposition to the political agenda of the radical homosexual community." The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, Copyright © 1990 Orson Scott Card [5] Jeepday (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The source you cite has been quoted from and cited six times in Orson Scott Card's page: the discussion here is not over sources to establish that Card holds these views, or what Card thinks of them, but a reference list of citations for the point that these views are considered homophobic by some of Orson Scott Card's fans. This is an issue because - as the recent controversy over the Edwards award established - these are views Card holds publicly and has defended publicly, and can't really be dealt with by ignoring them or ignoring the controversy around them. Deleting all reference to them, the previous solution, only means the edit wars continue/recur. 80.192.75.201 (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As I learn more about the facts here, I beleive that if IP 80.192.75.201 is correct in the statement "the discussion here is not over sources to establish that Card holds these views, or what Card thinks of them, but a reference list of citations for the point that these views are considered homophobic by some of Orson Scott Card's fans". Then Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism applies and the view should be included in the article also Wikipedia is not censored so inclusion of material just because it is offensive to some is not in of its self reason to not included it. The problem as I see it is this statement in BLP Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. The quality of the references offered are questionable, and while I have come to beleive that that assertions are probably true the content runs up against The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.. No other disinterested parties other then myself have chimed in here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so we can assume my assessments are not to far from community consensus. To include "the point that these views are considered homophobic by some of Orson Scott Card's fans" you need high quality references, without the high qualtiy references you can't get past If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. The difference in hits on a Goolge search for ("Orson Scott Card") verses ("Orson Scott Card" homophobic) is huge. In summation all of the road blocks to inclusion can be over come with reliable sources that are not currently being provided and the burden rests on those who wish to include the content to provide the references. Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In what way do you consider The New York Times, Reed Elsevier, and Salon.com to be unreliable sources? Those are the sources cited which reference how fans of Orson Scott Card consider his views on LGBT people to be homophobic. If the views were those of a "tiny minority" why would they then have caused a controversy with the Edwards award? Indeed, simple logic says that it's improbable that Orson Scott Card's views on LGBT people would not be regarded as homophobic: his belief that LGBT people ought to be subject to legal discrimination and harassment falls within the definition of homophobia as agreed-to on that page on wikipedia. It's kind of like arguing that there's no evidence a member of the KKK is racist, just because they argue that black people ought not to be allowed to vote! But you've chosen to argue on the basis of "reliable sources": I await your explanation why you consider that material published by he New York Times, Reed Elsevier, and Salon.com is not reliable. 80.192.75.201 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) no references are found that are published by the New York Times [6] About.com is not the New York Times. About.com and The New York Times are both assets owed by The New York Times Company see List of assets owned by The New York Times Company. Arguing they are the same is like saying a Ford Pinto is a Lincoln Town Car because both are products of Ford Motor Company Jeepday (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

About.com is not the New York Times, 80.92'—hyperbole will not do your argument any favors. I've commented on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday, Salon.com is a reliable source, period, full-stop.
More to the point, Mr. Card's views that laws prohibiting homosexuality should exist and be enforced, is essentially the definition of homophobia - as much as holding the view that segregation laws should exist and be enforced is a racist view. To say that his critics believe he is homophobic is factual, neutral, verifiable and, because Mr. Card has publicly spoken on his views, is certainly necessary to discuss. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that." David Talbot founder, chairman and editor-in-chief of Salon.com.[7] "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia" Jimmy Wales Founder of Wikipedia[8]. Jeepday (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Salon.com is widely accepted as a reliable source across Wikipedia. It is a journalistic endeavor, and cherry-picking quotes isn't going to change that fact. FCYTravis (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense intended towards Salon.com but the general consensus at Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia seems to be that at a sole source for a BLP concern it is not great on its own. For non BLP concerns it would seem to be generally acceptable as a reliable source. As we know the threshold for BLP concerns is a bit higher then any other article type. Jeepday (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not my reading of the debate at all. Relata refero (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nor mine. FCYTravis (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see also D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example, U. of Illinois Press, which discusses the contrasts in Card's attitudes to same-sex relationships, especially in the 1978 Songmaster, pp102-3. It specifically uses the word "homophobia", but is a much more nuanced analysis than that would imply. Relata refero (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - do you think you could add this reference to the OSC page? There is a list of the citations (it's currently 16) of the sources in which Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuality/homosexuals have been identified as homophobic/anti-gay. Quinn's book sounds like it would be a useful addition.Yonmei (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be comfortable adding it to one 'side' of an argument, as it were. As I said, its a nuanced description. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what? You say you have a citation to a source in which Orson Scott Card's views are referred to as homophobic. An article on Wikipedia needs citations to confirm that Orson Scott Card's views have been referred to as homophobic. You don't want to add your citation to the article because people are arguing over the quality of the current citations, and you don't want to "take sides" in an argument by providing a good-quality citation? I will never understand Wikipedians. Clearly, also, I will never become a Wikipedian. The notion that, in an abstract kind of way, an article ought to be improved for accuracy's sake alone, that Wikipedia ought to be a useful information resource - that was why I thought I would like to edit Wikipedia, before I actually did. To discover, over and over again, that Wikipedians see Wikipedia rather as a battleground in which fights are had for the sake of having them and people with useful information to add to articles won't add it because they don't want to take sides in a fight and providing information is seen as "taking sides". Oh, never mind. I'm off, again. Yonmei (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia is not a battleground. I objected to having to "add" a source to a statement which might fatally oversimplify what the source is saying. The source said Card "introduces homophobia" but also says that his writing on the subject "reflects the multifaceted view of contemporary society" and "nonjudgmental accounts of homoeroticism abound in Card's fiction" or something similar. If you want it as one of a long line of references for a statement that "Card has been called homophobic" then that hardly adds to Wikipedia's reputation as a useful or accurate information resource. Relata refero (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Readers aren't stupid. Do we really have to call OSC a homophobe? It seems pretty clear to me that he is. A few quotes from Card himself is all that's needed. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

Joseph Massad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has become a battleground in recent weeks over various criticisms of Joseph Massad, a Palestinian professor at Columbia (like Nadia Abu El Haj, who is in a definite non-coincidence listed higher on this page). At issue are both specifics of various allegations - whether they are notable, whether they are really sourced or constitute synthesis - and also the overall balance of the article, which is presently in bad shape. I am not aware of any serious violations of Wikipedia policy by any individual users, but the article could definitely use some intervention by outside users without a stake in the fight. While I have only become involved today, I can't really claim to be neutral, having edited the article more than a year ago and having strong and relevant political opinions. Kalkin (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a little (hopefully) balanced trimming before seeing this notice, but it still needs outside help; removing some of the more malignant bits leaves scars! Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
On it. Relata refero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

T. Rajendar

Many IPs have edited the article and inserted dubious claims without references. The filmography section is completely unreferenced. The article is in disrepair almost since its creation. - Cenarium (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lev Leviev

This Israeli billionaire's article is currently full-protected due to a BLP dispute centering around criticism of his business activities in relation to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. While I agree that no reasonable reading of WP:BLP#Criticisms can accept filling half the article with this information, I also believe that no reasonable reading of WP:BLP would exclude it entirely, since it has been recorded in reliable sources:

  • 'British charity asked to shun Leviev.' Jewish Telegraphic Agency 2008-01-13
  • Froelich, Paula. 'Her Best Friends.' New York Post 2007-11-17
    • "Susan Sarandon [...] waded through a throng of picketers [...] protesting the Finesse Diamond Corp., which provides gems to Leviev, and Leviev's construction of "illegal West Bank settlements." They were shouting, "You're glitz, you're glam, you're building on Palestinian land" and "Occupation is a drag, just say no to your gift bag."

Also, the factual claims of the activists are confirmed by reliable sources:

  • Krieger, Matthew. 'Africa-Israel to complete building of two Heftsiba projects.' The Jerusalem Post 2007-08-07
    • "customers who purchased apartments in Har Homa's "Meduragai Har Homa" and Ma'aleh Adumim's "Nofei Haselah," will be able to move in to their apartments following the completion of their construction, which will be carried out by the construction company Dania Sibus. [...] Dania Sibus, a subsidiary of the holding company Africa-Israel"
  • Algazi, Gadi. 'Settlers on Israel’s eastern frontier.' Le Monde Diplomatique 2007-08
    • "The residents of Bil’in face a powerful alliance of political and economic interests. Two neighbourhoods will be built on their stolen lands. The Green Park project is being constructed by Dania Cebus, a subsidiary of Africa-Israel Corporation, a real-estate investment firm owned by one of Israel’s most powerful businessmen, Lev Leviev."
  • Mula, Shosh and Ofer Petersburg. 'The Settler National Fund.' Yediot Ahranot 2004-01-28: M38 (as translated @ [9])
    • "The LRF has purchased in its own name approximately 20,000 dunam in Judea and Samaria, most of it funded by money from right wing Jewish millionaires such as Lev Levayev"
  • Ushpiz, Ada. 'Fenced Out.' Ha'aretz 2005-09-16 (as mirrored [10] [11])
    • "But this [West Bank] land also happened to be located in a place designated to be a quarry, near the settlement of Tzofin and owned by the Lidar company, a firm connected to businessman Lev Leviev."

The page was protected with an admonishment to discuss it on Talk, but although three anon editors have asked for discussion, nobody has responded and it's still locked down. <eleland/talkedits> 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should an article that mentions his company be used as a source on his bio page unless it specifically mentions him by name? Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
An interesting hypothetical which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. The sources mention Leviev. <eleland/talkedits> 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The first one doesn't seem to. Relata refero (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Does BLP apply outside of article space?

this discussion could use more eyes. Corvus cornixtalk 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, I think you should consider a less inflammatory title for this section. The question actually asked is How do we meet the citation requirements of BLP outside of article space? or even Is citation-once-removed (linking to a fully-cited article) an acceptable practice under BLP? No one – that I know of – has argued that BLP doesn't apply outside article space. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ToAT. As far as I'm aware there is no dispute BLP applies to everywhere on wikipedia. The only issue at hand is whether this is a violation of BLP... Also (crossposted from WT:RD). This issue seems to be rather complicated to me. Generally per WP:BLP we should not discuss our personal opinions of people on wikipedia at all, not even on talk pages where it's off topic anyway. It's true we do sometimes turn a blind eye, particularly with stuff like 'Bush is an idiot' but people are perfectly entilted to and do remove comments from talk pages (and definitely articles) about a living person all the time. In my opinion, the RD is not exempt even though it's perhaps not OT. In otherwords IMHO it's okay person X has been convinced of multiple crimes including making false claims if that's sourced e.g. from the article. However in as much as possible people should avoid giving personal opinions of someone. Let's assume our readers are not dumb and able to come to their own conclusions... If you do want to give opinions I would suggest you take NPA to heed which while not technically applicable gives some helpful hints. It's not so bad to say 'I believe most or all of the stuff person X sells is junk' since you are discuss stuff rather then a person directly. You aren't prescribing any motives to him (he might really believe in the stuff he says about the stuff he says or perhaps he has been conned by someone else into thinking the stuff he sells does what he says) Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Several editors keep inserting a Google Earth photo of a house that they claim is owned by Prem Rawat into the article. They offer no source to back up their claim that the house in the photo is in fact owned by Rawat.Momento (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An unusual BLP notice in that the concern here is that a number of editors (of whom, I hasten to emphasize, User:Jossi does not currently appear to be one) are insisting on a bizarre interpretation of WP:BLP whereby no criticism may enter the article (there also appear to be some editors who would like the article to be a blatant BLP violation, but they're losing). The result is that the article is a blatant whitewash. This is especially problematic given the publicity this article has received recently, since people are going to read the article, see that it's a whitewash, and lose all regard for Wikipedia. I started participating at the article today for the first time, but people like me and User:David D. still seem to be outnumbered by the zealots on each side. Experienced BLP-types' participation would be very much appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem Rawat#Brief history of editing principles used for this article for an explanation why the article has become one sided. Mediation between me and Momento had been rejected by the mediation committee. Andries (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no indication that house belongs to the person. It is clear from Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_9#Image:Prem_Rawat.27s_Property.jpg that the image does not have a neutral impact and as it is possibly WP:OR or a complete fabrication it must be removed per WP:BLP pending verificaion. I have removed the image. Jeepday (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is patently false. If you go the the article's talk page you will find that the image is verified by the LA Times. Also, the image is undergoing its most substantial review here and I think this is the best place to voice your concerns. Onefinalstep (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to this edit "An L.A. Times article: "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1, includes a blurry photo of the house taken from a road leading to it. It doesn't look quite like the photo now in this article, but after 22 years it may have been remodeled." and you would you be arguing that is the reference to support that a Google satellite image is of the same house owned by the same person but from a satellite rather then from a road, 22 years later? Have you read WP:OR? Jeepday (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There are other sources, including other L.A. Times articles, which report that the Prem Rawat property is owned by Seva Co. (doing business as "Anacapa View Estates"P, and that report in detail about efforts by Prem Rawat to expand the use of the property's heliport. Because heliports are a form of airport they are included in various databases that list the exact coordinates and provide aerial photos that match the Google photo. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that the photo depicts the house in Malibu where Prem Rawat stays. The house is not owned by Prem Rawat in his own name, but many people of wealth use corporations to hold their properties for various legal and financial reasons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The "house" has a name, and it is the only privately owned heliport with that amount of overflights permitted. Seva Corp owns it. Onefinalstep (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If the house is not owned by Prem Rawat, why the hell have you been inserting into the Rawat article?Momento (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly sure you are aware of the reason, as almost all of your last 1000 edits have been to Prem Rawat and related articles. Relata refero (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And because regardless of the corporate nature of the owner, PR lives there, it is his home, and is an indicator of his lifestyle, which is directly relevant to the article. Obviously.(original caption when I first saw the image, "Prem Rawat's home in Malibu, CA")Maelefique (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summaries - "minor addition to my response to the zealot" and "response to Momento's assinine question" are inappropriate. Please do not make personal attacks. Thanks.Momento (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The summary is exactly that, and while you may question the asinine nature of your comment I was replying to, I doubt others do and I certainly do not, and your zeal has never been in question. Perhaps you should read what the word means before you get cranky about it? The edit summary seems descriptive and accurate to me. If you need a definition I will be happy to provide. It might be best if you try and refrain from inappropriate asinine questions (when are asinine questions ever appropriate?). I doubt your zeal can be tempered, so I won't suggest that. However, your mention has made me notice a typo in the word "asinine", if the additional "s" that was in there made you think I was making some kind of "ass" joke about you, then I can see your point, and I apologize, but I can assure you that was simply a typo caused from being up much too late and no such suggestion was intended.Maelefique (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP concerns aside, the image is clearly a violation of our NFCC policy and should hopefully be deleted soon Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat links

Editors - Onefinalstep, Francis Schonken and others continually add links to anti-Prem Rawat websites in clear violation of BLP policy = "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". Avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" or "links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". It may be necessary to block some editors.Momento (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, there appears to be some ownership issues rather than BLP violations. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The matter is being discussed on the article talk page. It has not been determined that the sites in question are derogatory, and that linking to them violates policy. Let's find a consensus on the article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you bring this back to the discussion page Momento? Onefinalstep (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is debate over two external links on Prem Rawat and whether or not they are acceptable external links for a BLP. The links are:

Feedback and review of this situation would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments: Talk:Prem Rawat#Discussion and Talk:Prem Rawat#External links disputes ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy? Momento (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Correcting some info given above:

  1. There are more than two external links involved:
  2. The two links to the talk page discussion given above are no longer correct, at least: one of them isn't any more. The current correct links are:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC) – updated 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is heading down a very slippery slope by adding links to sites which violate BLP policy. Ex-premie.org archives many hundreds of apostate forum pages containing rabid attacks on Rawat and others, hearsay and gossip, some of which is expressed in terms that are unfit for publication. Ex-premie.org and prem-rawat-critique.org both include very negative, hyperbolic content that would certainly violate BLP policy. There are also at least two web sites which purport to "debunk apostates' propaganda." One such site is www.one-reality.net Linking to any of these sites would merely encourage an edit war while making no contribution at all to the quality of the Rawat article. Note that I am trying to set a precedent here by not providing links, only URLs for the benefit of editors who wish to obtain information about a dispute which appears to be ongoing.--Maximango (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles?

We have a separate article on Catholic Church compared to the person currently leading it, same goes with Scientology and other groups. Such an article would not fit under 'living person' guidelines and may deal better with some of the material dealing with a claimed 'cult' or former 'cult'. Links to separate articles should be easy to find from the living person one.

As well I would love to see a discussion on the Inquirer article in another talk page or article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/), the accused should be allowed to face the accuser in a clear/uncluttered way, the author of that article and others could be invited to contribute.

From looking at that Inquirer article and then following some of the discussions here, without ever hearing about the 'living person' in question before, I currently am embarrassed for wikipedia, I hope something can be done to present a better image to the public. 198.53.235.197 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

teko modise' s brilliance

HE IS A TRUE REVELATION TO SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL, HOWEVER WITH THE MEDIA GOING TOO STRONG ON HIM, HIS SPIRIT WILL SURELY BE BROKEN.'Media:GOAL CREATION AT CAF 2008 > —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe ka paulus (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um do you actually have an issue for us to deal with? We don't deal with the media's unfair treatment of people, sorry. If that treatment was spilling across into wikipedia then sure we could look into it. But Teko Modise is a stub and I can't find anyn other problematic mention of him Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams

Calpernia Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has been nominated for deletion by the subject of the article Calperniaaddams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also, it is a MfD, not an AfD like it should be, can this be fixed? MfD page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Calpernia Addams. -MBK004 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the post at WP:AN, I have fixed the AfD nomination, but I do not believe this will result in deletion. Ms. Addams has some privacy concerns involving the inclusion of her birth name in the article which still need to be addressed on this noticeboard. Thank you. — Satori Son 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wall

This article is continuously being edited by a user called Otherbrothergideon (talk · contribs) claiming to be close to the the rapper Paul Wall and thus the birthdate of him keeps getting changed to "1981" as he claims, contrary to a well-published record he was born in 1980. "Otherbrothergideon" is continuously adding information to the Paul Wall article claiming that it's the "truth", contrary to what the sources say. Maybe this is a possible conflict of interest as well.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Larson

An editor wishes to list the birth year of this actor as 1928 based upon a search of public records and a claim of confirmation from the actor himself. However, in a 2003 video interview with the Archive of American Television, Larson states his birth year as 1933. I'm not comfortable with contradicting a person's recorded statements based upon a public records search, which is likely original research and there's probably no way of being sure which "Jack Larson" the record references, and secondhand testimony. Ideally this could be solved with a reliable source such as another interview or the actor himself contacting OTRS, but barring those scenarios I'm looking for input from other editors about how we should proceed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My position as the editor mentioned above is as I posted on the Jack Larson Talk page: "Citing public records is no different than citing a book or newspaper article (except that the records are more likely to be accurate). We don't merely thumb through the records and find someone with a similar name and say "That's him!" Larson has done any number of interviews in which he mentions his upbringing, his heritage, his birthplace, his hometown. When a public record shows up that matches ALL of these things, but has a five-year birth year discrepancy (the DAY still matches, though), and the person is an actor, an occupation known to promote such age-shaving, AND the public records show NO match for those other factors in the alleged birth year, it's not original research to cite the record. Original research would be me calling him up and asking him. Books, articles, public records, these are EXAMPLES of proper WP citing. In this case, the date in the public records has been confirmed to me by the person himself. But I didn't say that, because that would be original research. Instead, I backtracked and found citable evidence to support the statement. That's how WP is supposed to work, I believe."
I then followed up the OP's further questions with this: "In response to your question (which you've since removed), Larson spoke of his family home, his mother's maiden name, etc. in a number of interviews, including in editions of the magazine The Adventures Continue. (He also spoke of those things to me, as well as confirming the 1928 date, but let's not count that, because it's original research.) Those details match up with the census and California birth records. I doubt there were two Jack Edward Larsons born on February 8 in Los Angeles to Russian mothers formerly named Calcoff and Swedish oil-field worker fathers named George, both living on S. Vancouver Ave. in Montebello, California in 1930, especially if one of them wasn't born till 1933 (even though California birth records show NO Jack Larson being born in 1933.) Yet those details are in various interviews and articles, and they match up ONLY with the Jack Edward Larson born in 1928. So leaving aside what he told me entirely, every bit of this information is citable, and the California birth records and census records are a legitimate synthesis and primary source. If citations from birth records, the census, military records, etc. are to be excluded from WP citation while the claims of actors in interviews are to be taken at face value, then we need to go through WP and change Randolph Scott's birth from 1898 to 1903, Don Adams's from 1923 to 1928, and lop off five years from virtually every actress ever born, since that's what they said in interviews. I don't think you're really suggesting that. Hope we can resolve this. Thanks." I suppose it boils down to this: is a government document different from a book or a magazine article? If it is not original research to SEEK OUT the latter as a citation source, why would it be original research to seek out the former? My understanding of original research is it is different from, and not a substitute for, finding citable references. I think the world of academia would be astonished to find that an encyclopedia objected to citations of public records. Much of the history and biography ever written, as well as most of the encyclopedic work, has relied upon just such records, and of course a judgment must be made in every case as to whether to believe one source over another. But to suggest that a book by a fan or a possibly self-serving statement by the subject trumps verifiable and citable public documents seems completely contrary to WP's stated goals. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As I stated on the talk page, the key issue here is: should Wikipedia allow amateur research, unverified and unvetted, to contradict the testimony of the subject of an article? Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My difficulty with this point is two-fold: 1. Why should the statement of the subject be the final word, especially if documentary evidence contradicts him? It's not hard to imagine all sorts of subjects having personal reasons for misleading people on topics as trivial as age or as serious as crimes. And 2. Why characterize reliance on examinable documents such as public records as "amateur research" yet fully accept other information merely because it appears in a book or on a website? I'm not talking about how the information is obtained, but presuming it's obtained similarly in both cases. If I go to the New York Public Library or the Library of Congress to find a citation for something in a WP article, are you seriously saying I can look it up in a book there but I can't look it up in the census? One is no more original or amateur research than the other. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The subject of the article should not necessarily have "the final word". Reliable sources should have the final word. The question here is should we allow amateur research to trump the best reliable source presented thus far. Sure, your amateur research may be correct in this particular case, and it may be obtained in the same fashion as the material obtained by someone generating a secondary source, but in general Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and does not allow original research. There are many reasons for this, which you can read on the relevant policy pages like WP:RS and WP:V and WP:OR. The fundamental problem here is: should we allow amateur research to contradict a reliable secondary source, and in doing so label the subject of an article a liar? You may think this is all silly, and it may very well be, but past problems have shown us that we must take the utmost care with articles concerning living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not at all think this is silly, and I share your concerns about the care required in such articles. But no one has answered my question: If I go into a library and pick up two books, one labeled "Joe Blow's Big Book of Hollywood Stars" and the other labeled "United States Census For 1920", why can I use the former for a citation and not the latter? Why does citing the former fit WP guidelines but citing the latter is slurred as "amateur research?" This makes no sense at all to me. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Ferreira

  • Jorge Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article, that makes strange unsourced statements about this musician, and that goes into an extremely detailed curriculun vitae, and that seems to be the product of a very small group of editors, reads more like an advert and vanity page with spam PoV external links and sources. At least this is what is looks like to me! Can someone help, please, and give it a look? Thank you. // The Ogre (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has the most number of tags on it that I've ever seen! Having had a quick look at the sources, none of them seem remotely reliable apart from possibly one which is in Portuguese. The article needs to be rewritten using reliable sources. If the claim in the article is correct and he has sold more than four million albums then I would say that he should have an article. I will post to the Conflict of InterestNoticeboard as this issue would seem to fall somewhere between the two boards and I don't particularly fancy spending my evening rewriting the article. --RicDod (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that Jorge Ferreira has sold more than four million albums! There is no reliable source, because the source presented is Jorge Ferreira's own site! And furthermore, it doesn't even present a specific info - it's just a link to the site's entrance. This guy is presented as a huge Portuguese music superstar - let me tell you, and of course you could doubt me, that I, who am Portuguese and live in Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, and am a member of WikiProject Portugal, have never heard of him! Another editor has already said the same thing. More even, and of course this entails some understanding of Portuguese music and is my own POV, this Jorge Ferreira is a Pimba musician, a type of "white trash" folklorish modernized pop, oscilating between sexual inuendo and family or religious devotional songs... In the article, which is clearly a POV advert!, he is presented as a superstar in several types of music and worldwide - He may be know in Fall River, but as for the rest of the universe, I doubt it very much. The Ogre (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John R. Bolton

An anon keeps listing Bolton's religion as "Messianic Jewish (Jewish Christian), denomination: Lutheran". I keep reverting, asking for reliable sources, but the anon won't respond with any. If somebody has some reliable sources for this claim, I'll be more than happy to let it stand. Corvus cornixtalk 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User warned for WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Sternberg

I'd appreciate some thoughts, as another editor and I are having differences on the Richard Sternberg article. One issue is that he is currently listed in the lead as an "intelligent design proponent". He has said in an interview that he is "not convinced by intelligent design"; but he is listed as a member by the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, which our article describes (citing the American Association for the Advancement of Science) as "a non-profit professional society devoted to promoting intelligent design". I believe that we should simply note him as a member of that Society; User:Hrafn states that his membership of the society provides prima facie evidence that he is a proponent, and that I am "making an absurdly extremist, and most probably completely unworkable, interpretation of WP:BLP" (discussion here). Any thoughts?

I'd appreciate more eyes on the article in general, as well - another editor marked the article with RFCBio but doesn't seem to have attracted many editors. TSP (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the disagreeing editor. Is it unreasonable to take membership of an organisation to be indicative of support for that organisation's central aim? I'd also like to point out that while the ISCID membership is the central piece of evidence, Sternberg is also a signatory of the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism promoted by the Discovery Institute (the main hub of ID, which has also frequently publicised Sternberg's 'martyrdom' for publishing a DI VP's paper) and has presented at a number of ID-promotional conferences. HrafnTalkStalk 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Simply google "Richard Sternberg intelligent design" and you'll find the entire world considers Mr Sternberg to be an ID advocate. Angry Christian (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that it's strange that TSP cites the American Association for the Advancement of Science without mentioning the reference given on the article talk page from that organisation describing Sternberg as appearing to be, at very least, an advocate for "intelligent design". I do appreciate that cdesign proponentsists as likely to describe him otherwise, perhaps preferring to think of him as a fellow traveller, but they have a court record of deceit and cannot be considered a reliable source as to the overwhelming majority opinion. .. dave souza, talk 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think his signing the Discovery Institute paper mentioned above is prima facie demonstration of his support for the intelligent design belief, and therefore I don't find it out of line to note him as such. FCYTravis (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Contract year phenomenon

Contract year phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At issue: Do the claims that were removed by this diff rise to the level of BLP?

This article was recently brought up at AfD by Onomatopoeia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after they chopped out a significant portion of the article claiming blatant BLP/NOR/RS violations. While I can identify a number of claims that were not properly sourced, there were some references that were. I contend that BLP should not be used to remove properly sourced claims, however unflattering. Am I off base in this observation, whether in general or specific to this article? -- RoninBK T C 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of the text removed was unreferenced, and one of the purported references went to a personal blog, which is not a reliable source. Furthermore, the text was written in a highly slanted tone, which seemed to me to assume the existence of said link.
Lines like this one: "Because of this, the number of mediocre players receiving large contracts has rapidly increased in the last decade" are right out.
While I believe the existence of "contract year phenomenon" is a notable sports assertion, accusations of specific players engaging in this must be reported as such, not as purported facts. The article as it stood consisted of a string of unsupported assertions. Correlation is not causation - that's one of the most basic logical fallacies. FCYTravis (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hedwig

Please see Talk:Hedvig_Malina#Requested_move. The article is about an alleged hate crime against a Slovak citizen of Hungarian descent; the move request is a quarrell about using the Slovak or Hungarian form of her last name. WP:BLP says this should be named for the incident, but those with more experience with these may be able to suggest the best phrasing for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Brooks page

There continues to be an undercurrent of editorializing with Brook's football career on this page, and there is an unsubstantiated quote from Brooks supposedly saying "I blame the players," in the "Timeline" section. I'm not saying that the quote is false, just unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.80.2 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote as it is unsourced and I could not locate a reliable source for it. I have also tagged the article {{inline}} in the hopes that editors will footnote citations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Londoner1961

Londoner1961 has repeatedly added unsourced, defamatory content to Tom Barker‎ and Talk:Tom Barker‎ , as well as adding related content to SmartSlab, a company and product developed and run by Barker. I'd like suggestions as to how to handle the situation, especially comments on the appropriateness of the warnings I've given. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for the editor discussing BLP and suggesting that he find solid sourcing for his criticisms. I believe that bringing the matter to the BLPN is probably the best way for you to handle the situation. As far as the warnings are concerned, I don't believe that I would have jumped straight to a final warning, given the gap in editing from 23:19, 20 October 2007 to 16:14, 13 February 2008 and that his edit them was a note on the talk page addressing his concerns about balance in the article, even if its language in doing so was inappropriate ("regarded by many who have had dealings with him as" is something less of asserting that the individual is those things, but it's still unsourced criticism). I don't see any intent to disrupt at this point, even though the editor does seem to have a fairly focused interest. I have watchlisted the articles for a time to help ensure that they remain BLP compliant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll post here again if there are further problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Paul Neil

Hi sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I didn't know who to ask. Of course I hate paedos as much as the next person, but I don't think we should have a page about this person, regardless of whether he has been mentioned in sources, because he has not yet been convicted of anything and it could prejudice any trial. Can you see what I mean? This is sort of an attack page, in a sense, too. Merkinsmum 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the individual is notable whether convicted or not if for no other reason than for evidently directly affecting Seoul's visa policies ([12]). That said, I'm sure that it is especially important to follow BLP conventions in articles on people accused of but yet convicted of crimes. The article does seem to get its share of vandalism, but it also seems to be regularly patrolled. I don't believe it would have any more input on the outcome of a trial than any media report. I had heard of him before coming to BLPN today and had never seen the Wikipedia page. :) Of course, you might choose to pursue WP:AfD with this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Willie Brown (politician)

An editor is repeatedly inserting improperly sourced derogatory material concerning the former Mayor of San Francisco / Speaker of the California Assembly, over a local partisan issue. Although the material reads well and seems sourced, the sources don't actually check out, and the whole thing is subtly slanted to make the politician seem unreasonable. I have reverted twice and the editor has now re-inserted the material twice despite my admonitions about BLP and taking controversial edits to the talk page. I would rather get other people involved than perpetuate an edit war. The "criticisms" section of this article has long been a magnet for unruly attacks on the person, and is now longer than the entire section on his political career. It has only been by watching the article and holding the line on POV editors heaping on the criticism that we keep this from becoming a style and content mess. Any other eyes on this would be most appreciated. Wikidemo (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Davies

I've been having problems relating to some information concerning this British comedian. It was widely reported near the end of last year that Alan Davies bit a homeless man in the ear. This was mentioned on Wikipedia, using the Daily Mirror as a reference. Then, a user called Notaperm deleted this information. The referenced information was put back in then removed until eventually admin became involved. Notaperm was blocked for only a short while, but came back after it was claimed that the Daily Mirror was not a RS.

I then found some more references, this time from The Times of London and the Daily Telegraph, reporting the same story. The admin who claimed that the Mirror was not an RS said that The Times and the Telegraph were. He also said that a concensus needed to be reached about the subject. As a result, I put back the information about the ear incident, using the two new references. I also started a new discussion on the talk page about trying to reach a consensus over the issue. Today, the incident, along with both sources was deleted from the article, as well as the talk page discussion.

I do not know what I should do. Should I leave the whole thing? Should I start up the discussion on the talk page again. Should I put back the incident in the article? Should anyone be blocked? Please help. ISD (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored your comment to the talk page and left a note to the other editor explaining that blanking talk page comments is generally not done without good reason. I have also placed your sources for the information on the talk page, since at the moment they are not in the article and without them the talk page comment may seem to be problematic by BLP. I agree that the incident seems significant, but am concerned that its method of presentation so far smacks more of trivia than encyclopedic reporting. While I believe it needs more context, I think that it's probably appropriate for inclusion, as a quick google check suggests this incident is notable. I note [13] & [14] among many. While BLP urges us not to be sensationalist or to contravene subjects attempting to remove libel about themselves, it doesn't say we should not report on negative press. I hope that other volunteers at this board will weigh in here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping. ISD (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Hal Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, opinionated against subject, even in the lede, and many "citation needed" tags, very controversial figure.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul le Page Barnett

I have tried to add corrections to this entry, which is about myself, and they are constantly being blocked.

Just for a start, I have never used "Paul le Page Barnett" as a working name, in any context whatsoever. If you wish to rename, for example, the John Grisham entry as "John Ray Grisham", then you might be offering consistency; as it is, it is insulting to me deliberately to label the entry about me with the wrong name.

It would make far more sense if the entry were moved to "John Grant", which is my primary writing name. The huge majority of my readers do not know my real name; most of the international literary awards I have won (two Hugos, the World Fantasy Award, etc.) have been under the JG name; and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.112.52 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the move. If the author's primary name is the pen name "John Grant," the article name should be consistent with that, e.g., "John Grant (author)" (since there are already so many existing John Grants). "Paul le Page Barnett" should redirect to the renamed article. Note that Samuel Clemens, which is a pretty well-known real name, still redirects to Mark Twain. See also George Sand, Andre Norton, George Eliot and many others where the article is named for the better-known pseudonym rather than the actual name. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohamed Elmasry

I think it would be helpful if a few neutral editors reviewed the article and particularly the issue of what sources can and cannot be used. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

David Filo and Jerry Yang

  • A second opinion: I agree. If there's substantial evidence personally connecting these individuals to the controversy, that should be set out and contextualized in the articles with proper sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the names. Chick Bowen 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Ward (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive40&oldid=1138377600"