Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive47

Use of "disgraced" to describe individuals

An editor has been adding the word "disgraced" to describe individuals who have been involved with scandals, e.g., Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, Eliot Spitzer. This has been done in lists where these individuals have been mentioned (as in this diff and this one). Is this usage appropriate per WP:BLP? Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To my eye those entries appear to be instances of WP:UNDUE, particularly (but not solely) because the word "Disgraced" is capitalized. I've already edited the wording for the Scooter Libby item in Eaglebrook School (an article that was on my watchlist). In list entries like these, in which descriptions are typically short, it should be enough to say "former governor" or "former White House staff member" or "CEO of Enron during the Enron scandal." Terms like "disgraced" (or, on the other hand, positives like "popular") are inherently subjective value judgments that should be avoided in that context, even if the words appear (with their sources cited, of course) in the articles about the people. I would avoid these terms in the context of lists even for people (like Ken Lay) who are no longer living. --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a no brainer. Obviously inappropriate. Their actions should speak for themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dick Nasty

This article is essentially one horrific BLP violation, mostly sourced to some blog called "Luke is Back". (To pick just one of a dozen like examples: "Dick Nasty's failure to be taken seriously by the major production studios in LA has meant that Nasty Model's clients are often forced to work in the exploitative low-life/low-budget end of the industy.") I don't see much that can be salvaged here, and think it should be stubbed. What say y'all? - Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful article. I've stubbed it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the offending content appears to be the work of a single editor who has only edited that article. For now, I have salvaged enough to re-establish notability per WP:BIO. As for Luke Ford sourced material, most porn editors revert it on sight. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast work. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

This article isn't strictly a BLP article, but it is closely related to J Michael Bailey and has in the last couple of days come under heavy editing from a new user who seems, so far, committed to presenting only a critical and condemnatory view of Bailey and his work. Could I get some more eyes on this article to help out with its maintenance at a higher level? Avruch ^T 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mirthala Salinas

MAJOR BLP issues with this article.  !!! Corvus cornix_talk 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable, and I've deleted it speedily. FCYTravis (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page is still intact. --Faith (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied that up. Hiding T 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Savage "Sex photographs controversy"

Adam Savage has been getting quite a bit of edits recently due to the leaking of photographs purporting to be from a video of him having sex on 4chan etc. Lots of different IPs that keep adding a section about it even though there are no sources about it. It might need more people looking at it. --Tombomp (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John Hagee

Could I get some more eyes on this article? Various editors keep adding Anti-semitism and Nazi categories to the page, without explanations, I've been removing them, but it would help if there were more people keeping an eye out. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Do we allow the use of Vital Records for a RS? Wouldn't that fall under WP:OR? --Faith (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gareth Ward

An IP user was removing large parts of this article, which was initially seen as vandalism, but he seems to have a good point- this is a borderline BLP violation, but it is sourced. Can someone take a look at this and sort things out? --Rory096 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a ref while taking a look at the article. I think it's okay now as it's sourced, but I wonder if we even need this article. --Faith (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Araken Demelo

The only edits besides the original author are an IP. The IP added an infobox, and wrote that he committed suicide in 2001. The Category:Living people remains on the page. I can't find anything on this guy after looking through google, so I dunno if this is a false death notice, or if he is dead, or what. Wizardman 18:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Added some links, but I couldn't find a RS citing that information either. I left a note on the IPs talk page to please provide citation, and removed the information for BLP. --Faith (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Crews

It seems that this page has been the victim of an admitted povpusher. User:Skoojal just put this up on their talk page[1]. It basically states that he was "a wikipedian with an agenda, [...]" - "out to get" Fredrick Crews, and it seems Arthur Janov.

Skoojal's also been pushing for the insertion of a discredited rumour about Michel Foucault on that article's talk page - it seems Skoojal wants to test teh limits of our policies on BLPs and other biographies.

I've contacted User:DGG about this[2] but something needs to be done about the issue in light of BLP on the Frederick Crews article--Cailil ^talk 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, I am 'an admitted POV pusher.' I certainly admit to having an agenda. I wouldn't insult anyone's intelligence by denying this. Quite the reverse: I have gone to a lot of trouble to announce my reasons for what I did. Not to be too self-serving about it, but this could be considered honesty, which is usually seen as a good thing. As for the Foucault stuff, forget it. It's an entirely different issue, and one that I have much less interest in pursuing. It's also inappropriate and irrelevant to a post about Crews. Skoojal (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to carefully check the relevant edits on the Crews article. The question there is not the motivation directly, but whether they are both verified by RS, and also of fair weight. DGG (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alessandra Mussolini

The Article on Alessandra Mussolini is well researched, but the overview in the beginning of the article leaves out information to show the neofascist politician in a more favorable light, at the same time accusing her opponents of undue criticism:

quote: "Due largely to her family background, Mussolini also gains substantial support from the neo-fascist movement in Italy."

answer: This obscures the fact that she is after all a leading politician in the Italian neo-fascist political scene, as the article even states later, but not in this overview, which is what most people read and which makes Mussolini out to be falsely accused of neo-fascist beliefs.

quote: "She sometimes features on television shows debating with far-left politicians, such as communists. If and when these people make scathing personal attacks against the Mussolini name and her grandfather's entire period of rule, Alessandra defends herself,..."

answer: Alessandra Mussolini's TV and other media debates do not exclusively focus on communist or far-left politicians and political organisations. Her outspoken criticism does frequently also include liberal and even some right-wing democratical parties that support different ideas than Mussolini or that take a stance against neo-fascism or Mussolini's political course. The quote above gives the impression that she is frequently wrongfully accused by left-wing supporters on a personal level or on a name-based level only, disregarding the fact (which was even previously stated) that Mussolini is a strong political figure in her own right and is therefore equally likely to be opposed on the basis of her own political stance as well as the politics of her party.

A rework of the opening passage of the article on Alessandra Mussolini in order to give a more conclusive image of the politician is strongly advised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokoschnuckel (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee

Admin please be aware Isis Gee was found to have misused youtube and wiki in the past by manipulating articles. Looking at the history it seems this is the case.

I was listening to the radio today and there was some discussion about Isis Gee. There was mention that this was very influenced by PR. I just signed up and want to help write this entry. Reading through this, many things well known about Isis are not mentioned:

1. There are severe POV problems in this article, it is worded as an advertisement for Isis in my opinion. From reading through the history it seems a fan is removing negative views. Isis has manipulated sites in the past and was the subject of some controversy in Poland for this.
2. She came equal last in the Eurovision song contest - why doesn't this article explicitly state this. There is a POV problem as her entry did very badly but from the way it is written it sounds like a television commercial for Isis. She also is the only entry only to receive votes from Ireland and the UK which have large Polish communities so constitute block voting.
3. She recieved some very bad reviews but none are mentioned.
4. Talent contest - this is POV. Where is the source? What type of contest? Church? School? I can find no sources saying she was famous in the USA.
5. She is American and does not speak Polish. By definition Polish American must have Polish Grandparents and hold or be able to hold Polish citizenship. Her Great-Grandmother was born in Poland but that is a stretch. This should be removed.
6. I can see there is some discussion regarding her abuse of the internet to fake her celebrity in Poland, this is well known as I even heard it on the radio this morning on LBC. I can't read Polish but my friend has confirmed that the sources above are correct and this is well known in Poland.
7. Why is this article protected? I can see there is disagreement about the POV being blatant positive PR but this has not been discussed instead from the history one user is constantly reverting to the POV entry that reads like a positive television commercial. I am happy to help rewrite the entry but can't do so.

Just to advise I use T-mobile internet which is a shared IP throughout the UK.

Thx

Polishchick99 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day, I agree with Polishchick. From what I heard on the radio the other user is misrepresenting evrything all over the internet - check out the crap youtube coments today! SHE CAME LAST!!! SHE LIES ON YOUTUBE AND WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogan4life (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link from the talk page. can we pls edit the page without the POV stuff, it is funny how desperate she is. Isgreatestman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, this is the same POV that User:Eurovisionman got blocked for (see Polishchick's interesting first edit) and see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PrinceGloria. Recommend closing and/or checkuser to stop all this nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Some new contributoer Lesmandarins (Talk | contribs) created an account especially to attack one living person

Some new contributoer Lesmandarins (Talk | contribs) created an account especially to attack one living person with libellious insults like" This is not true", "never mentioned in textbooks". "obscure Israeli", "This is false". Looks like an angry person. I have asked him to look at http://books.google.com/books?q=Bracha+Ettinger&btnG=Search+Books before he continues to take off sections on ettinger. Since he is only attacking this living person, I suppose that this is sheer vandalism. References for Ettinger's significnce are many thousands, as any simple check on Google-books and google-scholars can provide. I am asking if he can be warned or blocked. Many thanks Artethical (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the users contributions page that may be of some help to anyone looking into this problem [3]. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am responsible for inserting lots of information and references in different pages on Kristeva and for keeping her inside pages from which she was deleted again and again because some people pretended that they have never heard her name. What counts is the references. I am also responsible for inserting lots of info on Irigaray, Ettinger, Cixous and other feminists as well as on psychoanalysis and women psychoanalysts. I belong to a university department that specializes on these figures. I am watching the pages on which I have worked hard together with other contributers. Lesmandarins (Talk | contribs) had simply to make an effort to do some reading himself or to ask for more references if he or she thinks that there are not enough, but not to proceed to delete materials out of ignorance. many references are included according to Wikipedia rules, and more can be added (I think that there is no need to add). In this particular case, there are around 300 book references in http://books.google.com/books?q=Bracha+Ettinger&lr=&sa=N&start=0 and there are around 300 essays referenced in: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bracha%20Ettinger&lr=&sa=N&tab=ps The contributer could ask for additional references, rather than delete. It is quite obvious to me from his contributions that he is only here to attack one living person and not in order to contribute. I wrote in the user's discussion age, and now I would ask to wait and see if the contributer continues in this manner, and if he does continue, to send him or her a warning. Doraannao (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see from a better reading on the top of the page, that this page is not for simple vandalism that can be reverted. Sorry that i have bothered you all. It seems that the vandalism had stopped. So, perhaps no intervention is needed. The deletions were simply reverted by us. lets hope that this is the end of this. Thanks, Artethical (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the contributer stopped his vandalistic activity. No need to interfere I think, unless he reappears. Doraannao (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Child porn convictions in the lead?

A generic question with a specific application. If an otherwise notable living person, who already has an article, is subsequently convicted of having and sharing Child porn, does that mention belong in the lead? Yes? No? Depends if it's done for POV purposes? Case-by-case decision in each article depending on circumstances, WP:WEIGHT, and other things (if so, which guidelines/policies apply)? This arises in the Bernie Ward article, based on edits like this[4] and corresponding removals, but it seems like there might be a wider standard. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For lesser crimes, I'd say evaluate it on a case-by-case basis relative to the subject's notoriety, but for such a major felony it's got to be in the lede, as a key aspect of his notoriety. Rush Limbaugh's drug problems should not be in the lede; Bernie Ward's child porn conviction should definitely be in the lede.Verklempt (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a POV-fork that introduces undue weight into the introduction. The introduction should be brief and concise. At any rate, text regarding his convictions are detailed below. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not a POV-fork, but rather Bernie Ward's talk radio career (and probably most any other type of public career) has been ruined by his self-admitted child porn conviction. It is not bias that placed this reliably sourced fact in the lede. It is by far the biggest impact event in Mr. Ward lifetime, not just in his career. Also, the fact that Mr. Ward based a huge part of his public career on his religious training and belief the child porn conviction really has had a tremendously large effect on that viewpoint and career. (Just as a side note, why is that folks that so worried about BLP violations never seem to find the time or inclination to clean up the Mel Gibson Drunk Driving conviction page Mel Gibson DUI incident, which a Wikipedia monument to BLP violations?). To sum up, Bernie Ward whole career has been ruined by the child porn conviction and it is central part of his life and it has to be mentioned in the lede. Not mentioning it would give the false impression that Ward's career has talk show host is still alive and well, when it isn't.--InaMaka (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Intros should summarize the article. A large part of this article is devoted to the pornography conviction. Therefore it should be in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As a start-class article with some weight issues and some POV edits I'm not sure we should use word counts on sections to decide what gets covered in the lead. Better to start with a solid lead that matches the subject matter and hope the rest of the article can catch up. Which all begs the question, how much weight to give it? Is a crime of perversion a "central" part of a person's life? That's a judgment from outside, nothing objective. The conviction is of interest to people because he is famous, not vice-versa. I.M. makes an interesting point - this is the presumptive endpoint of a notable career. So if the launch of the career is important so is the end. Yet how can we decide a few months after it happens that his life is over, or that a career is defined by one event? Society may have a rule by a scandalous incident gets a wave of news that may (or may not) exceed the constant stream of less intense news coverage. But is that the rule here? There is nothing particularly interesting, or useful, or educational about the sex crime other than it happened. I really don't have a conclusion, just a question. Wikidemo (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing that Marv Albert still has a public career. Bernie has no chance of bouncing back from this. Is there anyone who doubts this? It's obviously the central fact of his life from here on out.Verklempt (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Introductions should summarize the article. Things like this should be handled on a case by case basis. If the child pornography conviction is a large part of the article, then certainly it should be in the article, whether its negative, positive, or what. It's verifiable and in reliable sources, and that's all that matters. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not always--whether it is a large part of the article is sometime a mater of how hard the POV is being pushed. If it is highly relevant to notability it belongs in the lead; if peripheral, not. DGG (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty

Pederasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The following edits 1 and 2 seem to me to be personal attacks against living people by a tendentious editor. Are they BLP violations? // Haiduc (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a possible BLP problem, but you're edits are part of the problem. Obviously, it's unacceptable to say somebody supports adult-child sex, without excellent reliable sources. But, it's also absurd for you to cite a source (Rind) but exclude relevant information about the basis of his beliefs. All highly contentious statements need to be clearly and specifically attributed in the body of the article. You seem to want to present certain minority views as widely accepted. --Rob (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm added nothing about the basis of Bruce Rind's beliefs. The (false) accusation that he condones adult-child sex is part of an implied genetic fallacy and, until a source can be found that connects Rind's publication history with his statements on paederasty, a violation of WP:SYN. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In this edit Haiduc is advancing Rind's views without even mentioning his name in the body (just the footnote). It's certainly policy to attribute contentious claims. Also, making *sourced* statements about Rind's background is not OR. Not all readers know who Rind is, and saying sourced statements about him, is legitimate. And Rind, certainly has a background. --Rob (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I categorically reject all of Thivierr's accusations against me, and his lumping me in with these abusive edits, on a number of different grounds.

1. I did not introduce Rind into the discussion, as he is not necessary to the argument. He happens to be merely one of many who have pointed out this aspect of history.
2. When correcting the slanderous edit (instead of simply reverting it) I linked to the article on Rind.
3. Rind was recently inserted into the discussion by User:PetraSchelm, one of a pattern of tendentious and abusive edits, clearly in order to invalidate the statement and smear this researcher, all at one stroke.

I expect you to retract your accusations, and I hope next time you will not so lightly bandy such insinuations. Leave me out of it and address the injury committed against Rind and Hekma, unless you think that this kind of behavior is what the Wikipedia is for. Haiduc (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to make an apology here - I just realized that the Rind reference was in the article all along, probably added by me a while back. While that puts paid to my claim that User:PetraSchelm was the one who brought Rind into the discussion, in no way does that relieve that user from culpability regarding the defamatory and polemical edits attacking Hekma and Rind. My objections to the BLP infraction and to Thivierr's comments still stand. (I have added another ref to the info in question to show that Rind is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.) Haiduc (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected this page for 48 hours to permit discussion. There have been far too many reverts. DGG (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You make an edit where you remove Rind from the body of the text, to put forward a claim, but leave his name in the citation to support the claim. Now, if you want to "leave out" Rind, that's ok with me, but you need to leave him out fully, which means don't use him as a source, and find other authors to cite. Once again, all highly contentious statements need attribution in the body of the article, to make clear who is saying what. Without attributing views in the body of the text, you make your opinions appear to be accepted facts, which they are not. If Rind is "one of many" cite more of those many "many". Also, I'd note, that DGG didn't protect the article as intended. --Rob (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I have seen your most recent comment. I have to disagree with you - Rind here is simply being quoted as a published authority whose claim has been implicitly endorsed by the journal in which it has been published. For a Wikipedia editor to argue against the validity of such statements by adding defamatory information to the section is not only editorially unethical as an attack on a living person, but is also a kind of underhanded original research, in which the user is combating the cited authority. If that user wishes to contest the validity of the statement, the proper peocedure is to bring into play contrasting opinions, not to smear the scholar whose ideas this user does not like. Also, I do not see this as a contentious statement but a commonsensical statement of fact for anyone familiar with the history of homosexuality.

However, we should not get sidetracked here discussing the validity of this or that statement, but rather we should resolve the question of whether the descriptions of Hekma and Rind, which I see as a smearing, are ethical and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, or not. We should be able to get a clear yes or no, don't you think? Haiduc (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing "defamatory" about accurately characterizing the source--that's absurd. Rind has published in Paidika, and he is famous for arguing that the neutral terminology "Adult-child" sex should be used to refer to some instances of child sexual abuse, in his opinion. As Rob points out, the statement attributed to Rind is being passed off as factual, and not attributed to Rind, who is a very biased source. The statement should read, "according to Bruce Rind..." and some indication of who Bruce Rind is and what his baises are should be given, otherwise it's very misleading. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not characterizing, you are smearing by taking things out of context. This is an encyclopedia, not shock TV. Who cares where he published if he is talking about historical times and saying something any fool can confirm for himself? Haiduc (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuariki Delamere

This article contains a lot of unreferenced material about a living person that appears controversial to me. How much is it O.K. to remove? I am not in a position to evaluate the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced section of negative BLP; I think it may be sourceable, in which case it can be returned, as it would seem pertinent to his career. . The final section, though sourced, is still in my opinion problematic since he was found innocent. I invite other opinions on that part, w with respect to undue weight. DGG (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding the last section. Having been found innocent, do we really need to mention it at all? If so, then it should be a small passing mention, not such a large part of the article. Also, with so much coverage, the finding of innocence is nearly lost as a seeming afterthought. I cut that section down considerably, feeling the details of the charges are not needed as he was found innocent of all charges. --Faith (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carlin (radio presenter)

I contacted the subject of the article and received this reply:

Dear Tony

Thank you very much for your email.

I appear to have been the target of a campaign of malicious vandalism for some months now on Wikipedia articles relating to Q96, Real Radio and, most recently, this "biography" - which has included some libellous comments which I've found quite upsetting. Thankfully, I see that the Wikipedia admins and 'bots' have done their job well and removed most of it.

I believe the people responsible (as it would appear there are a few) are a group of individuals who I went to school with (many years ago!) who clearly haven't grown up - but that's their own problem, and I'm not really interested in pointing fingers or getting back at anyone - I'd just like to put a stop to all the nonsense!

I don't believe there is any reason for there to be a biography about me on Wikipedia. I'm certainly not a 'noteworthy' person as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, and the page seems be nothing more than another outlet for pointless vandalism and false information/accusations 'backed up' by made-up citations.

Therefore, I would appreciate if some action could be taken - preferably the deletion of this 'biography' from Wikipedia.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind Regards,

Paul Carlin

Real Radio Scotland

Music You Just Have to Sing Along To

My question is administrative in nature: in view of this and the fact that the subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO, can I summarily delete the article now, or should I still wait for the AfD to run its course? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Protocol is that you should let the AfD run its course. Prior to the AfD it might have been a speedy or a prod, but once the AfD starts... however in my view you can and should delete it, with a statement that it's temporary pending the AfD outcome, if the material remaining is still an egregious BLP violation. It doesn't sound like that's still the case though, is it? At least not based on my quick look. Might have missed something though. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Myers

User:Bhbulldog is a SPA intent on adding false and liableous info to the BLP of Irish journalist Kevin Myers. Myres today ran an opinion piece about his wiki article in the Irish Independant[5] and specifically mentioned false info added by this account. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy Denning

I've reverted twice, and the edit has reappeared again.[6] Fairly silly, but not in the link given, so it has no place in the article. Could someone please revert and maybe semi-protect, as the editor seems quite determined. Ty 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

There is an obvious bias in this biography that is evident when Samir Kuntar's actions were referenced to that of the holocaust. An unbiased opinion constitutes not intentionally painting someone to be on the extreme of any side. The countries were at war and Kuntar is regarded as a political prisoner who is awaiting to be released (pending current Lebanese/Israeli negotiations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmase (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify which article you're talking about? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is Samir Kuntar in particular [7]. This has already been removed and I would have to agree with the removal at least the part about the holocaust. Other then the poor source, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the actual attack, especially bearing in mind this is an article on Samir Kuntar not the attack or Smadar Haran. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Barry Sisters

There has been some pretty tendentious editing in the (now deleted) history of this article. I've now speedy-deleted the edits in question per speedy deletion criterion G10 and WP:BLP, and turned it into a disambiguation page, and moved the current version of the article to The Barry Sisters (Australia) (currently the subject of a copyvio notice). Can people add both of these articles to their watchlists, please, to check that the deleted material is not re-inserted? -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Entropia Universe

This article makes a number of claims about living people but the sourcing in many cases appears to be dubious with a lot of forum posts, OR and press releases. I removed what appears to be the most serious violation [8] which accused someone of aiding and hiding a paedophile although the only RS is 'The Sun' (hardly a great source in itself) which doesn't mention the named person at all, but it would be good if someone else could go through it, preferably an established editor as it appears sock puppets have been removing information from the article and although the removal may have been proper it's obviously been controversial and usually reverted Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen A. Smith

Talk:Stephen A. Smith (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Stephen A. Smith|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There's some pretty hurtful comments on the talk page. I was thinking maybe archive the page, or just blank it? // Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redacted the header --Faith (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiner Hartenstein

• Reiner Hartenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP claiming to be the subject belives the article does not accurately represent him // MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to reblank it, with a template and talk page note, as there are no citations for the content, and it's being contested by an IP who says he is the subject of the article. I'm also leaving a note on the IP's talk page. If he is the subject, he should be getting BLP assistance. --Faith (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Over at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard, we DID think it was an autobiography, because of the user names involved. See a discussion at COIN, recently archived. Since the original author had not edited Wikipedia for months, we didn't think we could get his attention to the matter. But here he is showing up as 87.177.245.53 (talk · contribs). I'll leave a note and see if we can get a discussion started. It is not actually a bad article, even if it is an autobiography, and certainly does not appear defamatory. He must be unhappy about the tags. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact the only actual comment we have from him is this, from an edit summary: I blanked the article about me, being victim of wiki mobbing by labelling it as autobiography. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I agree subjects don't get to control their bio, I just was using huggle and remembered Jimbo's "Your an idiot if you revert someone removing libel" quote, so I decided I'd bring it here to the experts. MBisanz ^talk 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind, if this is the subject editing, English is probably a secondary language after German, and he may not be fluent enough to defend his position properly. --Faith (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

• Violet Blue (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I went to make some changes here and had sourced edits reverted by editor KathrynA who edits as though she is the subject of the article. Now, I do not want to get into an edit war here, so would a few BLP folks keep watch on this article in the future. It reads like a press release for the most part. Thanks so much. // BenBurch (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll second this request for a BLP watch. I'm not the subject of the article but I do watch it, and there's a fair amount of trolling going on, so I'd be happy with a few more eyes on it to keep it civilized. KathrynA (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• A question regarding the image in this article. BenBurch is asserting that using it is a BLP violation, because it is a publicity photo or self-published. I'm not familiar with why this would be a BLP issue. See our discussion on this topic here: User_talk:BenBurch. Any thoughts? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Better include Violet Blue (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as it seems to be spilling over there. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I removed one bit that was sourced in a circular manner to a site that used Wikipedia as its source material, and left message on the talk page. --Faith (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson BLP talk page archive breaches.

Hi, a number of archived talk pages on the Michael Jackson article have serious BLP breaches. More recent talk page archives are clean due to good watchlisting, however earlier ones are terrible. It might be appropriate to purge these earlier talk page archives. Thoughts. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If im in the wrong place i can take it somewhere else, i just guessed this was it. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• What exactly are you referring to? Can you specify the archives and issues? Hiding T 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch

Hi, I have added some well-sourced, fairly mild criticism of Stephen Barret by Michael Colgan from the Townsend Letters (diff). The Townsend Letters has been published in print since 1983 by people with primarily MDs and PhDs. User:QuackGuru reverts me, but he won't dialogue on how Townsend Letters is not a RS. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The obsolete reference is dated and is a BLP violation. See WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. QuackGuru 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru has just taken out another reliably sourced, longstanding criticism of Stephen Barret (diff). He seems to be claiming ownership over this article, and refuses to discuss with reason. Criticisms on Barret's work don't become dated, especially after 10 years. And he refuses to give reasons for things, instead just asserting them over and over again circularly. Incidentally, he also claims ownership over Quackwatch, where he reverted this good edit, claiming that its controversial when all it does is reduce wordiness, make a title professional (Critics to Criticism) and put basic information on the founder of the organization to the lead. QuackGuru asserts that these two sentences are not redundant:

• 1) Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.
• 2) A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.

He complains because I took the second one out. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed has acknowledged there's no consensus. Read the comment as well as the edit summary. QuackGuru 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus that I could see that the Townsend Letters was unreliable, yep. As far as the change in my comment -- I originally thought WP:CON meant conflict of interest. Hate the acronyms. :p ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there was. Inspection makes it obvious that it is devoted to presenting one side of the question on all matters concerning alternative medicine. DGG (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. The same could be said about Quackwatch itself, yet it litters up many an alternative medicine article. I think the Townsend Letters pass WP:RS in this case. There doesn't seem to be any specific BLP issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Townsend Letter is a fairly partisan and certainly non-mainstream source which has promoted, among other things, AIDS denialism. The presence of individuals with specific degrees on their board shouldn't obscure its lack of medical/scientific credibility. That said, it's not self-published and it is probably a reasonable source as to what the Townsend Letter claims (as opposed to The Truth). Insofar as Quackwatch and its targets go back and forth, it's probably acceptable from a WP:BLP standpoint so long as it's properly attributed and the status of Colgan and the Townsend Letter is sufficiently evident. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also the issue that there is no consensus to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think MastCell presented a balanced perspective. There's also the question of the other longstanding "criticism" which QuackGuru recently took out (diff) from the Village Voice. It's not very critical, but I'd like it to stay, considering how little criticism there is. It just quotes Barrett in saying that he doesn't look at much of the positive research. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration

I will be adding a "website review" by the aforementioned journal, listed on this page. The review is done by a Dr. Joel M. Kaufmann, who did his PhD in Organic Chemistry at MIT. Since QuackGuru and Fyslee will likely contest it, I'd like some input now. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is my response. QuackGuru 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

JSE is not a "Fringe Journal"; rather it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal which often times explores matters outside of the mainstream in a completely valid, acceptable and scientific way. In this case it meets WP:RS and thus there is no BLP issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

JSE is a fringe journal, as previously discussed many....many.....many, many, many times over at Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch. Nice to see that Levine cannot let this one go. I invite ImperfectlyInformed to become BetterInformed by reviewing the archieves on those particular articles. Shot info (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed many times, but unlike you, I don't petulantly hold onto the belief that any of those discussions resulted in any sort of consensual agreement. The issue is still on the table and I remain of the belief that JSE is an acceptable source particularly in this case. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Curiously the consensus as established was for exclusion, you were one of the extreme minority at the time, something which appears not to have changed. Shot info (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Curious is how your version of history differs so greatly from the truth of it all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply to User:QuackGuru is here. Adding the review as a footnote as DGG suggests seems fine by me. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

JSE is not exactly fringe in the usual sense--it's there to encourage the discussion borderline subjects, not specifically to promote them. The avowed intention is to permit the expression of POV, and the articles cannot therefore be used for RSs for other than the POV being expressed in them. The book reviews cover a very wide range of opinions, and represent the views of the authors of the review, not the journal--they are not peer-reviewed in any sense. But neither are most academic book reviews. The job of a book review editor is mainly to select suitable reviewers, and give a light editing for format and the like, and to screen out any that are altogether useless. It is normal and common for academic book reviews to express strong personal opinions of the r reviewer--they have whatever authority the reviewer has, not that of the rest of the journal. The reviews in here can be used for the opinions of the reviewers--if they are sufficiently notable to have a valid opinion on the subject, they give their views/. The reviewer in question here is a frequent reviewer for the journal, and is an accredited biomedical scientist, with a number of peer reviewed publications. He reviews a much wider area than that, including many in which he isnt remotely likely to be an expert. I think the review however can be cited; but it should not be quoted. It should just called a negative review and left at that. It's not really an expert evaluation of the website, and can not be used for implying the professionalism of the editor of that site, but it is a review & all published reviews can be appropriately listed. The link to the article on the journal will make the possible bias clear enough., DGG (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that it was a website review rather than a book review. Shot info (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG on the points that JSE is not exactly fringe in the usual sense and that the Kauffman review is usable as criticism. However, I don't see any issue with quoting directly from the review, though I am not at all opposed to a faithful summarization of the review on the whole or any specific criticism of the review which an editor may wish to include. Obviously, WP:WEIGHT applies and whatever is used from this review should be concise - a sentence or two. Further, I agree with DGG that the criticism should be adequately attributed as the expressed opinions of the reviewer. (i.e. According to Joel Kauffman, PhD...) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Really, the surest recipe for disaster is for an individual with respectable academic credentials in one field to start making pronouncements about a largely unrelated field in which they lack expertise. Examples are legion. I can understand the temptation - but you wouldn't believe me if I corrected Kaufmann on matters of inorganic chemistry, so why is medicine the sort of area where everyone fancies themselves an expert? But I digress. The short answer is that I agree with DGG. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article, including Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. There is no consensus for using this ref. QuackGuru 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I know. Presumably, the lack of consensus is why outside opinions were solicited here. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a lack of consensus to include this unreliable ref and MastCell wrote: I don't think we should make an end-run around the discussions on the notability of this source. QuackGuru 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's great that you're familiar with edits I made in November 2007, but I can't tell what you're on about. My point then was that we should discuss the source. This is discussion about the notability of the source. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of editors rejected JSE as unreliable and or has WP:WEIGHT issues. I don't think we should continue an end-run around old discussions that were resolved a long time ago. QuackGuru 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Paulo Pedroso

Resolved

Considering the sex charges against Paulo Pedroso were dropped, is it giving undue weight in to center his biography around them? He is a living person. These charges against him are also discussed extensively in Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal and mentioned in Casa Pia. Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced that material, leaving the link to Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

A group of editors has been working together here for years to preserve a highly biased BLP. They seem to prefer a hatchet job to presenting the facts in a neutral manner. They work together to oppose reasonable attempts to make the articles NPOV, seeming to be uninterested in other viewpoints, or in attempts to point out statements in the articles that are not supported by the citations, etc. These editors coordinate using power plays to enforce the over-the-top version they like. Critics' perspectives are presented as core material (even in the introduction), claims are made which go beyond even what a critic said in a source, etc. It's the best example I know of perhaps Wikipedia's main weakness - articles at the fringes of Wikipedia are sometimes so far from NPOV that they are absurd and disgraceful, because not enough neutral people care enough about them to make them decent. -Exucmember (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I linked the title of this thread to the article for the benefit of other editors. I just had a quick look at the article. It is true that a few of the sources, and a few of the edits, appear to be in direct conflict with our WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies, especially original synthesis (see WP:SYN). I also removed a couple of examples of unreliable sourcing to blogs (see WP:RS), but I'm afraid that I don't have time right now for a thorough review of the article. I hope that other editors will have the chance to scrutinize it. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

one of the problems is whether it is appropriate in the lead of the article, after saying he opposes Darwinism, to specify that Dawinism has the scientific consensus. Frankly, I think that's absurd--the article is linked to the article on evolution, which makes matters obvious--as if anyone didn't know. Similarly about AIDS denialism. The link is sufficient. I have removed the references which do indeed bias the article in a negative direction. It's like giving a refutation of communism in an article about a figure in the Soviet Union. 'The length of the critical quotes about him is also somewhat in excess of what is needed. I have edited accordingly, to supplement the good work that Readings has already done. DGG' (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Samir Geagea, editor refuses to get the point

User:Regman007 is doggedly insisting on including negative contentious information about the subject, sourced to a personal advocacy website. He's reverted like a dozen times now. Admin action needed? <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of statements on different sides appear unsupported or poorly supported. I've protected for 48 hours to stop the edit war for the time being DGG (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat Lee

Can we get some more eyes on this article. It tends to violate WP:NPOV by focussing too much on the critical. Thanks. I'm going to have a pass at it, but I have done so before, so I'd appreciate help. Hiding T 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And you resolved that by removing ANYTHING critical? The man IS surrounded by a lot of controversies. That's fact, and it should be mentioned in the article. (the controversies are a huge part of what the man is known for these days) The article cites statements by the people involved that directly refer to Lee, and furthermore cites examples of statements Lee made that completely avoid the controversies. None of the accusations are claimed as fact. The only thing claimed as fact is that those persons made those statements. And since those statements are sourced, that's hard to dispute (unless you were to claim that all the various interviews are forged). BLP does not mean "Nothing bad should ever be said about a living person", nor "if the person doesn't address well-documented controversies surronding his person, those don't belong in the article". The Edison Chen article has a section devoted to the scandal his name is associated with. Are you also going to challenge that?--87.164.68.46 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Edison Chen article, it appears there are daily newspaper's listed as sources, not internet gossip columns and fansites. That fact alone differentiates the two articles and the approaches taken. Given that you state that the controversies surrounding Pat Lee are a huge part of what the man is known for, can you cite some newspaper coverage, or even Comics Journal coverage? If none such exist, I'm not sure it is the case that Pat Lee is as controversial a figure as you seem to indicate. Now, just because someone said something, this does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. For example, see WP:NPOV, specifically Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. and Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate." Hiding T 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake. It's a comic book story! You're not going to find newspaper articles about comic book companies and their presidents, you're going to find it on these "fansites", as you call them. Wizard is essentially a buttkiss mag, much like video games magazines they can't say anything bad about a creator or a company because then that person or company will not work with them for content ever again. We've posted sources from people who have been personally screwed out of money by Pat Lee and you still say "Oh, you're lying, you all just want to make Pat look bad because that isn't from Comics Journal!". It's people like you that are hurting the flow of information in Wikipedia because everything according to you has to be sourced from Peter Jennings. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. You seem to be saying that because it is a comic book story we can disregard fundamental principles because someone said this so it must be true? You seem to have a very biased view by presenting this as involving people who have been screwed out of money by Pat Lee. When a company goes bust, people get owed money. You seem to be arguing that Pat Lee intended for all of this to happen, and yet you have failed to find a single source for that assertion. Hiding T 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The assertion is not that Pat Lee intentionally screwed people out of money. The assertion is that people are owed money, and Pat Lee never ever addressed this matter at all. That's what the interviews with him are for. All he ever talked about was "Oh, my company went bankrupt, how sad for me". He did not even include a word of pity for his former employees. That is the whole point of the controversy. He went out of the affair with a new job and never looked back. He did not communicate before the bankruptcy (which is abcked up by the Don Figueroa, Guido Guidi and Simon Furman interviews), and he went completely "what's past is past" following the bankruptcy.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So your point is that Pat Lee has not publicly expressed remorse? have you considered that he may not legally be able to? Yes, that's likely not true, but, you can't base a fact on a lack of evidence, you base it on sourced evidence. We can't say it's highly strange for Pat Lee not to comment on it. We can however, quote a reliable source who makes that same claim. Have we got one? You may hold Pat Lee to a higher moral standard than you believe he holds himself too, but that's not the basis for writing a Wikipedia article. That's teh basis for a journalistic inquiry. Hiding T 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some comments on the talk page without making changes to the article, but there are some valid BLP concerns there. There needs to be more eyes on this, as unreliable sources are being used to added contentious material. --Faith (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I redacted a word from one editor's comment on the talk page for BLP. If it could have the strength of an admin telling the editor that's just not on, it would be appreciated. --Faith (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cherie Blair

Could some interested persons take a look at this page? The controversies section is very long and given well more than due weight. A severe pruning appears in order.--Slp1 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it reads very much as a WP:COATRACK. I have placed a {{unbalanced}} tag on the page, and commented in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit and left a note on the talk page. --Faith (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins article

"Clinton Richard Dawkins has no idea about anything and is the worst theologian in history (just read God Delusion for proof), and thinks he knows everything," Just check this start of the article and i think you know what i mean, What kind of way of starting an article about someone is this? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.214.139 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was vandalism and has now been removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Carole Migden

• Carole Migden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this Senator is in a heated election on June 3rd and the article seems to be pretty nasty.

Could someone please have a look at the controversy and personal life sections? This is a current election senator up for election in 2 days. 71.139.56.18 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Nazis

Ex-Nazis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a list of ex-nazis. Many lack inline citations, and have redlinked names, indicating that further information isn't in another article. Should all the individuals without inline citations be culled? Andjam (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that if the main article is properly sourced as to their being ex-Nazis then that is good enough though I would not object to adding one representative good source to the list article. I have mixed feelings about redlinks but if they are to stay in the list they should have multiple very credible sources present in the list. In other words, anything that is not very well sourced either in the main article or in the list must come out. You can make the call as to the sourcing and defend it as needed. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could use a little more NPOV. It makes it seem like every former member of the Nazi party was equally responsible for the Holocaust and WW2 war crimes. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I adjusted the lead a bit - see if it looks any better to you. Further adjustments may be needed. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I do not see Oskar Schindler in the list although he should be there. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the article consistent with some discussion on talk, in edit summaries, and even in the lead sentence of the article itself. Hopefully this will reduce the confusion. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

question regarding BLP application to discussions

When a user posts substantially inaccurate, consistently unsourced, generally disparaging statements regarding living persons who are the subjects of articles being considered for deletion, is is appropriate under BLP to remove those statements from the AFD discussions? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are refering to Paul Hullah, I agree with you that Qworty's comment goes beyond what is needed in an AfD discussion and skirts the edge of WP:BLP if not actually crossing the line. Have you asked Qworty to remove the offensive bits? Editing another user's comments is frowned upon especially if you have previous involvement with the editor. I will ask Qworty to please see this thread and perhaps s/he will amend the comment. However I must also say that I find this: This AFD is a sad display of the meanspiritedness, ignorance, and incivility of the several of the editors involved, on your part disturbing as that is a blanket condemnation of unnamed editors and I interpret it as an attack against the nominator. I see little wrong with the nomination and persons of good faith can disagree on the notability of a subject. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should interpret it as well-founded criticism of the nominator, whose AFD comments seem to reflect a lack of interest in honesty and civility. Note this discussion [9], where the same nominator simply fabricates a claim that the subject of the article is a "vanity press," an action that many would see as demonstrating malice. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And Qworty has followed up on your communication by posting another personal attack in another AFD discussion. I think you should be more by abusive users who use Wikipedia as a soapbox to disparage random targets of their malice than by those who find such behavior indecent and uncivil. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would second the concerns about Qworty, who has for a very long time now been peppering his deletion assertions with downright nasty speech, often supported by unverified assertions, and accusing article creators of conflicts of interest and other misdeeds without so much as a cursory check. This ongoing pattern of negative assumption-making and deletionism for deletionism's sake is hurting Wikipedia, and whenever a user calls him on it, he goes on the warpath and reverts every constructive edit of theirs that he can scarcely justify reverting. In short, Qworty needs some serious reigning in. He is hurting Wikipedia, and he is driving good editors away. 72.241.103.218 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Behavior such as you describe as "warpath" would be stronger grounds for censure then simply being aggressive in his phrasing. See WP:STALK and WP:3RR if applicable. If you have convincing evidence of such then you should bring it to WP:AN. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samia Saleem I agree that Qworty has an agressive turn of phrase and that post has borderline WP:AGF issues. However this is not the correct forum to bring your concerns about another editor. You can try WP:AN or WP:ANI and post the most blatant examples and see if an admin will ask him/her to tone it down. If they turn you down there you can pursue WP:DR. Be aware that your own comments will come under scrutiny in either case. Wikipedia is tolerant of spirited discussion and addressing concerns such as yours can be tiresome. However if you feel strongly then I suggest you first approach Qworty in a collegial manner with your concerns and resist any temptation to vent in any manner and go to AN if that does not work. Best wishes --Justallofthem (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see it as a violation of BLP, its clearly just his opinion about the quality of his work which no one has a reason to take seriously, rather than a specific allegation of anything. The importance of the subjects work is often a matter of discussion at Afd and there has to be a way to express negative opinions about it or we can;t have a proper discussion. But the way it's expressed does seem unpleasant, and doesn't contribute to resolving issues cooperatively.DGG (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To return to my original question, I note that WP:BLP states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and 'project space'. It also states that, in dealing with non-article pages, BLP should not be used as a rationale for deleting unfavorable comments regarding other editors, but clearly does not make a similar exception for inappropriate comments about article subjects. Given the stress the plicy places on immediate action, I see no justification for allowing the attacks on article subjects -- as distinct for the civil discussions of notability -- to remain. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been given responses to your original question from two experienced editors (one an admin) and advice on how to best proceed from one. You are free of course to interpret the policy yourself and act accordingly. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I would like to see some further discussion of the matter, particularly since the responses do not appear to be consistent with the applicable policy. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin and Muhammad al-Durrah

Ongoing BLP concerns relating to conspiracy theories that the former (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the latter (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial, so there are significant and active BLP issues in this case. There have been some attempts to state the conspiracy theories as fact or to claim that the French courts have supported them (they didn't). There are also obvious undue weight issues as well. Some eyes on the articles, particularly on the Muhammad al-Durrah article, would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Rubashkin

Moshe_Rubashkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I reverted this article to a version with sourced information about legal issues, since the removals were unexplained. Please review my comment on the talk page, and whether the article should be reverted back because of poor quality of sources. Notice that the article has already received some checking of sources like here. I'm too unexperienced to do this by myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified of this thread to all users that edited the article on a significant way. I didn't link this thread from the talk page of the article so that readers of the article aren't directed to a place where BLP issues are being dissectionated. (On hindsight, I should have mailed them instead, damn >.<) ---Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Susana A. Herrera Quezada

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana A. Herrera Quezada (2nd nomination)

This article about Chilean architect is clearly a self-promoting entry. It is highly self-praising, and gives a lot of non-relevant information on her work. Articles about living people should be about relevant persons in their fields. The English translation is very badly done, as if made in a hurry only to appear in the english section of Wikipedia. Besides, it gives no links to her works, as to allow the reader to verify the quality of what is described in the text. --maxat (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if two blurbs in the same trade magazine Architecture week establish notability, but that magazine is in English, so others can evaluate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a good deal of puffery, rather incoherently translated into English. I went in and cleaned it out as best i could. I don't think this is a BLP issue, really. If anyone doubts notability, AfD is the place. DGG (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Various press. For more information, Google "Susana Herrera" +architect --Faith (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm restoring this to the main noticeboard because it's an ongoing issue. This article has been nominated again for deletion, despite the multiple independant magazine articles written on the subject. This is enough to establish notability. I would appreciate more eyes on this. --Faith (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

List of convicted Australian criminals

List of convicted Australian criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - not a dispute at all, but a question. I am concerned that some of those listed are not notable per WP:BLP1E, and would appreciate a second opinion. While I have no sympathies, my main concern is with the child sex offenders listed. Cheers Kevin (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why those in particular? At least one of the subjects in that particular section redirects to a page on the relevant case. Notability issues of individual entries aside, if the sourcing is enough to give the name of the subject as the one convicted, then why not organize that information into a list? It seems to me like the logical thing to do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess concern is too strong a word. Interested in opinions is more what I am thinking. I removed an entry in the child sex section recently that had a {{fact}} tag, and then I started wondering how WP:BLP1E related to those convicted of a single crime. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grant Shapps

• Grant Shapps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of anonymous users (actually I think it's one user using multiple IPs) keep removing some sections from this biography. The facts removed, which were not written by me, are a little embarrassing to Mr Shapps, but they have citations and seem relevant to me. I keep undoing the deletes, but could someone who knows more about this than me check and see if it's me that's out of order here. Bangers (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangers edits are clearly based on a partisan motive which breach Wikipedia rules; including; "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner...", whereas your approach appears to be from a deliberately partisan Liberal Democrat perspective. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented...in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." Bangers comments appear to be both out of proportion to the total biography and disputed in fact. Bangers has also removed BBC sources and largely replaced them with blog posts. "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections." Bangers inserts appear to border on trivia and gossip, while removing fact. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist... An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." Again Bangers comments are disproportionate to this particular individual. However, in order to try and resolve an ongoing dispute we posted an updated bio which included more researched and properly referenced information mostly from the BBC, along with a more balanced reference to the specific information Bangers seems keen to include. However Bangers has still undone this more detailed work which cannot be in anyone's best interest if Wikipedia is to remain a reliable reference source. These types of disputes are rarely very productive and our last post was designed to incorporate some of Bangers concerns. We've replaced it once again and suggest that Bangers edit's in his/her comments to the more detailed biography which is now present without contravening any of the guidelines and we can all get on with something more meaningful elsewhere on Wikipedia. 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This has turned into an edit war. Please can an editor take a look at this bio and adjudicate. There are better ways to improve it than this. Bangers (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a clean-up and added some fact tags. If these citations aren't added within the next week or so, I'm going to remove them from the article. --Faith (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangers seems strangely obsessed with this individual appearing desperate to include a section about a specific by-election (perhaps he was involved) which appears vastly out of scale and proportion to overall biography on file with Wikipedia. The by-election heading now strangely occupies more space than either of the descriptions of Parliamentary jobs including the individuals position in the UK Shadow Cabinet. Indeed the main allegation is in any case strenuously denied here http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/07/shapps-denies-astroturfing-allegations.html and so this section is dubious to say the least.

I'm not sure what else can be done because each time attempts are made to clear up this biography Bangers is there weaving his particular perspective back in place. 66.240.236.13 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bangers latest edit is part of his clear agenda to try to present this living person in the worse possible light. The new section added on donations is refuted here whtimes.co.uk link but either way your attempts to edit in as much bad news as possible is in danger of overstepping Wikipedia guidelines once again and is making this a slanted biography by any reading.

Bangers previously agreed to accept editors amends but has since simply reposted everything that was removed, adding in spurious headings which are apparently on a par with the main biographical details. For those of us who want to see Wikipedia being a worthwhile biographical resource he/she is making life difficult. See my previous post of 23:07 on 30 May 2008 above. 69.10.33.195 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded and edited the disputed entries to be NPOV, added more citations and added in Grant Shappes' and the Conservatives explanations. Bangers (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually what you've done is further extend the by-election section which is completely disproportionate to the overall biography, both in having a separate heading and by comparison to the other parts of this entry. Time for the moderators to intervene before Bangers destroys more biographies with whatever his particular perspective happens to be. As 69.10.33.195 said above, Bangers previously wrote that he would abide by the editors (mods) ruling, but has then completely ignored it. 66.240.236.55 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have abided by the ruling "I've cleaned the article up a bit, including removing the material about Hodgkin's Lymphoma and remission, which must be cited before it can be re-added into the article (text can be found in history if citation is found) ... if any parts are still under contention for BLP, make sure additions are well cited to reliable sources. If something is even a bit iffy, it should be left out until well verified. --Faith (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)".
I have add a lot of citations, I have reworded other peoples postings to make them NPOV and I have added in the explanations for the controversial incidents. The YouTube posting got a lot of coverage at the time, so I do feel it should be included. If an editor says that the YouTube postings and the donations should not be included I will not reinsert them again. If you feel that these areas are disproportionate then perhaps it is because the other sections are too light and need expanding Bangers (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• It still represented some neg-POV which I fixed with information from the refs. I also removed a "cited" section, as the added refs did not mention Shapps at all and therefore were not valid as used. --Faith (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thomas W. Davis

Thomas W. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Would some experienced hands please look at this article. What I consider biased, tabloid, cherry-picked "he said, she said" was added here. I removed it here citing BLP concerns but was reverted by a third editor. I find the Village Voice bit especially egregious as the only comment on Davis' statement was by the blogger Ortega who is an extremely biased source. I do not think this treatment of Davis reflects well on this project. Thanks Justallofthem (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed the blog portion for not being a RS and for BLP issue, but the rest are cited to newspapers, so will have to be viewed for UNDUE, rather than RS. --Faith (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help with this one since I have promised not to edit any Scientology-related articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Steve, your opinion on any BLP issues would certainly be welcome even if you do not care to directly edit the article. Good hearing from you again. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you invited, I'll make a comment on this one. Mr. Davis is really only noted for one incident in which he was rude to a TV reporter doing a story on Scientology. Sometimes people are rude to me too, but I don't write WP articles about them when they are. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I commented on the talk page as well. The material I removed that was cited to a blog comes from a tabloid newspaper's EiC's blog. It's not a RS, IMO, and the material was contentious, so it needed to be removed for BLP. --Faith (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This information should be restored. Tony Ortega is not simply a blogger - he is the Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice:

Press Release, Village Voice Media (March 5, 2007). "Tony Ortega Named Village Voice Editor-in-Chief". The Village Voice. {{cite web}}: Check |first= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Reply to FaithF: - Respectfully, there is zero source provided, so far as I can see, to show that The Village Voice is anything other than a respectable newspaper. Unless you can provide a third-party source for your assessment of "tabloid" ? And as for Tony Ortega, he is a Livingston Award and Eugene S. Pulliam Award finalist, and is a recipient of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year Award, the Los Angeles Press Club Award for best news story, the 2002 Unity Award and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column. This source is most certainly WP:RS. Respectfully request that you please reconsider your assessment of The Village Voice and Village Voice Media. It is simply not appropriate to call something a "tabloid" unless you have an assessment from a third-party source to back that up. The Village Voice is a WP:RS and the writings of the Editor-in-Chief of that publication should be considered as such. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see response at Talk:Thomas W. Davis. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication

The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication. Here are a sample of some of the more prestigious awards that The Village Voice has been honored with:

• 2007 Pulitzer Prize (L.A. Weekly is owned by Village Voice Media), Criticism - Jonathan Gold, the L.A. Weekly’s restaurant critic, has won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism. This is the first Pulitzer Prize for the L.A. Weekly and the first time a restaurant critic has won the distinguished award. -

"LA Weekly - Eat+Drink - Jonathan Gold Wins Pulitzer Prize - The Essential Online Resource for Los Angeles". www.laweekly.com. 2007-04-16. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

• 2000 Pulitzer Prize, International Reporting - Awarded to Mark Schoofs of The Village Voice, a New York City weekly, for his provocative and enlightening series on the AIDS crisis in Africa.

"2000 Pulitzer Prize Winners - INTERNATIONAL REPORTING, Citation". www.pulitzer.org. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

• 2001 National Press Foundation Award, The Village Voice, the nation’s largest alternative weekly newspaper, today announced that their website www.villagevoice.com will receive the prestigious Online Journalism Award from The National Press Foundation. This distinguished honor will be presented during a reception on February 21, 2002 at the Hilton in Washington D.C.

"www.villagevoice.com Wins National Press Foundation Award". www.aan.org. Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. 2001-12-19. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

• 1981 Pulitzer Prize, Feature Writing - Teresa Carpenter of Village Voice, New York City

"The Pulitzer Prizes for 1981". www.pulitzer.org. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

• 1960 George Polk Award, Community Service

"The George Polk Awards for Journalism". www.brooklyn.liu.edu. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

Here is a more extensive list of awards that The Village Voice has been honored with over the years:

"The Village Voice - About us - Editorial Awards". Village Voice Media. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

The writings of the Editor in chief of this highly respected and award-winning media publication satisfy both WP:RS and WP:V, and are as such most appropriate for Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony Ortega and Village Voice were accepted as a Reliable Source (by maintaining citation #8.) But User:FaithF rejected citation #20 by the same author in the same publication on the basis that it was in the form of a blog. WP policy does not outright ban the use of blogs as RS. Mainstream news blogging is becoming a more acceptable form of news presentation, as witnessed by the award-winning blogs by staff journalists at The Sydney Morning Herald. Having established that Ortega and Village Voice are Reliable Sources (whether published as a blog or main opinion piece or whatever), the only thing at issue is whether the quoted content is appropriate or not for inclusion in the article. --David from Downunder (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• As stated on the talk page of the relevant article, don't put words into my mouth. Oversight of a citation from the same source does not equal acceptance of that source, as my statement at that time outlined. --Faith (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this discussion still ongoing? The Village Voice is a reliable source per WP polices. End of story. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a legitimate WP:BLP issue as regards using a derogatory remark made by one blogger, even if the blog is on an RS newspaper and the blogger is the editor of that paper. Further, BLP makes special conditions for barely notable people such as Davis and these conditions also speak against inclusion. There is an on-going discussion and you are premature in restoring the material especially in such a dismissive manner. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with admin Gamaliel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice is certainly reliable, but this is not the Village Voice, it is a blog associated with the Village Voice. A blog is a blog, even if it's associated with a RS, right? ATren (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No it is not just associated with The Village Voice, it is published by The Village Voice on their award-winning website and written by their Editor in chief. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A blog is a blog is a blog, but a blog is a reliable source if it is published by an award-winning institution with a solid reputation and is written by an employee of that institution. It doesn't become suddenly unreliable because it is published on one part of their website instead of another. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this note seems to cover this exact case. I didn't realize before now that newspaper blogs could be considered reliable. ATren (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Popping by for a quick comment or two. The featured article search engine optimization contains a citation to Matt Cutts's blog, and had that citation when it passed featured article candidacy. Wikipedia accepts blogs by notable experts on the same basis it accepts other expert self-publications. To label the blog of the editor-in-chief of a Pulitzer winning newspaper self-published is splitting hairs: it can only be regarded as such in the sense that, as head of the publishing enterprise, he's already the most senior expert in the organization. It would be a strange parsing of Wikipedia policy to treat him as somehow less reliable than the junior reporter who gets edited by somebody that this author hires and fires. How "negative" is the statement, really? He's talking about the way that the public relations arm of an organization gives press interviews. That's a reasonable thing for the head of a major newspaper to discuss, and entirely within his expertise. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily splitting hairs. Even if he is editor-in-chief, when he writes a published column he is writing for his newspaper, whereas on the blog he is generally writing for himself (though there may be exceptions to this, as noted here). The former is reliable, unquestionably, but I think the latter should be handled with more care, especially when it's a BLP. This does not necessarily mean it's unreliable (and I don't believe it is in this case), but it's just not so clear-cut and may need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis (as was done here). ATren (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That seems to describe this case, so the blog can be considered a RS. It's a "Village Voice" blog. I think the citation should stay. And obviously the Village Voice is not a tabloid in the pejorative sense, but rather in the formatting sense. ImpIn | (t - c) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Unlike some other Scientology-related articles (like Xenu and Tom Cruise), I would expect there would be almost no public interest in this one. Probably the only people who will read it are Mr. Davis and his friends. And since being rude to critics and the media seems to be considered a virtue among Scientologists no harm will be done. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, we put notches on our e-meters. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  I wasn't thinking of you when I said that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Karin Pouw

The section Karin Pouw#Representative to media is a WP:COATRACK laden with WP:BLP violations against a number of individuals. I removed it but was reverted by the author and again by a 3rd party, both without addressing the pertinent issues. Please take a look at this section, I am pretty much appalled. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To uninvolved editors - every single sentence in that article is highly sourced to such WP:RS/WP:V sources such as Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, etc. The article describes Karin Pouw's role as a Church of Scientology official in some notable events which were extremely prominent in the media. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd trust Cirt if only for his reputation - if he can get articles under probation to FA, then he's got a good idea of what is and is not violating the content policies. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have known Cirt for as long or longer than any editor here and could certainly show you another side of Cirt but that would be equally irrelevant. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, imagine if we filled the article on a Whitehouse Spokesperson, with every example of them dealing with the press on a controversial issue, or every case of a difficult/embarrassing question/answer. The key here is Pouw is a representative of an organization. The content is legitimate, but the location is what's really in doubt. There's no defamation. There's also not a proper biography. The info belongs in an article on Scientology's public relations. Sceptre, I strongly disagree with your "reputation"-based analysis. I think a read of the article and WP:COATRACK, shows there's a problem. --Rob (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She is not simply a spokesperson, she is a Director of the organization and one of its highest-ranking officials. As such, her views on key issues that she has been quoted on are highly relevant. Especially when her comments have provoked subsequents actions and media coverage. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree Rob, it is a WP:COATRACK, pure and simple. None of those statements is about Pouw, none belong in her bio. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They are statements which directly concern her and executive activities which she was involved in, not to mention that many are her own words and direct quotes about key issues she was involved in at a high-executive-level in the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They directly concern the organization. Move them to where they belong. Also, the bio doesn't actually make clear how signficant her role is. If she's so important, you should have included those facts in the article. You didn't. Instead you just included a bunch of typical Scientology positions, which she puppetted. --Rob (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She has three direct roles in the organization - Director, Office of Special Affairs, and Spokesperson. She is not simply involved in responses to media but at the policy level as well. And FYI - she is Director of Public Affairs - and she described the Office of Special Affairs as a "public affairs office". So she has a high-level of responsibility in that role as well. The material in the article is not just her responses, it reflects her role in the actions of the organization itself - and at a very high executive level at that. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, how can you know any of what you claim. If you know Scientology then you know that policy is dictated by Policy Letters written by Hubbard and subsequently by Miscavige. I doubt she is involved in drafting policy and I wager that you cannot prove your claim either. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And on what do you base your claim that she in involved in the Office of Special Affairs. My dad had a phrase that would fit here but I will spare you that (smile). --Justallofthem (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And Cirt, you are once again carrying on the same discussion in two places with double-posting. I really wish that you would not do that - it makes discussion quite difficult. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is another example of a lot of time and effort being spent on an article that almost no one will ever read. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Cuddy

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Cuddy

Christophercuddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice blanked this page 1, 2 saying, "As the subject of this article, I would prefer not to have a wikipedia page. I think that this was done in a distasteful way. Christopher Cuddy." This article was the subject of a BLPN discussion in March (see this archive). Should this user be reverted or should this page be deleted? Cunard (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave him advice on his talk page and I see another editor has already restored the article. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the quick response! Cunard (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion as non-notable. I did not find it distasteful however. It was actually very positive. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lazydork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please remove

Resolved

 – Let AFD handle this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Richard Stern the subject of this article. For personal privacy reasons I'm requesting it be deleted. Also, I am no longer notable in these sense contemplated by the original creator; in fact, I am no longer notable at all in the public domain. Please feel free to contact me at <e-mail redacted> re: this issue. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazydork (talk • contribs)

1) I've edited-out your e-mail; it's never a good idea to post real-life e-mail addresses, phone numbers, etc. to Wikipedia. 2) We don't delete articles just because the subject has retired. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The user has started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Stern. WP:OPTOUT is not policy, but I'll give this request serious consideration. If consensus says "keep," you're out of luck. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaavya Viswanathan

• Kaavya Viswanathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've gotten into a bit of an edit war with an IP user over the lede to this article and the inclusion of an info box. The lede was revised based on discussion on the talk page, in part because identifying the subject as an undergrad is no longer appropriate and in part to reflect the actual controversy. I also feel an info box is problematic because there is little info to report that isn't in the lede and it serves to condense the controversial aspects into a single word. Also the dummy image adds a wanted poster feel to the article, which is already quite negative. I'd welcome another opinion on this.agr (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the intro as it stands. I think an infobox is not needed. I am aware of the controversy around this person from reading a newspaper article last year. Given the difficulty of balancing BLP and NPOV, I think this article is okay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson

Attempts to make minor edits to improve neutrality on recent events are almost immediately deleted, with name-calling and accusations made by user csloat in the discussion thread. These edits and the discussion largely concern a hoax now many people believe was started by Johnson and involving Michelle Obama. It is my theory that Larry himself is guarding the page via the user csloat to protect the bias of the page and perpetuate the hoax. He has also resorted to name calling when I asked for corroborating sources on his background. Since the content regarding Michelle Obama is unsourced and libelous, I think Wikipedia should investigate the user csloat and the efforts to prevent edits to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.101.205 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. User:Commodore Sloat is a senior editor here, having started in 2004. I don't think he has any conflict of interest. Please don't ask for outside opinion when you can resolve the matter on the article's talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did use the talk pages. He just said I was editorializing by adding one line that the alleged video never materialized. He also called it "weasley" to put that line in. The quickness the edits were made, the belligerence, and unprofessional scolding lead me to believe that in any case, your senior editor has a dog in the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.101.205 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that about 90% of the article is a coatrack for Johnson's opinions on various issues. I think the rumor about Mrs. Obama should be removed since it is sourced only by a blog. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and took out the whole section on the 2008 election since it was not related to his notability. Most Americans seem to have an opinion but we don't put that in their WP articles unless it makes a difference. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it is news, since the hoax has now been repeated on Fox News several times. But as long as it's not just being used to perpetuate the rumor without noting that Johnson nor anyone else has a shred of evidence to back their claim, I'm happy to let it drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.101.205 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon adding defamatory info to Jessica Valenti

The anon ip 71.124.120.64 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding defamatory info to Jessica Valenti, and attacking users (me, in this case) in his/her edit summaries. --Damiens.rf 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon is still reverting to the offensive version and using edit summaries like "DICKS EVERYWHERE!!!" and "vert per Damiens.rf smokes pole.". Am I reporting it to the wrong place? --Damiens.rf 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 36 hours. We'll see if the anon editor get the message.--agr (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability and quality of sources for International Healing Foundation.

• Richard A. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit war over the "International Healing Foundation" section of Richard A. Cohen. Discussion. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-04t22:29z —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis

• Frank Marshall Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• user Flatterworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been removing two paragraphs of speculation that the subject of the article is a "Frank" discussed in Barack Obama's memoir. This may be true and either way is hardly defamatory, but we don't have the standard of proof needed for an encyclopedia. The only proof is the speculation of one writer for the Marxist monthly Political Affairs. Other sources used in the article include blogs and an attack piece from the fringe group Accuracy in Media. My efforts to remove offending material have been repeatedly reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be handling the edit controversy admirably. For what it's worth, I support your point of view that the blog cited by Flatterworld is not a reliable source and in context should not be used. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, at least the blogs and AIM pieces have been stripped from the article, and the other user seems content to just keep restoring the paragraphs of speculation. Now that he's taken to insulting me on the talk page, I'm probably going to abandon this article and let someone else get involved. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Liz Wilde

Liz Wilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd appreciate some opinions on this article. Lizwilde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to be the subject the article, continues to edit the article after numerous WP:COI notes on her talk page. Rtphokie (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Numerous is a word I'd love to ban, especially when the number can be counted without taking one's socks off. By my count, four, by the way! All in good fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your comments? Do you not think this editor has been sufficiently warned, do you think WP:COI doesn't apply here or are you just sharing your thoughts on the word "numerous"?--Rtphokie (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just on the word "numerous".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is poorly sourced at present. If it doesn't have reliable sources except for three newspaper articles from the 90s, and a short item in Business Wire from 2001. If we can't find more reliable sources, I think an AfD might be considered. The other possibility is to stubbify the article. (I didn't go into the for-pay sources, and I doubt that any books have been written about her). The subject can't go ahead and write an article out of personal knowledge, and then leave it at that. Deletion is a good way to avoid all BLP issues, in the case of an article subject whose notability may be questioned. I am not sure that WP:BIO can be met using the sources that are now in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the article be AFD'd while it is fully protected?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Wilde is active and in progress. — Athaenara ✉ 09:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John Gustafson (disambiguous?)

Having a bit of trouble figuring out how to make a significant shift (both within the wiki community and with proper syntax).

There is at present a new bio for John L. Gustafson who has made significant contributions to High Powered Computing, is presently CEO of Massively Parallel Technologies, and is the inventor of Gustafson's Law. There is also a page for a musician John Gustafson who has been in a variety of songs over the last several decades. I think a disambiguation page is necessary (there are also John Gustafson characters in "grumpy old men" played by Jack Lemon and Burgess Meredith.). I am having difficulty in both the implementation, and the permission to do so. There is someone who seems quite protective of the musician site. Advise? Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisourus (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with creating a dab page so long as it is done properly and the links updated. --John (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Faith (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Michele Renouf

• Michele Renouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Byafet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since October 2007, User Byafet has been editing this article to introduce NPOV commentary and language, add unreferenced facts, and delete neutral biographical information. This user has been warned numerous times on his or her talk page to no avail, as the user shows no willingness to engage in discussion. The user shows no sign of stopping this continued pattern of tendentious editing to this article. - Eron^Talk 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this and made some MoS corrections, as well as adding back in facts about the conference that were removed (albeit in a neutral fashion), adding 5 of the many citations from the conference wiki article so that the addition is well cited. I think there's more than one dimension to this problem in review and request additional eyes on the article. --Faith (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Saab Lofton

This author has emailed a complaint about the material that was in the article about him. He's since edited in so as to (in his view) fix problems with the text that was there before. At present the article is entirely lacking in references ... could it please receive the finest of BLP attention, and suitable referenced additions as needed? Possibly bits of the history need deletion, I haven't checked through myself - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it and believe it should simply be deleted. I can find no evidence that this person has achieved any level of notability that would meet WP:BIO. His books appear to be vanity press / self-published. It's a puff piece. 67.67.219.223 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Constant BLP violations at Adam Shapiro

In last few days I've removed a lot of unsourced libelous material and replaced with sourced accurate material. Despite this article having a longtime {blpdispute} tag, User:Wehwalt keeps removing accurate material and making other violations of BLP and now threatens to report me for reverting such material. Not sure how to proceed immediately, though obviously will continue to revert the most obvious issues. Specifically in last few hours since my last edit:

[1] resolved

• 1 Adding irrelevant (or POV?) stuff like who was left in the headquarters after Shapiro left.

2 Taking out full Shapiro quote which provides context; doing so makes him look bad.

3 Uses "alleges" three times in two sentences when one is enough.

4 completely removed relevant WP:RS reference whose title calls Shapiro "hero". (Unless I insert other material from that article, will put in external links.)

5 removed accurate description of why he left the building (demonstration) and replaced with WP:Original research interpretation of the fact two doctors came in, i.e. "Shapiro was allowed to leave when a doctor took his place," making it look like Shapiro was a hostage.

6 and 2 more edits:Inserts WP:Original research fact (or allegation) from another article that is not mentioned in any articles about this individual, probably for POV purposes.

Carol Moore 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

If you look at Carol's last version [10] before the edits she complains of, you'll note as follows:

Based on what is basically an opinion piece (written, incidently, if you read it, by someone who says Israelis fired on him and his wife!), Carol has stated:"However, during the 2002 Israeli invasion the ISM's work became chiefly humanitarian because the United Nations and the Red Cross would not operate ambulances without the cooperation of the Israelis, who were stopping and even firing upon them. Adam, who was living in Ramallah, volunteered with Irish activist Caoimhe Butterly to ride in ambulances. Hearing there were wounded in the headquarters of Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian National Authority, they made their way there. Trapped inside by Israeli firing,[1] they remained over night and Shapiro had breakfast with Arafat.[2] Huwaida organized a demonstration and Israelis allowed Shapiro to leave.[1]" This states as facts what actually comes from Shapiro's and his wife's statements, such as the firing on ambulances, the work becoming "chiefly humanitarian" and so forth. I've made it clear that it is Shapiro's POV (something I have worked to do throughout, which appears to draw Carol Moore's ire, as in her "allege" comments) and, while leaving in the "firing on ambulances", have supplied information from another article contemporaneous to the puff piece on Shapiro, which explains why the Israelis were stopping ambulances. Carol Moore apparently just wants it to look like the Israelis are crazy, stopping and firing on ambulances for no apparent reason. Before I noted the presence of this complaint, I was going to propose to her that we delete both the claim of firing on ambulances and the weapon found in ambulance cite. That they stop ambulances is not subject to dispute, and I am OK with leaving that in. I'd like a better cite though, really that piece from the Guardian should go as not a WP:RS as a commentary.

Her complaint regarding the "hero" article is unfounded, that is a commentary and not a RS. It is also "reprinted" on a website which raises copyright concerns.

Her complaint regarding the doctor: Well, that is what the article says! It isn't even clear whether Carol thinks that means he was an Israeli hostage or a Palestinian hostage! I'm not quite clear on how that qualifies as a "libel" or other BLP concern!

Her complaint regarding the removal of the quote: The quote simply stated that Shapiro was responding to a Palestinian article advocating violence. I inserted another quote from the same source which I felt was more responsive and less apologetic. If she feels some of the information from the quote she liked needs to be in the article, suggest she propose a compromise.

I did not threaten to report anyone. I simply asked that [11] she be more careful about 3RR.

Perhaps most notably, this diff [12] removing, not seeking a cite or noting citation needed, but removing, Shapiro's Kristallnacht comments from the article, make it very clear that Carol Moore is interested, not in presenting all the info out there on Shapiro in a dispassionate npov manner, but in writing a pov puff piece herself, and to that end, is pulling out all the stops by calling in the BLP patrol. She should read this text from WP:NPOV, which is mentioned uppage right now: "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". The only offer for compromise which she has set forth, I readily agreed to.[13] I suggest that she be told to go back to the article and to work with other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• You threatened to get ME in trouble for WP:3rr without bothering to ask for discussion, forcing me to come here. Yet WP:BLP clearly states: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. Plus again there is a {blpdispute} tag.
• I don't have a problem with correcting errors, adding allege where appropriate (as opposed to 3 times in two sentences) or finding other articles that may be less based on the statements of participants. (That's all I found in my first searches.) And I did not challenge properly sourced info that you added in last 24 hours.
• I have a problem with inserting clearly inaccurate or WP:OR material which I think several of your edits are and should be removed.
• Hero article may or may not be WP:RS as source and I'll wait and see if need to use it before going to that noticeboard. But fine as external link.
• The original Kristallnacht comment was not sourced at all and would be libelous if not true. I didn't know if it was true or not so deleted per {blpdispute} tag.
• If people don't respond here, I'll ask an administrator. These are serious issues under: the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration Carol Moore 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I did not threaten to get you in trouble. I asked you to tone it down, as I cited, because I didn't want to get into an edit war. You weren't even going to the article talk page. You were just reverting, using undo on good faith edits. If you feel the number of times "allege" is used is excessive, well then rephrase. As for the Kristallnacht thing, you say you "didn't know if it was true or not". However, in the last version of yours [14] before I edited, it is discussed in Reference 3[15], just underneath (three very short paragraphs intervening) the quotation you pulled out to use in the article. You added that reference to the article. I guess now you'll say you didn't see it. You didn't read the rest of the article. If you did, you're POV pushing by excluding relevant material. If you didn't, you are just looking in sources for what you want and ignoring everything else. Gotcha.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph is too confusing to figure out, but I don't have a problem with his quote myself, only what I thought was lack of sourcing. The bottom line is I was following the tag which demanded removal of unsourced material and then when dubious stuff kept popping in and my first contact with you was a "warning" on my talk page, so I came here per WP:BLP policy. If you are willing to discuss on talk, I'm willing. Behind on several things after 30 hour power black out. Carol Moore 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'd spend some time figuring it out, because it goes to what you may need to do so that editors assume good faith on your part. It looks like you deleted material, and then gave a reason for deleting it which wasn't the case, and I was able to prove that was so. That being said, if you feel you are a person who should be working on this article, I will engage with you on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I happen to think "Israeli actions regarding the Palestinians" are worse than "Kristallnacht, during which 36 Jews were killed in Nazi Germany and hundreds of Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues were destroyed." It's 60 years of state violence for purposes of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. So Shapiro merely being "reminded" didn't bother me, only that I didn't find a reference for it in the paragraph where the allegation appeared, here. And I failed to notice it in a later article where it happened to arise. Not a crime. Again in WP:BLP we are supposed to take out unsourced information (or information with broken links that might be fabricated) and that could lead to libel lawsuits vs. wikipedia. I will remove such material when I find it. Carol Moore 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

David Palmer (squash player) shows obvious bias

Resolved

In technical terms, Palmer plays a classic attrition game with hard-hitting attacking shots from his opponent's loose shots. He also has a very pure and textbook technique which allows for near perfect shotmaking. Although the emphasis on orthodox racket preparation and followthrough is dimishing these days, Palmer's is beautiful to watch. His deft touch is also exceptional with volley drops taken from exceptional positions throughout his matches. Due to his high level of fitness, he is able to play at a very high intensity for the duration of the match making it very difficult for many opponents to compete.

This is a bit too much emphasis on how good he is considering this is ment to be an encyclopedic reference. It is also made worse by the fact that he isn't a classical player but a hard hitting - intimindating player who uses gamesmanship to intimidate the umpires and his oppponents.

Please edit this so that the bias is removed or so this whole paragraph is removed. This was obviously written by a fan or someone close to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmanfran (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Someone had already removed a part of that paragraph. I have removed everything else but the first sentence, and I have requested sourcing for that, as well as for allegations that the subject has temper problems that have impacted his career.

Please be careful when correcting a perceived bias not to go too far in the other direction. Criticism may be appropriately incorporated into articles, but does need verification that the criticism comes from reliable sourcing and is not simply your own observation. It also needs to be fairly represented to remain neutral. You should certainly feel free to remove such observations as "Palmer's is beautiful to watch", but claims that he "uses gamesmanship to intimidate the umpires and his opponents" are not permissible, if not attributed to a reputable source.

When you encounter problems within articles and meet dispute in your efforts to correct them, you might try opening a conversation at the article's talk page so that you might reach consensus with the editors of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

We got a nice lil' situation here... starting yesterday, folks started adding "Ashley Tisdale has AIDS" bits to the article - as seen here, here and here. The article got fully protected to prevent reinsertion and we've since gotten official denials of the information from Ashley's website, US magazine and People magazine among other sources. Now if this blog entry is true, then what we have here is a deliberate misinformation campaign as retaliation for her covering a Rick Astley song.

Side note: one wrinkle on all this which is a minor concern for me is a statement in the People magazine story saying: "Another Internet site posted what it claimed was a statement from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles." and this edit where this was inserted into the Wiki article: "She was diagnosed with HIV at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California."... were we made into a primary source on this or was this a case of someone parroting what was said elsewhere on the web without slapping a source on it?

In any case, since we have a deliberate campaign here, we should have folks watching for this false rumour to appear in other articles on Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

People. :/ I'll certainly be on the look-out myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Apparently, there is a contention right now that any mention of William Ayers, a man who has been significantly linked to criticism of Barack Obama and his campaign, is a violation of WP:BLP. I personally believe this is improperly using BLP as a battering ram to get one's own point of view across; however, the controversy exists, and so I have brought it up here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Evil Spartan, but keep in mind that at Talk:Barack Obama we've been in a long discussion about whether or not to add mention of Ayers to the article, and I expect it to conclude within a few days, now that we've just started a second poll. So far, we're not close to consensus, and no consensus means no addition of Bill Ayers name to the article — and therefore nothing to decide at this noticeboard. That said, it might be useful for editors knowledgable about WP:BLP to chime in over there with their opinions because it might get us closer to consensus. The discussion is spread out over a huge page, but one good, active section where this has come up would be Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options, subsection Option 1: Say nothing about Ayers. Anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with the question may want to participate in the !vote at the section Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Responding here is premature as a ruling, and advice here splits the discussion. If we decide to include Ayers, I'm sure the matter will come right back here. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, Barack Obama got a quarter of a million page views on June 4, according to this counter. Noroton (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone

• Joss Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some heavy stuff going on here, needs some attention. Rape allegations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some stuff inappropriately sourced/unduly weighted and have commented on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Force Research Unit

Can some of the regulars here take a look at the article on Force Research Unit, an alleged British Military Unit previously operating in the province. The material on any FRU itself is light and the majority of the article is mention of individuals who may or may not have been involved. Sourcing is pretty weak, very reliant on a single self published source, and it appears to be quite a lot of original research to try to stitch it together.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think at least that when even the article lead uses 'alleged', the article should be explicit about WHO claims this. You're also right that most of this article appears not to be about the FRU at all but about related events. Stronger, more explicit sourcing is needed, and the removal of OR synthesis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

• Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some controversy about alleged anti-Sunni remarks by an Indian moslem public speaker and educator. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to correct the description of the dispute. It pertains to the insertion of a large amount of poor quality material of negative skew which Agnistus tried several times to insert.[16] He was preceded in this by a 'Sherlock holmes' individual,[17] and before that, by Vikramsingh (talk · contribs) and ISKapoor (talk · contribs). ITAQALLAH 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another addendum. The material under the 'Criticism' heading was erroneously reinserted by these individuals into the article despite its presence there already under the lectures heading. The scope of the dispute is therefore about the other material. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gail Collins Pappalardi

Gail Collins Pappalardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I found this article to be full of unsourced derogatory information about this living person. So I deleted. Another editor reverted most of my deletion, sourcing only a 1983 indictment. The case was undoubtedly resolved, but the article stops its sourcing with a description of the indictment and defense. At purports to report a resolution of the charges, but provides no source. I'm inclined to delete again. But the other editor and I have a history and I don't want to get into an edit war. Would others concerned about WP:BLP take a look at the page please? David in DC (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look and added some sources for the information. The sources are from the Pappalardi.com website and claim to be unaltered news articles about the trial. While I'm unable to verify their accuracy completely, in my judgement it seems highly likely that they are genuine. If so, the sourcing concerns would be gone; there may still be issues with balance, and I think it's questionable if she merits her own article at all. Trebor (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I took out some of the arguments of the presecution and defense from her trial and the opinions of the judge. A WP article is probably not the best place to rehash this. I agree that the article could be a candidate for deletion if the only thing she is notable for is the alleged murder. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ava Lowery

Ava Lowery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hoping to stimulate some discussion of this article which has been a source of controversy in the past and in particular about the troublesome quotes section which has been added and removed a number of times, most recently without discussion. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The article looked okay when I checked it. I made a few small changes but didn't see any BLP problems. I have one small issue about her having received death threats being reported in the article. I'm not sure this is so notable, or verifiable -- in general that is, nothing against Miss Lowery. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and took off the report of the death threats. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Vollers

We need to keep a strong eye on the Kurt Vollers article. Several anons, over the past few days, have been inserting unsourced slandarous claims. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The drug charge is true, according to the Dallas Morning News. [18] I added a brief sentence and a link; perhaps that will discourage the anons from adding lengthy, outlandish accounts of his legal problem. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Alden

• Chris Alden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• user Calden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be largely original research by the subject of the article, copied from his self-published bio on other sites.

For example, the phrase "the world's largest blogging company" seems to be Calden's own. I can't find notable research that supports phrases like "an innovative RSS feed reading service".

The external links in paragraphs at the end of the article seem to be a non-standard format for Wikipedia.

Some of the details may not be encyclopedic, but I may be biased.

The company I work for is largely considered the competition the subject is the CEO of, so it is inappropriate for me to update the article myself. Lloydbudd (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (I changed my username from Foolswisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

This should probably be reported at WP:COIN. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reported to COIN as suggested Lloydbudd (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian Baggini

I would appreciate more eyes on this, and some administrative help if necessary.

Julian Baggini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a British philosopher and writer that I created a stub in 2005. In June 2006, Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) — who was engaged in a non-notable, real-life dispute with Baggini — added some unsourced and poorly sourced material about that dispute, in violation of BLP. [19] The material was removed by Baggini himself, editing as Hickleup (talk · contribs). [20] Baggini has acknowledged that he is Hickleup. [21]

In May this year, 90.17.9.22 (talk · contribs) (who appears to be Docmartincohen, or connected in some way) restored the material about the dispute, and made certain other claims about Baggini. [22] [23]

Baggini complained to the Foundation/OTRS, and separately to me. I reverted and semi-protected the page. The anon e-mailed a pretty rude complaint to me and, this time as Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), starting posting insults on the talk page e.g. [24] [25]. Tim Vickers arrived to endorse the semi-protection, [26] and several other editors posted in support of it. [27] PilotGuy admin-deleted the disputed material. [28]

Still posting as Wikigiraffe, the anon has started posting the same material to the talk page and restoring it when it's removed, [29] [30] claiming there is a sinister conspiracy to silence him. It has reached the stage where a block might have to be considered, but because I started the stub and have been accused of being involved in an evil plot, I'm reluctant to do it myself. More eyes would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^talkedits 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a final warning on Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) talk page, explaining in detail the problemtic nature of the material and the consequences (blocking) that would result from its readdition. CIreland (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^talkedits 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) is not really Dr. Martin Cohen, or I have to say I'm disappointed at the level of maturity of British philosophers. Hopefully, it is his teenage students or something like that. I'm not joking, Merzul (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Wikigiraffes indefinitely because he went on a spree today with posts attempting to out me, which I've admin-deleted. There was also someone at the same time vandalizing my user subpages, and creating accounts such as (paraphrasing) User:Is she as bad as they say she is, which may have been him too. If any other admin wants to take over, and reblock or unblock after a certain time, please do as you see fit. I did it myself only for the sake of speed to minimize the damage. SlimVirgin ^talkedits 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

(conversation below moved twice to find an appropriate venue to generate discussion)
Another user has used this source as evidence that Nicole Ritchie "self-identifies as being black". Per WP:BLP, I would like to see a better source for this potentially controversial information. Perhaps I am being too strict. What do others think? --John (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the user and I want to point out that this is an interview from E! Online. The logo may not be visible because it's from the Internet Archive but the copyright is visible at the bottom. Also, the writer "Kristin" is Kristin Dos Santos, a noted entertainment reporter. MrBlondNYC (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied from WT:RS to see if I can generate discussion on it) --John (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the source is RS as is the author but its weak I'd want to see a secondary source as the first time I read it I thought it was a joke or non serious commentary. The question is, is it a contentious assertion that requires detailed sourcing, has the subject previously disputed the claim. If your answer is no to both then the source is enough though not ideal. Gnangarra 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You would be better off asking this question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than here as you'll get a wider opinion base. Gnangarra 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try that. --John (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would contend that the assertion of ethnicities to living people is automatically contentious and requires better sources than this archived gossip column. --John (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl Freer

• Carl Freer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User talk:Truthmaker1 is making threats of legal action for sourced information appearing in Carl Freer. There are two very good English language sources (The Sunday Times and The Los Angeles Times) and multiple Swedish sources that say this. I came aboard via an RFC and rewrote the text in question to include Freer's defense, so I think it reads pretty balanced, but Truthmaker1 keeps reverting it with further threats of recruiting others to bolster his case, and/or saying the sources are corrupt (with no corroborating evidence).

My question for all of the wise ones here, is it a BLP violation if multiple sources list the specific events and the person in question's side is given as well? If you read the newspaper articles they are pretty scathing in their assessment of Freer, so I actually thought the Wiki article text was pretty mild compared to what could be written.

Here is the text in question:

• In his teens Freer forged his parents' signature for a loan and was convicted of fraud though Freer says he had his parents' permission to sign on their behalf for a student loan. In 2005 he was fined by a German court for buying luxury cars with bounced cheques under the assumed name of Erik (Eric) Jonsson, though Freer says he cancelled the cheques himself because he was "thought he was being sold stolen cars."

refs

Feedback welcome! Renee (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to refer users to Talk:Carl Freer#Wider discussion, which is the most recent discussion on the edits in question. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Manhunt (2004 TV series)

This article is not a BLP but it contains unsourced material about living people that may be considered controverial as it is about their sex life. I don't know what the rules are regarding this re BPL. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Which unsourced material are you seeing? The one contestant identified as openly gay cites a news article, which in turn cites the Bravo bio of the contestant. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

These people are identified as "Contestants in order of elimination" in addition to Matt Lanter in the Manhunt (2004 TV series) without a reference source:

• Sean Russell
• Brian Bernie
• Casey Ward
• Micah LaCerte
• John Stallings
• Casey Weeks
• Brett Depue
• Blake Peyrot
• Ron Brown
• Seth Whalen
• Jason Pruitt
• Kevin Osborn
• Paulo Rodriguez
• Tate Arnett
• Hunter Daniel
• Maurice Townsell
• Kevin Peake (Embedded Model/Spy)
• Rob Williams (Runner-up)
• Jon Jonsson (Winner)

–Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Although one is a "spy" (Kevin Peake) and therefore not openly gay, the others are not spies and are therefore being identified as openly gay without references. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Addionally, "Paulo Rodriguez ... was eliminated because of his hair problem" is unsourced. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm confused. Only one person is identified as openly gay, apparently with references. The rest are identified as male participants in the show, but nothing is claimed of their sexuality, unless you believe all male models are gay (in which case the spy would be gay anyway). I agree a better source for the names is ideal but I presume it's one of the things where sourcing from the show is acceptable? (Having said that, I don't see the list as that important and I don't see anything wrong with removing it personally) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the show was about openly gay contenders. The premise of the show is similar to the "Bachelor" series on U.S. television, only for openly gay male contestants. The Embedded Model/Spy, Keven Peake, was meant to be a hidden, not gay, contender to throw some drama into the mix. The person choosing a mate, ala the Bachelor series, could perhaps be unable to discern who was not gay and ultimately "fall in love" and choose the non gay person and thereby presumably be rejected. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - If the Embedded Model/Spy were actually gay, just not "openly gay", the premise of the program would not make sense. He, of necessity, was straight for the dynamics of the program to work. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(I moved this back from the archive. I removed the archived version since it was potentially misleading as it stood Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Hi, it appears you are mistaken. Nothing in the article suggests the premise you describe above. Indeed, it specifically says "similar to UPN/The CW's America's Next Top Model" and the show is subtitled "The Search For America's Most Gorgeous Male Model". Nothing about similarities to the Bachelor are mentioned. Looking back at old versions of the page, it definitely doesn't sound like the premise you mention is correct. Google searches lead to a similar conclusion. This review in particular [31] "Most noticeable is the “I’m not gay” refrain; despite its open appeal to gay men, the show features only two gay contestants, Ron (eliminated early) and Rob (who didn’t out himself until the fourth week).". It definitely doesn't sound to me like the contestants were, or were intended to be, gay. They simply had to be male models, their sexual orietation was not relevant to the show. I guess you either have the wrong show, or are confusing two or more shows. If there was a show called Manhunt about the search for a mate by a gay bachelor, it doesn't appear we have an article on it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing it. Only "Ron" Brown and "Rob" Williams are identified as openly gay according to the article you provide. Thanks for looking into it. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Michiko Suganuma

I would have gone and removed the unsourced material in this article, but there wouldn't have been hardly anything left. From my limited understanding of the subject matter, I feel there is a good chance that this will eventually become a good and worthy article on a prominent Japanese artist. That said, I'm not sure how/where to find english-language reliable secondary sources. Any help would be most appreciated. Dalamori (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons

There is an editor that is adding a lot of material about accusations of Munchausen's by proxy concerning a mother that has been taking her son to see doctors about what the mother believes is an unrecognized medical condition. There are several accounts in different sources that vary, and some sources seem not to be accurate. The editor is taking the position that most of the different versions of the account from the sources should be added, and is using special formatting to call attention to it. Since the accusations are unproven in any case, I believe this is a violation of WEIGHT and BLP. Would someone please look at this and on the discussion on the talk page? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no accusation, just material from multiple reliable sources saying the initial case of the proposed disorder is more complicated then it appears. A mother said she found fibers growing from her son's body. Doctors couldn't find anything matching the description. One doctor urged a psychological evaluation and treatment for the mother, worried she was "using" her son in a letter to referring doctor. A doctor said she might have Munchausen's by proxy, where a parent usually the mother induces an illness or fakes it in her child. Four sources report the Munchausens, the Chicago Tribune, Psychology Today, Natural News and The Texas Monthly. (Ward20 does not think Natural News is RS and just deleted it here.) A fifth source the Pittsburg Post-Gazette has similar information. It is supported by quotes from the mother. "'They suggested that maybe I was neurotic,' Leitao (the mother) said, 'They said they were not interested in seeing him (the son) because I had Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.'" (Chicago Tribune) Because the mother did not find a doctor who believed her son had an unknown condition and some doctors even refused to see them, she formed an internet site and started a nonprofit to raise money and publicity for the proposed medical condition.

Munchausens is important and very relavent. In the Psychology Today source, it was the last straw for Ms. Leitao, the last physician she tried to see would not because she supposedly had Munchausens. For the alternative pro-Morgellons position it is important because it says what many Morgellons patients say, they are rejected by doctors and told their suffering is psychological. For the mainstream medical position, I understand that is Wikipedia's position, it is important because it says several doctors familiar with the case including a very respecte pediatrician thought the first described case of the proposed disease was not a disease or was result from a psychological disorder. Again not accusations, just things reported in reliable sources and things Ms. Leitao herself said.

I admit i do not understand Ward20's WEIGHT argument or why it is relavant on the BLP noticeboard. For more information see another noticeboard where Ward20 just questioned my Morgellons edits. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What I believe is relevant is that doctors were unable to help her son's condition and blamed her. She discovered that thousands of others said they had the same condition and she started a research foundation, published about the condition in a medical journal, urged that more research be started, and now the CDC is conducting a research study to find out more about it. To attribute about 20% of the history of Morgellons disease to unproven accusations of what is essentially child abuse leveled by her sons doctors while she was attempting to find out about what she believed was an illness in her child is not NPOV per WP:WEIGHT and a violation of WP:BLP for not being neutral about the mother. This topic is separate from the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard discussion. Ward20 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In the history-cdc section of about 40 sentences there are two sentences on Munchausens plus a two sentence quote from Leitao in the Chicago Tribune. All supported fully by reliable sources. No accusations of child abuse or any thing else. RetroS1mone talk 05:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Roach

I've moved this to the bottom as it was not getting proper attention from knowledgeable editors. Shu Li Yen (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a website is being used which does not appear to be a reliable source as I read WP:RS and WP:BLP. That source is used in footnotes 11 and 12. The site appears to be a self-published polemical site, diamond-cutter.org, and the pages being used as references are this one for footnote 11, and this one for footnote 12. I believe that the facts should be sourced to some other reference. This site is also linked in the external links section. I have my doubts about the appropriateness even of that, but I am quite sure that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source under the restrictions of WP:BLP. Could someone who is more familiar with the the requirements for sources for biographies of living persons please review this site and determine whether or not it should be used? Also, please engage the editors on the article talk page, as I am not active in editing the page and don't really want to play middleman for any responses... Shu Li Yen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this is not a reliable source. I'll remove it for BLP. --Faith (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the history of page. It has already been in mediation over including information from www.diamond-cutter.org. It was determined that the source was OK. See here- [32] Seems there was a bit of sock-puppet activity. Wonder if history is repeating itself? -Vritti (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the link you provide was closed not with a resolution, but because one participant could no longer continue (a sockpuppet case as you note), and the other participant withdrew. In any case, mediation was and is the wrong venue for a question about the reliability of a source under WP:BLP. This is the correct venue and the source should simply be evaluated by a knowledgeable and neutral party according to WP:BLP and WP:RS. It's not a matter of consensus and consensus can't override the determination. Neither should the matter go unexamined due to past history. If the source does not indeed meet WP:BLP requirements, it should be promptly removed according to WP:BLP. Please don't try to evade having this looked at by bringing up red herrings. Shu Li Yen (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. The about page states it was created expressly to address the "growing public concern about the behavior and teachings of Geshe Michael Roach". This shows there is no balance or peer review. --Faith (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Diamond-cutter.org has stood the test of time, and now the NYT article confirms the basic information contained in the site. The NYT article is an essential source for the article, however, diamond-cutter.org provides supporting details, which are useful.

All materials on diamond-cutter.org are edited and approved by Gary Friedman, who has been an active student in Tibetan Buddhism since 1990 and has undertaken extensive retreat and study.[33] Johnfos (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The "test of time" is not a method by which a source is deemed reliable.
2. The fact that some information on a site is confirmed by the NYT does nothing to verify the reliability of the other information on the site.
3. The problem is that the material is self-published by Gary Friedman on his own website. The only information we have about this character is what he says about himself! He is not a published author, no biography of him exists, he is an unknown and non-notable person.

Basically, you are asking us to take on faith that Gary Friedman, an unknown quantity, is accurately reporting fact rather than hearsay, and that he doesn't have an axe to grind. I'm afraid that I don't have the same faith that you have in Gary. I insist that the very clear rule on WP:BLP be followed, "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". The only pertinent fact is that the site is self-published, which means that it simply cannot be used. None of your arguments can override that. Shu Li Yen (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That Web site epically fails WP:BLP and WP:RS and may not be used as a source in a biography of a living person. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here appears to be if Geshe Michael Roach had sex with a woman or not. And if he is a lvl 8 monk or not. Michael Roach himself claims to have a celibate relation, and to be a lvl 8 monk. While diamond-cutter believes he does have a sexual relationship, and may not be a lvl 8 monk. The latter, according to diamond-cutter could be of great danger to his students.

The diamond-cutter link has been reason for ongoing edit warring in the article. Here is one year of it (2005-2006), you can safely imagine the full list to be two or three times longer: 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

29303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253

54555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778

I believe the article should be protected, and diamond-cutter be excluded from it, as the New York Times can be used as source. Species8473 (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim Prentice

Jim Prentice is the Minister of Industry in the Canadian government. Aperently he has tried to introduce a Canadian version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The article itself is clearly being used as a coatrack by those opposed to the legislation (see WP:COAT, with the view that this individual is a tool of the “American Media groups”. Much of the material originates from Michael Geist ; WP:V states: “Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer” and WP:RS states “When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.” I have added Blpdispute and BLPsources as this page clearly needs a larger pool of editors looking it over; and not only better sources, but sources that are not directly involved in a dispute with the subject of the article. I will agree that Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its offspring are inherently evil, and I don’t much like politicians who would support such legislation, it is not our (meaning Wikipedia’s) job to portray such individuals in an adverse light or take sides in a dispute. Brimba (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither is our job to overstate the extent to which the article relies on Geist references. I invite you to identify *exactly* where there are concerns about referencing or about coatracking to substantiate the tags you have placed on the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the crisis is over, but more eyes are very welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hunt

The author is using his second reference to infer that there was a ballance of condemnation and support from within and outside the sport, when in fact it contains only details of Jose Mourininho's overreaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Louise Brown

She's the first human baby born through IVF. There's some information on that page that seems excessive for a person who is, in my opinion, WP:NPF. That she has had an apparently healthy child is actually notable due to concerns about how the procedure affects later generations. Her current job, her nickname, etc... are not relevant to her notability. Should this just be merged with In vitro fertilisation#History and the article otherwise deleted? Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have a separate article about her, especially since she's received major coverage as an adult. I note that the nickname and job are presently unsourced, but if this information is in highly reputable sources I don't see that it's harmful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It doesn't really make sense to me why we wouldn't have a mainspace article on the first person born via IVF; it's an extremely notable achievement, and NPF or not, I don't see how this could possibly harm the subject by having it. Of course, a mention is warranted at IVF history. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article does any special harm. However my general sense of WP policy tends to make me say the Mrs. Brown is a person only notable for one thing. I'd vote for merging. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT is the section of BLP in question. Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the policy makes it clear that a merge is in order, IMO.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree on that --sufficiently important for an article, considering the likely continuing interest. One event is subject to a reasonable interpretation that it does not hold if this is likely to be the case, just if the one event is likely to be forgotten. DGG (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil Goldschmidt

Please weigh in at Talk:Neil Goldschmidt in regards to BLP issues that have been raised during a discussion about the former governor of Oregon as to whether the actions he confessed to--having sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl while he was mayor of Portland--should be linked to child sexual abuse. The page has been protected and there is an ongoing request for comment. Katr67 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child) part 2

See previous listing of this issue [34]

• Background. User:Wjhonson has a personal website webpage about a case of an abused child, Genie. Genie's case is well known in psychology and linguistic circles. On his website Wjhonson reveals Genie's real name based on research that he has done. He initially linked to this website as a source for his edits pn WP. Once this was removed several times he has not attempted to return it recently. A recent article has appeared about her brother that names him.

User:Wjhonson been repeatedly edited this and other articles over the last few months to reveal the name (first name, last name or both) of the subject of this article. In this he acts against the clear consensus on the talkpage. To date I count 13 editors who argue that that the name (first name or family name) should not be included, with one undecided, and two arguing for (1 only briefly). Comments from uninvolved editors included:

• "as I have been speaking at some BLP discussions for a very narrow interpretation of "do no harm"....This is perhaps one of the cases to which the policy most obviously clearly and rightfully applies, and even if we did not have the formal policy it would still seem to me to be indefensible to use the real name" [35] DGG
• "While I personally find a lot of claims of do-no-harm ridiculous when something is easily googlable, this isn't easily googlable. Whether or not the name has been concealed deliberately there is a definite possibility of doing damage if this name is put here." JoshuaZ [36]

• User:Wjhonson has just recreated a redirect naming the woman, that was deleted due to BLP concerns in an RFD discussion in which the deleting adminstrator even redacted the name from the request for deletion discussion[37]
• He has named the woman again on this edit creating a redirect from the brother's name

I think the time has come for some independent administator attention to this ongoing situation. --Slp1 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite easy to find, both in RS and in blogs/flicker albums and the like. I've yet to see anything that asserts that the listing of such prevalent information has any potential harm for the subject beyond what already exists from other sources (ABC news being the most easily findable and obvious). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not clear what your links attempt to prove: blogs and websites are not reliable sources, and the journal [38] and the highschool topic suggestion [39] do not even mention her name. The ABC article [40] names her mother but not her and ends "In her meticulous research, Weedon learned Genie's real name and, "without too much more investigation" could find her -- but has decided against it. "It wouldn't be fair," she said. "It would be too invasive, and she isn't the same little girl when the stories were written about her. I wouldn't do it -- for her sake and her memory."

As I pointed out before if you don't know her name, the name is very difficult to find. Try Genie and Language [41] or Genie and Abuse [42] and see what you have to wade through to find it.

Try to improve your searching methods. Including quotes around "real name", or using the AND operator in academic databases that still use them, results in much more useful information. Once you have something, it's pretty trivial to find something you're looking for if you know the words ("name") in a digital document. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, per privacy of names we need to see that it is widely disseminated, and "when evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.". WP:BLP. It is not widely disseminated in scholarly journals nor in works of recognized experts (and there have been 100s and 100s of books mentioning the case)[43] nor even in the news media. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is crystal clear that we err on the side of privacy with regard to articles on living persons. I haven't seen any case made, much less a compelling one, that including the person's real name materially improves the article. Worse, the subject of the article is in no position to advocate for herself, a remedy envisioned in the BLP policy as an important check on what we do here. One editor seems intent on including the real name, in the article and elsewhere, in the face of our policy and the views of other editors on the article's talk page. This disruptive behavior must stop now. If it doesn't, I believe sanctions are in order.--agr (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could understand where this might be a problem if the information in question wasn't only a JSTOR search of "Genie" + "real name" , or a search of news articles about the subject away. However, this simply isn't the case; its pretty widely disseminated at this point. By including it, we wouldn't be pushing into light some obscure fact about the subject that was never known until now except by a few select sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we're not revealing unknown, or even little-known, information, there's no BLP case here. Including the real name improves specificity and accuracy, goals for which a reference work should always strive, so there is a clear improvement in including real names when they are already known and available to the public. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But we would be revealing little known information. Psychology and linguistic students all over the world know her only as Genie. In the last thirty seven years, only 1 book has mentioned her full name, and 2 related newspaper articles have given her last name in the context of relatives of the 100s written. Do you really think this is widely disseminated and well-known? Even if we look at websites (which we cannot possibly use on a BLP anyway), the only way to find the real name (without knowing it first) is to trawl through the many, many websites that don't give the real name with the aim of finding the few that do. Try it. Even Celarnor's suggestion of Genie + "real name" provides this [44] reveals only 3 hits with a partial name in the first 100, none of them reliable sources. In any case, WP:BLP re privacy of names is clear that we need to place greater weight on what scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts have decided to do regarding the name. I am actually a bit confused by Celarnor's comment about JSTOR. Do you realize that no article in listed JSTOR mentions her name at all? That yes, Genie + her last name comes up with some hits, but only because her last name is the same as the name a publishing company that appears in the bibliography? Her name is not a search away in academic texts, academic articles, nor in any Factiva or Lexis Nexis newspaper articles search. It is not widely known. --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that cases like this are extremely rare so there is no lack of "specificity and accuracy" in just using the name Genie. Further, the editors working on this article formed a consensus based on the spirit and letter of WP:BLP that the real name is not needed in the article. The one editor in question has not accepted that consensus, but in a classic example of WP:Tendentious editing continues to press for its inclusion and has attempted to get the real name into Wikipedia through other means, such as creating redirects, including it on his user page and adding Genie's non-notable brother's name to a disambig page. I see that elsewhere on this noticeboard there is a discussion of whether to include porn actors' real names in their bios. That we are even considering such a question under BLP suggests that in this case, involving a woman who was a victim of a crime (child abuse), has done nothing to seek publicity, is apparently institutionalized from the crime's effects and is totally unable to protect herself or even express her wishes, the real name should be excluded from Wikipedia. --agr (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I too am in favor of not revealing her full name in this article. The fact that the real name appears in other online resources, while not irrelevant, is not dispositive IMHO. This poor person is notable mainly as a case study. Her full name adds nothing in the way of specificity to her article - that need is appropriately addressed by her alias, which appears to be entirely sufficient to permit easy identification of the aspect of her life that is notable. I am not certain that we, in general, give sufficient consideration to how drastically inclusion of information on WP will influence search engine results. Inclusion of the name would not simply make it easier to find for those who look for that information on WP, it will make it easier to find for everybody. When, as in this case, the person is essentially WP:BLP1E or in cases of marginal notability, I think much greater caution with this type of personal information is warranted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} n_{So let it be done} 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I too feel the full name should be left out for the reasons mentioned. --Faith (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the editors (including Slp1, agr, Xymmax, and Faith) who support keeping the name out of the Wikipedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 09:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Make that another convinced by the arguments not include the name, not only for her protection but that of her brother, mentioned in the article (and edit summaries) who is also not a public individual. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the brother's name from the article. --agr (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And despite the overwhelming consensus not to include the name, User:Wjhonson has reverted agr's edit and inserted the last name again.--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And has recreated the redirect--Slp1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

His persistence in including this material in spite of the opposition of a number of uninvolved editors and administrators who feel it violates BLP is alarming. I see that he has been warned about disruptive editing at the article's talk page. I hope that he'll take note. He has recourse to wider community input, but can't simply push past consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire above is erroneous. First my website is not devoted to this case, this case occupies a single page out of hundreds on my site. Secondly I was not the person who added my site as a source (afair), in fact I think I removed it, and someone else added it back again. The reason for including the name is for research purposes. Without knowing the full name is <remove name> you cannot find the case in the relevant newspapers at the time. There were dozens of articles about this case, flung across the country when she was found. These were reported on the newswires and reprinted all over the map. This was not a hushed-up local case by any means. The reportage went on for well over a month on this case, it was quite well-known. BLP does not cover a situation like that, the name was widely disseminated. Whether it was not later-on is not relevant to BLP. Lastly, the fact that I was *not* informed that any of the previous discussions were even taking place is quite extraordinary. It is common courtesy to inform all participants when a discussion is taking place. Wjhonson (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected website to webpage. My apologies for the error in terminology.--Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may have been the first to remove it, but you have added it back numerous times after that despite the overwhelming consensus to leave it out. Second, I did post a notice on the Genie talk board saying that I've added a request at BLP/N after you advised me to take our disagreement here. Whether or not you have one page on your site or multiple pages on your site devoted to Genie is not the point (you yourself have said that your page on Genie is one of the largest you've ever written). The point is that you were the first person to discover her name and add it to the article and you have been the ONLY person pushing this hard to keep her name in the article, while the number of people arguing against you has been constantly growing. You keep saying that our attempts to keep her name out of the article is a form of censorship but that's not what it is. Censorship is the suppression of information with the intention of protecting the public. Keeping her name hidden in no way protects the public. It is to protect HER! That HAS to be more important than our duty to document the world for research purposes. For An Angel (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a news service. You are certainly free to argue your case, but you are not free to continue to insert this person's real name into Wikipedia against community consensus and BLP policy. I am imposing a 24 hour block. --agr (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since my earlier participation basically boiled down to a "per above" and may be contributing to this editor's perception that lack of familiarity with BLP is the problem, I'm going to spell out why, based on the policy, I believe that the name should be excluded. BLPs should be "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" as "material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends". Under "Presumption in favor of privacy", we're urged to consider the ethical implications of articles, to write conservatively and with respect to basic human dignity. The policy notes that "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I am persuaded that including Genie's name, and also that of her brother, has a serious risk of participating in the victimization of these people, by making it much easier to identify them as individuals and encourage public scrutiny. At this moment, this page is fourth on Google's search for the generic term "Genie". In spite of the recent resurgence in interest in the case occasioned by the Frizl case in Austria, it is the only article about Genie to make the first page. It costs the article nothing substantial to exclude this information. I do not believe this is an overwhelmingly clear case of BLP in terms of Genie herself, but I do think it falls comfortably within the imperative to be conservative to remove the name.

Her brother seems to be a different matter. I see you've even added the brother's real name to a disambiguation page (and again today). According to this sole interview, this man is a house painter living a modest life who has only ever granted that one interview. BLP indicates that "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." There doesn't seem to be any necessity to include his name in Genie's article, much less on a disambiguation page for his own name, as he is a painter who (as the source says) "has never received a minute of treatment or public attention" and who has "shunned almost any association or documentation of his past".

You have been a Wikipedians for many years longer than I have, and I'm sure you know where to find wider community input when you run up against contrary consensus on an article's talk page. You must realize that persisting in including the information over the repeated objections of a number of contributors (and now uninvolved editors and admins) looks very clearly to be disruptive editing according to the first and third points defining that term. I'm also perplexed by your incorporating those names in your edit summaries given clear, unresolved BLP concerns as you did here and here. It could be perceived as an attempt to to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record. As the policy at Wikipedia:Edit war sets out, efforts to win content disputes through brute force undermine "the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit". BLP concerns particularly require serious consideration, and when enough concerned, informed contributors oppose the inclusion of information under that policy, consensus should be established before the material is restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been making my arguments on the article talk page, but since Wjhonson claims there that there isn't overwhelming consensus here[45], I thought I'd add my voice here as well. As a victim of horrific child abuse, the girl's story was reported in newspapers, using her full name, more than thirty years ago. After her father committed suicide, the story of an abused child (there are thousands of them) died out, and would have been forgotten except that psychologists became interested in her as a means of testing theories on whether children could learn their native language after early childhood. These psychologists are the ones who have kept interest in her alive, but they changed her name to Genie to protect her privacy, and they always refer to her as Genie in scholarly articles. Yes, you can dig up the archives of some newspaper from 1970 and find her real name, but you won't know that it's Genie you're reading about. Genie's real name has been concealed for her protection. She's written about today as Genie. She's only famous because of being a test case for a theory for psychologists. Simply as a child abuse victim, her fame would not have lasted. Let's follow the trend set by scholarly articles and continue to respect her privacy. She's famous only as a case study, and her real name adds nothing to that. Ashton1983 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above considerations, I'd point out that this case differs from the usual BLP situation, where the editors working on an article wish to include information that a dissenter, perhaps the subject, wishes to exclude. Here the editors, informed by the policy, formed a consensus to exercise restraint and not mention real names. Even if there were reasons to think WP:BLP allowed some wiggle room here, the judgement of the article's editors deserves our strong support.--agr (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again For An Angel you completely distort the situation. Other than reverts, I have never added a link to my article to this page. Reverts are blind. Rather you had no consensus, and did not even discuss removing information that had been in the article for well over a year. And since that time you have strenuously refused to make any attempt at a neutral position. I do not have "multiple pages" on Genie on my website, I have a single page there, among over 600 pages on other topics. The link to my site was added by another editor. Not only have you vigorously opposed adding her first name which was widely reported by the AP and UPI in dozens of articles across the country, but you have suppressed the recent ABCNews article which directly states that her brother's name was <removed name> and that her father's name was Clark <removed name>. That is censorship. Without knowing her real name is <removed name> or that the family's name is <removed name> you CANNOT find her newspaper accounts. It would be almost impossible. So in effect, to protect the privacy of a person who could care less and does not need your protection (even Susan Curtiss cannot find her so obviously she doesn't need our help), you are preventing any other researchers from ever learning the story as reported at the time. Other researchers can only read what's been reported by people with a strong bias toward a certain view. That is not the purpose of our project, to prop up a distorted view of what actually occurred by suppressing any ability to research the case.Wjhonson (talk)

Contrary to what agr states above, the editors are not "informed by BLP policy" on this topic. Rather they seek to extend BLP policy to cover a case which it does not. That is the very crux of the matter as pointed out by multiple editors already. Mischaracterizing the situation as being cut and dry does nothing to advance a consensus view. The issue in this case is, when a person's name has already been widely disseminated, but an internet-only search does not necessarily easily reveal it. That is this case. It is nothing else, no matter how hard people try to argue that it's something else. Wjhonson (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that Wjhonson, just returning from his block, has continued to disrupt this encyclopedia by (Redacted) reintroducing the names under discussion despite warnings from two administrators that this is inappropriate given the consensus against including them. I have removed them once already and will remove them again.

Will, this is an encyclopedia not a research aid. Because you are a genealogist/researcher, I can certainly understand that you would find quick and easy access to the newspaper articles etc via the name would be helpful, but this cannot be the only consideration here on WP. We have to think about ethical and moral aspects of a decision to reveal names that for years and years have not been known and the possible consequences for a woman who has never sought nor consented to the public attention she has received. I understand that you feel that we are not interpreting BLP correctly, and maybe that BLP should be rewritten to include specific situations of this sort, but at this point there are 23 editors and administrators who disagree and think the spirit and/or letter of the current version means that the name should not be included. That is a consensus that you must attend to. Perhaps I can try to appeal to you as a professional genealogist: I gather that genealogists should "obtain some evidence of consent before assuming that living people are agreeable to further sharing of information about themselves" and should "respect the rights of others who do not wish information about themselves to be published, referenced or linked on a Web site" (from National Genealogical Society guidelines on Sharing Information With Others and Publishing Web Pages On The Internet.[46][47]) Have you got her consent? Do you really think she would want her name published? Please, please stop. --Slp1 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about what you're talking. I have no block. The point of this discussion is her very name, so we are certainly allowed to discuss the very point we're discussing. I do not agree, that we cannot report what ABCNews has reported. You think we have to stifle what ABCNews has reported for some obscure privacy of some obscure person that nobody can even find, even knowing all the details of her life. Makes no sense to me. There are certainly not "23 editors and admins" who disagree and if they are they are quite capable of making the policy change and discussing it. Perhaps you are afraid that if you actually discuss it, you'll find nobody agreeing to make that change? Her name has already been widely published, and now widely published once more by ABC. Am I the one republishing her name? No. I am reporting what others have already published. Please stop trying to censor the world. Nobody wants it. This is not, and never has been a violation of BLP. Your argument is flat. Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Half the sources I've dug up so far on this case, use the families real names. Wjhonson (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so were you were blocked for 24 hours and it seems you didn't notice[48]!! You were blocked for tendentious disruptive editing against consensus by continuing to reinsert the disputed names on a BLP case. You have now replaced them 3 times subsequently. "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." From the Badlydrawnjeff arbcase [49]. Feel free to continue the discuss the issue if you must but your repeated insertion of the names served absolutely no purpose except to be pointy and disruptive. If you continue this disruptive, pointy editing, you risk being blocked for longer and longer periods. And yes, there are many, many editors (23) who disagree with your arguments and your desire to include the name. Go and count them yourself if you wish. Slp1 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, you never cease to amaze me. For you to say, at this point in the argument, after two threads on BLP/N, two Rfds and a DRV, not to mention two whole months of arguments on the Genie talk page, for you to claim at this point that there are many editors who agree with you, really blows my mind. You can't even name FIVE. I challenge you. For every editor you can name (with proof) who has agreed with you, I will name 10 who has disagreed with you.

You have accused us multiple times of using hyperbolic arguments and then you say we are trying to "censor the world". We are not trying to censor the world. We just think that adding Genie's real name to her article, is not only unnecessary, but also potentially dangerous to her. She has lived in an undisclosed location for over 30 years and if further publishing her name will make it easier for some interested person to find her then that might give her unwanted attention. It was partly because of the harassment Genie's father received from all the nosy strangers driving by their house after she was discovered that drove him to suicide. Censorship is the suppression of information for the purpose of protecting the public. Whereas suppressing Genie's real name is for the purpose of protecting her, and no one else. For An Angel (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone claims that there are "hundreds of books, articles, videos...." that don't name her, then yes you're using hyperbolic language. When someone claims that "for every editor who has agreed with you, I will name 10 who has disagreed" then yes they are using hyperbolic language. It doesn't help your case, it make you sound shrill and desperate. I'm sure you don't want to give that impression. Adding her real name is not dangerous to her. The links you provided lead an interested person right to it, in about three google seconds. Not including the family's surname which is right in the ABCnews interview is completely pointless. Including her name is in no way "dangerous" to her, as there is no way (listen carefully) there is no way you can track her based on her name. None. Zero. Zilch. No way. It's been tried my dear by people better than I even (yes it's possible) and they can't do it. Wjhonson (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't giving that impression. I was trying to show how certain I am that you are outnumbered in this argument and the fact that you couldn't even name ONE editor who agrees with you proves to me that you know it too. You say that knowing Genie's real name is in no way helpful to anyone who would want to find her but that has already been proven wrong because it has already been done according to the recent ABC News article on her. For An Angel (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Look further up this page and on the talkpage of the article and you will see that I have sourced the 100s of books claim several times by giving links to googlebook searches. But here is another, a very narrow one, no less, to save you the trouble.[50] I don't make claims I can't thoroughly justify. Thank you.Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me just point out, as humorous and ironic as this will sound, that the only reason you know that he killed himself *allegedly* due to harassment was because of my research. (Of course we can't ask him and he didn't state it specifically.) It was stated afterward by someone else not by him. Sure it's possible other people are now citing that, but it comes back to the work I did to dig it up. Pretty ironic you would bring that up isn't it? Wjhonson (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But isn't it true that you didn't start researching Genie until last year? How do you know how long I've known why Genie's father killed himself? For An Angel (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As for a point Slp made, yes I think that she would want her full biography published on the web. There are members of her extended family who would very much like to find her and meet her but they've been prevented by the State of California, which really has little to no right to so do. At least from my perspective. Of course, early in her history she was made a ward of the state, but that can be reversed. Of course it cannot be reversed if her extended family doesn't even know that she exists can it? And they can't know she exists when her life is deliberately hidden by people claiming to care for her who really don't. People who care for her would give her a much better life than living in an institution where she is just a number and a mouth. Remember that the state is not really a great caretaker, they caused part of the damage that she suffers, through carelessness, neglect and abuse themselves. It's no bed of roses living in an "adult care facility".Wjhonson (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. First you claim that there is no chance (None. Zero. Zilch) for someone to find her by using her name and yet you think by adding her real name to her article it will help members of her extended family find her so they can give her the help she needs? Do you even realize how much you are contradicting yourself? For An Angel (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and of course in any case members of her extended family who care about her so much would know her name without Wikipedia's help!! And in fact it seems that she is well and happy in good facility, according to ABC articles and this website,http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie], so not in need of rescue.Slp1 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Slp you're missing the point. The point is they did not know she was Genie, until my article informed them. And Angel yes, members of her family can find her through the private channels of the government and/or by filing a suit to open her records, members of the public who must use public channels cannot do that. That is why Susan Curtis cannot find her even though she had hired a P.I. to try.Wjhonson (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie section break

I think this discussion has gotten off track. The talk page for this article has formed a consensus that the real name should not be used. Putting BLP issues aside, Wikipedia policy is to respect such a consensus. One can argue whether WP:BLP required the talk page editors to come to this conclusion or merely encouraged serious consideration of excluding the real name. Either way, the proper role of this notice board is to support the editors on the talk page when they exercise restraint based on privacy considerations, not second guess them. There is no way to read WP:BLP as requiring the real name to be included in a case like this.

Currently there are three separate discussion as to the appropriateness of including Genie's real name: Talk:Genie (feral child), here and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8. The only discussion of the merits should be on the talk page. If the consensuses there changes to including the real name, then there might be a basis for reviewing that decision here. Until then, the only issue properly before this notice board is the attempts to insert the real name of Genie and her brother on Wikipedia, in contravention of the talk page consensus. That seems to have stopped for the moment, and as long as it stays that way, I don't see a need for further action here.--agr (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this page is not only to support decisions made on talk pages. Consensus is a nebulous concept which can and should involve wider and wider circles until consensus is reached. To state that we should restrict our activities here to support of Talk Pages goes off-base with our traditional way of approaching conflict. If the policy is so flawed as to be unable to state exactly how to approach a case like this, in clear language, then that is the fault of the policy, not the policy-readers. If no one is willing to suggest correction to the policy to address a case just-like-this-one, then cases like this one can never be adequately resolved.Wjhonson (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You know Arnold that the issue is not requiring the real name to be included, rather the issue is whether BLP requires that the real name not be included. If BLP does not address it head-on, then an editor like myself should not be being penalized for content-conflict by the false claim that it violates BLP, when it does not. Wjhonson (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You will, however, be penalized for edit-warring to re-insert the name repeatedly against consensus. I'm afraid you're on the losing side of this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not expect Wikipedia policies to explicitly address all possible cases. Instead we have mechanisms for determining when and how they apply. Consensus is indeed "a nebulous concept", but it is also "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." (WP:Consensus) Consensus is formed on the article's talk page. (ibid) We discourage forum shopping. I see nothing flawed in the BLP policy, but if you do, that policy's talk page is the place to discuss it. Just to be clear, I blocked you for continuing to insert real names into Wikipedia, after a consensus formed that they should not be there per BLP policy, not for advocating your position. --agr (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)