Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive52

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kevin Sweeney case

Resolved
 – Image deleted on commons. — Athaenara ✉ 05:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Sweeney case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is about a man who has served jail time for killing his wife. The man has apparently been recently released.

On the 12th, 85.201.148.183 (talk · contribs) removed the image of the subject of the article without explanation [1]. I reverted [2]. The anon then removed the image again with the edit summary: "The photograph of Sweeney has been deleted because he has been subjected to death threats since his release from prison and the photograph identifies him and presents a danger".

I'm wondering what should be done. Is there policy which deals with something like this? I think the image ought to stay in the article, but i guess what i feel might be way off what wiki policy is. So what should be done? (Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask).--Celtus (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, I can't think of strong reasons for either removing the photo or keeping it. Of course, it would be good to get confirmation of those alleged death threats! I did read the article and it was terribly pro-Sweeney, so I began to fix that. Hurmata (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the photo. The article isn't even about Kevin Sweeney but the Kevin Sweeney case. I presume Kevin Sweeney is not noteable enough for an article (I.E. Wikipedia:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event applies here) in which case, details on him should be limited to those that are relevant to the case and I don't see what he looks like as greatly relevant to the case. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Removing the thumbnail/link to the photo in the article, does not prevent anyone from viewing a previous version, where the link/thumbnail was present, nor does it prevent them from viewing the photo directly without using the link/thumbnail. Any person sufficiently motivated to make death threats would also be sufficiently motivated to find the photo on Wikimedia. If you wish to achieve the goal of preventing people from viewing the photo, then get the photo removed from Wikimedia (on the grounds of death threats, which you will need to cite sources of) rather than simply trying to hide it. Obscurity is not security. A cursory glance through Google Images does indeed indicate that the Wikimedia photo is one of the few photos of this particular Keven Sweeney, so it may be very wise to get it removed from Wikimedia. I will therefore draw this discussion to the attention of Wikimedia administrators. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, while there is no legal requirement to do so, the commons generally removes images which are not used in any article and are unlikely to ever be used, on the request of the uploader of the image. I suspect they will also remove an image identifying a living person, on a request of that person under similar circumstances (they are not used in any article and are of little use otherwise). So removing the image from the article with consensus could be a first step to removing the image from the commons, death threats or not. However if death threats have been made, it would indeed probably be best for the person involved to contact admins or perhaps the arbcom about this Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the link to my Wikimedia Commons Administators' Noticeboard request. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted on Commons. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

This article has been repeatedly edit-warred over for almost the last week by two editors, one of whom is me. It needs to be protected from editing until disputes are resolved. Skoojal (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I recently became engaged in the discussion, and am unable to see that it raises any BLP issues. It's simply a question about whether to use one or two sources, the reliability of which isn't seriously doubted. As far as I can make out, the above editor thinks the sources are making a controversial or false claim, but has yet to produce any basis for that, or any sources which question the claim. It should be easy to reach a consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
It's an obvious case of an article that needs to be protected. It is being used to attack its subject through the inclusion of undue material. Even if there is no agreement that BLP violation is involved (and I think the use of a non-reliable source does count as a violation), it should still be locked to prevent edit warring, by me among others. Skoojal (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lidia Bastianich

There is constant personal political and ethnic opinion being expressed in this bio of a living person, as well erroneous information (Lidia is not friends with Christopher Walken, she started with PBS in 1998 not 2001, and so on). The town in which she lives is also constantly being inserted and is a violation of privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciupicat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I added {{fact}} tags to the Walken bits, one of which was added by anonIP 76.71.17.47 (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dmitry Galkovsky

Resolved
 – Text deleted. Biophys (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

comment on "mental problems" of the living person. I think such comments are totally unacceptable per WP:BLP.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I deleted these words from AfD discussion. You could tell me first before placing this message here. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not OK. Your comments about living person are saved in an edit history.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I only wanted to tell that he is a conspiracy theorist. If this is such a big BLP deal, you can ask an admin to remove this from edit history. I do not object of course. Please note that "having mental problems" is not a BLP violation if that can be supported by sources. But since there was are no reliable sources about this person at all, I deleted the claim. You can not expect more.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

John T. Reed

This article has had issues with COI SPAs (some registered, some not) in the past. The current problem is a recently added paragraph about Reed's alleged approval of someone whose license to practice law was revoked. The references: two citations of the Virginia Bar Association website (about the guy who can no longer practice in that state) and one citation of a "myfaircredit" website forum. I'm posting it here for attention from editors with no previous over-exposure to this little-visited bio's headaches. — Athaenara ✉ 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the Virginia Bar Association a reliable source? Corvus cornixtalk 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For the other guy, presumably yes, but not for Reed. — Athaenara ✉ 09:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The anonIP's position (diff) as posted on Talk:John T. Reed#Criticism ten days ago:
"the new section needs to allow for non-mainstream press sources (e.g., blogs, forums, etc.) that are considered generally reliable by Internet cognoscenti."
Whereas independent reliable sources are generally required, the support for the anon's contention that Reed is "tacitly endorsing" a fraud consists of links to bar association records of someone else's case and an internet forum link to prop the synthesis. — Athaenara ✉ 05:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The material in question is an obvious example of original research by synthesis and I have therefore removed it. If someone wants to put it back in, they need to find a reliable secondary source that specifically mentions the Abalos case in the context of Reed's endorsement — not make the connection on their own from primary sources. *** Crotalus *** 19:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I hope you'll add this bio to your watchlist as well, if that's not too much to expect! — Athaenara ✉ 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
After the anonIP added another version of the same (diff) I posted a caution about edit warring and invited him or her to participate here (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

WP:BLP says [3] "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first..." What should be done if someone violates the above cited part of BLP? For example on Sarah Palin when disputed content is deleted and discussed, most of the time a user will just edit war to push his own version back into the article. For example see this discussion [4] where multiple editors agreed to changes relating the Knik Arm Bridge in the article and a lone editor will just edit war his version back without consensus [5] [6], the editor marks the abusive changes in the edit summary, " putting back Don Young and alternate anchorage-wasilla route that was removed;" "returning Don Young's Way" indicating it himself that he restored/undeleted content. This is not an isolated case happens every day, what can be done with BLP violations such as this? Hobartimus (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We could lock down articles about people running for national office until the day after the election. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio)

I've removed material from Alex Jones (radio), and now protected the page to prevent the material from being restored again. Tom Harrison Talk 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. However, reading the article I don't see why anyone would feel the need to add anything to give a more negative impression. I wonder what other people think of calling the article on his movement the "9/11 Truth Movement". Northwestgnome (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Julie MacDonald

Could someone take a look at this article. To me it looks like a political coatrack and an attack page. I have already nominated it for deletion. I might have the wrong view about this. Most of the votes on the AfD are to keep. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a landslide vote to keep. I really think Obama will lose if his supporters keep attacking women. Northwestgnome (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. America will probably survive four years of McCain. Unless the Russians do something to provoke him. China or Iran we could probably take on. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

I have been accused of violating the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy with my discussion. I question whether it is a violation on a discussion page. Regardless, I do not wish to engage in an edit war on a talk page. I do believe that these issues need to be discussed; even when I am being critical of other users and the subject. I am bringing the matter for purpose of inquiry. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=239882528 --Lambchop2008 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV and WP:RS, just to be safe) first. Then, if you assimilate what it says regarding the types of edits/issues/topics you wish to discuss there, as well as the scope (Talk page as well as article page), you will understand why your efforts have been met with such resistance. There is never a "need" to discuss any topic on this project, read this for elaboration. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of John McCain

This section has been added several times to this article. With the statement

  • "In 2007, however, McCain stated that he regretted his vote in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley"

to show that McCain was hypocritical in his position. However, the source (Washington Post) has this sentence

  • But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed.

My problem with this is that the material being added is a statement of fact (not to mention it is chery picking), but the source doesn't quote McCain or give an appropriate citation to the statement. The reason given for inclusion is that the Washington Post is a reliable source, however doesn't the material in the source have to be attributed to someone making the claim? I have reverted this a couple of times for lack of actual quoted source, and then made an adjustement which was then reverted What is the stance on this? Arzel (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing may or may not be weak - probably is weak. But that's an issue to decide on the talk page. Political positions of major candidates are generally not a BLP issue. Wikidemon (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
BLP or no BLP I also fail to see any sourcing issues. Clearly the claim is attributable to the Washington Post and the journalist authoring the piece. As far as I know we don't require journalists to name their sources.PelleSmith (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we say "Stated" without an actual quote though? This seems highly questionable to me. In either case is there a problem in making a statement like this. "McCain was reported to have said..." Arzel (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps say something like: "it was reported that he had changed his position on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill". But discuss it on the article talk page first. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing "questionable" about it. If we consider the Post is a reliable source for factual information then we can report what they claim and source it to them. Your problem only makes sense if you question their reliability. Since you are not questioning their reliability it seems very much like you want to make an end-run around WP:V. I suggest you take it to the talk page and let it drop here.PelleSmith (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of how you approach it, something like this would never make it through a peer review article without attribution. The WP should list their sources, which they don't, and if something is attributed to someone one should be able to find out when and where they actually said it. This black box kind of crap is what is ruining WP and this would never fly on Britanica. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"A peer reviewed article" about the "political positions of John McCain"? A Britanica article about the political positions of John McCain? Another perhaps even more ridiculous end-run argument. If we accept newspapers as reliable sources then we accept the fact that journalists often protect the anonymity of their sources. What matters is that a reliable news organization stands by their claim, and not that someone named John Doe initially gave them the information. Our trust is in the fact checking done by the news organization and not our own judgment of John Doe's credibility. We likewise trust academic presses and peer reviewed publications to ensure quality standards. The supporter of a specific political party might not like the fact that they can't confront the person who made a specific claim about their candidate in an election year, but that's not really a concern for the encyclopedia. Please stop making pointy end-run arguments that serve no helpful purpose in building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to support either Obama or McCain's campaigns, but to report notable and factual information to the best of its ability.PelleSmith (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then tell me if this is a POV way of presenting the material. The Washington Post reported, however, that in 2007 while talking on a conference call to a group of bloggers McCain remarked that he regretted his vote in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley compared to this In 2007, however, McCain stated that he regretted his vote in favor of Sarbanes-Oxley My primary problem is that this is a second hand report without attribution, and under the current version there is NO WAY to know exactly what he said. Arzel (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An issue for the talk page in question.PelleSmith (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Divine Mafa

Can I get some more eyes on this page? An account claiming to be the subject (Fumblingfoe (talk · contribs)) has removed information they don't agree with and has been reverted and even given vandalism warnings for it. Hut 8.5 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh‎

The article on Kaveh Farrokh‎ uses a bio submitted to a conference document as it's main source for information about him - [7]. As this will have been written by Farrokh himself (that's the way all the conferences I've ever been to like this work, you ask a participant to submit biographic information), I've changed a statement about the languages he speaks to say 'he claims'. It's been reverted as using weasel words and I've now had a 'BLP warning'. [8]. Unless someone can prove that this bio is from a reliable 3rd party source, it seems to me correct to say that he 'claims', and that this is neither using a weasel word or a BLP violation, something I definitely would not want to do. But neither do I want to use an author-submitted bio as an authoritative source for an article (at one point the article was almost copy and paste from this). Doug Weller (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm being threatened with a 'BLP complaint to Wikipedia's head office' on my talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"Claim" is a "word to avoid" on WP. All you need to do is say: "He says that he speaks several languages." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, that reads pretty badly. When in doubt, the best solution is usually to state clearly where the material came from, i.e., "According to his official biography, Joe Schmoe speaks several languages." Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the source was not written by Kaveh Farokh himself, the source is a Conference Program prepared by Stanford University's World Association of International Studies. [9]. User:Dougweller has been engaged in campaign of character assassination against Kaveh Farokh, just because he dislikes Dr. Farokh's point of view on historical issues. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict. Here's what I was just writing:
Yes, I don't like 'says', if 'claims' is bad, and 'says' sounds bad, 'states'? Although in many or probably most cases the best thing to do would probably be to state where the material comes from. In this case I guess "according to the biographical details on a WAIS conference program..." The only problem is that it's leaned on so heavily in the article (which is up for deletion so this may turn out to be a non-problem). Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I would advise you to leave this until the AfD is over. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh, for anyone who's interested. It's a straightforward case of a non-notable amateur historian who's made fans among some Iranian nationalists because of his fringe views on ancient Persian history. CreazySuit is rather keen on those fringe views, hence this discussion. Some input from uninvolved BLP-watchers would be useful - this AfD looks likely to be bumpy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The AfD is tending towards keep. I really don't think we should delete him just because Iranians like him and we don't like the policies of the present Iranian government. Don't get me wrong, I dislike out of control nuclear bombs as much as the next guy. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the reason people are voting delete. If this guy's views were widely knownguy was widely known for his views in Iran than I would be all for voting keep but that's not established. Just because some Iranians like him/his views doesn't mean they all do (that's a rather offensive assumption). (And I don't hate Iranians as much as Americans seem to, in fact I would say the current American regime doesn't seem much better then Iran in many ways) Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I know a great deal about his views other than that he appears to be promoting some of the late Shah's claims about ancient Persian history (specifically concerning the Cyrus cylinder, which the Shah adopted as his symbol). I get the feeling, having read a little about it, that there's a split between diaspora Iranians and the ayatollahs about how to interpret the pre-Islamic past. The Shah's regime venerated it, the Islamic revolutionary regime criticised it. Farrokh definitely seems to be a venerator. There's certainly a plurality of !votes on the AfD for keeping, but AfD isn't a majority vote and many of the keep arguments are frankly terrible; it's like watching an experiment in how many arguments to avoid in deletion discussions can be made in a single AfD. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

David Blaine

Resolved
 – Article semi-protected by Cobaltbluetony. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we have an admin soft-protect this article for a few days, please? We have an IP range in Israel that for days has multiple, multiple times changed Blaine's nationality in the lead from "American" to "Jewish-American", despite blocks and multiple warnings. Help is appreciated. Beginning tomorrow Blaine begins his next feat, so the article is likely to receive much higher traffic. --David Shankbone 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

Same issue as Blaine. Could we please have this article soft protected for a few days? This is a persistent vandal. --David Shankbone 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Julie MacDonald

Crudely POV. Editors who keep reinserting material objected to refuse to defend their edits on the Talk Page. One editor has just reverted to a version of two weeks ago (6 Sept 2008) claiming to fight "POV pushes" but the restored version is full of POV. See Talk page for my discussions of various insertions alleged to be POV. A stark instance of irresponsible editing is this one: misquoting of a newspaper editorial in an attempt to find wording that criticizes the subject. First, WP:RS should not be interpreted to include editorial comments. Second, the wording in question is not even by the newspaper -- it's from a government document being criticized by the newspaper's editorial writer. I pointed this out hours ago, but it's been restored anyway. Hurmata (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pink (singer)

I'm new to BLP so I don't know if this is relevent but here goes:

The article on Pink states under a big shiny === header that there are rumours she is into Scientology. It also states that she has publically denied these rumours. Should they be kept in the article? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Take the section out. SFGate is a reliable source, but the article title has a question mark and the report quotes someone as saying she is "in the early stages of checking the religion out". No story, just typical ephemeral celeb gossip guff. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kernell

Currently the article is mostly about the guy's son who is accused of hacking Sarah Palin's email. I have a few concerns - if the main reason for the notability is his son, then it seems like that info would be better off in an article about his son. Second, virtually all the info is repeated in Sarah Palin, and third, David Kernell seems to only be notable for one event, which BLP says is better covered in an article that talks about the event (which it already is). I'd welcome input from others on this - I'm tempted to be BOLD and pare down the stuff about his son, but I don't think that removing sourced material wouldn't be received well, regardless of whether it arguably improves the article. Minderbinder (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs to go. Our article says that Kernell's son "was accused" of being behind the hack, which makes it sound like some weighty body made a legal accusation. In fact, the "accusers" are various blogs and at least one tabloid. This is exactly the sort of rumor that we should not be spreading until there is some sort of official confirmation or word on whether this person is the subject of an investigation. I would add that there is a not insignificant possibility of a joe job; such tactics are hardly unknown, and the language ("I was hoping to find something incriminating, but Sarah Palin is completely honest") is a bit curious. In any case, we should absolutely not run with this until there is some confirmation beyond blogs, and certainly it's inappropriate in an article about the guy's father. MastCell Talk 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth to some degree the suspicion at least is confirmed. Per the AP the FBI has searched his (the sons) apartment.[10] (That doesn't mean it needs to be front and center in the fathers bio.)--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine; the wheels are turning, and it sounds like a sufficient trail of evidence was left to enable the FBI to rapidly conclude an investigation. We'll have something appropriate and reliably sourced soon enough. I'm just asking that we wait for something more than blogs and rumors before we run with it here. MastCell Talk 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, did you actually read the material and all the sources that you removed or supported removing? The original material that was all removed was supported by least 10 sources from the article(previously the article had 18 sources), did you read all of them? I ask because you seem to completely misunderstand the status of the FBI investigation, when you describe the issue as a "rumor". For reference, [11] this was the article before the latest wave of blankings. The article describes supported by 18 sources the issue as is known thus far. Hobartimus (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The material wasn't removed because it was unsourced, it was removed because it wasn't about the topic of the article (although the sources weren't the strongest ones, particularly in the case of a person accused of a crime). Not to mention that most if not all of the information is also at Anonymous (group) and Sarah Palin. The material there should probably be scrutinized as well to make sure it also meets BLP. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The previous state of the article again [12] before the blankings describes the FBI raid and is supported by a multitude of reliable sources, not blogs. Hobartimus (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the state of the article you keep linking is particularly encouraging; it relies on highly dubious sourcing to draw a speculative link between the hacking and the Obama campaign and, as Minderbinder notes, many of the sources are iffy to poor from a BLP standpoint (which does not even get into the WP:COATRACK issues). Again, this is not Wikinews and we are not in the business of pushing RNC talking points (e.g. the insinuations about the Obama campaign) nor rushing to disseminate potentially damaging material about private individuals as widely as possible. Again, I'm asking for a period of patience. Within a few days, this will be clearer, and it will be easier to determine what is encyclopedic (as opposed to newsworthy at this very second). MastCell Talk 18:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(massive edit conflict reply to mastcell) I didn't say it was perfect but it had a few more reliable sources which can be relied on for improvement and reflects the state of the investigation better clarifying the direct involvement of the FBI and clarifying that it's not only mere a rumor or speculation pushed by blogs. The distinction is important since a few days ago it really was only a rumor with wired and other sources tracking down Rubico via his email address and not any official investigation by law enforcement. Hobartimus (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said, the name of the article is MIKE Kernell (who is notable for being a senator), not DAVID Kernell (who is not arguably notable for more than one event). The event may be notable, but it doesn't belong in that article beyond a brief mention or cross reference to one of the articles that goes into more detail. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a state legislator, I believe that Mike Kernell is notable according to WP:POLITICIAN. The article was started because his son has received media attention, but the father probably was overdue for an article after his 31 years in the state legislature. (For what it's worth, almost all of the local media stories about the son mention the father.) --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) To clarify, I'm not saying that he shouldn't have an article - I just didn't think an article about a politician should devote the vast majority of its copy to his son. The article is much better now, although it could definitely use more sourced details. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested wording at the article talk page; I suppose one sentence on the fact that the FBI searched his son's home in connection with the email hack is justifiable, though I don't agree with it. I think we lose nothing by waiting a few days for more definitive word on the subject, and we do lose by spreading rumor or insinuation, particularly on the off-chance that the son turns out not to be involved. MastCell Talk 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec repy to Minderbinder) The small amount of content about that covers the issue with which Kernell Sr. is directly involved with and made multiple press releases about, only looks large b/c this state legislator's article is just a stub currently. With article developement the article would soon grow to a size where a single paragraph will not count as "vast majority" as you note. However for fairness one should also note that Kernell's main notability currently is being involved with the case here, if you search a database of reliable sources for "Mike Kernell" you will see this to be the case. Hobartimus (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
So develop the article. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I did try to develop the article. However it is impossible to do so if many users only contribute by deleting well sourced information and add no text or sources to the article themselves. In this case there is very little incentive to try to write a decent article and the idea of writing more text sounds very much like wasting time. Hobartimus (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An article should be written about his subject. The father merits an article given his legislative history. Whether anyone can readily and will do the dead tree research needed to build it up to a good article soon isn't a critical question. The search of the son's apartment does merit brief mention, but should not dominate the father's article, no matter what. I refuse to predict how the coverage of the son's activity will evolve in the future; I can already see differences between the coverage of the incident from before the search and from after the search. Without making such a prediction, I can't take a position on how we should cover the son's activity. I wish editors abided more thoroughly with WP:NOT#NEWS. GRBerry 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP explicitly states that WP:RS is not a sufficient policy when it comes to BLP's. Hurmata (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As an update, most of the deleted material has been moved to a new article entitled Sarah Palin E-Mail Hack. This addresses the COATRACK and undue weight concerns, but the same crappy, BLP-violating sources and content (as well as the same poorly sourced RNC talking points) have been reproduced. The article has been nominated for deletion; I anticipate it will continue to be a BLP disaster area (or at least require vigilance), so I'd ask contributors here if they'd be willing to watchlist it as well. MastCell Talk 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob Enderle

Much of the last section of my Bio appears to be a personal attack and the statements are inaccurate or missleading (often both). I'd appreciate a call to discuss this. Enderle (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you nean Rob Enderle, Dick Enderle, or someone else? Bearian (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Rob, I think. I went to remove the final paras but someone got there first. The article has a lot of issues. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all of the accurate stuff has been removed and that it is now just a personal attack on me. Was this punitive? Enderle (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, Rob Enderle Enderle (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Stubbed for now. That was a disgraceful hatchet-job. Referenced but utterly biased. Suggest some eyes on this as people rebuild it. The subject has every right to be annoyed here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have rv-ed the removal of numerous content from the article and reduction of it to one or two line of text, simply because when I saw it in recent changes it appeared to be vandalism. (I don't know the subject so don't know if that's the case.) Mr. Enderle, I don't think this article is entirely derogatory of you- you could always discuss things you dislike on Talk:Rob Enderle or change anything you dislike, as long as you try to avoid an edit war. I don't think the article as I saw it accused you of anything too unpleasant- the sources didn't seem very reliable but despite what Scott's edit said, it didn't rely on the Register but in my view probably worse sources. Because it didn't rely on the Register as Scott's edit summary claimed, I assumed it was an edit with a personal motive. Scott, if you make some edits like that again could you link to the relevant discussion on this noticeboard, for the benefit of those viewing Recent Changes, otherwise they might think you are deleting it for some personal agenda- those removing stuff they don't want to have written about someone for their own reasons commonly cite WP:BLP. Not saying this is the case this time of course. Feel free to rv e if you feel it necessary, but I think it would be better to discuss with involved editor's on the article's talk page, just because to remove that amount of content seems a waste IMHO. I'm sure plenty of sources portraying the subject positively could be found, so content could be added rather than removed, or at least replaced. But that's just my opinion as someone passing on Recent Changes. Sticky Parkin 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
And I've reverted you. Please review the BLP policy.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When I first commented the initial (top part) of the BIO was accurate and then the piece seemed to drop into a series of accuasaions. Some didn't even make sense (accused me of making an innacurate prediction when the quote it used wasn't predictive), replaced words I'd written with more inflamitary words, or were just downright made up. Some very creative linking and writing going on which just seemed intended to do damage to me. But I can't afford the kind of PR oversight that the presidential candidates or CEOs have and I wish these guys were really that perfect. What worries me is that this is used by my peers as a reason why they don't want to speak up on critical subjects because they are afraid of being attacked in this fashion. Anyway, I appreciate the help. Enderle (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been stubbed and we are going to rebuild it with an eye on keeping it BLP compliant. I invite you to offer suggestions and comments on Talk:Rob Enderle. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Belinda Neal

A brand-new user has suddenly come in and begun removing everything from the Belinda Neal article starting with "In June 2008" on to the end of the text. I know nothing about Australian politics. The claims seem well-sourced. Any opinions? Corvus cornixtalk 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a legal threat so I've notified Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Legal threat by Annesingleton. Also I've put uw-legal and wp:coi warnings on her user talk page, as she's pretty much admitted a conflict of interest. ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Kernell

Users attempting to tar the father with the brush of the son's activities. Please keep an eye on the article. Corvus cornixtalk 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have Sarah Palin E-Mail-Hack. Corvus cornixtalk 07:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
See prior discussion above at #Mike Kernell. GRBerry 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC with BLP implications on "terrorism" and Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn

An RfC has started on whether the word "terrorism" can be mentioned and discussed in the article space of several articles, including the BLPs Bill Ayers, a leader of the now-defunct Weatherman (organization), and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, the highest-ranking leader of that group. (Other articles in the RfC: Weatherman (organization) and Obama-Ayers controversy. It has been repeatedly argued that a WP:BLP violation may be involved in stating that Ayers and Dohrn have been called "terrorist", and sourcing has been provided (most recently at the top of the page and the bottom), and several new proposals have been made for language in the articles. Editors with an interest and expertise in BLP matters would be welcome in the discussions. Please take a look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Please discuss the matter there, not here. -- Noroton (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille

Some neutral editors need to review this article. The first reference, cited multiple times, appears to be pretty bizarre and unreliable. The article itself has a pretty negative tone and may need some BLP cleanup, particularly if the sources are not very good. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of the current lead is so obliviously written it makes me wonder if the writer is themselves one of these home schooled people. Just kidding about the "makes me wonder". Anyway, I'll at least copy edit. Hurmata (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of big-bust models and performers

Could someone take a look at this article? I've had past disagreements with the main editors of this article so I am unable to clean it up myself. Besides the article being pure original research, the inclusion of people such as Dolly Parton presents a severe BLP problem. Epbr123 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this isn't a subject worthy of a cleanup. I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (6th nomination)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tig Notaro

There is some discussion at Talk:Tig Notaro about whether it is appropriate to refer to her in the article as a lesbian (which several internet sites do report) despite her assertion via OTRS that she does not publicly self-identify as such. More participants would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Heather Fargo

Half of this article reads like a campaign tract, and the other half like a tract for her opponent. There are references, but no footnotes for a lot of the claims. Her father was "an important city official"? WTF? Corvus cornixtalk 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative unreferenced stuff removed. The positive spin is not a BLP problem.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gascoigne

 Done Several people Ips reporting on his wikipedia article that the man has died when whilst there are rumors of his death there is no official confirmation, mainly Ips and new accounts are doing this so its best to protect this until its all cleared. 86.145.107.179 (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the latest published stories, the cops have been contacting the media to tell them that the death rumors are false . Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been protected.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Carol Woods

There are now two people with that name. The American Singer Actress and the British Politician The formers article is now titled Carol Woods (singer / actress) . Can the Carol Woods one be changed to Carol Woods (politician) so searching just the name brings up both Carolwoodsfan (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That would need to be discussed on the talk page of the articles, not here. It will depend on the relative notability of each. If one is far more notable, she probably will get the Carol Woods slot, with a hatnote (see also). If both are equally notable, then a disambiguation page might be the answer. But it is not a BLP issue as such. Take it to the talk pages of each article.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Nancy Colmenares

I beg for protecting (not in Wikipedian sense) the article about Hugo Chávez' former spouse Nancy Colmenares who revently came under repeated attacks - at first a Template:Refimprove has been added, although 83% (calculation will be expounded, if requested) of the article are sources (the reference section) and there are 8 sources for 5 short sentences.
Then User:NJGW added the "speedy deletion" template - judging from his personal page he is obviously involved in articles concerning USA and petrol, therefore (article concerning contemporary Venezuela) his impartiality is to be questioned.
I have added 8 sources from 5 independent countries - Spain, FYROM, Russia, Norwegen and the Japanes Foreign Ministry. Any native speakers from these countries can confirm that the sources have been racounted/rendered into English diligently.
I profess that I have not added any controversial (extolling/belittling) information, but only facts about children's name and years.
I have been recently disgusted by not impartial users erasing sources and large sections of articles, of whose languages they have not the slightest knowledge. I hope that impartiality and knowledgeableness will prevail.

If protection is inevitable, then in the Wikipedian sense, but please without the inept "Speedy deletion" template, the user, who added it, did not even deign to take a look at the discussion page, where I and one more user are discussing the notability.

Bogorm (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a BLP issue but a notability one. If you want to say that Nancy Colmenares is a notable person in her own right, and not just as a former spouse of a national leader, then you will have to give arguments about what she is notable for. Please keep discussing it on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center describing people/groups as bigoted

  • Specifically this advocacy interest group is used to label individuals and groups at Neo-confederate, including historians who don't uphold their specific views on the civil war. Though that is just one of many examples of articles about people and groups freely using SPLC as a source. (Note that wiki editors who note or try to edit out the BLP problems risking ending up being called a bigot, on or off wikipedia, leading people to shy away from doing so!)
  • SPLC's articles are very poorly sourced, mostly claiming some book (no page number) or article (few if any details) or "anonymous source" who went to a meeting or lurked on some email list backs up their claim. Plus they put the most negative spin on any information they gather. And as you can see from their article they are criticized for raising millions of dollars with these claims, so they have a vested interest in smearing people. It seems incredibly tacky wikipedia uses them as a source, plus dangerous since people who might not take on SPLC and its millions might decide to take on Wikipedia for its systematic use of this source.
  • SPLC is similiar to FrontPage Magazine which is allowed only a much more limited use, including for BLP: #1, #2, #3, #4
  • Perhaps this has been discussed before? All archive links appreciated. Links to any major mediation or arbitration on this also appreciated. Comments?? Carol Moore 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
If you could be more specific about what things you think should be removed, this might get more attention. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're asking for here. The article itself discusses SPLC as being the major proponent of labeling people Neo-Confederate, and the article says that it's the SPLC using the term. Wikipedia is not labeling anybody, they're reporting what the SPLC claims. And the SPLC is a notable organization which has won several high-profile lawsuits, so you can't claim it isn't notable. Corvus cornixtalk 19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? Comparing the SPLC to Worldnetdaily? That's trolltastic. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note I compared SPLC above and below to FrontPageMagazine, so get your facts straight before insulting people. (See WP:Attack.) Also WorldNetDaily has been known from time to tome to print articles by experts in a field and similar views of theirs can be traced back to well sourced academic or other pieces. Carol MooreCarolmooredc
Just because they have won lawsuits in the past by some individuals, does not mean they will win lawsuits in the future against others. I know one academic who has a wiki article and was trashed elsewhere by someone using SPLC info and he threatened to sue the person who used it. The fact that wikipedia has such high standards for WP:BLP and yet totally let's them fall down when using poorly sourced SPLC material bothers me. Of course, one way to protect wikipedia would be to get some innocent people who have been smeared by SPLC to sue and win and then SPLC would lose credibility on wikipedia :-) Believing the universe is just, I look forward to it optimistically! Carol Moore 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
But to be more serious, considering SPLC is first and foremost an advocacy organization, with many articles of varying quality, it would seem that individual articles used as sources could be challenged, if they do in fact have little or no reliable sourcing, just to keep up wikipedia standards. The same standards would and should be applied to LewRockwell.com where maybe 2/3 of the articles are by academics or researchers or experts writing in their field and 1/3 are political rants. So it's not always the actual source but the quality of the individual piece that is relevance, especially for WP:BLP. This might even be applied to FrontPage Magazine. (Both SPLC and FrontPageMag go out of their way to tar and feather private individuals and organizations and therefore should have high standards for WP:BLP.] I think this is important enough to take as high up the wikipedia chain as it will go. Unless someone provides links to show it's already gone there. Carol Moore 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
More to the point is the point is the fact that both news organizations and academics routinely rely on the SPLC. The following is from the Neo-Confederate article referenced earlier:
While acknowledging the possibility of some statistical bias by the SPLC, Rory McVeigh, the Chair of the University of Notre Dame Sociology Department, wrote:
Such measurement bias, if it exists, would be more likely to show up in claims concerning membership or in descriptions of the movement's goals, rather than in a listing of organizations. The SPLC's lists of U.S. racist organizations are by far the most comprehensive available. Its outstanding reputation is well established, and the SPLC has been an excellent source of information for social scientists who study racist organizations. (reference: Rory McVeigh. Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States. Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 3, (Mar., 2004), p. 913 JSTOR) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course that is just a counterpoint to this in the SPLC article includes the following short excerpt of a longer critique which evidently needs to go in that article too:
Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” wrote about SPLC and several other “watchdog” groups: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies. For instance, events were sometimes portrayed in Klanwatch Intelligence Reports as more militant and dangerous with higher turnouts than we observed.”REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 1-3.
Note, for innocent bystanders, I am not saying SPLC is always or overwhelmingly wrong, but I do feel it goes out of its way to smear people who don't deserve it order to build up the illusion of a "threat" so it can scare people into contributing millions of dollars. The SPLC article quotes a couple such charges from WP:RS. And I think wikipedia has to be extremely careful with such sources.
Carol Moore 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
The material you quote is simply another example of an academic source using the SPLC as a legitimate source. It is actually quite common for scholars to write about their differences with sources they cite -- if they agreed entirely with the existing sources they wouldn't have any real reason to publish, would they? Subjective opinions about the nature and attendance numbers at a specific public meeting certainly may vary among good faith observors. And your source certainly don't say anything as extreme as your claim that the SPLC "goes out of its way to smear people who don't deserve it order to build up the illusion of a 'threat' so it can scare people into contributing millions of dollars."
And of course you ignore the widespread acceptance of the SPLC by mainstream news organizations. The following, for example, comes from a website associated with the Wall Street Journal (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-mccain-call-youth-action/story.aspx?guid={15EF174B-219F-4A17-B211-6A791F303263}&dist=hppr):
Teaching Tolerance magazine, published twice a year by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is the nation's leading journal serving educators on diversity issues. In 2007, the magazine was named Periodical of the Year by the Association of Educational Publishers for the second consecutive year. Teaching Tolerance films have garnered four Academy Award nominations and won two Oscars.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala., is a nonprofit civil rights organization that combats bigotry and discrimination through litigation, education and advocacy.
For further examples of newspapers citing the SPLC, simply check Google News for "Southern Poverty Law Center." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What articles, in particular, are you concerned about? Attribution is key in this kind of case, so could you point out examples you think are inappropriate? Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, your diatribes above on the SPLC are veering very dangerously close towards outright attacks on the SPLC as an organization, rather than its quality as a source, especially when you are outright accusing them of illegal activity. I'd suggest you stop. Address the substance of the issue, not the SPLC.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not illegal for SPLC and other groups to smear people, though it can get them sued. Groups' scaring and hyping people to get their money isn't illegal either, though its morality is questionable. Various groups people have used as sources have been criticized for these things. See listing of Reliable Sources Noticeboard Discussions.
  • I will have to go through the neoconfederate article and find specific dubious statements about innocuous people that are backed by poor sourcing and mere guilt by association accusations. However, in general I avoid tangling with these SPLC sourced articles a) because many of the people SPLC criticizes are sleazy people and who wants to read about them; b) I think that those who have been illegitimately smeared should get together and do a class action suit for malicious libel, especially if they have endured any economic damage and c) because many of those smeared - libertarians, secessionists, etc. - have kept getting good national press despite SPLC criticism which makes me think SPLC isn't taken as seriously by the media as some wikipedians think they are. Which may be why some people haven't bothered to sue them, despite having a good case.
  • I've been dealing with BLP issues for last week and was hypersensitive when happened to go to neoconfederate page. So it's still a low priority. Mostly I just wanted to see past discussions without going through zillions of archives, but maybe that's less time consuming :-) Carol Moore 03:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
You're not listening. You're raising issues that aren't related to Biographies of Living Persons, but rather using this as a platform to attack the SPLC. It's unacceptable for you to use Wikipedia as a platform to accuse the SPLC of illegal activities and smearing people. That's not the point. Either address the issue, or there's nothing more to discuss. Also, be aware of our policy against legal threats, at WP:NLT including the section about repeated assertions of things as defamation (same page, but WP:NPLT is a shortcut to that section). If you can't address the topic without attacking the SPLC, there's nothing further to discuss. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you've got to keep this focused on Wikipedia. Please give some examples where you think this source has been used to inappropriately malign a living person. An example like this would have been helpful in your original post. If you have no examples, then there's nothing else to discuss. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree evidently I should have brought specifics, but I'm used to Reliable sources/noticeboard where people seem to bring general issues fairly frequently, but maybe I read too quickly. Also the problem with SPLC is they build up a web of quasi-verifiable facts and negative opinions about one set of people and then tar others who have or had some loose association with them with the same bigotry brush. So it's really complicated to follow the whole trail. Maybe what I should do to motivate myself to do an unpleasant job is to have someone commission me to do it for pay, and then use that research as basis of a complaint here. (A girl can fantasize.) Otherwise, I'll read Neoconfederate again, get ticked off and build a more specific case.
As for legal threats, I think I made it clear that protecting wikipedia from legal threats is my concern. Wikipedia:Legal says you shouldn't threaten to sue other editors or wikipedia itself. That doesn't mean I can't opine that someone else should sue some wikipedia source, which some wikipedians like and others don't.
Now, there might arise a situation were a wikipedia editor is an employee of an organization that is libeling people, including other wikipedia editors. But the policy covers that by asking both sides not edit during any such legal procedures.
I myself have been in a similar situation. An editor who I have not identified libeled me repeatedly in a couple of his anonymous blogs. He was a big fan of SPLC - but attacked me harder for not joining his crusade than he did the actual alleged bigots! He even attacked me in his blog for replacing two unsourced specific attacks on League of the South with the more general information that SPLC called it a hate group and a direct link to the SPLC article which is filled with such attacks! So you can see why I'm pretty annoyed about using sources that I believe libel some people sometimes. Carol Moore 15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
First it would help to not drop a lot of legal words around; that can be ambiguous and in a print medium like the wiki prone to misinterpretation. Just some friendly advice.
If SPLC is being used as a source for controversial material about a living person on any page here, yes please point it out if you wish more editors to chime in. Otherwise, this would appear to be a general question of its suitability as a source, and perhaps taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard would be more helpful. My hunch is that it would be a reliable source but perhaps only for its own opinions, and even then its use would be subject to editorial discretion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. These fine distinctions are why I always tell people when encouraging them to become wikipedia editors to consider it a long term commitment cause there are so many (useful) rules and regs to learn :-) Carol Moore 15:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
In general, the SPLC's opinions are almost universally relevant; however, if there is any serious controvery it is best to explicitly reference them in the text. "According to the SLPC ..." or something similar. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, right, one should always do that with negative BLP commentary. That said, this doesn't seem to be a BLP problem. This can probably be archived. Cool Hand Luke 17:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Papa Dee

  • Papa Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anonymous editor keeps adding information to this article about a purported criminal arrest of PD regarding assault. Whether the charges are true or not is less relevant in this case, what is more relevant is that so far no major Swedish news outlets have published any names of individuals involved on this case (in accordance with good journalistic ethics in Sweden which states that no names of individuals should be published until there is a conviction). According to WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment". / Slarre (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: two days now and still no action, while the information is still in the article. I think that the Wikipedia community needs to act a lot faster on these issues. /Slarre (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: four days... /Slarre (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ElKevbo (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Maybe you should check the edit history of the article in question before posting stuff like that? /Slarre (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking others here to do. I imagine that very few of us are able to read the sources cited by this editor and are thus unable to help. You, on the other hand, do appear to know what's going on and are able to read the materials and have removed the edits several times. What is is you'd like us to do and why have you stopped editing the article in question? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit wars lead nowhere, and I don't want to be blocked for violating WP:3RR. The information should be removed and the article temporarily locked from editing (at least by anonymous editors, and if tha doesn't help all editors except administrators), for the reasons I have explained above. Also the article at the Swedish Wikipedia (sv:Papa Dee) was locked after several anonymous editors tried to add this information to the article. /Slarre (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to request that the article be protected or the anonymous editor be blocked (the latter seems more likely to be done by an administrator). It may also be helpful or reassuring to know that edits made to remove BLP-violating material are most certainly exempt from the 3RR. Of course, the trick is to be able to distinguish between BLP-violating edits and run-of-the-mill content disputes. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Booth

→ See also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Lauren Booth (discussion last week)

Still subjected to pov pushing & poor sources that do not support the content of the edits. I really do think other editors need to start taking an interest in the page. Dead-or-Red (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: User: Athaenara was kind enough to dig up an archived recent discussion on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to make a stronger case... check that: you haven't yet made any case at all. IronDuke 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The only case that needed to be made was that there was an article with wp:blp concerns, and that case was indeed made. I have made changes to the article which I believe bring it in line with wp:blp and wp:npov.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
How wonderful it would be if we could make cases merely by assertion. Make my life much easier. IronDuke 02:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I encourage editors who have an opinion about this article to join the discussion at Talk:Lauren Booth, to help build a consensus for what should go in the article. There was some fairly strange stuff in the article, somebody removed it, got into a revert war, there were blocks, but still it's not clear that a balanced version of the article has been achieved. As they say, it shouldn't be rocket science to create a neutral article. In the last BLPN posting (linked above) somebody proposed an AfD, and opinions are welcome on that idea as well. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I stepped in and tried to help, without much success. It seemed as though things had calmed down. Apparently not. As best as I can tell, this woman has angered a lot of people (perhaps rightly so, I really don't know). Problem is coverage of any such anger or alleged criticism cannot be reliably sourced. So, instead, some of our fellow Wikipedians are taking to picking and choosing quotes that may or may not be from her, in an attempt to synthesize a story that she somehow believes Gaza is a bigger humanitarian crisis than was the Holocaust. Cue wp:npov killing edits like this most recent one. The whole mess is one big wp:undue violation, and I think wp:blp is meant to deal with this very sort of thing: controversial, largely editorial attacks on a living person under the guise of scant and generally poor sourcing. Please take a look, this really needs additional uninvolved attention.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I stepped in but am withdrawing as the talk page discussion does not seem to be heading anywhere. To my eyes there is a slight tendency to coatracking, but the article is mainly OK at the moment. There may also be a tendency to WP:OWN, as I did find it difficult to get my arguments across. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the article is mainly OK now. I'm sorry you were having difficulty getting your arguments across. IronDuke 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The one outstanding issue has been the one main issue all along. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Iron Duke. There are clearly still problems, since someone on the talk page is talking of our"journalistic duty" to expose a case when the subject has purportedly "put her foot in her mouth". It seems that it really is only a few words that are at issue. It could perhaps be resolved by attributing the point to the Jerusalem Post. If it can't be discussed amicably then perhaps RfC or mediation. I'm not sure that it reflects so badly on the subject that intervention is needed under BLP; it is mainly an attempt to make an Israeli-Palestinian conflict political point (what I called "coatracking"). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

National Federation of Republican Assemblies

Wasilla Assembly of God

Three separate editors (Simoncursitor, Cbharts, and Tautologist) have reverted my removal (Tautologist was the original author) of material stating that Thomas Muthee was "a witch hunter and persecutor." I could use some more eyes on the situation, as I've been quite involved in keeping WP:COATRACK material out of the article. One or more separate admins or BLP-focused editors could serve to help correctly and dispassionately apply wikipedia policies. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would point out the issue is a little more pervasive than just that sentence, although that might be the more serious BLP issue -- NPOV is also taking a vacation there (sigh). Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Page protected for edit warring - indefitely. Protection can be lifted once any admin is convinced that collaborative editing will be the consequence, not sterile revert warring. I do have an opinion on the underlying content issue, but haven't been reviewing the substantive actual edits for the last week or so. The page has been a festering problem for a while and really needs more experienced editors involved. GRBerry 16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Cortell

Mr. Cortell is a Spanish American living in Spain who briefly in 2004/2005 spoke in conferences supporting copyleft issues in Spain. News reports of his "firing" from his job as a lecturer in April/May 2005 went all over the world because he ignored university advice of not speaking in a particular conference --- even on slashdot.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/20/1538242

But slashdot readers immediately found problems with his resume and his academic background --- in particular, all his degrees come from a non-exsistent university.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=12603477&sid=150181

The slashot comments went back to Spain and created a fire storm. Here is a list of the websites on this matter before and after the fire storm.

http://piezas.bandaancha.st/docs/cortell.html

All the websites on and after May 22, 2005 were about his resume.

The Spanish Association of Composers and Authors of Music (ACAM) put out a press release on this fire storm. You can say that because Mr. Cortell is a copyleft supporter and therefore he is a natural enemy of the ACAM in Spain. However, the ACAM does not put out press releases without checking the legitimacy of the source material (so they do not get sued for libel).

http://www.acam.es/noticia-858-ni-tiene-un-master-ni-es-doctor-ni-es-un-licenciado.html

Mr. Cortell's own website no longer list all those questionable degrees --- an admission of the legitimacy of his degrees. No legitimate copyleft conferences have invited Mr. Cortell to speak after the fire storm.

http://www.cortell.net/

I put in an entry in the Jorge Cortell wiki page about this issue under the "controversy" section. It was deleted for no reason --- I don't understand it because that's what the section is about. I added a "request for comment" and it was deleted too. I added a "speedy deletion" and it was deleted too. Let me see if this entry will be deleted also.

Jorge Cortell's wiki page in the Spanish edition of wikipedia was deleted in 2005, following the fire storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcc9413 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(I added article links above.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
A speedy deletion should have been removed since this article clearly doesn't qualify. You could try an WP:AFD but I'm quite sure it will fail since it appears this guy is seemingly is noteable which is the only issue in an AFD. The fact that you don't like the guy because he 'deceived' you is an extremely bad reason to delete an article. Also, a press release attacking a living person should almost definitely not be used as a source for anything other then that the press release was made and it doesn't matter whether the authors of the press release are not going to libel people because they are afraid of being sued. If the substance of the allegations against Jorge were covered in reliable secondary sources (whether English or Spanish) then please show these sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
A We have better than "reliable secondary sources" --- we have THE primary source. Mr. Cortell no longer list all those questionable degrees in his website. I am NOT using those links above as a definitive source of what happened --- just an quick and simple illustration of what happened. I am saying that we should respect the decisions of the spanish wikipedia volunteers --- can you even name a single case where a "famous" person gets left out of his or her "native" wikipedia. It would be like the english wiki page saying that Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone, Italian inventor Antonio Meucci did --- and then there is not a single mention of Antonio Meucci in the Italian edition of wikipedia. This doesn't happen in real life. The spanish wiki volunteers went and looked at all those 30-40 links that were collected in the piezas.bandaancha.st website and decided to killed Mr. Cortell's entry --- that's what wiki is all about, you should trust the local volunteers who can give you a better assessment. Imagine the pain that the spanish wiki volunteers went through 3 years before --- what sort of a scandal it is to have wiki volunteers (mostly copyleft supporters) killing an entry about a copyleft activist. Either kill the entry entirely (as with the spanish wiki's wishes) or add the controversies entry to include this issue (and then locked the page). Mtcc9413 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It is usually unacceptable to use a primary source in a BLP to establish a controversy because they don't (they may establish something happened that's all). If a controversy exists, it needs to be established by reliable secondary sources (whether Spanish or not). The fact that Cortell may have lied, doesn't mean that we have to mention he lied in his article. We should only mention he lied if other reliable secondary sources mention he lied, i.e. it's a significant part of what makes him noteable. If Spanish wikipedians have established that Cortell is not noteable, then they should discuss it on the English wikipedia about why he is not noteable rather then simply tell us to delete it because they decided to. Also, different wikipedias have different standards of inclusion. The German wikipedia is very strict on inclusion so it's rather likely there are a number of German people deemed noteable by the English wikipedia that don't have and may never have articles on the German wikipedia. It is ultimately up to the wikipedia to set their inclusion standards. I strongly urge you to read up on English wikipedia policies since it doesn't appear you understand them well at all. P.S. I highly doubt it would be painful for a copyleft supporter to delete an article on this guy as you seem to suggest. If I were a copyleft supporter I would want to delete an article on him as well since I would much rather forget he ever existed then acknowledge he did. I'm not of course suggestion that's what happened on the Spanish wikipedia but it remains the case we need to establish whether this guy is noteable or not noteable by English wikipedia standards not Spanish wikipedia standards. P.P.S. Whatever happens it's unlikely we will lock the the page. Wikipedia is intended to be the encylopaedia anyone can edit. Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable Usenet personalities

This could use some more eyeballs. Editors often add new people to the list, sometimes with real names, seriously defamatory accusations, and sources that don't meet WP:BLP or WP:RS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of this may sound over the top, but many of the references are the "personalities" own words that they typed on usenet, and are held on archives such as google groups. Some are the personalities own websites. Some of what you deleted is against previous consensus to keep as per Talk:Notable Usenet personalities. 82.26.27.112 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that, for the most part, we have no way of verifying if someone posting under a particular name on Usenet is really that person or not. Even if someone does a few bizarre things on Usenet under a particular name, there's still a possibility that some of "that person's" antics are really posted by impostors. There's also the fact that we are relying purely on primary sources for allegations and misbehavior that no reliable, third-party source ever saw fit to report upon. *** Crotalus *** 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Given our current standards I'm not sure that article can ever hope to meet BLP, particularly the entries that list real (?) names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
For the ones who have e.g. been banned by court, we don't have a problem with verifying they are who they claimed to be, but we do have a problem with WP:ONEEVENT given that many of them don't appear to be noteable outside of this single relatively minor event and even if the event is noteable enough to mention on wikipedia, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person should be mentioned in connection with the event Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Profile" lists in pop star articles

Case in point: Keito Okamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note the long list of unsourced and mostly unencyclopedic trivia in the "Profile" section. My attempts to remove the list and the "Trivias" section have been met with wholesale reversals, and rather than risking a 3RR violation I thought I'd ask about that sort of list here. "Profiles" including both information that is present in the article's lead section (name, birthdate, birthplace etc) and trivia (favourite food, blood group, cute habits, first kiss, favourite subject in school etc) are included in a bunch of articles about young Japanese pop stars - see Hikaru Yaotome, Kei Inoo, Yuya Takaki for instance. These four all belong to the same group, but I know I've seen the phenomenon in other articles as well. Am I right to suppose that those lists, as well as lists of trivia that's completely unsourcable, don't belong in Wikipedia articles? (I know "Trivia" sections are discouraged - the question is if the information should be there in the first place.) --Bonadea (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Raila Odinga

Raila Odinga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a dispute in a statement and the significance respectively the reliabilty of the underlying sources. Please see Talk:Raila Odinga#Obama connection, WP:NPOV, WP:LIVE, WP:V, WP:WEB --R.Schuster (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

R.Schuster is disputing the fact that Obama attended Kenya and campaigned for Odinga while visiting. This has been backed up with three sources, one of them being a CBS video showing Obama with Odinga campaigning at multiple events. There is no doubt that this occurred. R.Schuster is vandalizing this website by removing the information FIRST then asking questions later. This is in violation of Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia requires that a user dispute the material in Discussion first before removing information. R.Schuster did not do this. He immediately without notice deleted the whole section while claiming my sources where not creditable. Not sure how the Sun Times and CBS are not creditable. He says the Sun Times is an editorial which is not true. A journalist will title his/her article with Editorial when it is one. My source does not do this. The journalist is merely reporting on the facts of Obama's trip to Kenya which included him campaigning for Odinga while there. These are all facts that have been reported over and over in the media. There is no question in this fact. At this point R.Schuster is removing the information over and over without discussion, this is VANDALISM. --Xinunus (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Read the guidelines and calm down. WP:LIVE: "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." -- R.Schuster (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
R.Schuster is removing information that is not in question but information that he personally doesnt want on here because of personal bias. This information is true and has been sourced by three reliable sources. You are vandelising this page by repeatedly removing the information without just cause. Please stop or you will get banned. --Xinunus (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your claiming unsourced or poorly sourced material. This is NOT true. The three sources provided are viable new organizations. One being CBS news. You can not just say "Unsourced and poorly sourced" without saying why you think they are. Tell us why you think African International and CBS news are not viable sources please before you continue to vandelise this page? --Xinunus (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, you are the same person as Xinunus, just not logged in, correct? As for the article, none of the sources you have provided are reliable enough to substantiate this claim about living persons. We don't use YouTube videos as refs, blogs are not reliable sources, and opinion pieces are used only as cites for opinion, not for factual claims. Also, the photo you keep attempting to add is pretty clearly a photoshop fake. If this information is true as you claim, then it should be pretty easy to find better sources from mainstream news organizations that verify it. Until you can do so, the information must be immediately removed, per WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state why you think these three sources are not valid:

1) Daniel Johnson with "The Sun Times" - (it's not an editorial, a journalist writes a note at the top of the article when it is, this journalist does not)

2) Paula Abeles with "African Press International"

3) Mike Flannery with "CBS NEWS" - this is a video showing Obama in Kenya on multiple occasions campaigning for Odinga.

--Xinunus (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, 1) there is no columnist named Daniel Johnson at the Sun Times and the link provided is not to the Sun Times' website but to an "archive" site that anyone can post anything to. 2) This is a blog, nothing more. Giving yourself a fancy name like "African Press International" doesn't make you legitimate. 3)We don't use YouTube videos as refs for factual material. They are unreliable (as well as violating copyright). And finally, attempting to add a photoshopped fake photo that "proves" a connection is a clear violation of WP:BLP --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If you can confirm that CBS actually said this (say by finding the date of the CBS broadcast and getting a copy from their archive) that would probably be enough. But as it stands this isn't enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Skiles and Henderson

Skiles and Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - very long article about comedy duo who are still alive. Essay-like, no references whatsoever. // — Yavoh 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Londoner1961

Londoner1961 has already been warned multiple times about BLP violations and attacks against Barker and Barker's interests, yet he's decided to continue. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I haven't made any edits for six months. I made a couple of additions today, both of which are verifiable and, in my opinion, not without interest in context. Any expertise I have is mostly limited to boring, highly-specialised legal stuff, which would be of little interest to Wiki readers, but I would claim expertise on the subjects of both Smartslab and Tom Barker. Why were today's edits removed? Londoner1961 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed them because of the reasons I gave in the edit summaries. I started this discussion because I think these recent edits, in the context of your edit history, demonstrate an inability to follow WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that I have to disagree there. As I say, both points are readily verifiable from published sources, and I would have thought the information would be of interest. I believe that the points were presented neutrally. I am not attempting to be a nuisance here, and if you would care to discuss this off-line, by email or telephone, I think you might find some information (which I cannot post here) of interest. Londoner1961 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of disclosure, I should mention that I have today made another (verifiable) change to the Tom Barker page to remove an inaccurate claim. I have provided two references for this. --Londoner1961 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyal Ben Ari

Eyal Ben Ari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Allegations of sexual assault, unreferenced. I've removed, but... // Prince of Canada t | c 10:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the BLP violating edits. But since these were the creation edits, this has left the edit history trail a bit of a mess. Not sure the proper way, GFDL and all, to handle such. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This was actually reported, so not a clear BLP violation (if the creator had actually included this source). Someguy1221 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's undue weight to pick a single incident from a person's long life and give it 50% prominence in their Wikipedia bio. This person does not seem to pass the notability test. They are a professor, like many other non-notable professors who have written books. Unless there is more substantial, independent coverage of this person, sufficient to write more than just a stub, the article should be deleted. Jehochman Talk 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Eek gads. This is a mess. The edit-history now wrongly attributes the article and violates GFDL. Given that the article, as it now stands, violated GFDL, and contains no assertion of notability. I'm wondering if some brave admin would speedy delete it, without prejudice to anyone who might wish to recreate a valid article in the future. I've say this is one best served, and simplest solved, by an IAR deletion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped an A7 deletion tag on it. Since I had a role in making the mess, I'll let someone else make the final deletion descision. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
asserting someone to be a professor at a major university who has written multiple books is at the least an indication of possible notability. I have accordingly declined the Afd. Whether it will meet WP:PROF depends primarily on the publications, and whether they show him an authority in the field. If they do, he should have an article, regardless of news events. As for the events, the material in the newspaper article 1/are from a very RS 2/are directly pertinent to his career as a university professor -- this sort of abuse is always noteworthy within the academic world, and often to the general public, It directly speaks towards the basis of the teacher-student relationship 3/are more than one event--multiple events over multiple years are asserted. Such accusations of notable academics are normally added to articles if well documented. The only question is whether to add them to the article in the absence of a final determination, or at least formal charges--if that is in fact the case. I'd like to see another news account. I have not yet searched. DGG (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've marked it for speedy again. DGG, if you want to create an article here, I've no objections, but this one violated GFDL and missattributes authorship entirely. And there is no way that this can be solved without violating BLP, as the original creation was a violation. PLease speedy without prejudice to recreation. Notability is beside the point.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag again, as I see no blatant copyright violation. "misatrributing authorship" is not a speedy reason. What Texas Android did in removing the unsourced BLP is the customary solution. As the original allegations, though unsourced, could at least partially have been, in his place I would have added the source, just removing what it did not support, but that was his decision. DGG (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully another admin has now deleted it. You keep missing the point. This has nothign to do with notability or sourcing. What TexasAndroid did, rightly or wrongly, was to delete the initial edits that created the article,but restore the rest. That meant the edit history was corrupted, and the opening edit (with the summary "rv BLP") gave credit for creation to the wrong person. That violates the GFDL, and also wrongly makes someone liable for creation who was not. That article could not be allowed to stand. That's why I marked it for speedy, as I thought was clear. However, as I say, thankfully some admin got the reason. Personally, I don't care whether the article gets recreated or not. It was a short stub, and would probably die on afd, but whatever. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
so I saw, and decided it wasnt worth arguing too hard over mere procedure--even if what the other admin did amounted to wheel warring. I will recreate the article in a day or two if I remember. I think that it will stand afd by the ordinary criteria of WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

John Hopoate

This article is stuffed full of uncited and opinionated material. Can someone please take a look? Stifle (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've used a machette to trim it. Left it stubbed - it can be rebuilt when someone fancies making it BLP compliant.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lurita Doan

In July 2008 I noted the NPOV issues in the controversies section of the Lurita Doan biography on this noticeboard and received no response [13]. The NPOV problems have remained until recently when an edit was made that addressed several of the issues, but was promptly reverted by other editors. As a friend of the family, I want to avoid a conflict of interest and ask that other editors please take a look. Shakespeare1616 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've been monitoring the Doan article for some time and I'm probably responsible for some of the edits you regard as "NPOV issues." I appreciate your candor and good faith in not creating a conflict of interest. The editor you reference, however, has not followed this course and made a significant edit without consensus.

I'm curious to find out if you support the editor's reasons for administering the edit. The reason given was that the section in question was essentially non-notable and needed to "be trimmed down." This was based on three points: 1) "Doan was an administrator of an obscure governmental agency," 2) "was never disciplined and was let go for what appears to be an interagency personality conflict" 3) "doesn't seem to rise to any historic or scholarly value."

Again, I appreciate the fact that you've clearly stated your preference to allow editors without a conflict of interest to intervene. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert_Kilroy-Silk

Robert_Kilroy-Silk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) tone is that of an attack page and doesn't discuss much that he's done that's positive (assuming such instances exist and he's not pure evil like this article seems in parts to be claiming.:) ) Sticky Parkin 02:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove some of the unsourced and potentially contentious material. More eyes would be welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done some and what remains is stuff that I think could be verified but also must be verified asap. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with Aaron Sorkin

I don't believe this is a BLP violation per se, but all of the original editors of this BLP are MIA and I'm concerned about what I'm seeing. Featured article Aaron Sorkin was brought to WP:FAR by a newly-registered WP:SPA who went straight to the Sorkin article and has done nothing but work on Sorkin, bringing it it FAR almost immediately (somewhat unusual). I'm worried about what I'm seeing at FAR. No other editor is involved, and from what I can tell, it looks like a featured article is being slowly dismantled and turned to garbage. The new editor is removing citations and text all over the place, and I'm just not sure about the quality of the editing that is going on there. I don't have time to seek out the sources and determine if the editing is legit, but it doesn't feel right. A glance back to mid-August shows what appears to be a decent featured article on the surface. I could be wrong, but a close look is needed; it almost seems like agenda driven editing, and what was a fully cited article has had a lot of citations removed and is now littered with cite tags. I need to find editors who will look closer and get involved, because the appearance is that the article is being destructed and that a massive revert may be needed. The tone at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin just feels off, for example, the response when I asked that notifications be done, so my antennae went up. Any help appreciated, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, heck. Looking closer at the edits, it also appears they may have been politically motivated, and there may be socks involved (I've put out some queries), so after finding a lot of bad text, I reverted all the way back to Feb 2008, which was the last time the regular editor edited the article. There is a too much for me to go through and I don't have the sources and there are hundreds of edits to go through to understand where the problems originated. I don't know if reverting back to the last version edited by the FA nominator is the cleanest version, or if could still have BLP issues. Needs more eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm here. No need to have any secret meetings.Homely Features (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My agenda is to fix this article. It is ranked #1 in a Google search which is unacceptable considering how many errors are in it. I can't stress enough how much fixing this article needs. Too many liberties taken. His years at Castle Rock were supposedly "formative" according to this article but nowhere could I find such a fact. Nowhere could I find many other facts, and often I discovered the opposite, that they were in fact untrue.Homely Features (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And now the Aaron Sorkin FAR has an edit war and a new participant: LiteraryMaven (talk · contribs) created a fully cited article in 20 minutes with three edits on their first day of editing, [14] and immediately started adding Project tags. [15] Their tenth edit was to the Sorkin FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, good for LiteraryMaven. A skilled editor. I'm trying to fix this Aaron Sorkin article, but by no means will it be an FA anytime soon. There are significant sections that are not in the article and should be considering the literature is out there. A little bit dramatic don't you think, claiming an edit war at the Aaron Sorkin FAR?Homely Features (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

David Berlinski

An RfC about whether blog comments can be used in this BLP. I've removed the potentially offending text pending discussion. It raises some interesting issues. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger

Chris Heimerdinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Someone or two people have taken it on themselves to remove large amounts of information even though the information was varified.

98.202.23.178 - Which has been identified as the subject of article Thumper10 - Which seem to also be the subject of the article.

What should be done about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's getting ludicrous now. Multiple sockpuppetry. Material isn't really contentious but stuff that the subject wants to be on there. Have reported it to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically we've got a couple (or the same) single-purpose conflict of interest editors intent on maintaining a fan site. Any help here appreciated before we end up breaking the 3RR.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what BLP problems there are here. There are some coi problems, accusations of more, plus problems with new editors wanting to write at great length without proper sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Laura l'immortelle - mention the author's name?

I started an article (Laura l'immortelle) about a famous 2007 plagiarism case from Quebec. A 12-year old girl plagiarized a fan fiction and presented it as an original novel. It was published, but later people found out and a scandal erupted.

So, since the author deliberately published the faked novel (she *may* have been interviewed too) does this mean we can mention the name of the author of Laura l'immortelle? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, there are issues with allowing this article to exist in any form, with or without the author's name. This seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, especially since the author is a minor. Regardless of whether she was interviewed, BLP applies even more so here. It seems to me that the book would not receive an article without this event; it did win some kind of award, AFAICT, but it was negated by the plagiarism allegations. My vote would be to delete this article altogether. GlassCobra 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
My instinct is that if the book itself is notable and worthy of inclusion, then we should include the name of the author. Realistically, anyone looking for an encyclopedic article on a novel is going to expect to find the author's name. I understand the concern over BLP1BE, particularly because the author is so young - but on the other hand, she has been interviewing about it and freely admitted it when questioned etc. I'd be interested to find if there is an analog in another article somewhere else that would give us another perspective on the broader issue. Avruch T 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I would add that my sources are Canoe, La Presse, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - the articles are in French, but the sources are reliable. One Canoe interview occurred before the plagiarism was exposed, so she was known even before her plagiarism was known. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Also this Le Canal Nouvelles article has a link to a Quebec tv broadcast about the author of Laura l'immortelle http://lcn.canoe.ca//artsetspectacles/general/archives/2007/03/20070321-160930.html WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:AUTO concern

I found the User:BrothersThree adding links to video game design credits [16] and the user appears to be a single-purpose account creating and maintaining Francis Tsai. Since the user has redirected his own page to the article, I think it's safe to assume he is in fact Tsai. Could someone with better communicative skills explain the guideline to him? I'm trolling for possible sources to verify notability one way or another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tanya Gold

Tanya Gold is a UK journalist whose publicly critised her rather well known alma mater. I've tried to put a bit of neutrality into this article, without actually censoring her own disclosures about alcoholism and drug use. Specialist BLP eyes would be welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hibari Misora

The article Hibari Misora has received hardly any contributions. However, this section [17] was highly contested, as the sources provided were not reliable. One editor continued to add the section back into the article, and it appears people just gave up, and left the article alone.

A lists of the references.

  • A previous edit claimed that a weekly newspaper in Korea claimed she was Korean. No reference provided.
  • Then someone posted that a weekly Japanese newspaper looked into the claims, and concluded she wasn't. No verifiable reference, and there is nothing on the internet about it.
  • Then there is a reference from a personal fansite about Japanese music, which has been inactive for more than a year. It is likely this website got their information from a wikipedia entry.
  • After all this, the previous editor who continued to add this section back into the article provided this Korean reference [18]. It is written in Korean, and using google translator, it looks like a prejudice statement from an editorial. As the title says something like "70% of the Japanese entertainment industry is actually Korean" and that the Japanese media is hiding the truth!

Recently I expanded the article with many references, and removed that section. A user continues to add it back. I claim it is unacceptable due to guide lines regarding references for biographies (and because most previous editors tried removing it)

I asked for verifiable references, and that editor added this non-internet reference. [19] which I believe is more nonsense. I don't believe any of these references are acceptable to include in the article, and that the section is from a minor prejudicial rumor. As it is impossible to find such information, which should be wide spread, with plenty of information available. 220.253.144.103 (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I believe 220... (who is also Jlone78 most likely) is referring to me, I'll respond. As I said on the talk page:

Jlone78, Hibari Misora died on 24 June 1989. The policy was designed for "living persons" -- It cannot effect her "real life" because Hibari Misora is dead! Second, the sources are not "poorly sourced contentious material," especially when they are published by highly reputable sources like the Harvard University Press, The Straits Times, etc. among others. Again, if there's something in particular that you find wrong about how a particular sourced comment is worded in the article (based on the evidence), we can discuss it. That's fine with me. But there's no need to be disruptive by continually deleting the entire passage to make a point. That won't get you very far.

As for John Lie's Multiethnic Japan, you can find what you're looking for on page 66 of Lie's book: "Postwar Japanese popular music is replete with non-Japanese Japanese, and especially Korean Japanese, singers. Miyako and [Hibari] Misora are perhaps the best known, but many teenage idols are Korean Japanese." (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001). John Lie is a sociologist specializing in ethnic issues on Japan and it conforms with the reliable sources we like to add. As for the others, I removed Paul Scalise's book review published in the Asian Wall Street Journal in which Scalise repeats that Hibari Misora was of Korean decent, not because I believe it was an unreliable source, but because it makes better sense to quote a Harvard University Press publication. I also added a citation from the Strait Times, a mainstream newspaper in Asia, which repeats that Hibari Misora was (she's dead) of Korean descent.
I understand that others disagree with this assertion. That's fine. That's why the other material cited is there. I haven't read that material yet and those sources can be discussed, but I don't believe that deleting entire passages that are reliably sourced just to make a point is a productive way to move forward. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
On July 24, 2007. J Readings wrote this [20] on the articles talk page. I find it interesting that Jreading says it is written on page 66, yet the "book review" website which was used as a reference says page 288. [21] which is rather funny when the almost non-existent book apparently only has 272 pages. [22] Aside from that oddity, and that the author of the book is Korean. This "controversy" does not appear to exist. 220.253.144.103 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and? What does that have to do with what we're discussing. I didn't add the Scalise article to Wikipedia (but I was the one who removed it), so it's irrelevant. Second, it could very well be that the book (which very much exists obviously) could have changed editions and the number of pages. I have no idea. Maybe we should ask the editors of that website, if it's important to you. In any case, page 66 refers to the page in which the quote was lifted. What I would recommend, 220..., is that you simply go to a good library and look up John Lie's Multiethnic Japan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001) and confirm the citation. I have the book in front of me, and I'm reading that cited passage to you right now. It's most likely the first edition that I'm reading, so be mindful of that. J Readings (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The point is, that such a topic is nonsense and does not belong in the article. Along with the fact there is no actual evidence to support it! You added the citation over a year ago as your first post [23], and never added anything else. I find it interesting it is the only information you added. It is not a controversy, or notable, as it is impossible to find history of it! 220.253.144.103 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Your complaints are not a BLP issue; they are a content dispute issue over sources. I recommend that we continue this discussion on the Hibari Misora talk page. In any case, continuing to repeat that these academic and newspaper sources are wrong is irrelevant. As the verifiability policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." We have the sources. The issue at hand, it seems, is really about wording. J Readings (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not your friend, and have no interest in discussing things with you. I'm here to remove rubbish from articles. You clearly have no interest in improving the article. Most editors wanted it removed from the article, and that was the course of action. The section is complete nonsense and contradicts itself. 220.253.23.184 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You cannot decide by yourself what is "rubbish" for an encyclopedia entry. We have policies and guidelines. As Slp1 mentioned to you today, there are several academic sources that corroborate the existence of the statements you personally disagree with, according to your own standards of "truth". Whether you agree with these academics and journalists is (I'm afraid to say) irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia. If you "have no interest in discussing things" and you are not willing to act with restraint, you're only creating more problems for yourself and risk being blocked. Please understand. J Readings (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Edson da Silva

Hi folks,

Édson José da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has been blanked by someone claiming to be this person. I reverted once, issued a standard blanking warning, but the user then repeated the blanking and replied to my warning on his talk page. SMC (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edson da Silva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is the user in question. SMC (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is for issues such as this, and since I don't want to ignore the person if he has genuine concerns, I'm bringing it here for someone more experienced with such matters to sort out. Note that I've left the article in a blanked state. Thanks. SMC (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just given him a final warning for page blanking and repeatedly removing BLP/AN posts made by others. He has made no real attempts to communicate with other editors, not even to reach a simple compromise. If somebody can please take a look ASAP it would be appreciated. I really can't see what else I can do, since any attempt to contact a noticeboard is immediately harassed, as though my contributions are being monitored. Thanks. SMC (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is on AN now, and I think it's escalated past a BLP noticeboard issue. Thanks. SMC (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Édson José da Silva

Can someone fully delete this article?

Richie Ramone

Violations of Wikipedia Biographies Of Living Persons removed. The same editor returned and is using same poor sources and unsourced content despite repeated cautions to refrain from this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty Ramone (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm requesting that Richie Ramone's biography be renewed on the BLP Watch due to violations of Wikipedia's requirements for proper sources. This biography had to be locked up in the past, due to the same strange tabloid style writing using the same one source, a blog, that was already deemed inadequate by Wikipedia administrators. Despite the editors' cautions and the biography having been locked up, this occurs again. This lawsuit is not sourced and is posted repeatedly in lieu of any other information of Richie Ramone's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty Ramone (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've had a quick look at the article and at the moment it seems to be OK from a BLP point of view. However, it is extremely short and needs someone to rewrite it with proper sources. I'll keep an eye on it as best I can to try and make sure that there are no inappropriate additions. RicDod (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Does media description trump self-description? Manhattan Institute

Manhattan Institute is described by itself as "market-oriented" according to its self-description and by the NY Times as "conservative." The problem is in another article an editor insists that in identifying its V.P., editors ONLY are allowed to describe him as "conservative" and NOT market oriented. However, knowing that some of these types of groups avoid labeling themselves as conservative for a number of reasons, including not turning off libertarian and liberal staffers or contributors, I think it is a violation of WP:BLP to only allow this organization - and therewith this individual - to be described ONLY as conservative. I don't have a problem with using both. If i can come up with a clear response, it will save me a 1/2 reverting back and forth with this guy! Carol Moore 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

You're saying that the description of the think tank represents a BLP issue? What article does this concern? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to complicate issues, but since two people have asked. This is in regard to Howard Husock in the Community Reinvestment Act. He's currently describe as both in the opinions section but I am going to mention some factoids from his book in the upper section, and that's where I think I'll have a problem with the other editor, since he already opined in reliable sources noticeboard discussion Husock only should be described as conservative. Since this an interesting issue in general I thought I'd bring it up here hopefuly rather than arguing to exhaustion with the guy in the article about it. Carol MooreCarolmooredc
This may be a side issue, but is "Free market" synonymous with "market-oriented"? Since the article is about regulation, the regulatory stance of the person's employer would seem to be a relevant piece of information. Their general political/social stance, "conservative", is less relevant (some conservatives may favor regulation). Perhaps this problem can be addressed by giving a better explanation of the Manhattan Institute's stance rather than relying on shorthand labels. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

There's an odd dispute on Kaveh Farrokh concerning how to describe the subject in the article's lead. I recently rewrote the lead to state:

Kaveh Farrokh (born September 24, 1962, Athens) is a counsellor at Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.[1] He has written and lectured on Persian languages and has published two books on ancient Persian history, as well as acting as an historical advisor and expert for film and documentary makers.[2]

However, this is being reverted by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs), who considers Farrokh's profession to be "personal" information [24] and not relevant to the lead. I admit I really don't understand this argument. The sourcing here seems to be impeccable - the college's staff page [25] and a biographical profile in a book by the subject. There's nothing private about the job description, which Farrokh's publisher states on its website [26]. The statement is completely neutral and POV-free: it says simply that he is an educationalist at a particular institution who has done certain notable things. This is entirely what WP:LEAD requires - establish the context (i.e. who he is) and explain why the subject is interesting or notable (i.e. what he has done to make himself notable). Every other biography I've looked at in Category:1962 births, in which Farrokh sits, follows exactly the same format: name, date(s) of birth/death, job, thing that makes the person notable. I was under the impression that this is the standard format for a BLP lead - is this assumption wrong?

A second issue involves the inclusion in the lead of a line that says Farrokh "is an expert in the field of Iranian history and linguistics", sourced to this Radio Free Europe piece. I have been attempting to remove it. It is actually a misquote; the source says that he is "an expert on the history and linguistics of Persia" (not Iran). It's also extremely vague - who considers him an expert? - and it strikes me as undue weight on a single source and POV. I don't believe we should be presenting one-sided subjective views in leads; there are other sources that say Farrokh is not an expert and writes very bad books (e.g. [27]). I'm conscious of what WP:BLP#Criticism and praise says: "the material ... [should not] appear to take sides... Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints." If there is a disagreement among sources about the expertise of an individual, I think it's inappropriate to take sides, particularly in the lead of a BLP. Rather than putting a statement in the lead along the lines of, "some consider him an expert, others consider him to be a very bad writer", which I suppose would be the strictly NPOV approach of balancing POVs, I think it would be better simply to leave out such subjective judgments altogether.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these two issues? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead as presented above seems ok to me - nothing wrong with mentioning his current occupation. On the other issue, Radio Free Europe is areliable source, so removing it, as you say you are trying to do, is inappropriate. On theother hand, the "other sources that say Farrokh is not an expert" is a self published web site, so clearly has no place in a BLP. NoCal100 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
He has no qualifications in history or linguistics, his PhD is from the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, so he should not be described as an expert in those fields. Author, fine. I don't think a news report is a reliable source for someone's expertise. Doug Weller (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One other thing, he is by qualification (his PhD) and job a professional educational counsellor, so that should be in the lead. He hasn't written on Persian languages, he has written on dyslexia and language acquisition, and from an academic/methodological point of view, the specific language isn't that important. Doug Weller (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem I have with describing him as an expert is twofold: he has no qualifications in those fields, as you say, but also the principal sources about Farrokh do not describe him that way. His own publisher doesn't describe him that way - see [28]. His own books don't describe him that way. This, for me, is a WP:REDFLAG - a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". If Farrokh is indeed an expert in these fields, you would expect that this claim would be made by his own publisher or his own books, but it isn't. What they say is that he is a researcher in those fields, which is perfectly accurate.
News reports are generally reliable sources, but it's really a question of undue weight. What we have here is a brief biographical mention in a news report which mentions Farrokh in passing - it's not even about him, it just quotes him - being given a higher weighting than Farrokh's official published biographical profile. A correct weighting would qupte the profile as the primary source of information about his work. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Michal Heiman

An anti Israeli call to delete contemporary artists (containing a list for deletion of the Israeli artists including a Museum) was printed in User_talk:Danny page. Michal Heiman is one of the artists on the list. Therefore she is being attacked by proposals for deletion. She is a significant artist. See the call for deletion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danny#.D7.A0.D7.99.D7.A7.D7.95.D7.99_.D7.94.D7.97.D7.A8.D7.90_.D7.A9.D7.9C_.D7.A0.D7.9E.D7.A8.D7.95.D7.93_.D7.A7.D7.9E.D7.A8 Is it possible to delete this call for deletion from this User-talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.28.100 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Mason-correct birth year 1928

The Astrodatabank (and astrotheme.com which uses and posts info from the databank without permission), has a reliable rating system created and maintained by the late Lois Rodden for accurate birth data. Astrologers depend on accuracy. In the case of comedian Jackie Mason, Wiki has his birth year as 1936. This is false. He was born on June 9, 1928. His birth certificate is on record at the astrodatabank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfish1014 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Best place to point this out is on the talk page of the article. It isn't a concern of this noticeboard.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with meatpuppets in Belzebuub article

I am a bit disappointed to have to bring to your attention the following users: Peaceful soul, SillyChicken1970, Anton H, IP Address: 203.9.185.136, IP Address: 122.104.30.233, IP Address: 85.148.224.115, and IP Address: 94.210.201.182.

These meatpuppets have been attempting to discredit and disparage the subject of this biography of a living person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzebuub). In one of the links to a forum that the user Anton H has posted on the page, I have found another forum topic on a website (Gnostic Teachings - http://www.gnosticteachings.org/) where together the lot of them were plotting ways of undermining and attacking the subject of the article, ranging from blanking the page, posting defamatory and unreferenced material, to playing what they call ‘the wikipedia game’ to get their personal attacks through the system (http://www.gnosticteachings.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4115&st=0&p=36897&#entry36897 – starting at post #12). I came across this after following a link to a ‘source’ they added from the above website, which was merely a public forum post with disparaging comments about the subject of the article and the organization he founded. As evidenced by their discussion of the edits they had planned and carried out, their names on this forum are freedom is blessing, SillyChicken, Tenrai, Paul G, Nik, and the moderator: Son of Man.

All the above users have posted in the forum, which was also addressed by one of the moderators of the site, who has encouraged them to continue their personal attacks and to attempt to ‘play by the wikipedia’ rules so that the wikipedia community does not catch on.

I have removed their edits from the article, but wanted to bring this to your attention so that it is known what they are up to. Thank you. Matt reltub (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

A BLP rule says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." If everyone agrees that an edit is truthful and well-sourced, but there is no consensus that the material would be appropriate in the BLP (e.g. undue weight), then does this particular BLP rule mean that the material must stay out of the article?

I've got a situation where editors are divided about whether some material should go into a particular BLP. An editor that I've been dealing with says that consensus is required to REMOVE that material for undue weight reasons. I say that consensus is required to add or restore it. Who's right? The material in question is truthful, well-sourced, and non-private, but nevertheless editors are split about whether it would cause an undue weight problem. If there is no consensus to include, then should the material be excluded from the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that for truthful, well-sourced, and non-private information that does not relate to the living person in the BLP, that the same "undue weight" standards apply for BLP and non-BLP articles. I believe that in BLP, as well as non-BLP, equal weight should be given to both sides of a controversy, and if one side of a controversy is well represented, it is wrong to delete the other side of the controversy (which is half the length of the first side) when that second side is also true, well sourced, non private, and unrelated to the living person that is the subject of the article.GreekParadise (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to address non-BLP articles, because the article in question (Sarah Palin) is a BLP article. I agree 100% that equal weight should be given to both sides of a controversy that have equal support in reliable sources, and if one side of such a controversy is well represented in the article, it is wrong to delete the other side of the controversy. The question is who gets to decide if that is happening. If there is no consensus that adding or restoring material would equalize the weight (rather than imbalance the article) then my understanding is that the material should not be added or restored.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If Ferrylodge agrees that both sides of a controversy should be given, then the material should be included, because currently one side is twice as long as the other side (100 words to 50 words) and the addition I propose to restore to the "other side" is approximately six words. The question is whether, in a BLP, it is appropriate to give one side of a controversy and exclude the other side, even if that other side is true, well sourced, relevant, and non-private. I contend that, in BLP equally with non-BLP, both sides should be given, and a BLP-article should be no more one-sided than a non-BLP article.GreekParadise (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." If there is no consensus that particular information is under-represented, and no consensus that it would be appropriate in a BLP, then it should not go in.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If Ferrylodge's query refers to the inclusion of the information that the proposed Knik Arm Bridge has also been referred to as "Don Young's Way", then I do not accept his characterization of the dispute. It's not an issue of giving appropriate weight to arguments for and against the bridge. How it's named has virtually nothing to do with its merits. The reason to include the information is that numerous sources discuss "Don Young's Way" without also using the term "Knik Arm Bridge"; therefore, many readers won't know that the two phrases refer to the same project unless we tell them.
Among the undisputed facts are that Palin (the bio subject) supported the bridge; the bridge has been linked with Don Young, an incumbent Congressman; Don Young is under federal investigation for possibly taking bribes. This is why Ferrylodge has argued that mentioning the other name is "making the bridge (and Palin's support for it) appear to be a slimy thing." This chain of association is a pretty thin reed on which to turn an undisputed fact into a BLP violation.
More broadly, Ferrylodge's interpretation of BLP and consensus appears to mean that anything in an article about a living person can be removed by one editor, or by whatever small number of editors is necessary to show the absence of consensus for inclusion, and the removal is thereby rendered nonnegotiable and unappealable as long as the bio subject is alive. (Perhaps there would be a requirement that the removing editor(s) make a pro forma reference to some Wikipedia policy.) Such an interpretation would be unreasonable. JamesMLane t c 08:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have never suggested that "the removal is thereby rendered nonnegotiable and unappealable as long as the bio subject is alive." The removal is always appealable until you get a consensus for inclusion.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to be general rather than give the specific issue in dispute, but JamesMLane is right. We are talking about "Don Young's Way" here, which appears twice as often in Google News as "Knik Arm Bridge." I personally had heard of Don Young's Way years ago as one of the "Bridges to Nowhere" but had never heard of Knik Arm Bridge until after Palin was chosen as Vice Presidential candidate and I began research for the article. I don't think the issue has anything to do with BLP at all, and I told Ferrylodge that. There are three editors on the Palin site who believe that in a BLP, truthful, verified, relevant non-private information cannot be included if even one editor disputes it. It is my view that BLP should have the same standards as non-BLP with regard to such information.GreekParadise (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
No, we are talking about multiple instances where you have sought to include material in this BLP without consensus. Please stop doing it. The "Don Young's Way" business is only the latest instance.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, you write, "The removal is always appealable until you get a consensus for inclusion." I take it that by "appealable" here you mean "the editors favoring inclusion can try to get a consensus." I took your position to be that, if there is no consensus on including the material, then, regardless of the reason for the opposition, the removal must stand and the material must be omitted (unless and until a consensus subsequently develops, of course). Have I misunderstood you? JamesMLane t c 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If there is no consensus on including the material, then the removal must stand and the material must be omitted unless and until a consensus subsequently develops that the mateial would be appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. If you're dissatisfied with that result, then a content dispute can be appealed in several different ways, including an RFC. The solution is not to keep jamming the material back into the article without consensus, which can become disruptive and tendentious.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And, for my further clarification, you contend that, if the article is a BLP, then (1) the foregoing applies even if everyone agrees that the statement is factually accurate and is supported by impeccable sources, and (2) the foregoing applies regardless of the reason for the opposition to the inclusion of the material. Is that also correct? JamesMLane t c 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
(1)Yes, the foregoing applies even if everyone agrees the statement is factually accurate and is supported by impeccable sources. For example, if the subject of the BLP was unequivocally seen picking his nose, then the foregoing applies. (2) The foregoing certainly applies if the reason for the opposition to inclusion of the material is a possibly good faith attempt to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, e.g. I doubt that a bunch of vandals have any right to insist on excluding the subject's middle name from the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately JamesMLane did exactly just that [29] talking about reinserting deleted material. It would not be a problem if it were not for his openly touted bias. I use the strong word bias here only because he proudly uses the word to describe himself on his user page. If I recall correctly it is by no means required but encouraged that editors keep themselves away from articles where they have such strong bias that they can't contain themselves. I'm not sure if it's the case with James and Palin but recent comments are certainly cause for concern. Hobartimus (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Hobartimus and Ferrylodge. On request, I can show where such biases were indicated, and the gamesmanship involved though at least eight of the Talk: Sarah Palin archives, though I am sure others have more experience with such forensic analysis. Collect (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I second Ferrylodge's comment below that it would be helpful to hear from BLP mavens who haven't been editing Sarah Palin. So as not to drive them away with squabbling, I will answer Hobartimus's attack on me on his/her talk page rather than here. JamesMLane t c 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So far, the only people commenting here are people from the Palin article. Any chance we could get some outside comment? Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here goes: there aren't different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP articles and non-BLP articles. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. Once that's accomplished, you should generate consensus (not necessarily unanimity) among editors on the article about the method of inclusion. One editor never really achieves veto power. As to the issue of the bridge name, I can't see a valid objection to the inclusion of the fact, especially if including the fact is key to allowing people to get effective results from search engines. Given the circumstances as to how it became known as "Don Young's Way", I can see weight and BLP considerations in terms of how the fact is introduced. As long as it is neutral (i.e, write the first mention of "Knik Arm Bridge" as Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a. "Don Young's Way"), with no other commentary in the sentence) I have a hard time seeing a reasonable objection.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I was invited to comment here. I haven't been following the Palin article much, except to see that its accumulation rate of Talk archive pages is amazing. Regarding the general issue, WP:BLP carves out a lot of ground for protection of the subject, but I don't think it overrides everything regarding WP:Undue weight. Weighting debates often get down into minutiae and if the editors are so divided that they're arguing about whether a few words require a consensus to be taken out versus a consensus to stay in, it's likely that the whole editorial process on the article has broken down. In general I try to imagine what the article should read like 10 or 25 years from now, long after the immediate controversy has faded into memory, and be guided by that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Kww and WTR. I agree that the burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is appropriate, and that there should be a consensus among editors on the article about the method of inclusion.
The main problem I'm having is with the section about the bridges. This article is supposed to be using WP:Summary style, and therefore we should merely be summarizing what's in the sub-article (Governorship of Sarah Palin). However, this section about the bridge has become huge in the main article, and I don't think it's appropriate. Unfortunately, I do not expect the other editors to agree to cut it down to size, or to acknowledge that that the burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is appropriate, or to acknowledge that there should be a consensus among editors on the article about the method of inclusion. So, it may be headed to arbitration or something like that.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:Summary style is hopelessly broken. Current typical daily readership of Sarah Palin: 90,000. Current typical daily readership of Governorship of Sarah Palin: 300. Editors aren't fools; they know that moving something to the subarticle is tantamount to deleting it, so they will fight to keep it in the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why summary articles will not work, if the summary highlights the main points and the main controversies, if any. The problem happens when these summaries are bone-cleaned in such a way that are problematic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
But why should a minority of editors be able to win in such a fight? The editors who have commented above say that they have a right to insert gobs of material from the sub-article into the main article despite a lack of consensus. If they can build a consensus, then fine. But if they don't acknowledge the need to do so then aren't we headed for an endless war?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that your are heading to an endless war, you may need to pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I do not want to pursue dispute resolution if I am wrong. Would you care to opine about that? Should editors be able to jam material into a BLP (or any article) without consensus, as several editors have claimed above?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, editors should not be able to "jam" material into an article without consensus. The other side of the coin is that editors should not remove material without consensus. If the issue is the summaries for spin-off articles, then the issue at hand is to look for a compromise that all sides can live with, rather than edit-war.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And what about removing material that has been inserted without consensus? Is that okay? If not, then there would appear to be a fait accompli when editors insert information without consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this has nothing to do with BLP so we may be on the wrong noticeboard. But if the issue is reduction of size without deletion of content, I have offered Ferrylodge, to reduce the bridge article by one third (22 lines to 15 lines) without any loss of content. It maintains a NPOV and shows both sides and mostly just reduces extra words and repetitiveness. But I entirely object to removing content from the article summary. Once you remove content from one side, then the other side gets to remove content too. And soon there's nothing left. I'd rather present both sides in the most summary style possible. And I urge you, Ferrylodge to look carefully at my offer to cut 1/3 of the article. I think you'll see there's no significant loss of content. I have no problems with summary. But I strongly object to removing controversies entirely or presenting only one side's POV.GreekParadise (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded to your offer.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for re-establishing page

Greetings,

A while back, I created a bio page for myself (see Ken Mondschein), believing the amount of freelance writing and professional scholarship I'd done might merit one. After the appropriate discussion, the page was deleted. Fine; no problem with that.

The problem is that I am now applying for academic jobs, and a plethora of Web sites that have taken advantage of Wikipedia's open-source license picked up my bio page, which contains information and vandalism to the Wikipedia page that I don't particularly want circulated should some search committee Google me. (For instance, Nationmaster believes I am "studying the science of being a douchebag.")

In the belief that these pages would revert to copy the Wikipedia page, I re-created the original page with a skeletal bio. I'd like to leave it up for a month, until it propagates, and then take it down.

I don't know if this situation has occurred before, but it's easier to fix the problem upstream (here) with a page that has a definite lifespan than to try to chase down several hundred Wikipedia knock-offs, which I have no reason to believe will respond to my requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Mondschein (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that was me... Ken Mondschein (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On first glance, I'd support leaving your page up temporarily -- but you need to get it fully protected (or it will probably be vandalised again). It would also be helpful to find out how long it needs ot be up before it gets fully scraped by mirror sites. Anyone know? Also, could you link to the original deletion discussion? Thanks. IronDuke 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. How do I get it protected? Also, how do I find the original delete discussion? It was linked on the former page that advised me the page had been deleted, but...
Ken Mondschein (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ken. In order to get it protected, you can file a request at WP:RFPP. However, as this is a bit more complex, I am going to post this to AN/I and ask for an admin to protect and investigate directly, so maybe hold off on doing that, see if anyone from AN/I responds. (Discussion opened here). After some digging, I found two deletion discussion First one here, second one is here. IronDuke 15:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Dig a bit more - it is already protected.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
So it is. IronDuke 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that several mirror sites don't ever update their content, other than live mirrors. If a site is relying on the data dumps, they may not be updated for months. If they do update, removing the article entirely should serve the same purpose as leaving a protected stub for a non-notable person. The OP should contact the mirror sites directly (Nationmaster has forums for this). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Nationmaster has updated its copy in the last 24 hours, since this article was recreated. The Google cache copy might not update for another month or two, but then there's always the Wayback Machine if you're looking for old stuff. I've no objection to leaving the article up for a while longer. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Entertainers with Crip Affiliations

Resolved
I've removed the content pending a decision. (I wasn't sure whether to blank completely; I've left in the warning messages for now.) TSP (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
An article containing negative information on living people, and lacking proper sourcing, is a candidate for speedy deletion. If someone asks for an undeletion, in order to create a sourced article, than can be done. For now, speedy delete.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny "J"

Resolved

There has been a report that Johnny "J" died, but nobody yet has come up with a source that matches WP:RS (and I have been looking). I'm at my 3 revert limit, and the death has been restored yet again, please could somebody else do something? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article and removed that material until there is a solid source to back up these claims. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill

People may want to keep an eye on what's happening with Gwen Ifill. An ever-expanding controversy section has been added, and now people are dredging up unflattering things to put into the early biography. It's likely to get considerably worse during the next two days or so because of the vice-presidential debate. —KCinDC (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it given the high rate of IP vandalism, and watchlisted it. I think once the debate is over the frothers will move on to their next target and it will quiet down substantially. MastCell Talk 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Cutting down on the vandalism should allow people to concentrate on the content disputes. And I'm sure you're right that they'll move on in a day or two. —KCinDC (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll also keep an eye peeled. IronDuke 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I was overly optimistic. —KCinDC (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth

First the background; There was controversy over the dates of birth/ages of some of the Chinese gymnasts at the Olympics this year. There has been an official investigation which found in favour with one set of dates (which would mean they would have been eligible). There are two conflicting views being warred: that reliable sources exist for both, so they should stay permanently in a state of "disputed"; or that the dates that the investigation backs should be used.

Discussions have sparked off at:

What would policy suggest? (possibly worth noting that Jiang Yuyuan is also having a lot of content that I'd interpret as going against the policy of basic human dignity, which complicates maters) -- ratarsed (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions at all? -- ratarsed (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Debito Arudou

Regarding Debito Arudou there is a dispute over whether the use of Japanreview.net satisfies the BLP requirements for usage in Debito Arudou. Please see Talk:Debito_Arudou#Section_Break WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I have added a request for comment section about this: Talk:Debito_Arudou#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Japanreview.net_be_used_as_a_source.3F - After this, if there is a consensus, it will stick. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Foster (Latinist)

Reginald Foster (Latinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The entire article is unsourced (with the exception of external links) and lacks any in-text citations and has very specific information listed about his daily life. -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article needs tagging as unsourced and could benefit from cutting out some of the detail. The daily routine may be relevant as it is connected to his status as a member of a religious order. But you could take it out for the time being. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

william Woollard

I'm sure Mr Woollard is as is said but this is pretty much hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain McVitie (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation, but it has the character of a resume dumped in. It's already tagged for cleanup. Do you want to make a start? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lara Logan gossip

Page 6, the gossip column of the New York Post, has reported that Lara Logan is under investigation for taking souvenirs from Iraq. [30]. InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy. He also has included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source and an edit war.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip. I would appreciate if someone could look into this matter and do a reversal of the current information as, although 3RR theoretically allows me to revert more than 3 times in case of BLP vios, I would prefer if someone else did so. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The NY Post arguably may be a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you read the talk page, I'm not arguing that the New York Post isn't a reliable source -- it is without any doubt. This item is from the *gossip page* of the New York Post. That isn't a reliable source for a BLP. Do you have any idea the kind of stuff Page 6 prints? Do you think this is from the news division? It isn't. Do you think gossip is a useful source for Wikipedia? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again, the New York Post is a reliable source. Richard Johnson is a reporter for the New York Post. Richard Johnson has reported that the U.S. Customs service is investigating whether the items that Lara Logan took from Iraq violate the U.S. law against looting Iraqi government and cultural items from Iraq. This is NOT gossip. It has also been reported in Huffington Post and NewsBusters.org. It is NOT gossip, it is news. Also, this is NOT board to discuss whether gossip is useful for Wikipedia. This board is to discuss whether BLP issues. So far Therefore has NOT provided any evidence that the New York Post and Richard Johnson are NOT reliable sources.--InaMaka (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Richard Johnson is not a reporter, he is a gossip columnist. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion. However, the New York Post is a reliable source and Richard Johnson is making a report.--InaMaka (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The New York Post is a reliable source. Richard Johnson is a reporter for the New York Post. Richard Johnson is reporting that Lara Logan is being investigated by the U.S. Customs service for violating the U.S. law that bans the looting of Iraqi government and cultural items. These are ALL facts. They are not declarative statements. They are facts. This is NOT gossip but facts. Richard Johnson is NOT stating that he heard a rumor that Lara Logan is being investigated, but Richard Johnson is flat out stating that he has called the U.S. Customs service and asked them whether Logan is being investigated and he is reporting that the U.S. Customs service is telling him definitively that she is being investigated. This report has been repeated by the Huffington Post and NewsBusters. Wikipedia discussions have indicated that both New York Post and Huffington Post are reliable sources.--InaMaka (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
InaMaka, you just said the same thing twice. Can you clarify: Are you claiming that this section of the newspaper is NOT the gossip column? Or are you claiming that the gossip column of this particular newspaper is still a reliable source? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note from the horses mouth:

Richard Johnson, Paula Froelich, Cindy Adams and Liz Smith bring you celebrity gossip from Hollywood to the Hamptons. [emphasis added] from (note the url's use of the word gossip to boot) www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip

Page 6 has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking -- should I post some of the hundreds of garbage articles they have done in the past ten years? This isn't a slam of the Post but of its gossip page which is not a reliable source particularly for the bio of a living person. This is prima facia. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, note from this ABC News report that Richard Johnson, a "Gossip Columnist", acknolwedges Page 6 payola.[31] At this point in time, a Wikipedia BLP has the accusation that a) Lara Logan stole and b) is under investigation. The source? A gossip columnist. Isn't this sort of thing what ANI/BIO is designed to preclude? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To FisherQueen: Please note that InaMaka has been blocked for 31 hours for the second time so can't respond to your question. Wouldn't it be prudent to revert the current version and encourage discussion on the talk page for such a controversial assertion? I encouraged him to do so, pointing him to WP:BRD but couldn't put the brakes on the warring. To add to the lack of reputation of Page 6, see this article: [32] which states, "Former 'Page Six' Gossip Admits to Making Stuff Up! (For His Novel)". This is gossip. I'm all for adding this information when and if a mainstream source known for fact checking actually reports on this. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Please note that this has been resolved at WP:ANI#Lara Logan gossip. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus

SPA account Gfh7578 (talk · contribs) insists on adding a external link to an attack site, which I've reverted again.[33] I've deleted a whole section of the talk page for BLP vio. There's a lot of heated emotion around the subject. I've edited the article in the past, so it would be better for someone outside to take a look at this. Ty 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Who is attacking who? This guy has attacked and hurt hundreds of people. Court documents that are published by the United States should not be censured.--Gfh7578 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


This is a nasty attack site, which has no business on a wikipedia biography. Would some admin seeing this please semi-protect the article.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Semiprotection isn't necessary or effective for this type of issue. See possibly related Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Gutmann (computer scientist)

This article is in serious need of work. More then half of it is dedicated to criticism of comments he made on Windows Vista. While the controversy may have been one of the more noteable things he's been involved in, it's clearly not the only thing and the criticism appears to be largely coming from two people so there are clear weight issues here Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the offending section and left an explanation on the talkpage. Avruch T 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh state assembly elections, 2007

I have tried to remove the worst BLP violations from this page, but wouldlike a second pair of eyes to go over it. It contains list of criminals in these elections. While all entries are now sourced, this is material of such sensitive nature that a thorough checking of it is no luxury. I have also changed the labels of a few sections to make them less definitive, but these probably can be improved as well. Fram (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl Stephenson (producer)

The article on Carl Stephenson (producer) was recently changed from this to this, and significantly rewrote the first three paragraphs. In particular, it removed all information that made this person notable (sole member of Forest for the Trees, co-producer of Loser (Beck song)), and it removed information about a previous hospitalization with mental illness. All of these events are well sourced, the latter by a NY Times article.
I previously undid this change, but was recently reverted by the user who left a note on my talk page, claiming to be Carl Stephenson, and mentioning that "the previous version has misinformation and endangers our privacy."
I'm unsure how to proceed now. There is unsourced information in the article that should be removed, e.g. about his spouse (article says "Rita Di Mauro", my talk page says Marguerite). I would restore the previous version of the article, and remove every bit of information that isn't well sourced. I would leave the health problem in the article, since it is an important issue in his biography. I would then leave the user a message and discuss it.
I haven't had to deal with an article before where the topic himself claimed a BLP violation, so I want to make sure here before I do anything else.
Thanks, AmaltheaTalk 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have stubbed this. We certainly don't do "official versions", however, the sourcing on the previous version was dubious. The New York Times mentioned mental illness, but did not detail it as the article did. And myspace sources?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It's a wee bit shorter than I would have made it, I think I'll add a short sentence about Forest for the Trees later today, since this is a huge part of what makes him notable in the first place. And what's wrong with myspace pages if they are used as primary sources? Both his band and label have their official websites at myspace. --AmaltheaTalk 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Avoid primary sources. If the information is notable, then secondary sources should be available.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mikhail Meltyukhov

Please see Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#General_BLP_problem for details: an editor is removing academic reviews critical of prominent work by this scholar saying that such criticism is a BLP violation. Those reviews were added about a year ago, in order to prove that this source (that this editor was using) was unreliable. I believe that reliable academic criticism of one's work is not a BLP violation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

James Robinson (comics)

A new editor Terrysloan (talk · contribs) has identified himself as the subject of the article, and recently removed—twice—some information from James Robinson (comics), mostly date and place of birth plus some details of his family. WP:BLPHELP doesn't really cover it. What is policy on this? I think someone should drop him a note, but I don't want to kick off the conversation as I'm going to be mostly off-wiki for eighteen hours. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If the subject doesn't want us to publish private details, unrelated to his fame, we don't. We don't need a policy to tell us that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The policy/guideline/advice is here. Family details are not relevant unless they themselves are notable (the exception being noted slightly further down the page - if the marriage has been published elsewhere it can be mentioned). That is assuming the person is who they say they are, of course. There has clearly been some recent suspicious edits on the article with most of the disputed material having been added recently by an anonymous IP and there is also the Robinsonfamily edit (below) but most of that was removed. (Emperor (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I think an experienced admin should look at the following account and decide if there is anything that needs doing: Robinsonfamily (talk · contribs). --Hans Adler (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Corsi

He is the author of the notorius "Obama Nation" and was just kicked out of Kenya. I understand the intensity of feelings now because of the upcoming election. However, Obama fans are going a bit overboard with this article; and in fact hurting their own cause. [the[User:Redddogg|Redddogg]] (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been improved a lot. There are still some problems with web postings and other unreliable sources, it probably could use some other opinions. Redddogg (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rie Rasmussen

Resolved
  • Rie Rasmussen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Please check sources and comments regarding her sexuality. My belief is that the comments she has made refer to her "experimenting" and are off-hand, and are not reliable sources. To me they are not reflective of her sexuality. Another editor insists what she has said means she's bisexual. Need a 3O. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The section has been removed. Well spotted, and thanks for bringing it here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Resolved

The article is now fully-protected, which was needed. But, there is a BLP-violation pertaining to unverified claims. See template posted by VoluntarySlave on the talkpage. --Modocc (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The claims check out. Good work by KillerChihuahua found a reliable citation. See the article's talk page for details.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Camillagate

Resolved

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

This article appears to be completely unreferenced yet pertains to a contentious incident in the lives of two living people. Is this a violation of WP:GRAPEVINE? Additionally, I note an external link to an apparently self-published web page purporting to show a transcript of the Camillagate tapes. Should this be removed? --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The link is inappropriate. It is certainly not a reliable transcript of anything. I've been bold and redirected the article to Camilla Parker Bowles#Relationship with the Prince of Wales, which contains the relevant information, indeed much more.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool thanks. For future reference, what should I do if I find similar widely-reported but unreferenced negative comment in an article - tag for citation, remove the content, or ??? --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BLP. Unreferenced (or badly referenced) negative stuff about living people gets immediately removed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes I read that, but I seem to have a history of interpreting policy and guideline documents "differently" to others, so I thought I'd best check. Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


War of the Waleses is also an article about living people, without any references at all. Technically, it should probably deleted under the BLP policy, but that would cause howls.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected that article to Charles, Prince of Wales#Separation_and_divorce. fish&karate 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

David Kernell

Resolved

This is a request for eyes. Palin and Anon related. the skomorokh 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced claims. More watchlists here would be good.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added {{Current person}} and will try to help monitor. — Satori Son 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hollingworth - complains to J. Wales

Apparently, in March 2007, this ex-Governor General of Austalia personally called a radio-phone in with Jimmy Wales to complain that his biography was "offensive and inaccurate". Jimmy responded that "One of the things that we have really tried to do, particularly in the last year and half, is to beef up our policy on the biographies of living persons"[34].

Now, I'd have thought that given that exchange his biography on Wikipedia would be squeeky-clean as regards BLP. However, I notice the section concerning his resignation and a very serious lawsuit concerning rape allegations is almost entirely without references Peter_Hollingworth#Controversies over sexual abuse allegations (particularly at the bottom). I'm tempted to remove most of that section as a BLP violation - but it may well be accurate and I don't really want to start a major drama. Can others take a look here? This isn't stuff we want to get wrong, and everything needs nailed down with references.

If this is what happens when someone prominent complains about their bio, what happens the rest of the time? --Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of that section appears to be unreferenced. However, part of the problem I think is that some of the statements are supported by references but they don't have a footnote after them. Additionally the end of that section is very confusing and its unclear exactly what happened. The whole section needs a complete rewrite with every statement linked to a reliable source. I'm slightly hesitant to remove the entire section as some of it is backed by the sources. Can someone else take a look? --RicDod (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the lot unless someone want to fix it in the next few hours. I know it will be unpopular, but given the background we really need to insist on very close sourcing - a few links at the end of the article will not do. We can rebuild from the history as needed. BLP is clear - unsourced negative stuff (even if likely to be true in outline) gets removed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed by User:Avruch - beat me to it - good work.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin (U.S. politician)

BLP nightmare - can someone take a look at the sources? the skomorokh 16:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out. The tone of the article is also a problem: "perennial candidate and self-proclaimed consumer advocate", "he turned his attention to...", and others. Redddogg (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Threeafterthree and I each made a few edits and now the article seems to be much better. An issue still could be raised over using court records as sources, however in this case the information they add is fairly minor. Redddogg (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:2007GermanPlot

What is the community consensus on Templates, which do not use sources? I came across Template:2007GermanPlot, which is using the names of individuals. The article associated with it does appear to have one reliable source for the names used in the Template, but I'm a little queasy about the sourcing of the whole thing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a series of articles on an "alleged plot" really needs its own template. I'd vote to delete it if someone nominates. Redddogg (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne

Does the use of this site as a reference comply with WP:BLP? I question as to whether it should even be linked from the external links section. Bob (QaBob) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It is not a neutral site for information on the subject. It could only be used for information about the site itself. That is it can evidence what her critics are saying - but not what she has done.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

External links are not neutral, they're not wikipedia. We have the person's own site for most people, that's hardly NPOV but is literally selling themselves. StopSB.com is the primary site for criticism of her, and she also tried, or at least threatened, to sue them, presumably unsuccessfully, so they're notable as part of events in her legal attempts. They are an authority on the subject of Sylvia Browne, just in the opposite way to her own sales or whatever site. Anyone who has sought to learn about SB in an objective or sceptical fashion will have heard of them, they're the most well known sceptical, or truth telling site on the subject. Most articles we have, have external links which cover both sides of the subject, to provide NPOV. Sticky Parkin 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But it violates the restriction that self-published sources can only be used as sources of information about themselves, not other living people. As an external site, it appears to fit the definition of an "attack page". I don't think linking to such sites would meet oversight. Bob (QaBob) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this on the external linking policy page.
"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline."
Does this not apply in this case? Bob (QaBob) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

After removing the links stating WP:BLP as the reason, the links were returned to the article by User:Verbal. Bob (QaBob) 12:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was intrigued by the idea that someone like Verbal might be doing such a thing, had a look, and found that your description of what happened, while not completely misleading, is also not completely accurate. In your first post you asked two questions at once, and the first was answered with a clear "no". I think you are under the mistaken impression that this was also the answer to your second question. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I quoted the policy just above. It clearly states that the policy not only applies to references, but to external links as well. The self-published attack site clearly violates the spirit of WP:BLP. Do you disagree with that? Bob (QaBob) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not sufficiently familiar with BLP and the usual way to interpret it to have an opinion about whether or not the link is acceptable. I merely wanted to point out the miscommunication that had occurred. Nobody here has told you (yet?) that your interpretation of BLP wrt your second question is correct, although you seem to be claiming it has happened. The other problem is that you did two things in one edit – removing the problematically sourced statements and the potentially problematic link. It was natural for Verbal to think that your edit summary applied only to the first of these two actions, and therefore to revert just that without justifying it. Your summary here put Verbal into a bad light; and just like BLP subjects Wikipedia editors have an interest in being treated fairly.
As you can see, I don't agree with your edit summary when you just reverted Verbal [35], while having no opinion on the merits. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't comment on the site, but the fact that she has tried to sue them isn't a good indication they should be in the EL section. If I accuse some random high lawyer of being a child molester on my site they may try to sue me too. It's not an indication my site should be in the EL section. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bernardine Dohrn

There currently exists a dispute on the Bernardine Dohrn article over the inclusion of material from the book: “Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen” by Frank Reagan. Specifically, there is an objection on BLP grounds to the inclusion of material from the book which quotes WU member turn FBI informant Larry Grathwohl that Bernandine Dohrn was involved in February 16, 1970, bombing of the Park Police Station in San Francisco which killed one officer and blinded another.

Here is the text as it is previously presented in this version[36]:

Dohrn has been suspected of involvement in a February 16, 1970, bombing of the Park Police Station in San Francisco, which killed a police officer and partially blinded another, who was forced to retire on a disability. At the time, Dohrn was said to be living with a Weatherman cell in a houseboat in Sausalito, California, unnamed law enforcement sources later told KRON-TV.[20] An investigation into the case was reopened in 1999,[21] and a San Francisco grand jury looked into the incident, but no indictments followed,[20] and no one was ever arrested for the bombing.[21] An FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, who successfully penetrated the organization from the late summer of 1969 until April 1970, later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that Bill Ayers, then a high-ranking member of the organization and a member of its Central Committee (but not then Dohrn's husband), had said Dohrn constructed and planted the bomb. Grathwohl testified that Ayers had told him specifically where the bomb was placed (on a window ledge) and what kind of shrapnel was put in it. Grathwohl said Ayers was emphatic, leading Grathwohl to believe Ayers either was present at some point during the operation or had heard about it from someone who was there.[22] In a book about his experiences published in 1976, Grathwohl wrote that Ayers, who had recently attended a meeting of the group's Central Committee, said Dohrn had planned the operation, made the bomb and placed it herself.[23] Grathwohl testified that Ayers and Dohrn escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them.

Is there a BLP issue here or not based on the wording, citations and sources? CENSEI (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's important to realize in the context of this discussion, that Dohrn is the wife of William Ayres, and that connection is being used to further attacks on Barrack Obama. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean Bill Ayers. —KCinDC (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I dont think context is relevant here ... either the mater is a BLP violation, or it is not a BLP violation. CENSEI (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Was the issue that the book was attacked as not being a reliable source? What was the specific objection? Hobartimus (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The most commonly used canard is that since Grathwohl was an FBI informant, anything he says is unreliable, despite how many people use him as a source. Its clear from following the conversations on the relevant talk pages that non of the editors who are objecting to this have really looked at the source, otherwise they wouldnt be more some of the more ludicrous arguments that I have seen. CENSEI (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's who I meant, thank you, KCinDC. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think context is helpful to know in this case. Remember BLP applies to all living people in all articles. The part of Bill Ayers seems to long since this is an article about Dohrn Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to use accusations someone made in a book. At the very least, the accusations should be sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources who mentioned the accusations from the book but it'll probably be better just to leave it out. Grathwohl's credibility is somewhat irrelevant here. While a book can be construed as a reliable secondary source in some case, we need to take care particularly when the book is highly critical and is basically based on one individuals (alleged) experience as opposed to research from multiple sources. In this case it's basically the accusations of one person and while it's not self-published, it's still better to make sure at the very least these accusations are picked up by other reliable secondary sources. The Senate testimony perhaps has more merit although again, it needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources who have covered that testimony. (In this case it's the Senate testimony is clear a primary source.) However even with that I suggest the section on the testimony be reduced, we don't need to go into so much detail especially details specific to Bill Ayers is unnecessary. Also 'suspected' is too strong in this case IMHO while it can be argued to be accurate since he was investigated and subject to grand jury testimony it's probably better to just say accused. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Nil Einne, I think you have some misconceptions about the material. Reagans book is not critical persay, it’s a pretty straightforward journalistic account of the WU’s activities from multiple primary sources, including former WU members. The accusations can be cited to multiple primary and secondary sources including this book, NY Times pieces from the late 70’s and the grand jury transcripts. But as I stated earlier, if the material meets the WP:RS and WP:V criteria, arent we putting the bar a bit high for inlcusion? I know people continually come back to the election, but this material is over 25 years old and predates any modern controversy. CENSEI (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As I've already saud, Grand Jury transcripts (or other primary sources) should only be used iin BLPs if they are covered in reliable secondary sources. There's no if or buts here, if you don't understand it, please read up on policy. And while I haven't read the book, but the title strongly suggests to me it's an account about WU by FBI informant based primarily on his personal experience. This is hardly a great source anymore then a book about the WU by Bernardine Dohrn based on her personal experience. These are quite different from research books by (relatively) unbiased authors interviewing multiple people on both sides and research from other sources etc. And yes, the thereshold is VERY HIGH for BLPs. If you don't like this, I suggest you leave wikipedia (I'm extremely serious here since I take BLP policy very serious). The fact that this is so old is in fact further reason for us to take care. If this historic information is such a critical part of Dohrns life, why are we relying on ancient books? Again, if there are multiple secondary sources outside this book mentioning these details, please bring these to the table but as it stands, it seems to me people are missing the point. Let's put aside all this election/Barack Obama mess (which frankly I couldn't give a damn about, Americna politics is insane although I'll freely admit I prefer Obama over McCain as with perhaps 80% of the world) and think if we were writing an article on something someone may or may not have done simething 30 years ago but the only thing we have at the moment are ancient allegations which has barely been covered by sources. What would we do? The answer is clear in my mind. As it stands, this case isn't quite clear cut since we do have the grand jury thing but unless this has been covered in multiple secondary sources, it really has to stay out. N.B. I'm not saying Dorhns article is well sourced at the moment, actually it looks a bit of a mess but since this issue was brought to the table, I'm commenting on this issue Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The line sources to the book is "In a book about his experiences published in 1976, Grathwohl wrote that Ayers, who had recently attended a meeting of the group's Central Committee, said Dohrn had planned the operation, made the bomb and placed it herself". You can forgive me if I felt that this was simply an accusation of Grathwohl based on his alleged experience because that's what the line says to me. If he was in fact citing multiple other sources that did not originate from him that backed up this claim, then please state what these sources were Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have ... the KRON piece for one is another secondary source that backs this claim. Anoher is Dan Berger's Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity page 336. Three sources making the same claim, thats gotta be good for something. CENSEI (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Why then don't you propose a version on the talk page of the article referencing the appropriate sources? BTW, did the KRON source specicially mention the accusations of Grathwold? If not, then it's somewhat irrelevant. We are debating the specific accusations currently sourced exclusively to the book i.e. "In a book about his experiences published in 1976, Grathwohl wrote that Ayers, who had recently attended a meeting of the group's Central Committee, said Dohrn had planned the operation, made the bomb and placed it herself". Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive52&oldid=1148695548"