Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive63

Ole Nydahl & Diamond Way Buddhism

Please also see this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roy_Ward

Request longterm semiprotect:

Since August 2008, a single editor has placed severel disruptive edits on both pages. The edits spans from plain vandalism [1], linking to pages with the same content the person posts (likely pages created by same person) [2], and deliberate post misinforming, unsourced claims about Ole Nydahl [3][4][5]

A long term Sockpuppet case are in place, but the person simply edits from a range of dynamic IP-adresses. Therefore blocking (exept range block) has proven ineffective. Constructive edits from unregistered editors are as good as non-existent on both pages, except that this person also do some few spelling corrections from time to time. This list of edits was provided by a moderator in the case, as you see, this is very longterm an focussed on these pages [6].

The last disruptive edit [7] was even done by an IP adress just after a 72 hour ban was lifted against the same IP for Sockpuppeting. This IP user also reported me for CoI editing, and the conclusion was no obvious CoI problem, but a BLP notice should be filed requesting long term semi-protect if these edits continue. [8] After this, the same IP adress started posting the above mentioned links again.

Siru108 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Vallejo

Virginia Vallejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Has developed into what deserves to be called an on-and-off edit war over a prolonged period of time: almost a year (May 2008 to date).

I have edited the article several times, asking for additional references and changing expressions or controversial statements that may violate WP:BLP, including neutrality and proper encyclopedic tone. See the article's edit history and talk page for more details.

These edits have been repeatedly reverted by User:Phi2012, in particular, without addressing or discussing any of the issues I've mentioned on the talk page or brought up through edit summaries. I have previously been involved in reverting several of these reverts as well.

WP:COI may apply to User:Phi2012, given the user's exclusive focus on Virginia Vallejo-related edits. Via an early (May 2008) edit summary on the user's contribution history, he/she disclosed a possible connection to an internet marketing firm (including an e-mail address). These edits may thus be promotional in nature.

In addition to being more WP:COI candidates (check all of their edit histories for a similar pattern as the above), WP:SOCK may apply to one or more of User:Virginia Vallejo, User:Showbizguard, User:Jeff2004smith, User:Danieloberstein, User:Colcouncel and User:Zoltanpepper, all of them also involved in the matter at one point or another.

Their edits are all Virginia Vallejo-related and have often reverted any additions or edits made to the articles and sections involved. None of them appear to be open to actively discussing the issues on any of the talk pages involved and reaching a fair consensus.

It must also be added that User:Virginia Vallejo has claimed to be the very person in question, as per her own claims left on the article's talk page. The user has made no further comments.

The subject is very controversial in Colombia, but I am willing to compromise and follow instructions, as well as to correct any wrongdoings on my part. My own behavior has not been perfect.

It would be for the best if an independent third party intervened. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bowen

Hi, I've just done some repair work to Jeremy Bowen following a report upholding some complaints against an article he wrote. I don't think anything more needs doing, but would be grateful if people could help keep an eye on the article. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 13:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of editing for balance and to expand the article, but there is still a rather substantial WP:UNDUE issue: the recent report takes up half the career section. Rd232 ^talk 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An anon editor keeps on adding in information that myself and Rd232 both think is inappropriate synthesis of materials. Please could someone else take a look so I don't go over 3RR. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This page has just been protected for a day. I think an anon editor is trying to push an overly negative POV onto this page and would like to have a few more people look over it. Maybe someone else can take over discussion on the talk page while the article is locked. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article about Darko Trifunovic

Above mentioned article [9] present personal attack against dr Darko Trifunovic. It is proven in discussion that most of the footnote do not have any connection to dr Darko Trifunovic and that whole article is designate to black paint living individual. Also, most of quotation is not supported or connected between with common sense.

Some of examples:

^ a b c "Bosnian Muslims object to Serb terrorism expert addressing European conference". Report from TV Hayat, Sarajevo, 1800 GMT, 5 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian Serb legal expert says Hague tribunal using medieval methods". SRNA news agency, 3 August 1998. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ a b "Bosnian Diplomat's Citizenship Revoked". HINA, Croatia, 12 March 2002. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian Foreign Ministry partially revokes suspension of official". SRNA news agency, 10 June 2002. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian UN mission diplomat accuses Foreign Ministry of human rights violations". SRNA news agency, 13 June 2002. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian diplomat says he was fired for revealing colleague's Al-Qaeda ties". SRNA news agency, 7 August 2002. Via BBC Monitoring.

No active links to verify these so-called references which are sourced to notorously unreliable Balkan new sources. Not a single instance of a noteworthy or newsworthy incident. Is it biography material or just tabloid journalism? Seems Dr. Trifunovic is not popular in some regions of Bosnia, so what? Is that biography material. He certainly is not an alleged war criminal but held a minor diplomatic post with the BiH government.

^ "Ratko Mladic : Tragic Hero", Apis Group, 2006

This is a link to a book advertisement about another individual, Ratko Mladic, who is newsworthy but no mention of Trifunovic and definitely not a source.

^ "Imaginary Massacres?" TIME magazine, 11 September 2002 ^ "General guilty of Bosnia genocide". BBC News Online, 2 August 2001. ^ "Serbs admit Srebrenica death toll". BBC News Online, 14 October 2004

No mention of NPF Trifunovic here at all.

^ "Bosnian Al-Qaeda members plan attacks on NATO - terrorism expert". SRNA news agency, 17 October 2003. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Attacks in Kosovo are work of Al Qaeda". Glas javnosti, Belgrade, 19 March 2004. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Time Has Come For Us To Show Our Teeth". Glas javnosti, Belgrade, 11 December 2007. Via BBC Monitoring. Europe Finds Interesting Trifunovic's Story about Islamic Terrorism". Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo. 16 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring.

Again local Balkan politics, local tabloids, not verifiable, not good sources. Nothing to indicate that it should be in a biography. Is any NPF who conedemns Islamic terrorism subject to Wkipedia treatment? Major news sources in that part of the world are Blic, B92, and Politika and even then not up to Western standards. Does this merit an English language biography - why Trifunolic and not a thousand other Serbs mentioned in these "newspapers."

"Dr Darko Trifunovic – Serb Nationalist, Supporter of Greater Serbia and Genocide Denier". Society for Threatened Peoples, 19 February 2008.

Not a news source but an editorial by a minor German NGO. Contains libelous material. Use of this source betrays the malicious intent. "Serbia: Terrorism expert receives death threat". Adnkronos International, 21 January 2008

Finally, a verifiable news source that is legitimate. However, again what makes this so important that it needs to be in a biography? People receive death threats all the time.

The conclusion is that the authorship of this article is politically motivated to attack Dr. Trifunovic who is a NPF and subject him to further death threats. Within in the article is not a single source that establishes that Dr. Trifunovic is a war criminal, genocide denier (whatever that means), or a public figure. However, the article does cast unsavory connotations. The article should be removed simply because it does not meet Wikipedia's rigorous standards for non public figures.

Nor is there any coherent organization to this biography, it contains nothing about the subject's qualifications but instead is devoted to smearing him. before you have a reason for a bio you need to establish why someone merits one besides being unpopular with Bosnian fringe groups and their supporters in Germany.

The Time magazine article that is cited does not mention Darko Trifunovic by name. But somehow the existence of this article is used to justify the rest of the entry. Guilt by association? Demonization of Serbs? Sure a specialized search of proprietary databases will indeed turn up a few translated Serbian articles that mention the subject but these are not available except by subscription. The article should be wiped as it puts a non public figure at risk.Resistk (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The footnote http://www.apisgroup.org/tragichero/ is not valid. There is no name of dr Darko Trifunovic. So please correct it in the article.

1. In the footnote No.1^ a b c "Bosnian Muslims object to Serb terrorism expert addressing European conference". Report from TV Hayat, Sarajevo, 1800 GMT, 5 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring. It is obvius that it is a case of Radical Muslim TV from Sarajevo and that in the Editorial board are only Muslim http://www.hayat.ba/2009-01-28-13-01-36/uprava. So how this reference can be considered as neutral and objective??? Please not that major anger from Muslim radical extremist from Bosnia occured after my TV show on TV Hayat where I was in studio with one of the major Bosnian Muslim Extremist accused by Croatian for War Crimes Mr. Nezim Halilovic ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJipyg1V2_c).TV Hayat favored this War Criminals and Islamist very much. More on Nezim Halilovic (http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=1372).

2. "Bosnian Serb legal expert says Hague tribunal using medieval methods". SRNA news agency, 3 August 1998. Via BBC Monitoring.

In the text:.... "In the late 1990s, Trifunović worked as a member of the Republika Srpska legal expert commission, where he spoke out strongly against the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia's indictment of senior Bosnian Serb military and civil officials". The major obstacle is that it is not mention also why I criticized ICTY??? Exactly for using medieval methods such as "secret indictment". So all quotation is directed wrongly in very bad direction. Also, as academicians with specialization in International Criminal Law and as one of the establisher of the International Criminal Court (http://www.iccnow.org/documents/ELSAreportASP2003Handout.PDF)certanly I do have right to express my opinion on the matter.

3. Footnote N.15. "Dr Darko Trifunovic – Serb Nationalist, Supporter of Greater Serbia and Genocide Denier". Society for Threatened Peoples, 19 February 2008. The author of the text is Muslim again from Sarajevo, Ms.Jasna Causevic. She actively work to denier Holocaust from War War II and Genocide over the Christians in Bosnia. Her work is characterized as non objective because in all her reports there is no victims from Bosnia except Bosnian Muslim.

4.In others footnotes there is not link between me and content of footnone such as:

Footnote No.7 ^ "Imaginary Massacres?", Anes Alic and Dragan Stanimirovic, Transitions Online, 2002

Footnote No.8^ "Imaginary Massacres?" TIME magazine, 11 September 2002

Footnote No.9 and 10 # ^ "General guilty of Bosnia genocide". BBC News Online, 2 August 2001.

1. ^ "Serbs admit Srebrenica death toll". BBC News Online, 14 October 2004

So it is clear that someone want to black paint me with no evidences. I ask kindly editors of this article to review this article and change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have stubbed this article. Reports from news services "via BBC monitoring" looks like extremely week sources for material that is this negative and where the subject has objected. This needs lots of eyes, but we can't leave this up. I am erring on the side of removal on BLP grounds.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we know that the account with the subject's name is actually owned by the subject? Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No. But it shouldn't matter too much either way. He makes valid points.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, it was his request for deletion that I was concerned with. By all means, we need to make sure that anything that breaches our BLP guidelines or might breach them is removed. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Scott's perspective is based on some fundamental misunderstandings about the sourcing; I've explained these at Talk:Darko Trifunović#Stubbed. I don't know if he's aware of the background to this business, which has basically involved the subject of the article (and apparently possibly people associated with him) repeatedly blanking it and replacing it with an unsourced and often very POV curriculum vitae / autobiography. I'd be grateful if uninvolved editors could review what I've posted at Talk:Darko Trifunović#Stubbed and give some views. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We're operating under the assumption that the user account is the article subject. There have been emails, and the account edits from the university he works at...

Dr. Trifunovic has been attempting via various methods to get his article removed and/or stubbed and replaced with his own CV for some time now (years). Repeated high level review has found that though the sourcing tends to be to non-english sources, there are myriad reliable sources out there (some in print, many on the net) which verify the underlying facts the article alledges, i.e. that Dr. Trifunovic authored a report for the Bosnian Serb government which denied that there had been a large-scale massacre at Srebenica, he was fired from a post in the Bosnian Serb diplomatic corps at the UN after his citizenship was questioned, and that his report and other actions are highly controversial in the Bosnian and wider diplomatic communities. He also admits and still argues for his viewpoint that the 1990s Bosnian war was related to al-Qaeda, trying to use the 9/11 events to justify the Serb actions in Bosnia.

Again - these are all widely sourced, and Dr. Trifunovic has at times here on WP admitted authorship of the report and still supports his Bosnian Muslim / al-Qaeda arguments.

He and his proxies have been repeatedly asked if there are any factual inaccuracies in the article. He refuses to respond to that direct question, instead trying to challenge source notability and reliability and his notability in general.

The proximate cause of his recent round of complaints seems to be that he was disinvited from a terrorism and security conference in central Europe once the conference staff realized who he was. He's been actively trying (himself and via IP socks and a couple of proxy users) to whitewash the article here since then, apparently feeling that part of why he was rejected from the conference was the article.

This is a variant on the problem with BLPs of anyone with highly controversial views, the canonical and very similar example being Holocaust deniers. The standard Wikipedia policy is that we do not whitewash people's biographies. Dr. Trifunovic has managed to make himself notable, well enough known to be excluded from mainstream anti-terrorism conferences, and infamous among Bosnians. He, and everyone else who's BLP notable, deserve articles which are neutral and fair, and our BLP policy provides for attempting to avoid harm to people's reputations.

However, in this case, as with others who have become infamous, we really aren't hurting his reputation at large to accurately report the facts that made him infamous. He has yet, over years of controversy here, to assert that any of the claims regarding his report, his firing, or his al-Qaeda / Bosnian Muslim claims are incorrect. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jane Harman

Jane Harman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There's a new section quoting extensively from an article essentially accusing Representative Harman of a serious crime. The article relies entirely on anonymous sources. Does this pass BLP muster? As I stated on the Talk page for the article, I really prefer not to print such allegations without supporting evidence from somebody reliable who is willing to go on the record. Ray^Talk 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The story has some pretty serious traction at this point, covered in many major news outlets including an article in the New York Times that independently confirms a number of the details of the report (while also including the seemingly common opinion that she is not guilty of any crime, including a former high level FBI official in charge of the unit responsible for this sort of investigation who is quoted by name saying that Harman did not appear to have done anything illegal). As long as the article remains balanced wrt the relative weight of expert opinion on the matter, we should be fine. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson entry

Hello all,

I have been having a devil of a time convincing a fan (Unionsoap) of this person, who is the girlfriend of a minor German princeling, that blogs are not sources of information.

I'd appreciate someone dropping by - Unionsoap insists on constantly changing the article to their version claiming COI issues. Unionsoap is unwilling to discuss things on a point by point basis, will not participate in the page's "talk" page, and is aggressive and hostile toward any changes.

I'd like to move the blog references to external links rather than list them as references, and remove anything to do with her ethnicity, which I think is not germane. Pretty much every edit I make is undone by the fan (or perhaps this is the subject herself.)

Thanks, PR (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo and IMDB Birthdays

First, someone set this individual's birthday based on "personal conversation with Lamo"[10], which I reverted as WP:OR. Then, this same individual provided a celebrity photo site as a reliable source[11], which everyone can agree is ridiculous, which I also reverted. Now, this same individual has set IMDB as the source for the birthday[12], and left me a note that "IMDB is previously cited on the article under discussion and has a precedent of being a WP:RS. I hope you favor consistency. Please do some research (also known as Google queries) before acting. Makes the world a better place." [13]. So my question is, is IMDB considered a reliable source for the purposes of BLP? Quatloo (talk)

There is no definitive policy or guidance with respect to IMDb, yet. There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, pursuant to which it is not a reliable sources for contentious BLP matters. In the absence of specific policy or guidance, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources would support that position, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So IMDB is an acceptable source for birth dates, locations of birth, marriage information, heights of individuals, and the like? Quatloo (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not if there is any doubt as to the fact in question. For example, IMHO, IMDb would not be a reliable source for X as the subject's birth date if there was some question as to whether date X was indeed the subject's birth date. – ukexpat (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there always a doubt as to the birth dates of individuals, particularly with umm, actors, who as a class often lie about their ages? Quatloo (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Let's not rely on IMDB for birthdates. In fact I don't like to rely on it at all. let's remove anything that solely cites IMDB. Instead search for the birthdates on google news. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Members and victims of The Westies

Our article about criminal gang The Westies has a "Members" section composed almost entirely of redlinked names, and a "Murders" section of about 20 who-killed-who bullet items. I can see that a "Notable members" section with the few bluelinked names whose articles say they are members could be okay, but should not all the rest be deleted on a BLP basis? --CliffC (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the redlinked names can go. They are likely sourced from one of the books, but seem excessive in the article. Kevin (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Sicilian mafiosi

List of Sicilian mafiosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a mostly unsourced list of mafiosi, as it says. I have removed all unreferenced redlinks, and could do with some help transferring references from the linked articles to the list. Thanks Kevin (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

List of people raised in Houston is totally unsourced

List of people raised in Houston is totally unsourced. Please help find sources for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Murder of James Bulger

• Murder of James Bulger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe there are significant problems with this article, not so much about the subject victim, but about the two convicted murderers, both of whom are still alive. There is much unsourced or poorly sourced negative personal information (e.g., details about their broken families, allegations that the mother of one of them was suicidal, tabloid-sourced rumours of heroin use post release from prison, etc). Editors with access to British news sources would probably be helpful in clearing this up. Risker (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the more suspect post release stuff, and added a couple of cites for the family life prior to the murder. With a case like this, there will be a lot of news sources that will never be neutral. Martin451 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to BLP/N. I noticed the article's problems a few weeks ago and planned to bring it to here but seem to have forgotten Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism

Regarding this edit and the reverts and rereverts of it in Charities accused of ties to terrorism. An explicitly attributed statement regarding a charity accused of having ties to terrorism is being challenged on the grounds that it is a BLP violation to say that a noted academic in the field (Juan Cole) has accused this charity of having ties to terrorism makes a BLP vio of the group they are claiming to be engaged in terrorism. Is this a BLP issue? Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no BLP issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, given the nature of the list (why doesn't it have List in the title?), with explicit attribution, it seems fine. Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The attribution is to a very marginal source - an openly partisan magazine, which accuses an identifiable group of people of being "essentially terrorists" - which is a potentially actionable libelous claim. NoCal100 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is cited to a column by Juan Cole, by definition a RS for the opinion of Juan Cole. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - this is a I/P issue - regardless of what we decide here the nutters on both side will argue about it forever and I don't want those sort of batshit crazy loons on my talkpage so I'll make no further comment on this issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP is the wrong policy to cite as a biography refers to specific details which form a story about a particular individual's life.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the libel argument. The accusation is 100% dependent on an unverifiable claim. In fact, I can't find any other website verifying Juan's erroneous claim outside of that website. How can we be sure Juan Cole wrote that since it's not an RS? For those who dismiss BLP, let's take a look at verifiability: Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it:. It's a shame this has gone for so long. (mostly copied and pasted from original talk, sorry, dispute has become quite repetitive).Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. The facts are not in dispute, the only issue is interpretation thereof. That interpretation is sourced, but the facts themselves are also given, so people can make up their own minds about the claim. Note that as usual, lists and categories create either/or situations that do not permit the sort of nuance prose does. The same info has been in the Capital Athletic Foundation article since at least 2006; without the contested interpretation that the equipment was intended for terrorism. Rd232 ^talk 23:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the cited info is in that article. Try again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Outcome subssection, second paragraph: Capital Athletic Foundation#Outcome. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No where it is referenced as TERRORISM. Comprehension much? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear enough above. Facts: provision of sniper equipment. Interpretation: sniper equipment to be used for terrorism. Now read again what I said before. Rd232 ^talk 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupid. Sniper equipment and training is standard and LEGAL in the settlements. Everyone owns guns. You might interpret that as terrorism, but legally and logically speaking it is not. Try reading the talk (which you clearly have not) and you would realize over a page was dedicated to this very fact. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I grow weary of your insults today, here and elsewhere. WP:CIVIL, and while we're at it (for comments elsewhere) WP:AGF. Legality aside, AFAIK sniper guns are offensive weapons not used for personal or home defence. However it's pointless debating our views of this, we need to rely on the relevant sources. Rd232 ^talk 04:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I grow weary of your refusal to recognize Nableezy's disruption, abuse, and sheer arrogance which you have supported. My "stupid" was not directed at you, but what you said. It was stupid. See To call a spade a spade. All your "points" were thoroughly discussed in the talk. The repetition is aggravating and the fact that you are an admin makes hard for me to believe this is out of carelessness. Snipers being offensive does not = terrorism. That is your POV, something we call OR if it were in the article. No RS support Cole's agenda, zero. Burden of proof shows this needs to go and I cannot think of a rationalization for your opinion other than it is ideology based. Put in the terrorism accusation in original article. There are far more editors who will whine than at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with another editor, there are procedures for help or escalation. As to ideology, if the situation were anonymised, then given the nature of sniper equipment (even apart from the history and the comments of some involved), most would argue for a martial interpretation; and in a martial context, for persons not involved in an organised military campaign, sniper equipment has mostly a terror function (see sniper, Psychological Warfare section). But, whatever. Classic unresolvable I/P difference of opinion over something that ultimately can't change anything of any significance, so let's just agree to differ and please tone down your attitude. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What you are missing is that Cole himself is a Professor and Commentator on the event being discussed, and he is giving his commentary on said topic. The opinion is also directly attributed to him.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm confused, who are you claiming are the affected party/ies per BLP? Juan Cole? Jack Abrahamoff? The donors to the charity? The recepients of the charity funds/equipement? Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur)

An editor is raising concerns about this biographical article here, and I just wanted to make sure people who monitor this section were aware of the matter.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Marshal. Appreciate the help. I am new here - so please bear with me if I do not follow the exact form I am supposed to. I am trying to learn the protocols.

I have tried to reason with the editors that seem set on preservation at all costs. I’m still to read up on Twinkle, but I’ve been Twinkled out a few times and then manually reverted as well.

I would appreciate and welcome third party reviews and comments on Mr Ahmed's profile and revisions. While he has undoubtedly been in the public eye for a number of reasons, I believe that that the previous slant on all stories have been highly negative, rather than neutral with the most controversial aspects of the stories reported on and in fact misreported on. I would hope that my efforts in securing a more balanced article are self evident from the edits. But I'd like to raise a number of points here for consideration and discussion.

Firstly this is a Biography of a real live living person as such they affect real lives and should be treated with consideration to this. I firmly believe they should not be treated as a forum to regurgitate tabloid sensationalism. It was my understanding that this is a primary tenet of Wikipedia. Am I mistaken?

Specifically the comment likening Syed Ahmed to David Brent, while apparently accurately reported is not attributed to a specific identifiable source (i.e. the person that said it) in the referenced article. It is however quite clearly a defamatory comment. Without recourse to the specific source it should be treated as an unreliable comment and stricken in line with policy. With regard to the story of arrest, it is pretty clear if you read all available internet sources on the matter that: the underlying issue involved Syed Ahmed business partner (unrelated but sharing the same surname). I have attempted (on multiple occasions) to correct the article to reflect this and also to balance the tone of the article without simply restating the entire reference articles. I also fail to see how stating that someone has obtained examinations (a published matter in the UK) is peacock like or promotional. I also do not see that stating he was 17 to 18 when did his diploma is also out of keeping with policy, tone or other biographies - another edit that was blithely reverted on multiple occasions. With regard to references to his current work - I think this relevant, I don't believe it's promotional it is simply reporting published fact - they're not in fact edits I made, just restored (althouh they may have gone again now). On a personal note I find the fact he's still persevering with a project that delivers a significant reduction in energy usage laudable (anyone agree with this?) – especially considering the current ecological precipice of the world. Does this last point represent a conflict of interest? If so then surely anyone who holds an opinion on anything would be barred from editing anything they knew anything about where they held an opinion. Please advise as to whether I am alone in this opinion regarding the importance of balance in living biographies and where there is doubt to let goodwill prevail and err on the side of caution or whether I am supported in this view. Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Mediation Cabal following escallating WP:DR procedure

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Amicaveritas (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I think the cited source is reliable, there may be a meaningful question as to whether this coverage is too thin under WP:WEIGHT to support these claims. Although I think there's a conflict of interest on this topic, this doesn't sway my thinking that the content should not be in the article until we've looked into this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see also my comments at User_talk:Amicaveritas#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvatore Inzerillo

Character Defamation

This is a very serious issue concerning an artist I represent - Salvatore Inzerillo

He is properly placed as a living artist in a substantial production in this article:

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Hopped_the_%27A%27_Train

The above Article links him to this Article:

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Inzerillo

This is not the same person; it is defamatory, wrong, misleading and insulting.

When I attempted to create a new Article for the living Salvatore Inzerillo, it was refused, and yet there are articles I sited within Wikipedia as well as extremely reputable sites throughout the Internet.

I refuse to accept this abomination of my clients character and hope that Wikipedia can restore Salvatore Inzerillo's name as a separate person in a separate Article before I continue with legal action.

On Wikipedia My client is properly cited:

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Hopped_the_%27A%27_
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAByrinth_Theater_Company

On the Internet:

   * http://www.labtheater.org/companymembers/member30.html
   * http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm1935273/maindetails
   * http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1&res=9B05E1DD123DF933A05752C1A9669C8B63&oref=slogin
   * http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9B0CE2DF1F3FF932A15754C0A96F958260&fta=y
   * http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/theater/theater-review-anachronism-in-a-t-shirt-bewildered-by-a-fast-moving-world.html
   * http://www.wilmatheater.org/productions/2004_jesus.html
   * http://www.catholicdigest.com/article/sal-inzerillo-actor-portrayed-simon-the-zealot
   * http://www.playbill.com/news/article/96538.html
   * http://www.rattlestick.org/news/150
   * http://www.patriciafletcher.com/dialect_coaching.php
   * http://www.hospitalaudiences.org/hai/pubs/news/winter02/4.htm
   * http://www.developingartists.org/news.html

Salvatore Inzerillo is not a dead heroin trafficking murderer.

I am requesting that this be rectified in a very timely fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promethius11 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously posted and handled at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: the issue seems to be that there are multiple Salvatore Inzerillos. Redlinks relating to the artist have been modified accordingly. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E modification

The policy on WP:BLP1E was recently changed,[14] in my opinion substantially weakening it. The preceding discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Premature BLP1E AfD's focussed on wanting to prevent BLPs created in response to an event being sent to WP:AFD "prematurely" i.e. before it's clear whether the person will be notable for more than this event. I don't see how the changes address this issue, or that changes are an improvement irrespective of that issue. More input would be appreciated. Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is essentially a democratic institution, and in a democracy, when people try to use rules to thwart the will of massive majorities (as in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle), there is always collateral damage. It looks like the change is specifically aimed at invalidating the arguments that were used in that AfD. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By "arguments" I take it you're referring to the reference in that AFD to BLP1E. So how does the fact that 85% of people in that AFD decided BLP1E didn't apply require a general weakening of the rule? The old rule was flexible enough to accommodate the case. In any case, WP:NOT a legal system - one AFD is not a "precedent" which requires changing policy to fit. Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not a democracy, essential or otherwise. That is core policy. See WP:NOT.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:NOT, but saying something doesn't make it true. All major decisions are made by voting -- even if people like to call it !voting -- and that's the essence of a democracy. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So back on topic, are people in general agreement that the changes are a good idea? Would anyone care to comment on my alternative proposal at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Premature BLP1E AfD's? Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation on Jim Price (baseball)#Criticisms?

Hi it seems like the information at Jim Price (baseball)#Criticisms is pretty libelous. It sounds like a former colleague and a former team mate had some REALLY nasty words to say about him. They're from 2 separate published sources and well known people though so that's why I asked. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the information is a violation of BLP per se, as the comments are properly referenced. BLP requires contentious material that is poorly referenced to be removed from biographies of living persons, but does not address material that is referenced to reliable sources. However, I think that you may be justified in removing the material on the basis of "Wikipedia:Libel" (no supporting facts were given indicating the truth of the allegations) and "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (there is no information on whether this view is shared by other commentators). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

Hi. I would like to request the page for Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah is removed. There has been no Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s, the country is in a serious civil war, and that someone has put a page up claiming there is a prince, when the only sources are dodgy websites, and a cheesy low budget BBC tv show, its in very poor taste and is quite offensive. The article does not further wikipedia as the person seems to have achieved no serious accomplishments, and his importance is not obvious as he has no political power, and no recognition in the sri lankan community, or the rest of the world for that matter. Frankly I think its disguisting self promotion - more of a personal page than an encyclopaedic entry. Shuggyg (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah - I'm not sure how many times it has been recreated before the current incarnation, at least once and that time it was Speedied. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean we can just delete it? or does the decision process require more lengthy debate?Shuggyg (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have renominated the article for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah (2nd nomination). Skomorokh 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle controversy

This article, dating back to 20064, has been the focus of edit warring since at least October 2007. Two editors have been the main contributors/protagonists: Nrswanson ('anti-subject', since June 2007), Hrannar ('pro-subject', since October 2007). This has been referred here twice in the past, on 23 July 2008 and 12 August 2008. Recently some new editors have become involved, including some suspected sockpuppets (see here).

The controversial section of the article is as follows:

Although Battle gave several critically praised performances at the Metropolitan Opera during the early 1990s, her relationship with the company's management showed increasing signs of strain during those years. As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding. A year earlier "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" In February 1994, during rehearsals for an upcoming production of La Fille du Régiment, Battle subjected her fellow performers to "withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands that they not look at her." General Manager Joseph Volpe responded by dismissing Battle from the production for "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future." Battle was replaced in La Fille du Régiment by Harolyn Blackwell. At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that "the cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired."

Is this within the usual bounds of BLP coverage? Specifically, are hearsay accounts by journalists such as Michael Walsh of Time magazine, acceptable when they are properly cited? I'd appreciate opinions from editors familiar with BLP disputes.

P.S. I'm not a contributor. I was asked to help mediate the dispute. Thank you. --Kleinzach 00:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the article, it doesn't seem too much of a problem. It's not so large that it raises WP:UNDUE issues, and these are respected commentators and sources. Unless there are other sources to contradict this, it seems OK. I would tweak it by adding "was said to have" to "Battle subjected...". Rd232 ^talk 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rd232. You mention, "Unless there are other sources to contract this, it seems OK." Where can we find this notion of "unless other sources to contract" in the wikipedia guidelines? Better understanding all the guidelines is super helpful, so please refer me to the section in guidelines discussing this. Thanks again!Hrannar (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I'm not sure if policy says that anywhere in so many words, but it's basically WP:V: we rely on reliable sources; where they contradict each other, then we have to exercise some judgement in how to deal with the contradiction (usually just reporting it). Rd232 ^talk 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally I think the material is OK. It's placed in the correct chronological position, rather than having a pov section of it's own. The sources meet WP:RS. There isn't a violation of WP:UNDUE, but a slight trim would be favorable. The article could do a better job of noting that these are not stone cold proven facts, but rather allegations. — R² 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. That's helpful. --Kleinzach 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Realist2 for pointing out that these are not proven facts. The irony of it all is that individuals like Volpe and even our recent editor, nrswanson, make allegations and reports about another, when they themselves appear to have the attributes they accuse their subjects of. Regardless of the specific subjects, we don't know why a person does what they do and without specific facts or context. Perhaps Volpe and Battle have valid points on their end, so let's (per wikipedia guidelines) be neutral by showing both their perspectives, out of fairness to the both of them. But not offer more weight to one perspective or the other. Hrannar (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

According to the link provide, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." It goes on to mention "some caveats" such as "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. 'In articles about living persons,' (differs from non BLP) only material from 'high-quality' news organizations should be used. / Is Time Magazine considered a high quality news organization like AP? It certainly is mainstream, and decent quality, but it is not clear that journalists would consider it the same high quality standard as the washington post, for example. / My concern was the editor Eudemis and nrswanson (who created sockpuppet to help support his assertions) asserted, insisted that information such as leaving trail/froth of ill will was 'fact' and fashioning the article to support that view. Does that make sense? Also, they define her as 'difficult' but it really doesn't seem to include balance, allowing for other point of view. Whenever other point of view is provided, it is removed. So there doesn't seem to be complete neutrality and conservative reporting, appears slightly biased toward a view that SOME consider her difficult. Any efforts to share opposite view seem to be met with opposition. Again my major concern. Happy to show that we can be a model of neutrality, by including both sides. Hrannar (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

To help ensure equal weight to both sides, and therefore, NPOV, took the lead of a moderator, voceditenore, who offered the following and provided rationale, stating It gives an equal amount of space to what Volpe said in the Met press release in terms of why he fired her and what Battle said in hers. It confines itself to that. / Fairly straight forward. Here is the suggested phrasing Suggested phrasing from moderator. Mostly this was done to remove several potentially libelous statements and bring the section discussing the termination to a telling that provides equal voice to both parties involved. In the version that existed for about a month, it was clearly written from a biased perspective, giving more airtime to Volpe, if you count the sentences and phrasing used. Hrannar (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Susan Boyle unsourced insults

I went to read the Susan Boyle article to read about the show after hearing her sing on the radio. Imagine my surprise to find this unsourced comment in the article:

"Before she sang, both the audience and the judges appeared to express scepticism based on her age and what was seen as an unattractive appearance."

Says who? Say en.wiki editors? It's hard to believe I have to actually request that this be referenced or removed. Would an administrator monitoring this board remove this immediately. I'm not interested in putting this on the article's talk page. This is precisely the sort of crap that this policy is supposed to prevent. --KP Botany (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was protected earlier, so I would bring this to the talk page before its unprotected. Synergy 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What a lame and irresponsible response. The point of posting here is NOT to have discussion about her physical appearance on the article talk page. What is it about the BLPs that administrators cannot understand the policy and take responsibility for crap like this? I bet I can find a dozen administrators on AN/I rediscussing long dead issues about the usual half dozen users and not a single one of them ever monitors this board. Would an administrator--if any monitor this--please remove this unsourced line from the article without debating the issue on the article talk page? Would anyone who is not an administrator keep their opinions about the matter to themselves? It's not an opinion discussion. It's simple. It's unsourced. It's negative, and it's bs. It's a BLP. Remove it. --KP Botany (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The line was added by SlimVirgin and is supported by the reference in the sentence following it. That aside, non-administrators are welcome to help on this board. So, rather than spew insults at them, perhaps it would be best that you verify that a claim is libelous before demanding, rudely, that it be removed. لennavecia 05:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The article seemed okay to me. In this case you have to include some unpleasant things or else you can not tell this person's story. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, her appearance is a key element in all of this. Many adjectives are being used by the press to describe her appearance, including "unattractive" and some that are rather more blunt, e.g. The Huffington Post. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The appearance matter should be attended to, but how about her previous occupations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararah (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle

A group of user insists on insertion of {{Falsification of history}} into the biography of living Canadian writer Douglas Tottle. The author was indeed criticised for being too soft on Soviet government, this criticism is reflected in the article. Still I think we cannot state the accusations as an established fact by pasting this navigational template. (Alex Bakharev)

It is a BLP violation, in my mind, as it is not a widely held view, and particularly on a figure who is probably not all that notable in the first place. The template itself has MASSIVE BLP and POV problems, look at the name of it for one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No template. Agree we Russavia and Alex Bakharev. "The author was indeed criticised for being too soft on Soviet government, this criticism is reflected in the article." - Correct. BLP violation - correct. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with using this template. Based on sources now provided in his article, he belongs to people who deny the Holodomor, a genocidal event that should be remembered along with the Holocaust.Biophys (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheap trick. You don't even know what he "denies". Famine? He never claims that there was no famine. Genocide? More than 200 countries in the world do not recognize this event as genocide. So let's nail all of them with such template. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree per Biophys, template is appropriate. Denying Soviet crimes and falsifying history in support of denying Soviet crimes is more than "being too soft on Soviet government". Martintg (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Reply to Beatle Fab Four. It does not matter what I think. It matters what the sources tell. For example, his article tells:

In his book, Searching for place, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".[9] In 1988 the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine was set up to establish whether the famine existed and its cause. Tottle was invited by the commission to attend the hearings, however he ignored the request. While the commission was organized along judicial lines, it had no judicial power to compel witnesses to attend or testify. However Tottle's book was examined during the Brussels sitting of the commission[10], held between May 23 - 27, 1988, with testimony from various expert witnesses. The commission president Professor Jacob Sundberg subsequently concluded that Tottle was not alone in his enterprise to deny the famine on the basis that material included in his book could not have been available to a private person without official Soviet assistance.

And so on. So, the sources qualify him as a Holodomor denialist.Biophys (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a single about why do they curse him. Is this a scientific critique? What was correct in his book, what was wrong? The reader doesn't know this. He can only see that some people call him a bastard. Nothing more. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gahh. I don't believe that template ought even to exist. By grouping together a whole set of disparate events as "falsification of history", it essentially functions as an original synthesis, making assertions that the reader can't verify because they're implicit in the template rather than explicit and sourced. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles provide explicit sources, the template merely provides a navigational aid between these articles. If the issue is the template name, then that is for discussion on the template talk page.

I agree that using such template is not really relevant to BLP issues, as it mostly serves for navigation. Biophys (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looie496 is absolutely right. It's a horrible template. Using it here is nothing but original synthesis. I think we need to ask ourselves: are such inherently problematic and POV-pushing templates really necessary in WP? Offliner (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Based on available sources, endorse this navbox in this article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree While the template name is not as genteel as many would like, there appear to be published sources cited in the article that directly make the accusation [15]or one similar "Soviet apologist, Douglas Tottle" [16] While the template exists, it applies here. --Eudemis (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking him with the Holodomor is one thing, there are sources for that. But the template indirectly links him to the Ku Klux Klan, the Holocaust, and the Armenian genocide. That's an improper synthesis in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

I'm concerned about the version of this article being pushed by a single editor (the current version). At one point the self-identified subject of the article was voicing unhappiness with the article and trying to "fix" it. They were rewarded with an indefinite block. I read the article and it seemed to be far from NPOV. I've done my best to fix it. It's been discussed on the talk page and another editor agreed "generally" with my opinion, and the version of the article I've tried to maintain. But the lone editor reverting to a different version of the article has continued to do so. I don't want to engage in edit warring and the subject matter isn't anything I have the least interest in so I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. But I don't feel right about just leaving it be. If others feel their version is appropriate I'm fine with that, and I'm bringing it here for consideration. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits, cleaning up the article and removing a number of unsourced statements and one egregious BLP violation [17] (the article implies he accused someone of having a bomb, when he merely said he couldn't be sure that she didn't, in the context of a debate about muslim headscarfs), [18]. Rd232 ^talk 02:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley MacIsaac

Resolved

 – Skomorokh 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ashley MacIsaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - quite a few BLP violations, I've removed all the major faults and integrated the "Controversies" section but would appreciate someone else looking at the remaining bits after the Career section. It's not too long. -- Banjeboi 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Career section largely checks out, and there isn't really anything potentially defamatory about the Political involvement section as far as I can see. Skomorokh 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, and after a search for sources to verify the text, I have removed a large part of the section until it can be verified. Tentatively marking this resolved. Skomorokh 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dikembe Mutombo

• 76.115.92.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Dikembe Mutombo suffered a career ending knee injury last night. 76.115.92.239 horribly vandalized his article twice. [19][20] Could somebody please block this troll? JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Harold Koh

The article in question has serious NPOV issues. Koh is currently up for consideration as Obama's Legal Adviser of the Department of State and has generated some controversy. Koh's research assistant has expressed concerns about the current state of the article. In particular, there is concern that a) the article as currently written gives UNDUE weight to critical views and also while listing conservative complaints fails to note the many conservatives who have come out in favor of Koh such as Ken Starr and Ted Olson. I myself have a bit of a COI and so would not feel comfortable dealing with this. I'm thus bringing it to the attention of the noticeboard here. I've also commented on the article talk page mentioning specific sources that should probably be added. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see how you might want to stay out of it. I've posted a comment to the talkpage and should be able to do some work on it later this afternoon. Ted Olson's comments should be included more prominently, and I think there is a place for Justice Ginsburg's recent comments on the same issue (although not Koh directly). The section on transnationalism as it stands is basically a hit piece, almost entirely criticism of his position without even describing it -- except through the lens of that criticism. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have removed the section (see my comment here). I think we need to be very careful about what is written on Wikipedia, especially is something is a misrepresentation of an individual's views. This has the possibility to become the wikiality. Khoikhoi 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting think (since for legal reasons it's not possible to transwiki WP:NOTNEWS violations to Wikinews) we should try a lot harder to encourage people working on current events-related things to head over to Wikinews, and try and leave editing the related WP articles for when the passage of time allows a modicum of perspective. This is especially true as in the near future transwiki from Wikinews to Wikipedia will be possible (assuming the switch to CC licence goes through), but not the other way. Rd232 ^talk 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Boylestad

• Robert Boylestad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The following comment was left in the wrong place. I figure it belongs here. There's various mentions of blocks, OTRS, and the Foundation in the picture. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In March I went through a long discussion about why I did not want to be included in your encyclopedia based on what was presented without any input from me. However, after the discussion he agreed that I should be deleted. However, I took the time to rewrite the bio as I wanted it to appear but your system is such that anyone can rewrite and now it is in a similar form to the form I disliked in March. Every change I have made is correct and reflects what I wanted it to appear -- not what you feel is appropriate. It is hard for me to understand how "you" can decide what should appear under my name after 70 years of existance and not "me". Again, I discussed in detail with the former editor why I wanted it deleted. I refuse to go through all that again -- this is very upsetting to me and I can tell you it is affecting my general health as I write this -- Yes, I have used your encyclopedia -- in general it is very well done. However, when it comes to a bio I feel you should let the "person" decide what should be included and not what you can dig up on the computer. So long as everything is accurate I can't not understand why you can not provide the courtesy via email that a bio is to be published and we want your input to be sure you are content with the description. I want my privacy and ask you nicely to simply remove it -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boylestad (talk • contribs) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

the policy is otherwise, and I think fortunately so. Consider the general case: who would ask for the article deletions? --primarily the people who did not like their articles. And then no bio of a living person we had here could be trusted for objectivity. If the subject decided "what should be included" there would indeed be some modest people like you, but a lot more utter vanity, and then we wouldn't be an encyclopedia worth using at all. DGG (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your right that he can't just decide to not have an article on himself. But, I also think in this case, we shouldn't have an article, based on WP:BLP. There just aren't substantial third-party sources about him personally. He says he's a "dean". We say he's just an "assistant dean". I don't see anyway of verifying which is correct. I could remove the poorly sourced material, but then he comes of looking like some random person who happened to write a book, without indicating his qualifications, which seems very unfair. Given that this survived an AFD already, I'm really not sure what can be done. I don't see anyway this can be made a good article, as there just aren't sufficient sources with depth. --Rob (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren Hayes

Resolved

 – Section re-written, everyone seems happy with it. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hayes came out of the closet as gay in major media and press. Though there is mention in his biography section of having a male partner, it was neither sourced nor did it IMPLICITLY state he is gay. Obviously Hayes thought this information was important enough to make public via the press, and the general consensus on Wikipedia has been that when a public person of note reveals their sexuality to be other-than-heterosexual, and it can be referenced/sourced, it is noteworthy and should be included in their biography. However, I have made slight edits to this page four times in a row and biased individuals who clearly do not understand WHY the sexual preference of a public figure is noteworthy, continue to revert my edits and give straw-man arguments as to why (such as the old chestnut "We don't put that straight people are straight...") I would like someone of authority to intervene. // CouplandForever (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this is best handled via continuoing the ongoing discussion (which I've done on the talk page), not administrator intervention Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Kevin (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff: full details of murder case?

Philip Markoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Or should fullest details more properly be contributed to Julissa Brisman (murder victim) prior any confession or conviction? ↜Just me, here, now … 12:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the event is Murder of Julissa Brisman and is not an article about Julissa Brisman. Please review naming conventions already in use before moving articles. Otherwise, use the talk page. Philip Markoff is another subject altogether. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I created the victim/case article on the 23rd under yet a different title (viz "Craigslist Killer (Boston)") -- but, be that as it may, my question at hand has absolutely nothing at all to do with this article's title! Rather (to reiterate) it has got to do with whether details having to do with the case/victims should primarily be discussed at the article about the case, according to Wiki's BLP guidelines, or at the article about the accused, Philip Markoff. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An Ambitious Proposal

Preliminary comments welcomed. But basically if there are willing editors and someone can just generate the list this can get rolling pretty quick. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

A while back I started working on a proposal: User:Tznkai/desk/Stub_protection_of_low_activity_BLPs. I would very much like some input on it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Cassidy

We have here an article about a minor comedian who founded a comedy club that is not notable enough for its own article and whose main claim to notability is that he died in circumstances that are titillating and highly embarrassing for his surviving loved ones. Three paragraph article, one paragraph is about his death. It was listed on 'Did you know... that he died watching porn, until I removed it. I'd like a second opinion on whether the article should even exist. Thatcher 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. 1BE would seem to apply - all references relate to his death. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this person should not have an article since he is known only for one event. Since it was his death, it is pretty unlikely that he will become well known for other accomplishments. Major undue weight issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Third concurance Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF was going on that this was greenlighted at DYK? Agreed that this article is a good example of what we should not be doing. Should this go to AfD? How are these sorts of BLP issues being handled these days? MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing where WP runs into problems. As a B(L)P1E, it should be merged into the event. But the event surely isn't significant enough for its own article (WP:NOTNEWS). Yet given the media coverage it technically meets notability, so the odds are probably pretty low that an AFD nomination on those grounds will succeed. (WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS are often in conflict, and WP:N usually wins, especially at AFD.) I suppose it's the thing to do, and when that doesn't succeed, we could try and reach consensus on the talk page to at least minimise the detail. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassidy. Rd232 ^talk 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not, of course, a BLP issue, since he is not an LP. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But his ex-wife, children, nieces, nephews, parents, and other grieving loved ones are. Preventing the subject from suing us is not the only reason to be careful about these sort of articles. Thatcher 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

George Zinkhan

The murders, he is alleged to have committed and that spawned creation of this article, just happened today. I'm thinking this falls under BLP1E. Do we want to have an article like this? Should someone nominated it at AfD? I'm not going to nominate it, but wanted to call attention to it amongst folks who think more aboout issues like blp1e. LadyofShalott 04:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, completely unreferenced negative article about a living person, doesn't meet either [{WP:PROF]] or WP:N/CA at this point. An article may be appropriate at some point, but this wasn't it. Risker (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call. I have it watchlisted. I'm thinking without some salt sprinkled on, this may get recreated repeatedly (and not necessarily even in good faith). LadyofShalott 04:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's back as George M. Zinkhan. Also note that have redirected articles about two of his otherwise non-notable alleged victims to this page too - Tom Tanner, and Ben Teague. There is also a redirect from Marie Bruce, another alleged victim, also otherwise non-notable. None of the victims is worthy of their own articles so these redirects should probably be sent to Afd.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a stub about the murders, but that has been redirected to George M. Zinkhan. So, this BLP is the sole article about it. Make no mistake, even though he has academic achievements that are discussed, this shooting is the only reason an article has been created on Wikipedia about this man. LadyofShalott 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Leslie

This article is really trash. If WP was really what it claims to be it would have not been started in the first place. I doubt an AfD would be successful. Maybe it could be cleaned up, by someone with a stronger stomach than I. Borock (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I filed an AfD and it looks like some progress is being made.Borock (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese gymnasts

hello folks we are having an issue with those four age-disputed chinese gymnasts. (He Kexin, Jiang Yuyuan, Yang Yilin, and Deng Linlin) I have been making edits changing use of the word "controversy" in section titles, in line with the theory that it was being used as a loaded tern to cast aspersion (sp?). I originally changed things to "dispute" but I faced some resistence to that from one editor so we discussed it and eventually found a compromise using the word "debate". This was until another editor got wind of this and has started rvt-ing all my edits on this front, always forcing the word "controvery" back into the section headers (not just text body). That strikes me as HIGHLY POV but you be the judge. I am sick of trying to deal with this and sick of building consensus and then having some other editor decide i'm an IP vandal and blanket rvt me. So I come to you folks even though its saturday night and we all have better things to do. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to comment here, please have a look at Talk:He Kexin#Controversy over? before taking this IP's statement at face value. There was never a "compromise" between him and User:Readin to change the wording; Readin's statement was 'I think "controversy" is slightly better because "debate" in my mind implies a discussion between equals'. This IP editor has repeatedly changed the wording in the article with edit summaries like "don't revert me against consensus," when there is absolutely no consensus; as of yet, nobody other than him has supported these changes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry its just easy to misinterpret quotes like this "While dispute would not be correct for reasons we've discussed above, debate would be an acceptable alternative"... from the other editor who is actually working with me on this... 72.0.187.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

on a sidenote could you guys also give an opinion of, putting "age disputed etc" with a ref, right after the cited birthdate, in both the lede and the infobox (all in addition to the actual section). This is only happening on the He Kexin page and I think its pretty non-standard.

That was discussed at Talk:He Kexin#He's DOB, which you can look at for a review of the arguments that have been brought up before. I don't believe any specific conclusion was reached. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I remember now. The discussion concluded at Talk:He Kexin#Readin's addition to the info box and article. Over there we reached a consensus to list 1992 as the official DOB but leave a note pointing to the controversy section, partly to remain balanced and partly to ward of edit warring over which date would be included. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Children of a notable subject

What is the situation regarding making mention of the children of a subject? Example: "John Doe has been married twice and has three children by his second wife: Jane, born 1973, Janet, born 1984, and John Junior born 1986." The information is supported by reliable sources (but not extensively). However, the subject writes in and objects. My inclination would be not to include the material because of the objection, but I wanted to check that this is acceptable information to suppress. SilkTork *^YES! 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a specific case, or is this a hypothetical? This has been the subject of much discussion lately. SDY (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be a significant change in wording to say "John Doe has three children by his second wife" and leave it at that. The names and dates of birth of the children are usually not necessary for most situations and, for people who are not incredibly famous, can unnecessarily make the children vulnerable to real-world harm. Risker (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To SDY: It is a specific case, but no names simply because the email I was forwarded said: "an extensive on-wiki discussion would probably cause more harm to the individuals of subject than good." However, I wanted some advice from people more experienced in this than myself. Thanks for the link to the discussion, I shall read through it.

To Risker. Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable solution. SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

The article Troy Davis case is a very biased article trying to make a claim of innocenece. The article currently does not address any evidence that points to his guilt. May I have a suggestion of what to do? JakeH07 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to push the fringe theory that Troy Davis is guilty and that the European Parliament, Amnesty International, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter are all wrong? Let's not forget that the only open question in this case is whether it is OK for the state to execute a person who is known to be innocent. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the case or any fringe theories, but I just looked, and that's a biased article. It reads like a campaign to clear Troy Davies, and to smear Sylvester “Redd” Coles. Given the list of respectable people who feel that there should be a retrial, it would be interesting to read a fair and impartial article giving both sides of the argument. SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to push the "fringe" theory that the Supreme Court and 11th Appeals Court are wrong. Regardless of what the Pope, Jimmy Carter, etc. say, to be honest its not their decision, its that of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court justices made their decsision. Beyond that, wikipedia must be impartial, and this article simply is not. JakeH07 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is definitely not written from a neutral point of view, but this is really the wrong place to deal with that. If Troy Davis was libeled by the article, the issue would belong here, but as it is, it belongs at WP:NPOV/N instead. Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Sheen

• Martin Sheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a dispute surrounding Sheen's comments which apparently address the issue of 9/11, and are sourced to a YouTube interview of the actor himself. The contentious material and the source. My main concern is context - there has clearly been some editing out done between the question asked by the interviewer and the statement made by Sheen, which could distort the context and very meaning of his comments. I don't think we can include this content without reliable sources - it is clearly a contentious statement, and assertion for us to make. I'd appreciate the input from experienced, level heads. Regards, – Toon^(talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We should report what reliable sources say about the subject. If no other source has noted this, then it should not be included. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Peikoff

on * Leonard Peikoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor - Eleland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding defamatory material to both the article and the Talk page. I've removed the BLP-violating material from the article, but don't know if it is appropriate to remove the user's comments from the Talk page. Also, what should be done about the editor? NoCal100 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite see how this is defamatory -- it's sourced directly from essays that Peikoff wrote. Could you clarify why you think the material is defamatory? Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It accuses a living person of advocating genocide - based on a Wikipedia's editor interpretation of an essay by that person. That's simply something we don't do. I removed that. the Talk page comments further describe a living person as a "sick fuck" and as a 'little Goebbels'. If you can't see how that is defamatory, you should rethink your participation in this noticeboard. NoCal100 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for the whole article history, but this edit by Eleland is quite titillating. Granted, I didn't read the whole Peikoff piece, but I think labelling it as "advocacy of genocide" is pretty POV, even if Peikoff is a terrible guy. From what I did read of the piece, I don't agree with his argument, but that doesn't mean it's fair for a WP editor to characterize it in that way; that's just one editor's own interpretation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Knight

Resolved

Any concerns can be raised here. No need for two forums. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Msknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is trying to create an article about herself. A draft is at User:Msknight/Draft. She has been given good advice on her talk page and at WP:Ear#Review.2FIntention_of_auto-biographical_article, but doesn't seen to understand our policies.// Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that I don't think it's a wilful disregard for policy, but rather someone who has a valid query which should be given proper consideration and discussion by the community at her self posted request at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Review.2FIntention_of_auto-biographical_article. This should be closed as the matter can be discussed at the other forum. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Liam Mooney

Liam Mooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bio on a former Student President. Seems to be mainly written by one editor, and bases most claims (especially negative ones) on a single source, a student newspaper. This was already brought up at the CWNB, but I thought this is more relevant]. --Rob (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe this hasn't been through AfD yet. Student council politics is not real politics; people don't get notability for being student body president at their university, no matter what university it is. As far as I can tell, all his big accomplishments have to do with things of extremely local interests: rulings on who can participate in field day (oh boy) and creating five new student jobs (oh man, five!). I'm sure he's an important figure in the Trent University community, but I don't see how this possibly can meet the general notability guidelines; I can't even make my mind over whether or not the article was intended as a joke. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow indeed. Speedy delete because not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't speedy it because it at least makes a claim (albeit a ridiculous one) of being notable. But an AfD definitely needs to be started (although Thivierr, at the other noticeboard, has suggested that he thinks the article would survive an AfD...I'm not so sure). Any objections? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I made that comment, based on my experience, but I'm hoping I'm wrong, and decided to just now nominate it for deletion. --Rob (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Student politicians are not inherently notable, but could be notable if they enjoy sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources. 90% of the sources in this article are student media or a facebook group. The question is whether the mainstream media sources (three mentions in the local paper, one indirect mention in a blog of Canada's main newsweekly) constitute significant coverage. I wouldn't think so, but I've seen AfDs fail with less coverage. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fred Goodwin

"disgraced" is in the lead. Right or wrong? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Absotively posilutely wrong. I removed it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that word. a lot. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Syring

An ip editor who may be the subject of the article has been active on the article for a while. Recently he's been updating the article to say that his community service has been completed. I reverted, since the source doesn't say that. But I sense a long term slow motion edit war in the making. And I don't really want to engage. Perhaps the article could just use some help from someone who is more conversant with BLP. Help or comments appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it - already reverted an unsourced IP edit. – ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on name in lede of Gene Robinson

Talk: Gene Robinson#RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene approprite for the lede of this BLP?

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniella Rush (second listing)

Resolved

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

(copy from previous listing)

I come to seek guidance. I've added information with 2 sources, which User:Morbidthoughts undid. Then I added 2 other sources (none of the total of 4 sources was a Wikipedia mirror), and he again undid. He claims of my talk page User_talk:Debresser#Daniella_Rush that all 4 sources are unreliable. What is your opinion? Debresser (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you get no answers here, you also have the option of consulting with the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of each source outside the context of the Daniella Rush article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll consider that if no reactions will be forthcomming here in the next day or so. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Morbidthoughts on this one. We can reasonably assume that the real name of a porn star who acts under a pseudonym is information that requires both reliable sourcing and a sound argument for inclusion. IMBD and realname.of fail the first requirement, and no argument that the real name is relevant has been made. Keep in mind that the mere existence of information isn't enough to justify inclusion. Avruch ^T 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Continuation)

Thank you for your reaction. I argumented on my talk page that her real name can be found on quite a few webpages and forums. Also, she has left the pornographic industry some years ago (due to a car accident). For these two reasons I see no reason not to include her real name.

What is your opinion about the other two sources I brought? Debresser (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you've added meet our reliable sources standards. Morbidthoughts actions are correct here. Exxolon (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morbidthoughts, Exxolon, and Avruch. None of those sources are reliable to cite something as important as a name on a BLP. Sometimes porn actors use a pseudonym to maintain their privacy and do not want it included. For that reason, our sources have to be impeccable for us to include a real name. The sources you added are not reliable since there is no indication that fact checking is done like a publisher would do. That she left the industry weighs for keeping it out more than including it, I think, since she no longer works in the industry and no indication that she ever decided to use her real name for porn film work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you . I will consider this question resolved. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please hide this vandalism edit and then delete my link if necessary

Please delete. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't really a serious matter that needs to be oversighted, just typical immature vandalism. Now that it's been reverted, we can just ignore it and it'll be fine. In general, edits can only be hidden by oversighters, and under specific circumstances (see WP:Oversight#Policy). Unless the person mentioned in that edit specifically requests to have the edit oversighted, there's no need to do anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Fitzgerald#BLP vios in history?

Please comment at this recently-kept BLP sensitive article regarding potential issues on the possible BLP violations in the historical revisions of the article. –xeno ^talk 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

All it is a collection of negative stuff people said about Oreilly. I dont really like him but come on, how is this neutral? Also even if it was not insanely biased how does this warrant a encyclopedia page? You can find random negative comments on any1 from someone with a apposing view. I would understand the need for this page if some of the criticism was from important sources but almost all off it is from Bill Oreilly opposites who's jobs are sort of to attack him. Every time Oreilly goes off on someone it does not necessarily deserve inclusion in an article. DRxAWESOME (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC){{|DRxAWESOME}}

In any case, this has been argued about multiple times before and the consensus is clear. You may want to read the previous discussions to get an idea what has already been said:

{{multidel |list=

• Speedy keep, 17 March 2009, AFD
• Keep, 11 December 2008, AFD
• Speedy keep, 06 August 2008, AFD
• Speedy keep, 30 September 2007, AFD
• Merge, 26 January 2007, AFD
• Keep, 10 September 2006, AFD
• Keep, 12 June 2006, AFD

|collapse=yes }}

(this listing can be found at the top of Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of this article is stupid. But it really does no harm to Mr. O'Reilly. As you pointed out it is his job to make controversial statements and it is the others' job to criticize him for them. The problem is WP editors who think the mission of an encyclopedia is to carry on political debates when it should be to give people basic facts about a topic.Borock (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya but its concept is unencyclopedic, WP:NOT, wp:soap DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that several of the editors on that article have come to agreement on a new and improved version of the article that addresses many of the concerns listed. Once a final copy-edit takes place it will replace what is there now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly obvious POV content fork, which in almost all cases is against policy. We should treat the biography of an individual as a whole, even if it takes up multiple pages, and apply the normal tests of common sense and Wikipedia policy to that whole. In this case, is there anyone even willing to argue that a criticism article longer than the vast majority of BLPs doesn't violate undue weight? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would caution anyone against reading the deletion history and thinking that the article had broad consensus. Several of the AfD discussions were dominated by accusations of bad faith rather than honest discussions about the article. There is a definite pattern in the talk page history that anyone opposing of is "against old consensus" or is acting in bad faith. The sourcing in the article is poor, sourced almost entirely as confirmation that the criticism occurred with no reliable sourcing to significance or interpretation (i.e. reliable secondary sources). While I agree that criticism of the subject is well worth covering, the current article is a mockery of the way a controversial subject should be handled. SDY (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the material appears to concern the TV show rather than the person. Perhspa the best way to handle this would be to move the article to something like "Criticism of The O'Reilly Factor".   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. The stuff has clearly been moved out of Bill O'Reilly to prevent undue weight, without deleting it. Re-merging the material would re-create the weight problem, unless it could be shortened drastically, which seems unlikely. Renaming is better than nothing. Rd232 ^talk 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I and others have listed before, numerous times, why this article passes wikipedia policies, do I need to dig through my posts and post them here numerating WHY they pass wikipedia policy (something about too long on main article=allowed on fork, and others; busy writing 14 essays for school so no time to re-research policiesmuch faster knowing which to look for)? Seriously, this is why I'm against disparate treatment of BLP's, being a BLP does not shield anyone from legitimate criticism. There are TWO full archives of discussion on deletion and numerous deletion debates, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This only detracts from the ongoing effort to improve the article which already follow WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:RS. There is considerable debate and discussion over at talk, why delete the article when it's being worked on?! (btw, the only edits nominator have made are to try and remove the article) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Specifically:

• Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise
• WP:Content forking#Article spinouts
• Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV

Summary of rebuttals: Obviously it is longer, if it was shorter, WHY would the article exist? It's sole purpose is to satisfy the middle policy (article spinouts) which does not make it an automatic "POV FORK". As for criticism, do you believe it is possible to report criticism without having criticism in it? If we stripped everything down to be non-offensive (which would be impossible), that would be an non objective coverage of controversy, as you are in essence, saying there is no criticism/controversy. The best possible way to cover it is to be objective. BLP allows this. Quote: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Wikipedia does not censor, and the article is constantly being revised again and again to try and maintain its adherence to policy, and for the reason it exists by itself, again, the second policy listed above: ARTICLE length. In fact, there has been discussion on the talk page that the article might once revised be nominated for deletion because it would be shortened so that #2 is no longer valid. If it gets there, I'm not opposed to deletion, until though, this is just rehashing previous flawed arguments to delete. This has been said through and through, and I'm only reiterating some of the many things said before. I mean, seriously, how is this much different than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that this has been brought up before a lot, using that little search thing at the top I found out that this exact article has been brought up here 7 or 8 times, Im going to go through what was said in those discussions to get a better idea of the consensus on this topic. In my opinion though this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. DRxAWESOME (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

also who put spa by my name? DRxAWESOME (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article clearly violates WP:POVFORK, specifically :

There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen is a "Praise of..." article was created instead). (emphasis in original)

The article should be about the reception of O'Reilly as a whole, being only about the negative reception of him violates WP:NPOV. The page should be renamed "Public perception of Bill O'Reilly" or something similar and should include both positive and negative aspects. Oren0 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad that DRxAWESOME brought this up w/o notifying the four or five of us actually involved in a major edit of the article. It has changed significantly in content within the last week or so and I and a few others have been trying to restore a little balance to it. DRxAWESOME apparently took it upon himself to report this despite our efforts and despite the fact that we made it clear we were trying to improve the article. I also personally feel the SPA applies considering he seems to know quite a bit more than the average newb (he sees what he thinks is a problem then reports it to BLP 2 minutes later, seems to be pretty fast for someone apparently not familiar w/the system). Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that editors who have commented here, read the current version of the article before resorting to the general disfavor of "Criticism of..." articles. The article is significantly different from the one that was reported by DRxAWESOME. If problems remain, fine, but it is still not a finished product and suggestions sort of "get rid of it" are welcome. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I went through every time I could find this article brought up here (6 times by different people) and 18 separate people thought it should be deleted for blatant blp violations and 7 thought it was ok to stay. Maybe we should delete it because most people think it is against the rules. If any1 want I can go post exactly what each person said in like a graph or something. DRxAWESOME (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Oh and on the blp page thing it said that it should be taken down right away because it is about a living person and might make him mad or sad. DRxAWESOME (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you edited before as an IP? Soxwon (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that matter? DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering you know way too much to be a newb then yes it does. Soxwon (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite intense negative feelings for the subject, I really see this as a negative POV fork that should be deleted, or at best some of the criticism merged into the main article. Don't think it's going anywhere considering it's history at AFD. Sigh Dlohcierekim 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish to see it merged and considering it has gone from 65 KB to 29 KB in just two weeks I think that, given time, this could very well be merged back into the main article. Soxwon (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to do an AFD or is the consensus here enough? DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Start an AfD if you want, I still say it's premature and that the article can still be integrated into the main one. Soxwon (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing we have Category:Criticisms of living persons articles. It seems like as a class they should be merged into the main articles of their subjects (assuming they otherwise meet our criteria, like having sources for all negative BLP material). Full disclosure: DRxA posted a request on my talk page that I look at this and comment here; I have no love of Bill O'Reilly. LadyofShalott 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not realize this conversation was started by a SPA (DRxAWESOME). This is a nowhere conversation. This issue has been chewed to death. The last AFD was speedy closed less than two months ago. Continuing to bring the matter up here and continuing to attempt to AFD serves no purpose other than to stir up drama and waste time better spent elsewhere-- it's disruptive. Inviting people to join the drama is disruptive. And to be perfectly blunt, that DRxAWESOME is a SPA created for the sole purpose of stirring this pot strains my ability to assume good faith. Dlohcierekim 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, any and all with concerns are welcome to help edit it to their satisfaction. With the progress that's been made I think that it can be integrated into the main article after some careful editing. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Supiran

My name is Kelly (my username is Pallor Tor) and my boyfriend is Jerry Supiran. It lists him as deceased on his wikipedia page. Since I am his girlfriend, I can tell you first hand that he is very much ALIVE.

It also lists things about him that are not true and the whole article about him is done in a way that makes him look bad.

I keep trying to change it but it keeps being changed back.

I need someone to help me as I do not know what to do at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallor tor (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been handled through OTRS (diff). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article probably could be deleted since it is unsourced and mainly just a list of roles with no real information about Mr. Peterson. Best wishes to you both. :-) Borock (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Santa Monica, California - Totally unreferenced

List of people from Santa Monica, California is totally unreferenced. Please add references. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane

• Seth MacFarlane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit seems to indicate knowledge of subject's death. While this seems to be vandalism and has been reverted, I thought this was something which should be posted here immediately, no matter how inconsequential this may turn out to be. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) More eyes please. Death row inmate and his article contains quite a bit of original interpretation of the case and the facts against him. This is intolerable. There is a lot of dubious uncited information that has had a {{fact}} tag on it, sometimes for months. This stuff should be cited or gutted. Help please. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I sourced everything that had fact tags.--chaser - t 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gary Husband

Gary Husband seems to have become an autobiography. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, what a mess. I don't know where to start... – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started by blocking User:Gary Husband as a sockpuppet of User:Levelub44h. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also reverted all the edits made by socks of the indef blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better! – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Armenian Genocide deniers

This category is used to classify scholars who are skeptical that the Armenian Genocide is in fact a genocide. Unlike the Holocaust, the facts of the Armenian Genocide are still to be established, and many reputable academics have announced that they are in the skeptical camp--these include Princeton's Bernard Lewis, perhaps the foremost American authority on Middle Eastern history. Using the phrase Armenian Genocide deniers to label these academics is an obvious attempt to smear them, by association with Holocaust deniers. I have proposed a renaming of the category to Armenian Genocide skeptics. If you wish to participate in the discussion, it may be found here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This should clearly be renamed. The debate at CfD is clearly worrying. Seems people like this title precisely because it mirrors "holocaust denier" and fits into category "denialism". Not suitable for BLPs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

Jon Gosselin was recently reported in Us Weekly (a gossip, tabloid-style magazine) to have been promiscuous in his relationship and that his relationship with Kate is so bad that they are considering divorce. This information has not been reported in any source outside of this (exclusing gossip sites, blogs, and forums) and it certainly has not been reported in anything that would be considered reliable or that would pass the requirements in WP:BIO.

Several users have been trying to get this information in, but they usually quit after it has been reverted by another user. Occasionally they'll take it to the talk page, but they tend not to fight it. However, User:Pink-thunderbolt seems to be dead set to get this information in the article. They reverted my revert (albeit, I didn't phrase my edit summary well), rephrased it to make it even more controversial, and then started ranting about it on the talk page (old section in which they added new messages).

I just wanted to bring it here and see if I could get advice on this. Am I dealing with this incorrectly? Should this information be included? Or is reverting the edits the correct action here? Where should we go from here? Thanks so much for any help! --13² 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A gossip, tabloid magazine is not a reliable source, and thus you were right to revert the information. I'll keep an eye on the page as well. Until the information is reliably reported, it is not appropriate for the article. Thanks for flagging, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just watched a video about this on CNN.com, which I'd say is a pretty reliable source. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

CNN is reporting using Us Weekly as their only source and are discussing the topic based on that source and only that source, which is gossip. How is this any different than what the editors trying to add it are doing? I understand that it's coming from CNN, which is typically considered reliable, but, considering they're using less than reliable sources to report this...I guess I'm just confused. --13² 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP: "Be wary of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention." In this case, I feel that this particular CNN source falls under this. --13² 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to some reliable sources on the JKP8 talk page. That being said, I would strongly disagree with you about discounting CNN's report because they were reporting it from Us Weekly, and the portion you cite about making sure an article isn't simply taking stuff from a Wikipedia page in the first place isn't applicable at all. Our job is to report reliable sources. CNN is unquestionably a reliable source. Even if the assertion that Us Weekly is an unreliable source is true (which I'd imagine would be contested), that is irrelevant now that CNN reported that they reported it. We have a reliable source stating that Us Weekly reported this, which is how we can phrase it in the article and be 100% accurate. VegaDark (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you found far better sources than this CNN video, which I still wouldn't consider reliable, that aren't gossip followed by more gossip. I've replied to that stuff over on the J&K talk page. --13² 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes please!

Some input from BLP-minded, knowledgeable editors on the best course of action on Talk:Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) would really help, if anyone can spare time to take a look.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far (prior to the admin reversions). It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the WP:WEIGHT get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. (NB I've also written this on the article's talk page) --WebHamster 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Radhanath Swami

• Radhanath Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - largely unsourced article, possibly needs some WP:RS or to be a stub? Could not find RS -- please help. // Wikid^as© 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

David Burrowes

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

Could someone please look at the two reverting IP's (one of which is the subject), identify which material should be kept and which should be removed from either version, and edit the article accordingly?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I removed some quotes which I couldn't source from the latest version, and sourced a percentage. There was nothing much worth keeping in the old version—an external link that wasn't reliable and a heap of unsourced claims. Even if the subject wrote some of those claims, I can't find sources for them, so they weren't appropriate for the article. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Contentious information about an NPF on Troy High School (California)

• Troy High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a section in this article that describes a 2005 controversy with the school newspaper. I have been in an edit war with a couple of other editors over the inclusion of an assistant principal's name, specifically that the named assistant principal initiated disciplinary action against a student. The article gives 3 RS citing the incident, but none of those three, or the five additional sources that I identified on the talk page, explicitly identifies that assistant principal as the one who initiated the disciplinary action—only that the student claimed or said that he did so. I do not believe inclusion of his name enhances the explanation of the incident, and I have been firm that the claim that the assistant principal initiated the disciplinary action—even though I'm 99% sure it's true—is hearsay. I have cited WP:NPF and WP:GRAPEVINE, but others disagree with me and insist on including the name.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the whole section went away, but there seems to be a legitimate enough argument to keep it.

Full disclosure: I went to Troy High School, but graduated before the assistant principal in question assumed that role, and before the student involved became a student. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The ACLU reports properly emphasize that it was the acts of the school administration as a body that is significant. We should do it that way too. DGG (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've taken the name which was readded out. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• update: User Roylucier insist to include the name of the assistant principal and admits that "I hate the guy adn love the idea of using WIKI to make a strike against the SOB" [21]. --J^mundo 02:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given Roylucier a final warning. If they continue to add this information I think it's acceptable to ask for them to be blocked. This sort of malicious editing, regardless of the merits of what's being added is simply not acceptable. They are of course still welcome to discuss the matter as I also explained Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Page has been fully protected until May 9. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Roylucier (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) for defamation. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Markoff

Although it seems to be calm at this exact moment, there's been recent trouble at the Philip Markoff article. Up till a couple days ago, there was a stable, although imperfect article. Then 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) showed up and began to make significant edits to the article. (Later editing as Theo789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not all of his edits have been bad. But it seems that for every edit that makes the article more NPOV, there's another that's original research, scrubbing out inconvenient information, or trying to add dispariging info about the victims. I'm not asking for specific action, but it seems that only a couple of us are watching the article. I was hoping for a couple more experienced editors to keep an eye on the article. Help watch the edits on both sides. And hopefully help educate the newcomer on proper policy.

Aside from the article history, (note the edit summaries), background can be found on the IP's talkpage as well as Talk:Philip_Markoff#Commentary & Talk:Philip_Markoff#Edits_by_Tvoz. Thanks in advance.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP address that is referenced is a shared IP. The talk page for that IP likely involves many users.

The issue in the Philip Markoff article is that it was being prepared in a very one sided manner--meaning only negative information was being allowed. When info was added that softened some of the accusations, it was deleted repeatedly. Things are a little better now, but still a problem. This man is a living person. The article has included accusations that he has sent nude photos of himself to transsexuals, speculation that he sought to victimize transexuals, collected panties of women he victimized, engaged in criminal activity, ect. This information, if not true, is libelous. I have objected on the basis that much of what is being reported in the press is based on anonymous sources leaking information. I feel that Wikipedia should not be posting information of such a serious nature about a living person based on anonymous sources, even if the media is doing that. There is no way to verify information put forth by anonymous sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article is better sourced than many of our BLPs - there are reliable sources for each allegation and every report of pieces of evidence discovered by the police, throughout the article. We use well-vetted reliable sources, such as ABC News, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and many others, often having more than one citation for a statement, and we characterize allegations as such. We never say that anything is a proven fact, only that police investigators allege, or that there are reports of various things. We have bent over backwards to explain basic policies like WP:V, but this editor continues to introduce his own standards for acceptable content that are outside of Wikipedia policy. As for "anonymous sources", we aren't the journalists - we don't conduct our own investigations and interview and identify sources. We rely on published accounts by reliable sources as per policy. The editor also ignores MOS guidelines as he sees fit, even when they have been corrected and so indicated on Talk or in edit summaries, insisting, for example, on referring to Markoff's attorney as "Attorney Salsberg" every time he's mentioned in a one paragraph section devoted to him, after that has been corrected. We'd appreciate some BLP folks to come over and help explain how we write biographies and how we work on Wikipedia in general, and to keep an eye on the article. Tvoz/talk 04:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is based to a significant extent on anonymous sources who are speaking without authorization from their employers. They are likely leaking information in violation of the rules and policies of their employers. While a newspaper needs to make money and so will publish such claims, such information is far from reliable. There is no way to verify claims by anonymous sources. These accusations by anonymous sources may be totally false. Yet the accusations are very serious and are likely defamatory if untrue or stated maliciously. An article based on such information does not seem to comply with the standards for biographies. This issue has probably come up before in other biographies and I would like to determine how those situations have been handled. I note that the topic below on this page raises the same or similar issue in terms of another accused individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate articles were based on the anonymous source known as Deep Throat. They knew who he was, but they did not reveal it and they published Pulitzer Prize winning pieces without revealing their sources. Surely we would have had no problem viewing their Washington Post articles as reliable sources that we could use as citations, despite the "anonymous" nature of their sources - why? Because we view the Post as a venue that has editorial oversight, good fact-checking, high journalistic standards, and we believed that they wouldn't have published rumors. We are not investigative reporters. We don't verify the truth of the statements made in our source articles. We hope, of course, that those sources are providing truthful information, and strive to find credible information that is backed by more than one reliable source if it is contentious, but verifiability is our standard. As for the specific case of Markoff, how does Theo789 know that the anonymous sources that reliable publications have quoted were speaking without authorization from their employers? No source articles that I have read say that. Is he privy to information about this case that the general public is not privy to? The many articles I have read, that we use as our sources, indicate that although in some cases they are not revealing their names, their sources are from police investigators, and we assume that the reporters used high journalistic standards and verified their information before going to press. And at least some of the evidence quoted in our article comes from the (named) District Attorney of Suffolk County. So despite Theo789's insistence that it's all anonymous rumor, and despite his refusal to acknowledge the need for consensus and his twisting of our core principles to say they mean something they don't mean, the facts about our article are that it all was well-sourced. Are there negative things alleged about the subject of the article? Absolutely. Are those negative things sourced by reliable sources? Yes, all of them, as of my last major edit at least - I haven't checked the sources of anything added after that yet. The only way that we could really satisfy Theo789's concerns would be to either write a piece that talked only about how highly his former neighbors, friends and family think of him, or to wait until such a time as he is convicted - if that were to happen - and then write the piece. But then we might be expected to wait for the inevitable appeals - because Theo789 would say that he and his attorney still say he is innocent. Are we going to make a policy that says that people accused of crimes cannot have articles talking about those accusations unless all sources are named? Our reliable sources are not infallible, and regrettably they certainly sometimes publish material that ends up being untrue - but we've staked out a policy that allows us to use them judiciously, and to seek out countervailing information in other reliable sources if they exist, and include that as well. That's one of the things we mean by "neutral". Tvoz/talk 09:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that Theo789 states "The IP address that is referenced is a shared IP." when it is pretty clear that they are the same person. 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs) has edited only on this article. Their first batch of edits started April 29th, ended 18:56, 30 April 2009 and Theo789 makes his first edit 13 minutes later. The IP has shown up again this evening, editing until 17:36 with Theo789 starting at 17:40 and then a bit of one and a bit of the other. It isn't even worth asking for a CU it's so obvious from content and timing of the edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this sort of detail acceptable?

An IP added a lot of information about living people to our article Eltz. I reverted it, in part I admit because I don't see that it belongs in the article, but also because there were no citations at all. Another IP has replaced it [22] with a refimprove tag (their only edit, presumably an experienced editor not logged in or something), but I'm not convinced this is satisfactory. Especially since referencing all that detail is almost an impossible task. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, unacceptable. Information including stuff like "Bonaventura, known as Boni, who died in a car crash at 19..." cannot stay, even with a refimprove tag. It must be sourced explicitly or removed. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. An IP reverted both of us, another IP added some information, and then Nicky eltz (talk · contribs) appeared and added a bit more. This is also interesting, an attempt at publicity? [23]Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, interesting. Possibly an attempt at publicity. Certainly worth keeping an eye on. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Article" in user space with BLP issues

User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama has issues which some editors tried to address a few days ago. They were reverted because this was in user space. My concern is that these are BLP issues, as the NPOV/WEIGHT discussion on the talk page suggest. Is there a policy on BLP violations in user space? NJGW (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think this, WP:SOAP apply. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead ant took it to WP:MFD, we'll see what happens there. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UP#OWN as well. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quickly deleted. I do think that maybe we need to have a speedy catalogue for this. What concerns me is that stuff in userspace shows up on Google, often on the first page. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a way to prevent Google indexing userspace pages? Rd232 ^talk 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX}} or robots.txt. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be done for all Wikipedia user space, I don't see how we can just add it individually. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot before, see Wikipedia:NOINDEX particularly Wikipedia:Search engine indexing sadly as the pages indicate it's one of the areas we're very, very far from consensus in most areas and personally I doubt it will ever be achieved. However if I'm understanding the articles right user pages are already supposed to be not indexed but user talk pages may be although a quick test confirms it appears to be the opposite. One possibility is rather then trying to come up with a wikipedia wide policy for ever space, concentrate on user and user talk for now and see if we can reach consensus there Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's a user page that comes in number 3 on a Google search [24] - I'm sure there are plenty of others. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bybee talk page dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jay_Bybee&action=edit&section=12

Several editors contend that the recommendation by two U.S. Senators of a candidate for a lifetime job as a federal appeals judge is not "notable" and ought not be included in the article.

I contend that this is relevant, based on the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that a president obtain the advice and consent of the senate for such appointments. I ask that other editors look at the link above and weigh in. I am not familiar with appealing reverts of factual information such as this. However, in reading WP:BLP it appears this is the correct forum to refer this matter. Thanks for considering this dispute. Skywriter (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't as simple as this: if there is a reliable source for the statement that he has received such a recommendation then it is certainly notable enough for a mention in the article (being mindful of WP:UNDUE), but if there is no such source, it is unverifiable and has no place in the article? – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article talk page link, you will see four reliable sources

[25] [26] [27] given plus a link to the congressional record. The question is "Is that sufficient?"Skywriter (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given its status as "the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress", I think the Congressional Record alone would be sufficient, so my answer to your question is in the affirmative. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the link to the congressional record that was reverted for not being "notable."

The newspaper articles point out that Nevada Senator Ensign recommended Bybee to President Bush and that Senate Minority Leader Reid supported the nomination. Since Bybee is from Nevada, the recommendation and support for the nomination are both relevant and part of the constitutional process leading to the appointment of federal judges. I do not understand the insistence on skipping a step in the process. Those who contend that the recommendations of home state senators should not be mentioned contend that inclusion is somehow "untoward" and derogatory," despite these facts being supported by primary and secondary sources. Those who contend otherwise claim that its inclusion in the congressional record is not "notable" and that its inclusion in at least three newspaper articles still does not make the facts "notable."Skywriter (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Noone is contending that the remark wasn't made, just wether or not it should be included in the article. It's already mentioned that he was confirmed by a 70 - 19 margin. Singling out the votes of two particular senators gives it undue weight. CarbonX (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned (of course) that Bybee was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 70-19. However, using primary sources to single out 2 specific supporters seems like inappropriate synthesis and undue weight, unless a reliable secondary source has similarly focused on these particular votes among the 70. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was undue weight concerns that prompted my reversion. The phrasing and weight of the mention made it appear that there was something abnormal about the support when in fact it seems quite routine.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The home state newspaper thought it important enough to mention. [28] The Reno Gazette Journal says the junior senator says this appeals court judge should not be impeached and the other (the Senate Majority Leader) says he hasn't made up his mind about whether to impeach Bybee. How much more notable does this matter get? Without the support for his nomination of both of his home state senators, Bybee would not hold a lifetime seat on one of the highest courts in the United States. Now one of those two senators, the most powerful U.S. senator, is weighing whether the nominee he supported should be impeached. I do not understand the thinking of those who say this is not "noteworthy."Skywriter (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This dispute regarding the inclusion of non-controversial information is better suited for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, is it not? I think the noticeboard should be used for flagrant or suspected violations of the BLP policy rather than editing disputes. This is neither. --Bastique ^demandez 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On that I agree with you 100%. CarbonX (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two editors, including CarbonX, contend on the Jay Bybee talk page that addition of this information is "derogatory" and "untoward". That is why this dispute is here and the central focus of the controversy. Skywriter (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the way you presented the informatation made something quite routine appear to be untoward. That's a significant distinction.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP problem, but the support of home state senators is a routine element of the Senate confirmation process (as is the report of such support and the nomination in home town newspapers). As a matter of fact, if Ensign or Reid had opposed the nomination it would not have proceeded to a vote (under the home state hold privilege given to senators). Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 20:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to home state senator tradition: [29]. For a paper reference, see The American Political Process (2004), by Alan R. Grant, page 136. Quatloo (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing non-contentious material, IMDB, and being Canadian

An editor has been going through and removing non-contentious material from BLPs of actors that are entirely unsourced or poorly sourced (usually relying on IMDB alone). The changes I happened to notice (due to my bias) are removal of the claims people are "Canadian", such as in Rachel Wilson. Now, to me, I can see an arguement for deleting articles that are entirely unsourced or badly sourced (counting IMDB as bad). But, to me, if we choose to keep such articles (which the community has chosen), then I think it's wrong to selectively remove the least contentious statements in such articles. While it's pretty easy to find non-imdb sources in Google, most of the "easy finds" are as bad or worse in reliability, often being based on imdb, Wikipedia itself, or are promotional (non-independent) in nature. So, I'm hoping people responding to this, won't think there's a simple solution of just Googling-up sources quickly. That will work for some, and most eventually, but it won't solve the entire problem any time soon. --Rob (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone disagreed with the material and removes it, does that not make it contentious? Kevin (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Better not to have material than to have poorly sourced material on a BLP (at least until we can source it). If someone removes material as poorly sourced, you are entitled to replace it if you can source it. That's it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Far better to not have articles getting undiffused back into unsorted parent categories, such as Category:Television actors, Category:Film actors and Category:Voice actors, which have an explicit rule requiring articles to be diffused out of them and into subcategories instead. We do not want those categories filling back up again because somebody made a concerted effort to remove references to actors' nationalities just because of where they were referenced to, when the nationality isn't actually in dispute. The undifferentiated parent categories need to be empty. If IMDb is really that inadmissible as a source for a simple, uncontroversial piece of information whose chances of being misrepresented on imdb are virtually nil anyway, then we're better off deleting articles sourced only to IMDb than we are creating a whole class of articles that can't have the standard and normal and correct categorization rules applied to them. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Contentious" means that there's an actual dispute about the material. The fact that somebody took information out of an article solely because it was sourced to a reference site they dislike doesn't make the information "contentious" if there's no actual evidence of another source that explicitly disputes or contradicts the original information. Frankly, if IMDb is really such an unreliable source that it doesn't support describing and categorizing an actor as Canadian on Wikipedia, then it isn't a reliable enough source to support describing or categorizing them as an actor, either. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just coming back on the idea of alternative sources being dismissed as "promotional". Promotional sources are permissible as references to the subject itself if they do not contradict independent sources. What they cannot do is to establish notability. Agathoclea (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott, I'm not arguing against removal per se. I'm arguing against the removal of the least contentious parts of an article, while keeping all the rest. If you or the editor doing this, wish to nominate the content for deletion, or blank it, that's fine with me. I make no objections. But, if you remove a central defining piece of information, and hide it in a top-level category, then that's where the problem is. Being harder to find, they'll be less likely to be fixed. If you can't say a Canadian is a Canadian, you shouldn't say anything about them at all. I appreciate the standard you want to set, but that can only be achieved if you actually require BLPs to be sourced, or be deleted, but the community hasn't accepted that. Agathoclea, I don't understand your point, since imdb, with all it's flaws, is still better than a typical promo profile, which has no fact checking or review system at all, and has a clear motive to lie in some cases. --Rob (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

true, but a) it can be used to collaborate the imdb profile and b) it can't be BLP violation (which is the issue at hand here) when the subject of the articles claims something about himself. Apart from that wikipedia is not about truth(tm) but about sourcing. Agathoclea (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether WP:BLP comes into play, IMDB fails WP:RS. It's an acceptable external link but it shouldn't be used as a reference. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then nominate articles that are sourced only to IMDb for deletion. Using it to undermine WP:SUBCAT, even if only as an accidental side-effect rather than by design, is not acceptable or appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat: Good idea - just to light a fire under the toes of the people who wrote those articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's not a bad idea, Bearcat. I've been removing IMDB citations for nearly a year. But of course an editor of your experience knows that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a viable argument. Durova^Charge! 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that whenever you remove a bad source, without providing a better one, you must always remove all the content dependent on that source? I don't see anybody really defending imdb. The issue seems to be how your remove content. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is fair to a point. We can delete some crap, despite the fact other crap exists elsewhere. But, when you delete certain crap, you need to delete whole chunks of crap, because if you don't, the leftover pieces may stink worse than what you started with. An article with no sources, worse promotional sources, or an article without basic contextual information is worse than an article based on imdb. Delete the whole thing, or not at all (if it's already down to it's bare bones). But, let's not make something worse. --Rob (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense has to play a role. About a month ago we had a disruptive sockpuppeteer who was trying to damage the Mae West biography by tagging virtually every uncited line in it with fact tags, then appealing on the talk page to delete the information. This included really obvious things that were uncontroversial. When I found the article the entire thing was flagged for lack of citations even though it actually had over 100 inline citations to reliable sources. If information is dubious then take it out, but if it's noteworthy and verifiable then that doesn't justify using an unreliable source in the attempt to verify it. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

IMdB is a poor source, not a bad source. If there is no controversy over nationality, I would consider it sufficient, just as we would accept the nationality stated in someone's CV. There's no point in removing such sources and material because there is better, when it is possible to replace the sources and keep the material. There are many matters that need serious attention, and this sort of matter is not among them. DGG (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues is that nationality is often a controversial thing. The absence of evidence of a controversy is not evidence that there is no controversy particularly when there are so few sources anyway. Is it really a good idea for us to be relying on a poor, non reliable source for something that could easily be controversial? Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there actually is a controversy, yes — and by definition, it violates WP:NOR to suggest that there is or might be a controversy unless it's actually documentable that reliable sources are actually providing conflicting information. The bottom line is that for most actors who aren't actually famous as such, but are merely journeyman working actors, IMDb is the only realistic source there is, since they're not famous enough to be getting much in the way of actual press coverage as topics in their own right. So realistically, we have to either accept IMDb as a source as is, or decide that if there aren't any sources besides IMDb then the person just doesn't get an article at all — but deciding that IMDb is enough of a source to support an actor's basic notability, but then disputing every single thing an IMDb profile actually says about an actor on the grounds that it's an unreliable source, is basically a "trying to have it both ways" solution that simply doesn't work. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [Updated 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)].

Mary Devins

Mary Devins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is an article on an Irish District Court Judge.

Background

The Judge in question has presided over a lot of cases involving Shell to Sea protesters. This is a protest group who are opposed to the building of a gas refinery. See also Corrib gas controversy & Corrib gas project.

Problems with Article

• This contents of the page are almost exclusively to do with Judge Devins involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign and is WP:UNDUE. I've tried to find some other information to expand the article into other subject areas with almost no luck. I've introduced info from another article but its just to do with a protester she sentenced:- Maura Harrington.
• There are no references or citations to back up the article. I'm pretty familiar with the situation and its probably fair to say that most of it is accurate, however as it stands it comes across as original research.

Info worth noting

• The creator and majority editor of this article has a self declared conflict of interest.
• A RFM has been opened on articles relating to the Corrib Gas subject: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas. Unfortunately, this is a MASSIVE dispute and this is one of the smallest least affected articles. The case was opened almost a fortnight ago and there has been no sign of a start to mediation. As I've said, I've been trying to expand the article but have spent a few weeks now searching for info but with no success. Myself and the user have been working towards concensus on some of the articles involved but its been very slow and difficult. As regards this one, I have no idea where to start and the rate mediation seems to be progressing it could be months before any issues are addressed, If at all.
• Disclosure: I originally started editing on some of the Shell to Sea articles as a joke as username Mustycrusty. When I started to take the issue more seriously I changed my username to greenlightgo but was unaware of the rules on sockpuppets. I've rebooted using correct protocol on this account and declared my history. I'm not sure if this is relevant but I don't want my motives called into questioned or the issues here tainted.

GainLine ♠♥ 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

at this point , there does not seem clear evidence that the judge was notable; judges at this level usually are not. The place to decide the point would be AfD. DGG (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - AFD. Rd232 ^talk 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm relatively inexperienced here, Whats the procedure? GainLine ^♠_♥ 08:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedure is detailed at WP:AFD. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Do you see any problems with the fact the article is listed for mediation? GainLine ^♠_♥ 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

no; there are 21 articles listed for mediation and there is no reason to wait to resolve this WP:BLP issue. Rd232 ^talk 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gainline, I find it more than a little hypocritical of you to complain that the "contents of the page are almost exclusively to do with Judge Devins involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign" when you were the first to give it that skew: [30]. Previously the article only had as much S2S info as it did about her trouble with police honesty. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This was information from the article on Maura Harrington & was originally introduced by you into her article [31]. This was originally part of my attempts to expand the article which failed as I couldn't find anything of note anywhere. Why would you have info on someone in one persons article but not in their own? You obviously deemed it worthy of keeping as you added to the point [32]. GainLine ^♠_♥ 15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Strauss

• Paul Strauss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an account solely directed at Strauss and the office he holds modifies content until it's no longer supported by the citations and removes sourced material without discussion (see talk page for earlier try for talk by another user). Changes back to the original page are reverted. Hekerui (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted about half the page, lenghty discussions about the roles and responsbilities of a shadow senator belong on a page about that position not in the BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Orobator

• Samantha Orobator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just declined a A7 on this as it has multiple sources (CNN etc.) but I'm not sure whether we really need such an article or whether it's a WP:BLP1E matter. Could someone look over it and edit/nominate for AFD as necessary? Regards SoWhy 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Orobator. Skomorokh 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Prachanda

This article on a controversial world leader was, until I removed a significant chunk of it, largely unsourced. It contains a great many unverified claims and needs experienced editors to research, update and expand it based on reliable sources. Skomorokh 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Chuck Bush is a Candidate for Speedy Deletion

This WP:Selfpub is in violation of wiki's policy. It is self-serving and it does involve unverified claims about third parties such as the state government of Louisiana and events involving the state of Louisiana's legislation. The entire article has no basis for verifiable facts.

It is a candidate for speedy deletion because it violates CSD rule 8 and 11.

CSD 11 Violations: This wiki entry is designed to promote and give legitimacy to the author and his claims described in the wiki entry. The entire section text under "2000s" and "Recent Works" make numerous unverifiable claims. An example is: "In 2001, Bush worked with the Louisiana Film Commissioner and the Louisiana legislature to create tax incentives." All statements suchas this are unverifiable. It should be added these claims may be libelous since Chuck Bush is presently involved in litigation suing the State of Louisiana.

CSD 8 Violations: Nothing in the entire wiki entry is verified by external sources. All self-published links provided are invalid: Resurgent Entertainment.com and FTE Consulting Group external links lead to the URL registration site Go Daddy.com. Tesseraction Games and Hotel da Volta are broken links. External linking to the State of Louisiana's official Film website verifies none of the claims in the wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1051nthird (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the Chuck Bush article to remove the promotion of the subject, and tagged it as needing references from reliable sources, an assertion of notability, and a rewrite to mitigate the promotional tone. You may want to nominate it for deletion. Regards, Skomorokh 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Woods

• Casprings (talk · contribs)

Could someone have a glance? The above SPA user keeps introducing material about the costing of Woods' spell in an Army educational program (showing to Woods' discredit that he made a profit at the expense of the army by the timing of his leaving). Looks to me WP:SYNTH by juxtaposition. Opinions? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it - unless a reliable source makes an issue of it, it's not something we are interested in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The article goes into a little too much detail about his (so far short) career. Some unreferenced stuff could be taken off. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon Darby

User:BritishNationalist and I are in a dispute about two sections on Simon Darby - one concerning a podcast he does, and one concerning a controversy in which Darby was allegedly involved. I removed the one on the podcast, because the sources did not support the section's content. Furthermore, no third party sources were given, indicating a lack of significance. BritishNationalist reverted my edit, while also removing the section on the controversy. He has not given any reason for this. I'd like to ask for people's opinions on both sections - whether or not they should stay/be removed. Darimoma (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems. A popcast is usually too trivial to mention, since anyone can do one. If a controversy is mentioned in the mainstream press, not just blogs, it could be mentioned but not given excessive weight.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jan Fletcher

See Talk:Jan Fletcher - not an "OMG MUST FIX NOW", but I got email and phone call from her PR reps with factual corrections. If someone can check and edit accordingly, that'd be most helpful :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No refs in article or on talkpage. Can you ask the rep where the claims can be verified? Skomorokh 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If the PR reps want to verify that they are who they say they are and correct the article, one of the easiest ways would be to edit the article themselves, while keeping in accord with Wikipedia's policies. However, if they are unable to do that or if they'd prefer a more neutral party take care of that, then please ask the reps to contact OTRS (who operate under the Wikipedia Communications Committee for the Wikimedia Foundation) by emailing [email protected] -- from there, they can chat about verifying information and making sure that everything is factually correct. :) Banaticus (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they can go to the article's talk page, declare their COI and indicate, with references, the changes that they believe need to be made, so that they can be reviewed by other editors. – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Diane Abbott

• Diane Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User SOSHGIC repeatedly deletes sourced and accurate content without explanation and also keeps adding incorrect capitalisation of headings // Shakehandsman (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bamir Topi

Bamir Topi is the President of Albania, and I haven't been able to find a reliable source on his religion. Perhaps someone here knows Albanian? Anyway, an IP keeps removing my request for a citation, or if I remove the line altogether, adds it back in. It's now happening for the biography of his wife Teuta Topi as well. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the president of Albania -- unlike some other presidents we know -- is not particularly open about his religion. Even in his Happy Easter statement of 2008, he isn't explicit in this.

It seems plausible that Mr. Topi might be Catholic. While it's not a dominant religion in Albania, it has significant presence. Multiple Wikipedia versions make the claim of Topi's Catholicism, but none appears to cite it. A few blogs mention Topi's adherence to this minority religion, but again, there do not appear to be sources. Topi has visited a number of Catholic installations, and the Pope himself, but it's reasonably plausible he could have done so in state business.

The most reasonable approach seems to be sending a mail to the Albanian President's Office and asking about it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably the most famous Albanian, Mother Teresa, was of course a Catholic. So he may be, or he may not be. (Does the name "Bamir" mean anything either way?) Asking his office, WP:NOR concerns aside, may be a good idea. But I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the Albanian press, which is why it would be a good idea to have a native speaker do some searching. Unfortunately, Albanians seem in short supply here.

Also, it does appear his religion may have played a factor in his selection as President, so it's notable beyond the mere fact (which isn't that surprising for mostly secular Muslim Albania; his predecessor was Eastern Orthodox). - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunny Lane

It says she is working as a prostitute, unreliable source. Hello, wake up! These kinds of claims are highly libellious!--Whimsical biblical (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are the sources unreliable? Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While none of the sites directly say she is a prostitute (both mentions in the lead, which means 5 sources altogether), she does in fact work for the Bunny Ranch, where there is legalized prostitution. I'd suggest we rewrite it to say that "she sometimes works at the Bunny Ranch". Any thoughts? Synergy 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually object, but sometimes I think we go to far. Let's be honest. Porn stars don't get jobs at the Bunny Ranch doing light house work or accounting.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? :O Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say it's original research.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think the cited sources support the assertion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Her job title is unstated, but you can "book an appointment"[33] with her, so that may possibly exclude light housework or accounting, barring her having the credentials of a CPA. Quatloo (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that there are lots of guys who will now use the euphemism of "getting their taxes done" in reference to visiting the Bunny Ranch. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. This should be removed under WP:V and WP:BLP. The Moonlight Bunny Ranch should properly be considered as a questionable source under WP:V as it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is promotional in nature. It should only be used as a source for the Moonlight Bunny ranch article or Dennis Hof under WP:SELFPUB. Further, sources should directly support the assertions presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a reliable source about her working at the brothel, which I will put in. [34] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Added several other citations which supports the assertion that she worked at the Bunny Ranch.[35][36][37] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... Well, OK, certainly the sources show that she worked there, and some strongly suggest that she would be engaging in prostitution, and it's not crazy to conclude that that's what happened... but, for the sake of argument, couldn't it also be that she was acting as a stripper at the ranch to draw new customers there with misleading promotions and that people wanting to go beyond that would have to hire someone else? That sounds like just the sort of thing that could happen at a place like that, not that a porn actress turning prostitute is too shocking either I guess. This is just the sort of claim that I think should be backed up by a source that's nonambiguous and that we very clearly spell out who said what. In this case, maybe just says she worked at the Bunny Ranch for a length of time and that she promised legal full service or whatever the full quotes were. There's no great need to outright declare she acted as a prostitute hen we can let the objective and proven facts speak for themselves. At the very least, I think that the statement is unlikely to lead to a libel lawsuit, and with her being a public figure and all her lawyers would have trouble claiming malice with statements from her implying it's true. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the AVN source above, it says "Even porn stars themselves are opting for new sources of income by "working private" through escort agencies and spending weeks at a time at Nevada brothels such as the Moonlite Bunnyranch. Recent Bunnyranch offers include award-winning star Sunny Lane..." I don't see how a reasonable reader could draw any other conclusion from that sentence as to what she's actually doing there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

Hyun Jin Moon

This article is grossly in violation of BLP since it relies on unreliable second-hand sources, including personal websites to accuse the subject of crimes. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.geocities.com/unificationism/ does not appear to fit the criteria for a reliable source.
• Dan Fefferman, "The Victory of (All You Need is) Love," Currents: A Journal of Unificationist Thought and Culture," Vol. 3, No. 3, Summer 1992, p.14. looks like it probably is a reliable source, though I can't tell unless someone has more information.
• Merely being "second-hand" doesn't make a source unreliable. On the contrary: second-hand sources are preferred to irst-hand, primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please check the "see also" section too. If I were to do anything it would be reverted right away so I am not editing the article.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese

I'm not sure that the references in Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese are reliable enough for the claims being made. SNAP self identifies as "survivors of priest sexual assault", not a neutral source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was merely transfering old content and not adding new information ; some the associated sources include SNAP. However, a good idea would be to diversify the sources because of issues with the SNAP links. ADM (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article for now. I'll restore it if better sources are found. For these types of allegations we cannot hope that someone will come along later and fix it up. Kevin (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to re-create the article on the Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese. The scandal really occured and there are plenty of sources that are not attacks against anyone. See for example this National Catholic Reporter article [38] about the abuser who got 50 years in jail. It is a fairly notable scandal, and the page is mostly modeled on the article Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. ADM (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That source supports neither the article title nor most of the allegations within the article. I will not restore based on that alone. Kevin (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also this [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] It goes on and on. Not accepting these sources shows a bias on your part. ADM (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not made any comment on these sources as yet. My deletions are based on the content of the article as it was when I deleted it. It is not any bias, I am acting in accordance with policy. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also deleted Thomas Dupre for the same reasons. Again, If reliable sources are supplied to back up the material, I will restore. Kevin (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The page about Dupre was a mere biography page and your deletion is clearly abusive. You could have added some kind of POV tag but you chose to delete it without warning. For this, your capacities as administrator should come under question. ADM (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy on biographies of living people#Deletion states (in part) "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion". I do not have the resources to research and improve this article right now, so deletion is my only remaining option. It is up to you to provide reliable sources for this material. Kevin (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There were already three independent sources in the Dupre article, as I recall. [45] It is maybe poorly written but it is still factual. Moreover, I did not write that article, but it is still possible to find other sources on the topic. Therefore, a deletion in these circumstances is very much unwarranted, even if it vaguely follows specific and not general policy of Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources were: http://www.bishop-accountability.org, http://www.snapnetwork.org and http://www.voiceofthefaithful.org, none of which are reliable, independent sources on the subject of sexual abuse related to the Catholic Church. Kevin (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are various external sources on the topic. [46] [47] [48] [49]. Even then, the bishop would have been a wiki-notable person if the scandal had not occured. Also, as an admin, you can still add neutral sources yourself like any other user, and it is very inappropriate for you to submit every bit of controversy to the tyranny of your personal conscience. ADM (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to wait for other opinions. In the meantime, feel free to rewrite using reliable sources such as the New York Times or the Boston Globe. Make sure you don't use the advocacy sites I listed. Kevin (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to restore the old content at this point (I saw in Google cache). I suggest it only be restored after a new basic stub is made, with all the sources. Then, you can see if the sources support the old content, and if so, restore the content to history, which lets regular editors combine the old content with sources, to restore stuff properly with inline citations to reliable sources, for each claim. Just restoring the article directly, as is, ensures it will sit indefinately unfixed. --Rob (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rocco DeLuca and the Burden

• Rocco DeLuca and the Burden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TracyUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is determined to add this block of text to the article. TracyUK seems to insist that, because the the addition is about a group of people rather than one individual person, WP:BLP somehow doesn't apply when you start throwing around words and phrases like "illegally," "not compensated," and "without their permission" in reference to someone within the group's actions towards others -- all without citing a single outside source. --Dynaflow babble 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:TracyUK, obviously, is mistaken in this belief. In any case, the implication of who is at fault is pretty clear if you read between the line, and even if the user was able to dredge up some bulletproof sources for this claim, a lot of that block of text would still be POV (such as the "possibly illegally" bit). I'll informed the user of this discussion, but clearly that content has no place in the article right now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

Requesting history changes for Gary Lauck

As much as I hate to be in the position of defending a neo-Nazi's privacy, his address was published on the article. I removed it, but it probably needs to be removed from the article history. TallNapoleon (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. It may be more beneficial to email oversight rather than posting diffs onto the public noticeboard in future. But thanks for the heads-up. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed a lot of stuff from the article that was uncited. I'm sure a good article about him could be written which gives the facts. That would be much more effective than just telling us how bad he is. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Clitnovici

Hi, someone who claims to be this person is complaining that the article is inaccurate (I've just removed a paragraph of their talk from the lead). It is a least partially sourced. Anyone understand football and want to have a look? ϢereSpielChequers 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability is satisfied if he has played for a fully professional club at a national level; if this ref checks out, then there is no question of deleting the article. The person mentioned in that ref is the same as he in this one. Where it get interesting is that the other two refs refer to "Dan Clitnovic", a player for Fort Collins Fury, who may or may not be the same person. The talkpage protester asserts that he has only ever played "intercollegiate soccer in the NAIA with the University of Mary in 2001 and with Brescia Bearcats in 2003", which strongly suggests that either he or ref 1 are mistaken, or that we are dealing with two different individuals. Skomorokh 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Violation of BLP

Regarding the biography of the following individual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Burke

Here is information contained in that biography that is highly personal and completely unsourced. This excerpt should be deleted entirely: (Removed here as well.)

Thanks. The most recent edit was some vandalism from a couple days ago. It had apparently gone unnoticed until now. The information has been removed. --Onorem♠Dil 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Staines / Guido Fawkes

I am the subject of a claim that I was arrested for indecency. This is as untrue as it is libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.45 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed, as it was unsourced. Sincere apologies for the inconvenience. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article from IP edits to ensure it does not happen again. Kevin (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Unrelenting Anti-Oprah, Anti-Dr. Phil POV pushing, combined with libelous edits & invasions of privacy

I stumbled upon a user named User:Wikeye who seems to have an extremely unhealthy single-minded interest in articles about Oprah and her spin-off Dr. Phil. The vast majority of his edits are related to these individuals, and range from negative POV pushing to libelous and dangerous.

An anti-Oprah bias is revealed in the following quote where he calls Oprah a black person in white face, and urges people to move on from watching her[50] Instead of a white person in blackface making fun of black people, Oprah is a black person in whiteface paying tribute to white people and acting like an intelligent, wealthy white woman. Hence her mostly white, "upscale" female audience and notable lack of a sizable black audience. Like the traditional minstrel shows, that act has become a bit old for the times and so the audience has moved on. I suggest that we move on also.

In another quote, he makes the outrageous unfounded and highly libelous accusation that Oprah might be kidnapping the students at her school and brain washing them[51]

The children involved were separated from their families and taken out of their country to Houston before local police could conduct a proper investigation. And now you hear NOTHING at all about these children. Where are they being held? Are they being treated appropriately or are they being brainwashed in order to help Oprah avoid a lawsuit? What happened to these children?

Anytime anything negative about Oprah or her school is in the news, he loves to flood her articles with the details[52]. As a result, the article on her school has become overwhelmed with criticism to the point where every time a student misbehaves, it gets its own section.

Here [53] another user warns him that the content he is adding to Dr. Phil’s article is inflammatory in the worst possible way, because he left the misleading impression that Dr. Phil had unethical relations with a minor. Note that this not only violates wikipedia’s biography of living persons policy, but it is libelous. Nonetheless, despite this person spending a considerable amount of time and energy explaining to him that his edits are inappropriate, this person is forced to remind his several months later to stop the libelous behavior[54] Wikeye responds to the reminder by telling the user to “shut his mouth” and to stop blaming him for Dr. Phil’s disgusting behavior [55] These hostile comments reveal strong POV pushing.

And then it gets really spooky. He adds the private address of Dr. Phil’s family to the Dr. Phil article [56] so the whole world can know where Dr. Phil lives. I find it extremely suspicious that someone who has described Dr. Phil’s behavior as disgusting and made inflammatory edits about him, went to the trouble of finding out where he and his family live, and chose to jeopardize Dr. Phil’s security by making this information available anyone with internet access. Someone had to take the time to warn him not to do this [57] If that’s not a red flag I don’t know what is.

This goes way beyond POV pushing to actively exploiting wikipedia as a tool to do harm to living persons he has expressed disdain for. I feel very strongly that there should be zero tolerance for this behavior. Others and myself have tried repeatedly to reason with this person and we’ve gotten nowhere. I just wanted to on record as saying this person should not be allowed to edit any article on wikipedia under any circumstances. Flynneffects (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have informed Wikeye (talk · contribs) of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had problems with Wikeye's edits too, but I had no idea his POV pushing was this extreme. I don't think someone with such an obvious agenda against certain people should be allowed to edit articles about them, as wikipedia editors are supposed to have neutral POV. The edit concerning Dr. Phil's private address is especially disturbing, especially since he linked to a google map search to find the exact house after typing in the address. How he knows that private address is anyone's guess but it makes me very uncomfortable and I agree that he should not be allowed to abuse wikipedia any longer. Makewater (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on that first diff, and a review of some of the contribs, I think a topic ban for Wikeye is in order. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. If you could put that into effect it would be great Flynneffects (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has been warned and counseled to desist ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help. Flynneffects (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)