Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive67

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Lakian

Would anyone like to please watchlist and or monitor John Lakian for BLP violations and vandalism? Seems like there were some negative, hurtful comments added to the article which stayed in for quiet a while, and the possibility of future incidents seems likely. More eyes on the situation would help.-Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. If this happens again semi protection may be called for. — Jake Wartenberg 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A newbie with a redlinked name just removed much of the content and references. I don't know myself how accurate much of that material is, but thought it worth mentioning. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the article for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And the PROD was removed. The only source was to court testimony, not a valid source, so I've removed it. This article now has no sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

I am in danger of violating 3RR. I said that SPLC was an anti-white hate group. I want that section removed because the sources are unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonglerOfRocks (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source. I don't see a BLP violation here. -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Then look harder. Adding the SPLC's opinion to a bio is undue weight, unless their opinion has been reliably published. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This was at RS/N not all that long ago. The consensus was that as an opinion of the SPLC, it was usable as an opinion only, and that Kemp's denial was also proper to use to counter the opinion. There is a reasonable belief that Kemp is sufficiently monor that the article should be deleted -- he wrote a book which is not of major importance, and he works for the BNP -- elsewise he has not been actually notable. Collect (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a Jan 2009 AFD which said "keep", though there wasn't all that much discussion detail Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp. Could be worth another AFD - I'm not convinced he merits an entry. Rd232 talk 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Collect and RD232. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Taban

  • Alfred Taban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm a little at a loss as to how much to cut back on this article. There are many strongly worded assertions made in the article with no sources for the majority of the material. A review by some fresh eyes would be welcome. Thank you! ponyo (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasey Russell

This is a real child actress, but the article as created on 30 June is largely a cut-and-paste from Logan Miller. I tagged it db-g3, then realised it might be a work-in-progress, untagged it and watched it. The author Transfromers2 (talk · contribs) did nothing more with it and on 4 July was blocked as a sockpuppet given to "Adding blatant fake information to articles of films and actors" - see here.

I have blanked the article (as it gives inaccurate information about a living child) and PRODded it, explaining the situation on the talk page. If anyone is interested, one possibility would be to research the real Kasey Russell and make the article accurate. I have posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers in case anyone wants to follow that up; but I doubt if she is notable enough, her IMDb entry shows a single credit for one 2009 film in which she is #26 in the list of "Cast in credits order".

Posted here in case anyone thinks more drastic action (like zapping it as WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation) is required. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Has now been redirected to Ghosts of Girlfriends Past in which she stars. Not sure that's the best solution though. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Boyko Borisov

There is serious facts about Boyko Borisov that can't be masked. I am not much experienced wikipedian, who can write strong facts without allowing NPOV and controversy. I am sure that if I don't look for the article, all facts will be deleted. --91.124.250.109 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Brown (producer)

Mmmbrownn (talk · contribs) tagged Matthew Brown (producer) for deletion, writing that "There is inaccurate information on here. Please delete this page as I did not approve." Could someone take a look at this article? I can't see any errors or BLP violations. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability is asserted, but I don't think there is enough there to meet WP:BIO, so I've tagged it for proposed deletion. snigbrook (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You then removed the assertions of notability. That's not proper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The assertion of notability is as producer of films, and I didn't remove it. I don't think that a role as company director is an assertion of notability unless there is an assertion that the company is notable. snigbrook (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Lascelles

Unsourced information about Alexander Lascelles having a child and no information about a wife or the mother of the child. Can this be sourced, or should it be removed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it; only Google results were forums and a personal website that appears to belong to an editor of the article. snigbrook (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rand Kannenberg under attack by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jezhotwells:

Jezhotwells made 8 edits yesterday. Jezhotwells accused 4 users of being the same person(s) with different accounts. Jezhotwells needs to know that this user is not affiliated with another account. Jezhotwells blocked users from using Wikipedia! Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP that is more than 2 years old. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with more than 12 different editors. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with a history of several independent positive reviews on quality and importance (in 2 categories). Jezhotwells took advantage of one user lowering a rating yesterday (not improving it!) to start the attack. Jezhotwells does not recognize that this article adheres to all policies on biographies of living persons. Jezhotwells should be asked to please leave this article alone. Jezhotwells is being reported to the Notice Board for these reasons. Thank you. CommCorr —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCorr (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) CommCorr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

On 7 July User:OlEnglish reported concerns about Rand Kannenberg at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Re:_Rand_Kannenberg_and_possible_impropriety.2C_process_not_followed about the article apparently having been awarded GA status by one of the article editors without nomination or review. A reassessment tag was placed on the article and I conducted a review (Talk:Rand Kannenberg/GA1. The article was in an appalling state [1], badly referenced, evidence of COI, certainly not good article status and I delisted it and reduced importance to low, class to start. User:Cjas "promoted" it class A, importance high. Notes were left at Talk:Rand Kannenberg explaining that self promotion was not possible. On further investigation I considered that User:Cjas (Criminal Justice Addicts Serve) had a WP:COI. I reported the user-name as a span name and it was subsequently blocked. I also reported User:Cjas, User:MisterMeth, User:CommCorr and User:Usjails as possible socks. This was declined by the reviewing admin - insufficient evidence. User:CommCorr has since removed referencing tags from the article and changed the references, but many are still not verified, unreliable or unverifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments: (1) I don't know if all four accounts are operated by the same person, although there are some similarities which suggest at least that there is collaboration; the CheckUser request was declined because any evidence that there was had not been provided, (2) Jezhotwells is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia, so cannot block users, (3) importance is decided by WikiProjects, and quality is determined by uninvolved editors – there is a process for anything to be rated as a Good Article or above, and I doubt this would be a Good Article, although maybe it is more than Start class, {4} which independent reviews are being referred to here? snigbrook (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lancaster

User is continuing to make disruptive edits by adding possible BLP violations to the article. snigbrook (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Baruch Marzel

This is a minor issue. Is it acceptable to call this Israeli politician "far-right" like this, if there are several newspaper articles that call him that, or is it necessary to qualify the description like this?Prezbo (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to call him far-right. However that doesn't really give us all that much information. BTW Fidel Castro's article doesn't say that he is far-left. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Julio Mateo

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

I have a question for those more familiar with dealing with contentious material on BLPs:

  • By way of the Random article feature I came across "Julio Mateo", a sportsperson BLP (baseball). There hadn't been any significant editing activity on the article in the past year. Since it was unreferenced, I added {{BLPunsourced}} here.
  • The content included claims about an incident involving police. In light of the mandate to remove contentious, esp. potentially libelous, unsourced material, that needed sourcing & cleanup or removal as appropriate. A search returned reliable published sources covering the matter. As well as using those I adjusted the wording to clarify the distinction of convicted vs. alleged. Diff.
  • Last, I swapped the template to {{BLPsources}} as the sports-oriented content remained undercited (here).

I'd like feedback from those more familiar with this area on whether my adjustments were okay, if removal was preferable, or whether a different approach would have been better. Please could someone cast an eye over it? Thanks, Whitehorse1 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

You did fine. The source was reliable and the paragraph was rewritten with a neutral point of view. Good job. =) Aditya α ß 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Aditya. I appreciate it. :) –Whitehorse1 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Garside

Robert Garside's run around the world was dogged by well known and well documented controversy. I've been trying to add a section to this effect (with sufficient referencing) to his bio page. However, someone - I strongly suspect Garside himself, given that the IP address used corresponds to his mother's known location in Slovakia - keeps removing the information without discussion. This may need some sort of protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now repeatedly removing content from this page and creating false comments in his/her edits. The user also refuses to debate on the discussion page over the content of the article.

Paul Krugman

The criticism section in this article seems over the top to me, appreciate admin feedback. Mentions like, "spoke of his "gratuitous spleen", "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder.", Krugman's critics have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style. Also, does this section seem too large? Shouldn't it be integrated into the article. Thanks in advance. Scribner (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On hold (I've integrated the criticism section into the article and removed the edits mentioned above.) Scribner (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

P. J. Proby

Resolved
 – Material removed, plus semiprot'd for 3m by an admin. Few days elapsed without further problems. Whitehorse1 11:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

P. J. Proby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anonymous IP keeps adding unverified disparagement and reverting other editors. Please can somebody have a look and deal with matter as they see fit. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in reverting some of the edits mentioned by Richhoncho. The anonymous IP has written to me by e-mail stating the claims are 'true' as he knows Proby personally - but, critically I feel, there is no given source.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a clear issue. The disparaging content included specific quantity amounts or names, which were not only minutiae (WP:UNDUE) but unreferenced (WP:OR; WP:BLPDEL). Another editor has now removed it and issued a first warning notice to the user. If the IP editor continues they face being blocked. The IPs offsite claim to "know" it's true by way of insider information is neither here nor there; anybody could claim the opposite were true. It should not be added back unless supplied with reliable published sources and the sources make clear it is necessary to an understanding of his life & career. –Whitehorse1 13:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I removed some stray claims that had been missed. –Whitehorse1 13:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anton incident

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

Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "alleged" from the article[2]. It was already discussed here, yet Offliner is insisting on reverting, creating a potential BLP violation. As I understand it, kidnapping is a serious crime and unless a court of law has proved guilt one must use the term "alleged", otherwise it could be considered libellous. While Anton's father is not mentioned explicitly, there is enough information to cause potential problems. Could someone look at this. --Martintg (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping is the word used by sources. Therefore, it is not a BLP violation; it is sourced info. Offliner (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That source only states that a kidnapping investigation has been started. But the investigation has not resulted in a verdict in a law court, hence we can only say "alleged kidnapping" otherwise it is damaging to a person's reputation if the subsequent court case (if it even goes to court) acquits the person. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that the sources are predominantly non-English, are we sure this incident merits an article on English Wikipedia? There doesn't seem all that much evidence of wider significance. Previous AFD in May (under the name of the child) was closed "no consensus". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen. Rd232 talk 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to be AfD'ed, for all the reasons in the original AfD and more. There are hundreds if not thousands of child custody battles resulting in abductions every year, and this one didn't even make it into the English media. The article was created by a known Finnish political activist User:Petri Krohn, now banned, who has written extensively about this case on his Finnish political blog, I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox. If you would re-nominate it for AfD, I would support it. --Martintg (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton incident (2nd nomination). Rd232 talk 09:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bowman

I've just stubbed this article, which was miserably sourced and promotional in a very odd way (it made the subject's early life sound like something out of Lemony Snicket's novels, with too many references to skydivers, suggesting a substantial chance of hoaxing). Other eyes may be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bal Thackeray

There is a serious issue with the page on Bal Thackeray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Many of the critical issues, such as controversies that may involve Mr. Thackeray have been deleted and replaced with obviously biased statements such as "He his couragious Marathi man to opppose any bad activities by any one.Because of this character he is linked with various controversies.He is great Patriot" (sic). This is noted in the Early Life and Career, Controversies, Views on Muslims, and Views on People From North India sections. At the moment I have not edited it as I fear I lack information and citations to correct this. But there is little doubt that this article is clearly not up to the neutrality (and factual-based) standards of Wikipedia. 71.183.174.161 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to restore an earlier version; looking into the history a user deleted all controversial statements and replaced it with bias. 71.183.174.161 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a small issue. Over 20 sources were deleted. Looking back at the page history, the article previously had nearly 30 references, which detailed controversies. The current article has 8 sources. Can someone help me restore this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bal_Thackeray&oldid=300936613 71.183.174.161 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin Taccetta

  • Martin Taccetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Should www.crimelibrary.com be used as a relible source? This article draws on it heavily. I started to clean it up, but I need to go offline and I was hoping someone could pick it up and take an objective look. I have a feeling it may need to be cut down substantially. Thanks, ponyo (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Lyttle page contains libellous material that violates the Biographies of Living Persons Policy

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Career" section of the page reads "Also he is currently practicing being a dead beat father, which he is really good at"

This comment clearly violates the Biographies of Living Persons Policy and has been readded repeatedly and is certainly libellous. It should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casy26 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the offending sentence. Even if there were reliable references and some relevance to his notability the sentence would be problematic, IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This was my fault. I was responding to an email and didn't see that sentence when I removed the others, my apologies. BJTalk 01:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson

Is a mention that Mandelson attends, or has attended in the past, Bilderberg Group meetings, undue weight in a BLP? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see how it would be. A mention seems reasonable if there is WP:RS. A novelette would be too much. I'd say at most a paragraph or maybe two, if the coverage is significant. Otherwise a mention up to two sentences probably. Verbal chat 20:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd concur with Verbal's comment. i.e. it depends on the relevance to the article. For an article on the person, a sentence or two might be sufficient. However in an article about their job, I would say it becomes more relevant, and so may warrant a section or even a sub-article if there was sufficient information on the subject. --Rebroad (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Mentioning it somewhere in an article of sufficient length seems fine, but it all depends on what the source says and what it implies about what reliable sources think is important. If it's a news report on the Bilderberg meeting that happens to merely quote someone or include them in a long list, I would doubt a mention is even merited: we would have no evidence that any reliable sources think this is of interest to the bio subject's life story. If it's a news report on the person that mentions or is about their attending the meetings, then it's probably worth mentioning somewhere but I doubt it would have much importance. If there are numerous mentions of the meetings and some serious evidence of this being of interest to the public, I think it can get some more mention. And if it's mentioned prominently in a reliable source that is actually a biography or overall profile of the subject, we should follow that lead and mention it with similar prominence. Mangojuicetalk 05:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Cannot see any problem, if it is correct. Agree with others, no need to do more than mention as long as it is relevant, and there is a reliable source. Mish (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: A similar discussion is taking place here in relation to the adding of Category:Bilderberg attendees to the article on the current governor of New Jersey. This discussion was prompted by my removal of the category from that article. Neutron (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron Kampeas

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

My biography (the biography of Ron Kampeas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kampeas contains a substantive error of fact and an interpretation of international law that is phrased in a way to suggest that it is fact. Here is the problematic passage:

Ron lives in "an apartment in East Talpiot, one of Jerusalem's post-1967 "new" neighborhoods, one [Kampeas] purchased with a loan that had favorable terms for olim, or new immigrants."[3] East Talpoit is considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement.[3]

In fact, I own the apartment. It should be clear from the source (a blogpost I wrote) that I am writing about an apartment that I own, not live in. It should be clear from the very status described in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry that I live in the Washington area. So, first of all, it should read "Ron owns 'an apartment in East Talpiot...." (By the way, the second reference to the neighborhood is misspelled - it should read "Talpiot.")

The characterization of East Talpiot as a settlement is at least controversial. It is a neighborhood that fell partly within Israeli lines according to the 1949 armistice; it remained uninhabited until after the 1967 war because parts of it were militarized (by the Israeli and Jordanian armies) and parts were no-mans-land. In any case, unlike some of the other "new" neighborhoods in Jerusalem, it was not in an area wholly controlled by Jordan. Furthermore, describing the new neighborhoods as legally settlements also is controversial. Israeli groups opposing settlement are careful to distinguish between neighborhoods such as East Talpiot established in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war and efforts today to encroach into established areas of Palestinian residence. See the East Talpiot entry in this summary by Americans for Peace Now, a lead group activating against settlement, and republished by a Palestine Liberation Organization website and note its use of "Israeli neighborhood" to describe existing (as opposed to planned) building in East Talpiot: http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=3&id=1174

More saliently, the phrase "considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement" appears to be backed up by footnote 3; I wrote the blogpost to which footnote 3 refers, and claim no such thing. This at least warrants the removal of the footnote marker so the Wikipedia reader is more able to judge this reference as bias and not indisputable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Per your request, I've modified that section of the article, and also cleaned it up a bit in the process. I took out the whole section about what the international community thinks of East Talpiot, because that mention seems to imply a political point that is not supported in the article by sources, and is only indirectly relevant to your biography. Instead I described it as falling within a "ring neighborhood", with a link, and said that they were annexed after the six day war. Anyone who wants to learn more about that issue should be reading about it in the articles about those neighborhoods or about Israeli annexation, not your personal bio... it's poor organization for the encyclopedia to repeat those kinds of political disagreements in every article where they occur.
Is there a "reliable source" (e.g. a major nonpartisan news article, or even a bio of you written and published by a third party, say a by-line in a mainstream publication, but not a self-published blog or personal website) that can be used to cite your residence being in Washington? Also, does your wife live with you, and does she co-own the apartment? Please forgive these personal sounding questions, they're just for the flow of the document, as you can see if you read it. Again, best to have citations. No disrespect intended, but there are two problems with simply making the claim yourself: (1) we have no feasible way to confirm the identity of anyone who claims to be an article subject - and when we do, it's a very cumbersome process that goes through email to certain parties rather than regular editors who would be on this page, and (2) as a policy matter self-descriptions are seen as unreliable, so we look to verify facts by referencing them to publications that have some degree of editorial process. In the future, if you have less pressing suggestions for your article, feel free to post them on the talk page there. I've "watch listed" it so I'll notice them sooner or later. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps very much. My biography on my employer JTA's staff page makes clear I'm the Washington bureau chief; this, practically, involves living in the Washington area: http://jta.org/about/staff Most of my bylined articles are datelined "Washington". This is the most recent: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/07/1006372/afterv-weeks-of-watching-iran-israel-us-groups-push-forward And here's one from one of JTA's clients, the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, including a photo I took at a DC event during inauguration (just to prove absolute, physical presence in an age where some news services our outsourcing reporting - although, to be clear, JTA, thankfully, is still old fashioned about datelines): http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=11116 My wife lives with me; she does not co-own the apartment in East Talpiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon Corzine as an attendee of the Bilderberg Group

Resolved
 – Teahot (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Editor Allstarecho appears to be using the article to push an agenda. I tried to trim the opening paragraph to our standards, but was reverted by him. I'd appreciate it if others would have a look and decide whether turning his biography into a political argument is appropriate. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be the one pushing an agenda, here's one diff going back to Oct. 2008 and involving an administrator's contribution to the section you're trying to remove. Scribner (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, you've had problems on Obama's BLP and Krugman's BLP and now Sanchez's BLP, in all cases you were pushing a pro-conservative agenda. This isn't a personal attack against you, it's a statement of fact. Scribner (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion ChildofMidnight. Also, thanks for leaving out the fact that I left you a note on your talk page as to my reversion that has absolutely nothing to do with POV. The fact is the article is under Arbcom probation (imagine that.. you involved in such an article) and you made a controversial change that has been discussed already at great lengths and that lead to the subject of the article, User:Bluemarine, being community banned from Wikipedia and Arbcom banned for a year. I asked you on your talk page to read through the talk page archives of the article and I asked you to get a consensus before making any changes to the article. Your reply? You filed a section here at the BLP noticeboard. As to the actual content itself, the consensus was established for that content and for the fact that it's what lead to the article subject's outing as a gay porn star. Your attempts to remove the content, despite the article being under Arbcom probation with a big tag that even says so, shows your own lack of NPOV and attempts at whitewashing. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As ChildofMidnight is making almost the exact same edits that numerous anon IPs on the article Talk Page were advocating (a POV campaign that resulted in the Talk page being semi-protected), I think this looks a lot like meatpuppetry. --StephenLaurie (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
To say nothing of sockpuppetry and user:StephenLaurie being the infamous community perma-banned, topic banned (on Matt Sanchez article for a history of BLP violation, incivility, harassment, etc.) editor user:Eleemosynary. Please check StephenLaurie full history, including obsessions with Matt Sanchez, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Marshall Silver, Mark Simone, et al as well as specific IP pges where he has blanked sockpuppet tags. There were some IP's blocked by administrators, as socks of Eleemosynary over the course of the last year. A simple RFCU should suffice to ban this individual.96.224.149.72 (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that this IP geolocates to New York, which is where User:Bluemarine, aka Matt Sanchez resides. He has an extensive history of socking and avoiding his community ban and Arbcom ban via IPs himself. So if anyone decides to run an RFCU, be sure to include him and this IP. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
My goodness - the IP actually geolocates to New York!?!? Smoking gun! QED! I mean, it's not like anyone else from NY is posting to Wiki, right? 8-/ I'd be more concerned about the topic and community banned user who is flagrantly violating the terms of his blocks right now. That is unless you are willing to look the other way as he falls out on the side of BLP violations you would also like to see on these pages? 96.224.149.72 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it appears Sanchez (or a blocked editor and Sanchez fan) is once again screaming "sockpuppet" while cowering behind an anonymous IP. --StephenLaurie (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Marks

I've just spent a fair amount of time cleaning this article about a British pornographer up, removing various unsourced claims, original research, and in particular unreferenced/unverifiable assertions that various named and apparently living persons were involved in various pornographic films; some of the people were independently notable, some not so. Some of the claims are likely true, some apparently quite dubious; under BLP, all the names needed to go. Having started to work on several related articles, I've realized that the entire bloc of articles are very little more than original research published on Wikipedia by now-departed editor User:Gavcrimson, who is now publishing such material on his own blog, and who deleted a large portion of it from Wikipedia a year or so ago with the edit summary "With regret I am deleting all of my original research, as it seems in constant threat of being challenged/deleted anyway, and I no longer wish my work to be associated with this site." But he didn't get all of it. My impulse is to stub all the remaining articles based on his contributions. Absent rescue by other editors in the interim. All that I've looked at raise serious BLP and OR concerns. Examples are Come Play With Me and The Nine Ages of Nakedness (the second not so bad an article as the first.) Is there any disagreement? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a question better left for those who specialize in porno BLP issues. How does porn fit in with WP:BLP? But, assuming IMDB is considered a reliable source, I'll say that the list of cast members looks ok, but there is no reason to put it in the lede, especially when it's also in the info box. The 2 articles are only lightly footnoted, so feel free to remove the un-footnoted parts that mention specific people, and tag the rest with [citation needed]. You might go further, since there is nobody around who might challenge a cleanup as censorship, but stubbing the whole lot would be going a bit far, IMHO. Just use your judgement. Smallbones (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source as its content is user generated. It can be used to support other sources that are reliable. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS

An editor wishes to replace a stable and undisputed section of a BLP article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS, with a new version that appears to be a WP:COATRACK case. The most contentious point is the editor's desire to include material from a newspaper article about the trial of someone who was charged with assaulting a LaRouche activist. The defendant says that she "was outraged by posters she saw outside the post office which she recalled saying: 'Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor.'" The alleged slogans on the posters, in the proposed new version, are to be presented as a "view of LaRouche," which I believe violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. This example is only the most contentious of many in the new version, which otherwise conforms to the definition of a WP:COATRACK. Inflammatory views which do not come from the subject himself are being imputed to the subject. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a very skewed presentation. The section in question has been disputed for years. See previous discussions at:
The current discussions on two other noticeboards should be noted too:
Last year, in the midst of one of those disputes, I began collecting references for the topic. The excerpts of reliable primary and secondary sources are at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources. This is a topic for which Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement gained considerable attention - probably as much as they received for any issue. That's largely due to California Proposition 64 (1986). That can be seen by the large number of references to it. It's also the topic of much of one book, Conjuring Science, which is available online.[3]
A month ago, a new editor complained about some minor inaccuracy in the text and we started discussing fixes. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Misrepresentation in Gays and Aids section. In response to that discussion I went back to the almost-forgotten research and started to make a general overhaul of the section so as to better represent what appears in reliable sources. I presented a first draft on June 23.[4] Other editors, including Leatherstocking, have made cinsiderable additions to what is the current version as I write.[5]
All of the text is well-sourced and neutral, except for some material added by other editors. The incidents in question are not the only ones which occurred. The Kissinger incident has been very widely reported. Another incident was reported in a highly reliable newspaper, The Times of London. The incident that Leatherstocking refers to was the subject of a court case. All three involve the actions of people acting as representatives of the LaRouche movement, staffing card tables in public places and soliciting money or petition signatures. Harassment of people who refused to sign their petitions was so severe that the California Secretary of State sent a telegram warning the campaign about it, as was also widely reported.
Further, the statements by the followers were consistent with statements by LaRouche and were not repudiated. In reference to gays and AIDS, LaRouche has made comments about lynch mobs and baseball bats, and has used crude language. This is discussed directly in secondary sources. So this is not a coatrack.
Lastly, I'd note that the article on the views of LaRouche already makes extensive use of the writings of his followers. When discussed in third-party sources, the views of he and his followers are routinely lumped together, and I've never seen any that describe there being a difference between his views and those of his followers when acting as representatives of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Will neglects to mention that the present version, which he wrote himself, went untouched for nine months. Then a small inaccuracy was corrected, against Will's wishes, and suddenly he became very agressive, demanding that an entirely new version be immediately posted. The new version is exactly what is described as a "coatrack," because Will has "cherry-picked" his sources to find only items that portray LaRouche as a homophobic bigot. Because the quotes from LaRouche (which are abundantly available) are not homophobic enough, Will comes up with this angle that grassroots campaign volunteers should be considered official designated spokespersons for LaRouche. Why? Because Will has not seen any newspaper articles that say they aren't. Common sense would tell you that some guy on the street is not an encyclopia source for LaRouche's views, especially when there are plenty of verifiable quotes from LaRouche himself. And in the case brought up by Leatherstocking, I flat out don't believe that LaRouche activists displayed a sign that said "Kill the faggots, kill Elizabeth Taylor." They aren't morons, a sign like that would probably be illegal. The newspaper that is being cited doesn't have to vouch for the accuracy of the report on the sign -- they say that the woman on trial "recalls" seeing such a sign, not surprising since she was on trial for assault and had to come up with a sympathetic story. But in any event the idea that this belongs in an encyclopedia article on "LaRouche's views" is just over the top. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"Destroy psycho-boomer beastman Josh Bolton."
"LaRouche says: The president is a mental defective surrounded by a bunch of gangsters."
The list of sources has been open for over ten months. If you have additional sources that show the matter in a different light then please add them. However this is an article on notable views, not things said in private and unnoticed by the rest of the world. Primary sources for speeches and writigs are great, but we should rely on secondary sources to show what is notable. As with any article, we should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
Regarding this particular incident, it was the center of a court case with several witnesses. The report doesn't mention anyone, even the other NDPC representative, disputing the wording of the sign. It is consistent with other incidents, such as the LaRouche followers who called a minister "queer" and his mother a "lesbian" when they wouldn't sign a petition, and the incident when another LaRouche petition gatherer told a woman who wouldn't sign, "I hope you catch AIDS". Not to mention the highly publicized incident of asking Henry Kissinger, in front of his wife, whether he still slept with boys. If there are other incidents that I've missed which show a different picture, say cases of LaRouche supporters bringing meals to AIDS patients or promoting tolerance, then please add them to the source page.
"Global warming: as fake as your girlfriend's orgasm."
As I pointed out before, the Views of Lyndon LaRouche page is already filled with the comments and actions of his associates and followers. The movement is known for keeping close communication between the HQ and the field offices, with daily meetings, telexes, and reports. These incidents were never disavowed by LaRouche or his spokesmen. LaRouche representatives at card tables have a long history of making provocative statements or writing outlandish statements on posters. Twenty years later that hasn't changed, so it is presumably with the blessing of the head man. It's how LaRouche has structured his movement.
We've already discused this stuff on the article talk page - let's get some input from uninvolved editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable attributing views to any public figure based on the behavior of supporters. I would think there need to be reputable sources saying that Larouche either espoused the views or at least refused to dissociate himself from them, in order to use them. There is always a temptation to tar political figures with the misbehavior of their supporters (think Jeremiah Wright), but we should resist giving in to that on WP. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to read the draft? It does not attribute the views to anyone. The actual text currently proposed is:
  • In 1982, a LaRouche follower shouted to Henry Kissinger in an airport, "is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?" In response his wife, Nancy Kissinger, hit the follower. The follower pressed charges which led to a brief but prominent court case, in which Lyndon LaRouche called Kissinger a "faggot" in a deposition, and Ms. Kissinger was acquitted.[1] In 1986, an minister and his mother who refused to sign petitions were called a "queer" and a "lesbian" by LaRouche supporters staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office.[2] In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker who said they had posted signage that read, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." The woman was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."[3]
Do you think that readers would believe it was LaRouche himself who made the statement?   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is that the article is Views of Lyndon LaRouche, not Views of Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters. Introducing material that doesn't speak to LaRouche's views has the feel of coatracking. The Kissinger incident is probably relevant because of LaRouche's deposition, but for the other items it seems more doubtful. 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is "views of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement", because a large percentage of the views are in fact expressed by his followers. As I suggested on the talk page, it would take a complete overhaul to remove all of the followers' views. LaRouche has said that he think history will look kindly on lynch mobs who kill AIDS carriers, and that teenagers will likely start killing gays with baseball bats, so the followers were just using similar language.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


  • The point is fast approaching, that increasing portions of these populations will focus upon the fact, that a dead AIDS carrier ceases to be a carrier. If governments were to proceed with repeated mass-screenings of the population, and isolation of carriers, the likelihood of a teenager lynch-mob phenomenon would be small. If not, then other ways of reducing the number of carriers will become increasingly popular. In that case, the lynch-mobs might be seen by later generations’ historians, as the only political force which acted to save the human species from extinction.
  • You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax — if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword — shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscriminately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights? Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays! They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up-which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of children's civil rights!

Those are two quotations by LaRouche predicting or endorsing the killing of gays or AIDS carriers.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either quote is an "endorsement" of killing. They both strike me as fairly heavy-handed satirical/ironic comments in the style of A Modest Proposal. I'm pretty sure that the BLP policy discourages us from calling people would-be murderers unless the evidence is incontrovertible. As far as your attempts to make your case using guilt by association tactics is concerned, I think that Looie496's analogy to Jeremiah Wright is apt. In cases where the views of LaRouche's supporters are veriably the same as those of LaRouche, it's all right to use them in the article, but not to build a case for attributing something sketchy and defamatory to the subject. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It's quite posible the followers were using the same satirical/ironic style as their leader. Obviously, they were not intending to murder Elizabeth Taylor. I don't think the Wright matter is apt. Does Wright have a hardcore set of followers who write hundreds of articles a year, or campaign on street corners where they become the subjects of court cases due to their inflammatory language? Maybe, but I've never heard of it. Here are quotations from reliable sources:
  • The LaRouchites accompanied their 186 and 1987 California AIDS quarantine voter initiative campaigns with streams of antigay propaganda.
    • Fascism: Post-war fascisms, By Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman [6]
  • LaRouche maintained that these extreme responses to AIDS were necessary public health recommendations. In reality, he manipulated the AIDS crisis to further his antigay political agenda.
    • All things to all people, By Mark R. Kowalewsk [7]
  • Finally, at least one political organization, Lyndon LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee, advocates mandatory screening of the entire population and isolation of all infected individuals. The LaRouche forces backed an unsuccessful referendum on the issue in California in 1986. Their idea, presumably, is to achieve a "final solution" of the AIDS problem; I use the that term advisedly, in view of the massive coercion their plan would require.
    • AIDS, By Inge B. Corless, Mary Pittman [8]
  • Neofascist hatemonger Lyndon LaRouche was among the first in the paranoid right to move the homophobic campaign into the political arena. LaRouchians spawned restrictive propositions ... that essentially called for firings and quarantine for persons with signs of AIDS. LaRouche even obliquely suggested murder as a tactic, writing that history would not judge harshly those persons who took baseball bats and beat to death homosexuals to stop the spread of AIDS. [9]
    • Media, culture, and the religious right, By Linda Kintz, Julia Lesage
  • Parents and school officials in the Pilsen community have earned applause for the way they have faced the challenge of a child with AIDS. ... Beyond that, the Pilsen parents have been subjected to shrill badgering by a bunch of LaRouche cultists who, for their own mysterious reasons, have decided to turn this into a cause. ... The LaRouche gang repeatedly has disrupted such meetings, held sidewalk rallies and passed out scare leaflets, all in an effort to frighten parents into resisting the child's enrollment. Why? No one outside the cult is likely to figure that out. It's what Lyndon LaRouche thinks, so it is what his followers think.
    • "PILSEN PARENTS VS. THE BOGEYMEN" [editorial] Chicago Tribune Chicago, Ill.: Mar 14, 1987. pg. 10
  • The LaRouchites know how to fight dirty-when they are trying to silence an opponent, they are trained to shout "He has AIDS! He has AIDS!"...
    • "THE HIGH ROAD WHEN A CHILD WITH AIDS COMES TO SCHOOL, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRISIS; " Article by David L. Kirp. Chicago Tribune Chicago, Ill.: Dec 6, 1987. pg. 12
  • A campaign booklet issued by Lyndon LaRouche in support of Proposition 64 has linked actress Elizabeth Taylor to "satanism" and actress Patty Duke to "wild exhibitions in the street" against the AIDS initiative.
    • "LaRouche Ties Liz Taylor To 'Satanism'"; Randy Shilts. San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, Calif.: Oct 7, 1986. pg. 10
    • LaRouche also mentions Taylor and her ties to satanism in an undated piece titled "How all my enemies will die" which predicts the destruction of the "satanists" who've opposed him and ends with "Satan and his evil mother shall die."[10] Though possibly apocryphal due to it's location on mysterious website, it's been cited before.[11]
These help to show that, in mainstream 3rd-party sources, LaRouche's effort was seen as connected to antigay propaganda or goals, and that such sources lump LaRouche together with his followers, who are characterized as having been "trained" to make attacks on opponents.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there would be any objection if you added a sentence saying that "LaRouche's effort was seen as connected to antigay propaganda or goals," sourced to a few good sources. However, you are filling up this board with a tremendous amount a verbiage which does not address the issue that was raised, which is that an inflammatory sign that was "recalled" by a woman on trial for assault should not be included in an encyclopedia article on "views of LaRouche." There is plenty of first-hand, verifiable material available on LaRouche's views. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that say things like this:
  • But the new attacks on gays lend credence to critics who contend that LaRouche and his followers are motivated by a long-standing hatred of homosexuals. LaRouche and his supporters also frequently attack people they consider enemies by labeling them as homosexuals in print, often in vulgar slang terms.
    • "Paper Tied to LaRouche Attacks Gay Movement" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 6, 1986. pg. 21
That's a secondary source which says LaRouche and his followers use vulgar language to attack their perceived enemies. So the dispute incident is just an illustration of that sourced phenomenon. In ancy case, oin the article talk page I've proposed compromise to get past this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a slight chance that you may have missed the point about Jeremiah Wright. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I must have, because I don't see any similarity between the Wright movement, if there is one, and the LaRouche movement. For example, are there any news stories or books that use phrases like "Wright and his followers" or "Wrighties"?   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the draft section(s) linked to, this does not look like a coatrack, because the article itself is a coatrack, and the issue is about using the article to include an item that the coatrack was not intended for. If this were a biography, then the answer would be clear - unless the views expressed by supporters were about LaRouche himself, then any material attributing views to LaRouche that are voiced by his movement should be removed - whether about gay/AIDS or other topics. However, this is not a BLP, it is an article about a living person's views which has been bought to the noticeboard.

  • One way to deal with this would be to rename the article to clarify the extent to which BLP policy applies to the article as a whole - by renaming the article 'Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement' (or similar) - then all this material can be dealt with even-handedly (and BLP policy would only apply to what is attributed directly to him, rather than the selective way being called for now).
  • Make it a proper biography, and remove all the material not attributable to LaRouche, apart from verifiable comments about him - that is not possible, because he already has a BLP, and this is an exposition of his views (including their reproduction through the movement that supported him). If one section is to be singled out as subject to BLP policy, then this policy should apply throughout the article - all references to views that are not by him or about his views should be removed.
  • If involved editors are not willing to allow certain material into this article/coatrack/exposition of his views, nor allow for a name change that reflects that the content, which would be the most straighforward remedy - then there seems to be plenty of material to warrant an article on LaRouche and his followers' views on gay/AIDS and this could become an article in its own right, and one which could be linked to from within the article. This is not what I would recommend, as it is effectively a fork, but one necessitated because of the way the article has been constructed - being about an individual's views, containing some views of his supporters, but not allowing all such views.

I would plump for first suggestion (as it easiest) - rename the article to avoid forking, future BLP concerns (because the article is about an ideology, but given the name of a living person) and ensure balance and neutrality; if this is not acceptable, then I'd say rigorous enforcement of BLP policy throughout the entire article, and it for some reason neither of these gets to happen - make the material an article in its own right, with a link from within the existing section of gay/AIDS. Mish (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The "views" article is essentially an overflow article from Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche movement has its own article. BLP rules apply in any event -- they apply to references to living persons in any sort of article. I would say that it is safe to assume that activists in the LaRouche movement subscribe to LaRouche's views, but not necessarily vice versa. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
yes, that is what I said, so if this is an article where BLP applies, then those policies should apply consistently throughout - so it should be confined to views by LaRouche, or views about LaRouche, and views of members of his movement should only be included if they are expositions of his views, or about him. This would then be applicable throughout the article, not simply one section. It cannot be selective - if any views of members are regarded as being relevant to laRouche's views, then there is no obvious criteria why one particular section of members views (which appear to coincide with his own published views) should be excluded. Otherwise it is an arbitrary criteria, and that is not good enough, because it lends itself to breaching NPOV (one set of members' views is OK because we don't mind it being here, but another set isn't because we'd prefer it was left out). Mish (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I take it that the objection is this:
  • In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker who said they had posted signage that read, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor." The woman was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."

Perhaps it could be phrased better, thus:

  • In 1987, representatives of LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee staffing a table outside a U.S. Post Office got into an altercation with an AIDS worker, against whom charges were brought. In her defense she claimed a sign a LaRouche supporter held, saying, "Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor", had provoked her, and was found not guilty of battery. Dana Scanlon, spokewoman for the movement, said that the followers were trying "to help fight AIDS politically, to return to traditional health measures."
But it is not clear why that would not be allowed, when this is, from La Rouche vs. the Media:
  • One example that has appeared in many press accounts is the claim that LaRouche said "The Queen of England is a drug dealer." According to EIR, this "bit of black propaganda is a reference to the book Dope, Inc., first published in 1979, which laid bare the role of the London-centered offshore financial institutions and allied intelligence services, in running the global drug trade, from the time of Britain's nineteenth-century Opium Wars against China."[51]
This is not attributable to laRouche, nor is it about it his views, it is about what other people have said about him, written by an editor of EIS. Mish (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Mish's first suggestion is the best and simplest: rename the article to something like "Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement". That would refect the actual content of the article, which already draws heavily on views expressed by members of the movement besides LaRouche himself. It is a sensible scope, since 3rd-party sources often treat LaRouche and his movement together. BLP would still apply to material about living people, as it does in any article or page regardless of how it's titled. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I object. The views that are notable are those of LaRouche. They may be expressed by his supporters if they are verifiably LaRouche's views, and since he is editor-in-chief of EIR, I should think that EIR would be OK. As I said earlier, I think that you may be searching for ways to tar LaRouche with the homophobia brush, in which case you are not satisfied with what LaRouche himself says and you want to indirectly attribute more inflammatory views to him. That's a BLP problem and a coatrack problem. My proposal is this: that the news reports about AIDS-related controversies and the LaRouche movement be added to California Proposition 64 (1986) in a section called "related controversies." That article is not too long, and your news clips could be summarized there without turning it into War and Peace. I imagine that there would also be no dispute over relevance. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The views of LaRouche followers are very notable, both inside and outside the movement. Inside the movement, the publications all feature writings by followers side-by-side with writings by LaRouche. Outside the movement, spokespersons, heads of movement organizations, organizers, candidates, etc, have all receivd large amounts of attention in 3rd-party sources. It is flatly absurd to assert that the views of of members of the movement besides LaRouche himself are not notable.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd also remind Coleacanth that assume good faith is a policy, not just a suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The views of LaRouche's associates are notable because of their association with LaRouche. But more to the point, their comments should be included in the "Views of LaRouche" article when they are verifiably also LaRouche's views, such as when they appear in EIR. This is all a bit of a smokescreen, though, to try to shoehorn in the story about a hostile lady who claims she saw a death threat on a sign. Common sense should tell you that this is not a "view of LaRouche." --Coleacanth (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It could also be said that LaRouche's views are notable because he has a following. Again, since the article is already full of views of members of the movement, the simplest thing would be to recognize that reality and modify the name of the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'd not heard of this guy before today/yesterday. TBH, having read some of the article, I forgot common-sense fairly soon into the article (as I do when reading about people like David Ike and George Galloway). So, Coleacanth, it is one view of laRouche - possibly not laRouche's view of laRouche, but it seems to be her view of laRouche, and from the decision of the court, a view expressed by one of his supporters in the act of representing his views in his campaign. I don't think it tars him more or less homophobic than anything he has said himself - although it does illustrate the sort of responses his views engender. Mish (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Political candidates and organizations make their policies and views known through various sorts of official channels, and that is the proper, encyclopaedic way to cover them here. For Will's benefit, the Jeremiah Wright controversy took place because Wright was a supporter, or "follower" if you prefer, of Barack Obama; he made some inflammatory statements, which Obama's opponents then used in an attempt to embarrass Obama. There is no reason to change the title of the "Views" article other than as a tactic to get the disputed material in, and since the material violates BLP no matter how the article is titled, I say skip it. Coleacanth's proposal to find a "home" for anecdotes about rowdy activists at the AIDS initiative article seems like a simple solution. Are there any objections to it? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could say that Jeremiah Wright is a follower of Obamah. If anything, just the opposite: Obamah joined Wright's church, so it is more like he is a follower of Wright's, to the extent that Wright has any "followers". It's not a similar situation at all. As for the article title, there's an excellent reason to change it: to reflect the current content of the article The Prop. 64 article is limited to the narrow topic of Prop. 64. Let's keep that article narrowly focused, and the "views" article focused on what it has always been focused on: the views of LaRouche and his movement. As I said opn the talk page weeks ago, if folks want to delete the views of followers it will require a major overhaul. When I suggested that there was no response, so I don't think that's an option.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, only of the three reported incidents has a source that say it may be connected to Proposition 64. A source we're not using because it's ambiguous with another sources:
  • Many of the persons who signed the petitions were not aware of the link between the initiative and the LaRouche group. However, a number of letters and telephone calls protesting harassment by the signature gatherers came in to the secretary of state's office, officials said. According to one complaint, a youth yelled at a Catholic priest in Camarillo, accusing him of being a homosexual, when the priest would not sign the petition. In Huntington Beach, a woman coming from a Post Office was accosted for her signature and when she refused to sign, the petition pusher yelled, "You are going to get AIDS!" according to her letter to the secretary.
    • "LaRouche is linked to petition , Initiative proposal would quarantine AIDS patients;" Don Davis. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: May 23, 1986. pg. A.3
The source we're using says:
  • In the middle-class community of Ventura, LaRouche supporters have set up tables outside post offices and supermarkets with their petitions denouncing homosexuals. One local minister who refused to sign was called 'a queer' and his mother a 'lesbian'.
    • "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche". The Times. London. November 1 1986.
Those might be might be the same incidents, but they could be different ones too. The other two incidents are obviously unrelated because one took place four years before the initative and the other took place in a different state. None of the three is directly connected to AIDS. So it wouldn't make any sense to move them to California Proposition 64 (1986).   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually mean that they are not directly connected to AIDS, or do you mean directly connected to the initiative? Either way, there was already information at California Proposition 64 (1986) that was not directly connected to the initiative, so I set up a section called California Proposition 64 (1986)#Related controversies, which is where I suggest the various stories should go. The NOR rule says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article," and these stories would be appropriate at that article, while they would be inappropriate to "Views." --Coleacanth (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No, none of the incidents is reported, by the sources we're using, to be connected to AIDS or Proposition 64. The matters that you moved to the "controversies" section of that article are all directly connected to the initiative. The topic of the section we're discussing is "gays and AIDS". These three incidents are all directly related to views of gays, not AIDS or Proposition 64.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
@Leatherstocking. Please explain how something that is reported unambiguously in a reliable source, and reflected here accurately, with citation of source, can be a BLP 'no matter how the article is titled', and where WP:BLP suggests such material should be excluded, please. I suggested that should this material continue to be excluded, the involved editor should thing about setting up a separate article covering the views of the LaRouche movement in a way that this could be included (with a link in the section). I am informed that such an article already exists - so this material could go there if necessary. Although why somebody of such limited international significance (he was a failed presidential candidate who subsequently spent time in prison for fraud, and conspiracy theorist holding a fringe view on many issues, yes?) needs several articles I am not sure - one for his biography, one for his views, plus another for his movement (maybe others?), which are used in a way that allows editors to attend in micro-detail how things can be cherry-picked and placed according to their rules, by selective application of WP policies and guidelines. At minimum, items that relate to biography should be in the biography, and the items that relate to the ideology of laRouche and the laRouche movement should be located together, and suggest merging the two articles. The way this is set up appears to breach key Wikipedia policies, such as WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SOAP. Mish (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject" (WP:BLP#Reliable sources.) I would not rule out the possibility of it being relevant to an encyclopedia article on some other subject, which is why I favor Coleacanth's proposal. As far as the vast array of LaRouche articles is concerned, I see no justification for it at all. I suspect that it came about because various editors insisted on massively extensive coverage of their pet issues (the one we are discussing here comes to mind) and the whole mess became too big for one article. -Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As I suggest below, the best way of deciding which issues concerning LaRouche are important is through the filter of secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Applying the filter of secondary sources is definitely the way to go. Material that is only sourced to primary sources and is ignored by secondary sources should not be there. Renaming the article to something like "Views of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement" seems sensible as well. JN466 20:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are some good points. The amount of fringe material would be reduced, and adherence to the NPOV and V policies increased, if we relied more on 3rd-party, secondary sources rather than the primary sources used so extensively in the "Views" article. I don't think that any "view" which hasn't been reported is actually notable. Limiting the article in that way reduce it by haf and make merger with one or another article more practical.   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
@Leatherstocking. I could accept that, except there seems to be a navbox to cover a wide range of articles on the LaRouche movement, which includes (in part):

Compare this with other presidential also-ran:

former US Presidents:

or international heavyweights:

This whole series of articles seems to be undue for one man and his political movement; the navbox, micro-detail and expanse of coverage doesn't suggest this is because of his detractors, rather an abuse of this encyclopedia to promote this movement. Mish (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Carter and Reagan both have entire categories of articles about them. Category:Ronald Reagan contains 51 articles, plus 11 in "controversies" and 35 in "Iran Contra" subcategories. Unlinke any of those other individuals, LaRouche is the head of an international organizations that has included political parties in at least six countries (U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, France, and Italy). Unlike the others, LaRouche has a following that has been called a "cult" by observers. And unlike those others LaRouche has hard to summarize views on an extremely wide range of topics. And he's campaigned for president more than all of them combined. Most of the articles in category:LaRouche movement are reasonable, and some of the party articles are practically just stubs. The worst ones are the biography, Lyndon LaRouche, and the Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I've repeatedly suggested re-writing the latter from scratch, as I think it's entirely out of whack and almost unreadable. Once we get this matter resolved I think it'd be worth reconsidering a broader re-write to reduce it down to the truly notable views of LaRouche - those reported in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but this was not evident from their navbox, which was my point, ditto for Sharpton. I would stress that LaRouche is probably more of an issue in the USA than other countries (like where I live), which must be why I'm not familiar with him. I agree that this group of articles need sorting out, and not in a way that promote his views/movement - and not in a way that they act as a focus for anybody who has something bad to say about him/them. From what you are saying it sounds like six of one & half-dozen of the other - that some of this is sown to pro-laRouche factions, and some of it down to anti-laRouche factions. That doesn't tend to produce good NPOV articles (and 'Views of ...' isn't likely to end up with anything other than 'V' with 'POV' issues). That is all I have to say on this, as it is not of that much interest to me. Mish (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support reducing the whole thing to two articles: Lyndon LaRouche and LaRouche criminal trials. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's start by reducing the "Views" article down to what can be found in secondary sources. Once it's small enough we can think about merging it back to the biography or movement articles.   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Le'ts also move the article to "View of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movment", to better reflect the existing content.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Troy Davis

I think this article urgently needs more attention from an experienced editor who is knowledgeable about the case and its coverage or has the time to do the necessary research. [12] I have reverted this edit for the moment, but it seems there were earlier, similar editors from another IP that are still in the article. Hans Adler 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia L. Davis

Article has possible WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues (related: otrs:2009071210033789).

I've gone through the section, tried to expand the possibly subjective summaries of comments with representative excerpts, removed the POV-blog comments, and expanded the range of sources. I don't think it will make her very happy, but perhaps the whole experience can serve as a positive motivator for this experienced politician. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Badmouthing Anita Hill at Talk:Clarence Thomas

Please take a look at Lkoler (talk · contribs) and this thread. I would prefer that our article talk pages not be used to cast gratuitous and unsourced aspersions. However, I have not been particularly successful in my interactions with the user in question, and in fact have given up entirely on our Clarence Thomas article as a hopeless editing environment. So perhaps someone else could have a word with Lkoler, or not. MastCell Talk 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regina Benjamin

A lot of blp-violating vandalism at Regina Benjamin. Please keep an eye out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Katharine Isabelle

  • Katharine Isabelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Now, before I am going to put it's real date of birth with it's reliable source on Katharine Isabelle's article. I already read Katharine Isabelle's talk page. And a few of the users having an argument for it's real birthdate between 1980, 1981 and 1982. But I am not involve with the argument. I was putting it's real date of birth and birthplace on the article once. But then another user remove the date of birth and birthplace because it's not sourced. Also, a lot of IP users putting it's date of birth without a sourced date of birth, and a user already remove it's unsourced date of birth always from some of the the IP users. I know that the fact that the Internet Movie Database or IMDb is not the reliable source for it's information. So I went to a web search Yahoo! or Google. Then I type the search "Katharine Isabelle" then the year of birth and then the birthplace. Then I finally found a different website has it's real information. The website is Katharine Isabelle UK. Before I am going to put it's real date of birth and birthplace to be sourced from another website. I already read it's "citing sources" guidelines and I know how to put sources from different websites. So If you read my comments please let me know in order to resolve quickly. Steam5 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

I am involved in a dispute with two editors on a climate change article, Ratel, and of course Kim D. Petersen, who wish to include very prominently in a page on the skeptic Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth, the following very negative, and insulting text:

The book has met with a generally hostile reception from the scientific community. Professor Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales stated that the book "advance(s) all manner of absurd theories" and "deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken."

This refers to a newspaper review of the book by an astronomer on the subject of climate science. The issues I've raised with this are (1) inclusion of non-specific remarks that seem to add nothing to the article but are merely idly insulting; (2) prominent airing of the views of someone commenting outside his own area of expertise (i.e. the article is making out that Professor Ashley is an expert in climatology when in fact climatology is not even mentioned as one of Ashley's interests on his CV. Ashley's area is astronomy, only at best tangentially relevant to the subject of the book he's reviewing). Finally, the entire article is subject to a neutrality dispute, where it is argued that it is most unbalanced, which seems to be a rather intractable problem at the moment. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at the article, the text above should certainly say that the critic is an astronomer. However, it seems that the scientist in question (an astronomer in this case) is attacking the science posited in the book. It may not be his area of expertise, but just about any scientist can spot bad science a mile away. It seems relevant. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Resolved per suggestion editor Pete Tillman. Ashley quote shifted to near end of page & replaced w/ quote from climate expert. ► RATEL ◄ 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

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

Some fresh eyes on this on please. I took a look at it today for the first time in several weeks and it has got completely out of hand - there are way too many quotations from her books and similar material. I think a major chop job is in order but I just don't know where to start. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dash Snow

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

Rumors of his death are spreading, & the page already has him listed as dead, though it hasn't been confirmed. Not sure what the proper templates, etc are for this; thought it best to bring it to everyone's attention. -- mordicai. (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Times ArtsBeat blog is reporting this as a fact, confirmed by his grandmother Christophe de Menil. Roberta Smith, "Dash Snow, New York Artist, Dies at 27", New York Times, July 14, 2009.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have tweaked the ibox, named the NYBlog reference and updated the talk page template. – ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Annemarie Eilfeld

An edit war going on there between two editors, with some moderate incivility on the part of one of them (stop getting on my nerves then). There seems to be some dispute over whether certain sources are used. In addition, it appears that IP editors are adding cruft to the article. Probably needs some attention. McJeff (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

see my talk page, see vandalism report, see semi-protection and revert. --JD {æ} 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
the most important thing here is and will be: you try to ban me as a vandal (and faker) from en as soon as you can because i am a shame for every severe wikipedian. ah, okay. --JD {æ} 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
btw: you got banned for 12 hours and in the moment you are avoiding this by using another IP. --JD {æ} 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
this is also weird. Tanthalas: Protected Annemarie Eilfeld: persistent unsourced additions/speculation/external links ???? 79.214.201.13 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jani Allan

I believe that the entry is biased and reads like a subtle defence of Jani Allan's notorious public image. I also think that the detailed explanations, quotations, and cited reference amount to original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. The entry simply does not read like an encylopaedic entry. What is more, it has been written, edited and rewritten by a single user, who, apart from defending the subject, constantly adds irrelevant detail. 

EmjayE2 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Richie Woodhall

Is it an irrefutable fact that Richie Woodhall has a "beautiful wife called Jayne" ? Surely this statement is subjective, & should therefore be removed. It suggests the article has been written by the subject matter, his wife, a close personal friend or a relative. "He is married, to Jayne." will suffice in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switchhitter25 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - but you could have done that yourself. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamoud Omar Khamis

Not a BLP issue

Born(10 June 1988) in Wete, Nothern Pemba district in Zanzibar Tanzania.He spent his childhood life in Kizimbani village in Wete-Pemba. As the norms of Zanzibar at the age before begining schooling he went to Madressa for geting foundation in Islamic knowledge. He attended Madressa called 'Hayatul Atfal' (Children's life). At the age of eight in 1996 He began his primary education at Kizimbani primary School which was formally known as Kizimbani Catholic Mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.244.70 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to draw attention to articles with problems, not to add biographies of people. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Attack page up for deletion

Not a BLP issue

Please feel free to see article Anti-Israel lobby in the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States as a particularly egregious case of a WP:attack page and wp:coatrack page where extremely partisan sources are allowed to insult and attack individuals and groups. Very bad precedent for this article to survive, IMHO. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a WP:BLP issue? I think not.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Miles - birth date issue

Stuart Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Stuartmiles (talk · contribs) has changed birth year on the Stuart Miles page to 1974 several times. This user claims to be the actual Stuart Miles but has not yet shown independent published evidence to support the alternative birth date claimed. The majority of published sources show Miles' birth date to be 1969 (as broadcast in a Blue Peter episode) with a minority showing birth date as 1970. Some discussion has already taken place on the talk page and on the user page with no resolution so far. A previous WP:COI/N was discussed and as a result a note was added on the user page though with no follow-up to date.

Example diffs:

—Teahot (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually most sources I found showed 1971 as his birth year (with the article stating he was 27 in 1999, prior to his birthday in February) (Guardian 8 Feb 1999, Guardian 8 Feb 1999, Sunday Mirror 16 Mar 1997 (possibly not reliable), BBC, Telegraph 23 Jun 2008). I have suggested on the talk page that Stuart adds a year of birth to his official website. Majorly talk 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Citizen Cope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Cope The last line of "Use in media" is vandalism. However, I can't remove it because it doesn't appear when I try to edit the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneufeld (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone already removed it. Henrymrx (t·c) 07:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – seems resolved -shirulashem(talk) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Show

The Rush Limbaugh Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated insertions of poorly sourced partisan material. Cited sources include comedian Stephen Colbert and the progressive (a political viewpoint at odds with the views of the show's host) group Media Matters for America. --Allen3 talk 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is more appropriate for WP:NPOV/N. Although you're right, the added notations have a good deal of Some-argue-and-I-agree. 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you're kidding, right? You think people aren't allowed to use sources that are opposed to the show? What version of WP:NPOV policy did you read, because that makes no sense? Articles are not for presented the views of the topic being discussed, it for discussing all major views, and the sources you are trying to complain about are highly respected on these topics. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, the report to this page was based upon a reading of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources instead of WP:NPOV. Are you arguing that Stephen Colbert has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by these policies? --Allen3 talk 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lancaster

There are a number of SPA repeatedly adding in personal details about the individual's family including the names of the children and salacious details about Lancaster's divorce. There may be sockpuppetry issues with the SPA. I've been dealing with this on and off for a few days but having more eyes on it might help (especially since I'm not going to have much internet access for close to 48 hours). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
 – article has been semi-protected -shirulashem(talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reality TV series

There have appeared several articles about reality TV show series, such as The Hicks (since deleted), and The Suburbs (web series), and, presumably The Hills, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, etc., which are supposedly real showings of people going about their lives, and appearing on TV. When the articles discuss bad things which the people involved in these series do, and they're totally sourced to the shows themselves, do these edits violate WP:BLP? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course they do. Absent some verification, the claims are nothing more than editors' first-hand accounts of having watched the show and interpretations of whatever was said. At best, original research into primary sources. There's in practice a limited exception to the no-primary-source rule in WP:RS applying to sources for in-universe references in articles regarding fiction, including television shows, and some editors are smashing trucks through this "loophole" by applying it to all television episodes, whether fiction or nonfiction (applying that term rather broadly to reality TV). WP:BLP says "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject," and the broadcasts themselves are primary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. My concern came up when reading the season descriptions at The Suburbs (web series), where it uses terms like "player" and "been around the block". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Rahat Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

In Response to a "BLP unsourced" notice requesting help at the top of the article, warning that the article did not cite references as required by BLP policy, I added two references, and noted that on the talk page.

The article now seems to comply with the policy, particularly as it applies to "Well-known public figures." The subject is a well-known musician in South-Asia, and there is nothing inaccurate, controversial, or inappropriate in the article. I would like to remove the "BLP unsourced" notice, and just want to confirm it's OK before doing so. --Dalesundstrom (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now "partly sourced" -- at such point as the major claims are sourced, the tag departs this vale of tears. IMHO. Collect (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The article now includes a reliable biography reference, but could still use improvement. The tag was modified earlier by a bot to unsourced (the bot doesn't seem to change the date, or change the tag back after improvement, as far as I can tell). I changed the tag back to unreferenced, which now seems more appropriate. I assume the bot will correct it or that someone will advise if that's not so. Hopefully all is well, and I believe this issue is resolved.--Dalesundstrom (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gianmichael Salvato

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

I'm not at all concerned with the apparent vandalism to the page as it seems to be reverted fairly soon after it's discovery, however I am concerned that the page does not meet the guidelines for notability.

Upon going through the history and finding pages that were not actually vandalism, most of the text took on the feel of a personal advertisement rather than a biography. None of the information contained any real verifiable information as to education, business dealings, notability, and the such which violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. In fact, many of the references are WP:SELFPUB#Self-published sources .28online and paper.29. It was filled with weasle and peacock.

There was even a claim that he was a well known and notable author (or some such thing), however, searches on all his names for books written produced only two books on-line through Lulu.com (goto storefront for dharmadude it will come up with Mr. Salvato's information.) Researching his education from information provided at Linkedin shows his diplomas are from a Diploma mill and are not notable at all.

It further seems as if there are personal interests involved with this page and it is requested a third unbiased person step in to make a determination if the page should actually remain or if it should be deleted. I've not yet marked the page for possible deletion and since I've never done so before, felt I should get another perspective on this before I make such a drastic suggestion.

Thank you in advance for whatever help may be offered. Kjnelan (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With a total of 15 G-hits on his name and order, none of which appear to be RS, it appears to be at best WP:PUFF and at worst eminently deletable. Collect (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have prodded it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for the help. I'm rather new and still learning, but taking many notes. Kjnelan (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Erin Andrews

So, we now have a nude video, apparently, of this very pretty woman. It's made its way to Wikipedia with a flurry edits. It is referenced at the moment, and her lawyer has admitted it occurred. My reading of BLP says the only reason to remove it would be "right to privacy" - apparently we're observing this policy on Miley Cyrus for some revealing cellphone photos last year. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Taped without consent or permission equates to clear violation of privacy from the start. IMHO, it has no business on WP ever. Not even a close call. Collect (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Linking to or referencing the video itself is obviously inappropriate. Whether the incident itself should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article depends on the way the incident is covered by reliable secondary sources and its significance in relation to the subject's career/notability as a whole. In most cases, incidents like this fail at least one half of the test (for example, the paparazzi photos of Jacqueline Onassis in Hustler or wherever were widely reported, but were no more than a flyspeck from the perspective of her entire life; in contrast, Vanessa Hudgens's cellphone photos were both widely reported and were generally considered to have significant potential to affect her career. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place to document every embarassing moment in a celebrity's life -- there are way too many mentions of DUI arrests,, etc in celebrity articles, for example -- and the idea that anything that can be sourced should be included is just plain wrong. We don't have "Delinquent Tax Payments of the Rich & Famous" sections in articles, or "Child Star Bedwetting Incidents." (We do seem to have "Acts of Drunken Stupidity by Rock Musicians and/or Busty Female UK Celebrities" but I've been working on eliminating that one. But now I'm just ranting.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sheppard (far-right activist)

Isn't the title of this article POV in the extreme? It was originally at this title, then it got moved to Simon Sheppard (activist), which seems more NPOV, and then it got moved back again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Absolutely. That page was semi-protected AFTER it was moved by a vandal. I have placed an unprotect request on the talk page of the article for an admin.
-shirulashem(talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)

  • Fight Club (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - At Fight Club (film)#Cultural impact, there was a recent addition about 17-year-old Kyle Shaw trying to carry out Fight Club-esque acts of vandalism. I do not normally edit BLP articles, so I was not sure if this addition was appropriate or not. I can see how the headline is relevant since articles about real-life fight clubs are cited, but since he is under 18 years old and his name is used, I wanted to get opinions of those more familiar with the policy. Perhaps the best approach is to remove mention of his name and leave it to the citation? I also started discussion at Talk:Fight Club (film)#Kyle Shaw, so feel free to respond here or there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right that the name should be removed from the article; none of the individuals involved in the other copycat incidents mentioned in the article are named, even though at least some of them have been convicted, and one is the son of a prominent government official. So I've done that (and condensed the discussion a bit). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

During her time as governor, Sarah Palin had eighteen ethical complaints filed against her. We are having a disagreement about how to describe one of them. This source says (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/841059.html)

The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.

The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest.

The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.

Some of the editors believe that the allegation that Palin "abused her power" should be included in the article. Some believe that the finding of "no wrongdoing" indicates that the Board threw out the abuse allegation, and that it should be omitted from the article as prejudical and contrary to BLP policy. Do you have an opinion about whether or not the abuse allegation should be included in the bio?Jarhed (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The judgement should take precedence; the listing of unfounded parts of allegations isn't helpful and is confusing.Martinlc (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The only material that can reasonably appear in the artiCle are the final findings, which were "no wrongdoing". All the rest (allegations subsequently dismissed, unsubstantiated claims of "abuse of power") confuse the issue, and are a potential libellous violation of WP:BLP. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't quite accurate. If allegations are covered by strong sources, such as major newspapers, they can be discussed in the article, although not at such length as to give them undue weight. Looie496 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Palin herself has cited the allegations as part of the reason for her resignation, so can we really claim "undue weight"? Also there has been a lot of strong sources to give these allegations a lot of attention, so again, does "undue weight" really apply? I would think no. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The allegations are covered by secondary sources and are available as public records, so the strength of the sources is not an issue. "Undue weight" is certainly an issue, since the allegations were made by a single individual and disproven in court. Elevating unproven allegations by an individual to the same level as judicial proceedings gives them undue weight. The issue is that some editors are attempting to use the allegations themselves as evidence of wrongdoing, not the outcome of the proceeding. That causes a POV problem and in my opinion should not be part of a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
These never went to court. There is no court case. We must have comments that are informed about the way the process works in AK, we should not have all these falsehoods which only serve to confuse other wikipedians. To repeat there is no court case. Furthermore ethics complaints have been filed by multiple individuals. Yes, each individual complaint has been filed by only one person, but again that is the way the system works. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The complaints were adjudicated by lawful authority, one configured to protect the rights of the accused. Such issues should be weighted towards those rights, as set forth in BLP policy.Jarhed (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase abuse of power is the most egregious problem with the passage, since there's nothing even in the allegations, as described, to justify that kind of phrasing, which is normally used when someone in power is hurting a specific party who is not powerful. The allegation, from what I see of it here, is closer to tax cheating -- something that anybody could try, no official power needed. Palin cited the fact that she was getting ridiculous ethics complaints as one reason for stepping down -- that hardly justifies even this much treatment of allegations that were dismissed. Prominent allegations that are dismissed may still be used in an article because they've been prominent, but that prominence is obviously very limited once they're dismissed. It would be better to try to stick to facts -- say a representative allegation or two which are described in factual terms, not in phrases that are fraught with loaded meanings. -- Noroton (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry

User:Rd232 has done some extensive work on it since your last edit. Does that deal with your concerns? – ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Rd232 That's a great synthesis. Appreciate you bringing to bear your objectivity and higher-level editing. +I have updated the first para; author Roland Perry is onto his 23rd book now. Would also appreciate following up with any questions on how to improve the content and if any further disputes brewing. Haruspex101 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre); and willfully adding a paragraph which directly maligns the subject [see first edit]:

maligns subject

I would appreciate any ideas and assistance to resolve these problems.

Balanced content and sources can give a fair view of the subject; but only if there are the conditions for genuine discussion and development of the content.

Despite many invitations, the YellowMonkey user has not used the Talk:Roland_Perry to discuss content changes to date.

This is all very disappointing.

Haruspex101 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Attempted this DIY Reversion: DIY Revert. Hope YellowMonkey user will take editing proposals to Talk:Roland_Perry. Haruspex101 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

This SPA is an autobiographical spammer YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth

User:Houstonfoochik keeps removing a reference to an article in The Independent, on the grounds that it is "defamatory". I believe it is a reliable source, though admittedly only secondarily relevant to the subject. The article is a commentary on another article (in the Daily Telegraph) about the subject. —Ashley Y 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary: "I have removed, now for the third time, an article which is defamatory and will litigate if it is reinstated. Pleasse take this seriously"

I'm thinking this might be in violation of WP:THREAT? —Ashley Y 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure sounds like a legal threat to me, I would alert an admin at WP:AN/I. -- Ϫ 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a legal threat, but a pointless one, as it is citing something in a national newspaper, and not even commenting on it in the text - unless they have retracted anything about him subsequently (doubtful, as the article would eithe be unavailavle, or edited with the retraction. Thing is though, what is the point of citing it? It is about the media's coverage of something, rather than him - using the media coverage of him as saying something about the media, rather than about him. Mish (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The user has now been blocked. I've rewritten some of the bits in the article to use the references properly, but strictly speaking some of the included cites shouldn't be there, and they certainly shouldn't have been where they were placed. --WebHamster 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This is playing out like WP:DOLT, which bothers me. —Ashley Y 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the source in question from the article. Not because of the legal threat, but because we already had another, better source for the statement it was nominally supporting in the article. The source was an opinion piece that included a rather insulting description of our article's subject, but was written to address a different topic. The opinion piece didn't add to our article, so I pulled it. (For U.S. readers, it would be like sourcing the statement "Barack Obama is President of the United States" with a link to Rush Limbaugh's blog.) Just-the-facts-ma'am newspaper articles are preferred over opinion pieces for establishing basic facts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern is partly that the Telegraph cite is undated and unfindable online, and the Independent cite proves it exists and includes some of its information. The other is that the Independent cite helps establish notability to some small degree. —Ashley Y 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Slight problem - the Independent, if it establishes anything about him, is saying that he is not notable enough to warrant a headline in the Telegraph. So, his main claim to notability is his title, which was used in a report about a more notable event (a bombing in India where 17 people died), and the title was referred to by the Independent criticising the Telegraph for doing so. It establishes his non-notability, and I can't see why he warrants an article. Mish (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
A source can argue non-notability, but by discussing a subject, it inevitably adds to notability. —Ashley Y 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but in this case, it adds notability to the title, not the person who holds the title: Viscount Weymouth. Mish (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, because the Independent article discusses him as a person, with the suggestion that he specifically is not notable enough for the Telegraph headline. —Ashley Y 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
So, if a newspaper notes somebody's lack of notability, that makes them notable in their own right? Mish (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Notability#General notability guideline: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' Mish (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not enough to establish notability (we have the other sources for that), but it certainly adds a little bit. In any case, it's a reliable source that refers to the subject, so it's a relevant link. —Ashley Y 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If he has a problem with a newspaper article, he can sue the newspaper... Stifle (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

John de Nugent

Ugh. de Nugent is a white supremacist, and this biography is relatively new, very lengthy, and its subject is pretty pleased with it. Its creator, User:BobKostro, has created a mess by uploading multiple copyrighted images he claims he has the permission to upload, but there are no OTRS tickets. Since de Nugent thanks Kostro for "this article on me on Wikipedia, which is designed to provide factual and credible information" about his white supremacy, he probably does have permission, but that's not how we operate. Anyway, this article could stand a review, as it read to me almost like an advertisement for de Nugent's white supremacy and his championing of his repeated victimization. -->David Shankbone 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For one thing the article is way too long for such a minor person. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Soulja Boy Tell 'Em

On Soulja Boy Tell 'Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a third opinion was requested for the potential use of Twitter links in order to justify inclusion of a currently circulating story (on blogs) that this rapper had posted a picture of himself in his underwear with an apparently faked bulge in his pants. The opinion given was that the story did inform as to his public persona and had been of sufficient public interest to be considered notable for inclusion if suitable reliable sources could be produced.

This notice has been raised in order to help judge if the article at bestweekever.tv can be considered a reliable source or is a "questionable source" as per the guidance of BLP.

The discussion in question is Talk:Soulja Boy Tell 'Em#Twitter controversy.—Teahot (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The bestweekever.tv article linked on the discussion above begins: "ONTD informs us that rapper Soulja Boy". "ONTD" (Oh No They Didn't!) is a blog; it's actually a LiveJournal.com community account, which means any LiveJournal.com user can contribute a 'celebrity'-gossip related entry. We evaluate sources by determining what sort of fact checking they do. We can look at news articles verifying the site's reliability or significance, show they're backed by a news media company, point to a page that explains how they accept submissions and how they fact check, etc.

The 'article' highlighted comprises two short 2-sentence paragraphs. No About page is clearly visible on the bestweekever.tv site; the site has a VH1 logo in the top right. It is clear the 'article', with the site, is a "Gossip" page, rather than any substantive coverage of music or showbiz. In this specific case, where the gossip piece starts by pointing to a blog anybody can post to as their source for the information, there is no reliable published source for the information. Information and opinion does not become reliable by virtue of being repeated & cited in another source along with a comment.

As no reliable sources providing the information without merely regurgitating earlier unreliable sources have been presented, the information does not belong in the article. The self-published Twitter source in this case is not appropriate, as we do not use such sources to present information with—direct or indirect—commentary as to what we, as editors, believe it "represents". Content that is not required in order to give a neutral encyclopedic article, that is not discussed by reliable published third-party sources as relevant to understanding the living subject as a whole, does not belong in the article. –Whitehorse1 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced claims Kimo Leopoldo have died

Resolved

A report that Leopoldo have died of a heart attack was posted on the MMA.tv-forums and is currently being added to the article. A few unreliable sources have reported on the post, but no reliable sources have confirmed it. I'm at 3RR and would rather not keep reverting alone. Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The death is still not confirmed, but NYDailyNews.com just posted a story that he's "reportedly dead" which is a far cry from the previous posts on various small MMA-blogs. Marking as resolved. --aktsu (t / c) 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to update, he is in fact alive and well. Good job to the NYDailyNews and a few others for reporting his death as fact. --aktsu (t / c) 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan‎

This article is currently at AfD, but may be kept due to the subject's notability as a national polo player. If you look at the page history, it's pretty clear that the user linked above has an agenda. I've both edited the article & !voted for deletion on the AfD, so I'm no longer an 'uninvolved admin'. --Versageek 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Warnke

Oh dear. Am I only one that thinks that, true or not, having him in Category:Impostors and the caption under his pic calling him discredited former "expert" is a bit much? Sticky Parkin 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The tone of the article is way too hostile.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rasul Kudayev

  • Rasul Kudayev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The information presented in this section are not unambiguously supported by the given sources. "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" and "Department of Defense officials claimed Rasul Kudayev was one of 74 former Guantanatmo captives who "are engaged in terrorism or militant activity" are not unambiguously supported by the NYT's sources or any other source. The section should be removed WP:BOP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. I have tried this but have been reverted two times. I think this needs attention here because of WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am curious what the concerned contributor means by "unambiguously supported". In other, related, talk page discussions the concerned contributor has indicated they have concerns over the basic credibility of the DoD's claim. But the wikipedia's policy on verifiability specifically opens with an explanation we aim for "verifiability, not truth". Those of us who have a concern over the credibility of assertions in our legitimate, authoritative, verifiable WP:RS, are plain out of luck. Those sources, and several others, do report that the DoD claims "returned to the fight" after his release from Guantanamo. The DoD's own press releases clearly state this. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop attacking me. That's wrong! I have no concerns over basic credibility of DoD claims. If you have sources, add these sources to the section and possible rewrite the section so it can meet our policies. By the way to use a DoD press release as a source for the DoD claim will not meet WP:NPF. If you have other sources that makes this section meet our policies just add these sources and we are out of here. But as it is now, it is something that should be clearly removed now and not reverted back until it meets WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
To use a press release from Burger King to reference that "Burger King claims..." is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable to say it as an unmitigated fact. In this instance, and all others to which you have pointed, it is clearly used to say "The DoD claims...", and thus its use is legitimate. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That might be the case for some articles but not for an article under WP:NPF. The section in it's current form does not meet WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF and it should be removed first. Also editors should not simply revert the controversial material back. Iqinn (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Iqinn, I am not "attacking" you. Rather I put effort into conducting a meaningful dialogue with you.
  • Iqinn, I don't find what you wrote above clear. You say you don't have any concern over the credibility of the DoD claims -- but then you say those claims don't meet WP:NPF. Why, because being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging? When OJ Simpson was suspected of murdering his wife that too is damaging. Madoff is suspected of swindling a gazillion dollars. We don't suppress coverage of this material because it is damaging to OJ or Madoff.
  • Could you please clarify what kind of additional sources you think are required? Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "At Least One "Recidivist" Tortured to Confess to Terrorism". Reuters. 2009-05-21. Retrieved 2009-07-15. The former detainee, Rasul Kudaev, has been held for more than three years in pretrial detention in Nalchik, a city in southern Russia, where he is accused of participating in an October 2005 armed uprising against the local government. Human Rights Watch's investigations into Kudaev's case found that he was severely beaten soon after his arrest to confess to crimes.
    • "Bush's secret Gitmo diplomacy". Kansas City Star. Retrieved 2009-07-15. The most severely abused was Rasul Kudaev, who was picked up in October 2005 for allegedly participating in an attack on several government buildings in southern Russia. (Kudaev says he was wrongfully accused.) According to Kudaev's lawyer, who visited him in prison shortly after his arrest, one of his legs had been broken and his face beaten to the point of disfigurement.</ref>
    • "US Sent Guantanamo Detainees Home to Torture in Russia". Kansas City Infozine. 2007-03-27. Retrieved 2009-07-15.</ref>
  • The law in many countries for example Germany distinguishes between "Well-known public figures" and "People who are relatively unknown" OJ and Madoff are Well-known public figures and you can almost publish everything even it may damage their reputation. But Rasul Kudayev falls under the category "People who are relatively unknown" and for these people there are a lot of restrictions, to protect there privacy and reputation. Yes being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging to them. And generally not allowed under the law of many countries. Wikipedia could be possible sued for that. That's why we have to be very careful to meet requirements of WP:NPF. I had a short look at the sources you have provided and do not have much hope they are suitable for the section we are speaking about but i will have a closer look tmw. I have put more information here.Iqinn (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Multiple, highly reliable sources" are required. You may can use some of your provided source after rewriting the section. But even you provide sufficient sources there are further requirements for inclusion under WP:NPF. Some of them are not met now. I have put information about that on the articles TalkPage and i suggest we continue our discussion there. I have also removed the section from the page and i hope now you can agree that it should not be re-included until controversies have been solved. Iqinn (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Multiple users have chastised Iqinn for removing references including the New York Times, the Pentagon and other notable sources who can be assumed to be trustworthy enough to at least report that "The Pentagon claims that..." or "The New York Times reported...", which is the case here. He has a history of removing all footnotes from an article, and then calling for the article's deletion on the grounds of no footnotes, and otherwise seems to demonstrate questionable-faith actions specifically related to these sorts of articles. Attempts to resolve the issue on article talk pages, and his own talk pages, are just met with standard "Stop attacking me!" remarks and playing the martyr. FWIW, my opinion suggests this is a case to be decided on the talk-pages of articles, not a BLP noticeboard. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
ad hominem what you say here is a good example. This board is not there for the same people who resist the removal to come out and try to disturb the process. It is there for uninvolved editors and administrators to have a second look at the material and possible remove it, if it does not meet WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF what is clearly the case here. Iqinn (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed this situation as an uninvolved editor, I tend to agree with Geo Swan, et al here. I'm simply not seeing the concerns with WP:NPF and WP:GRAPEVINE that Iqinn cites above. As such, I've restored the section, and I would implore Iqinn not to remove it again without clear consensus to do so. Unitanode 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bertram Earl Jones

Resolved

--Unitanode 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just declined a speedy G10 as it is sourced, but I'm off out in a minute so fresh eyes would be welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I've worked on his a bit, and I think it's more acceptable now. I'm marking it resolved, but feel free to revert that, if you think there's still some issues there. Unitanode 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex Sink

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

There's a persistent anon editor who's continually adding a half-the-length-of-the-article hit piece about this gubernatorial candidate. Can a few people keep an eye on this one? Rebecca (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the alleged transgressions are worthy of inclusion, but to have half the source of the article about this seems to me to be WP:UNDUE weight on the issue. Martin451 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes. I don't know if they warrant mentioning either, but I'm concerned with the clear BLP violation. Rebecca (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have slashed the section down to the basic facts, well-referenced and neutral. I'm declining to mark this resolved as yet, but if the others involved here feel like it is, please mark it as such. Unitanode 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina

Resolved

--Unitanode 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This biography is continually being edited to include poorly sourced information regarding the model's ethnic background. Both of the sources cited in the article are basically soft core pornography sites with low journalistic standards. There is also absolutely nothing in either of the articles which establishes which parent is of what ethnicity, and the page is being edited to intermingle poorly sourced information with the personal opinions of the editor. The issue of this model's ethnic background began as internet speculation and it continues to persist in that vein. It has already been established in the discussion page that there is evidence elsewhere which completely contradicts a mixed Somali-Russian background (i.e. the model's own claim that she is not part Somalian). The article is also being persistently edited to include subjective phrases like "in demand model", "top designers" and "is a favorite with". I think the article should avoid remarks about parentage and race entirely.

  • I've cut this down quite a bit, and -- I think -- addressed the concerns you raised here. I'm tentatively marking it resolved, but feel free to remove that tag, if you feel there are additional issues. Unitanode 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP issues in project space

Resolved

--Unitanode 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this page which appears to have serious BLP issues. Specifically, many of the article requests accuse named individuals of serious crimes, without sourcing. This should be looked into. *** Crotalus *** 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm working on that page right now, Crotalus. I'll be adding bare references for further information on the assertions, for those who may wish to start the articles, and to alleviate any potential BLP concerns. I'm marking this resolved for now, as I'm spending some time working on this problem this afternoon. Unitanode 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles G. Koch

Charles G. Koch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The material in this [edit] is supported only by a single editorial from a marginal news source and is a cut and paste job to boot. A new user User:Stormport keeps adding this material back in. Perhaps some attention might help this situation. Bonewah (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I removed the section, and posted a note at the article talkpage. However, given the tenor of the adding editors edit summaries and talkpage contributions, I think it would be premature to mark this issue resolved at this point. Unitanode 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talgat Tadzhuddin

Resolved

--Unitanode 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Talgat Tadzhuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Could someone please take a look at this article? It is completely unreferenced yet makes some serious assertions. Note that the External links section purports to contain links to external newspaper articles, but in fact are just wikilinks to the Wikipedia articles on the newspapers themselves. Normally I would clean the article up myself, but if I remove the unsourced and dubious info there really isn't much of anything left. ponyo (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm new to this board, but am very interested in BLP issues. I'll have a look. Unitanode 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed all uncited controversial claims, and cut down the article by over half. If someone who is more familiar with the MOS regarding foreign names could take a look at the parenthetical that includes about two lines of foreign translations of the names, that might be helpful as well. Do my edits take care of your concerns Ponyo? Unitanode 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely! The article can now be built up with proper sourcing etc. Thanks for the quick response Unitanode. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. I also readded the gay pride parade thing, but worded neutrally, and sourced. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Unitanode 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidates in an Election

Resolved

--Unitanode 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if someone disinterested in Houston Politics could look over the articles for the candidates in the Houston mayoral election, 2009.

Specifically: Annise Parker, Gene Locke, Peter Hoyt Brown, and Roy Morales. --Nogburt (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • What are your specific concerns in re: these particular articles? Unitanode 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The major editors (including myself) are not disinterested observers of the election campaign. I'd like to recuse myself from any non-hard-fact (birth date, etc...) editing of any of them. My specific concerns are that these pages may be used to promote their subjects. --Nogburt (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    I will watchlist them all, and will take a quick pass through them, but without specific issue on specific articles, I can't promise any big changes. I will definitely keep an eye on them, though. Would you feel comfortable with my marking this issue resolved for now? If any specific issues arise, we can always open a new thread at that time. Unitanode 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    That seems alright. All I'm really looking for is for someone who isn't interested in a particular outcome to read the four articles and determine whether or not they are being used to promote or bash their subjects. And of course talk page comments as appropriate would be good. Just as long as the only folks looking at the articles and determining whether or not they are fair are the supporters of the various candidates. --Nogburt (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Professor Carl Hewitt

Professor Carl Hewitt has again been attacked in the article about him on Wikipedia.68.170.176.166 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt is another amazing Wikipedia scandal. Does Jimmy Wales know about it? 71.198.220.76 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia needs a new policy: Don't be evil! 67.180.134.170 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any Wikipedia policy (including "Don't be evil") which has been violated here by anyone other than Carl Hewitt and the Students (which sounds like a good name for a rock band). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This incident shows that Wikipedia needs a code of ethics for Administrators and Arbitrators. 63.249.108.250 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if what Carl says is accurate (which is not a forgone conclusion), there doesn't seem to be any policy or "code of ethics" which is violated, by anyone other than Carl. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If Arthur Rubin speaks for Wikipedia, then the situation is far worse than most people imagined.63.249.108.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
Explain what policy, guideline, or proposal that has been violated by the people Carl thinks are opposing him? I can name a number of guidelines which have been violated by Carl. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And I clearly don't speak for Wikipedia, nor do they speak for me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what the anon is asking be done here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he wants Charles Matthews removed as an arbitrator, or perhaps the subject's restrictions against editing Wikipedia removed. Most of this rotating anon's comments on Talk:Carl Hewitt seem related to that section of one of CH's essays against Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


The complaint in Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt seems to be that the following section of the article violates NPOV:

Hewitt's changes to the "Logic programming"[4] article sparked some criticism by Robert Kowalski and the logic programming community.[5]
Well, it seems it was accurate at the time, but Kowalski didn't understand Wikipedia (either; I don't think it's a violation of any BLP to say that neither Kowalski nor Hewitt understood the Wikipedia model at the time they edited.) What specific change would you suggest? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The facts as indicated in Kowalski's ALP newsletter article seem to be as follows:
  1. Kowalski was involved in an edit war with Hewitt from 30 March through 11 April 2007
    (Perhaps about the definition; it wasn't entirely clear).
  2. Kowalski proposed a definition fork, with Kowalski's preferred definition being in logical programming.
  3. "The administrator enforcing the ban" decided against the fork.
This seems to have left the article in a confused state, as neither Hewitt (because of the ban) nor Kowalski (because ...?) feels able to improve the article.
Does that seem an appropriate analysis of Kowalski's article? If so, Hewitt's changes did spark criticism by Kowalski and the logic programming community, but so did the admin's action in locking the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The above is not a bad account although it needs to be augmented with information from [6] and [7]. Also it needs to be put in the context of the larger story (see Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt).70.231.253.115 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
According to [6]:
A recent example of Wikipedia libel occurred when Hewitt became involved in an academic dispute with Robert Kowalski over a Computer Science research area called “Logic Programming.” Kowalski appealed to an Administrator of Wikipedia to intervene in the dispute. Thus Kowalski was in effect promoting his own side of an academic dispute by participating in Hewitt's censorship by Wikipedia. (See [7]] for a detailed discussion of the dispute.)
Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Wikipedia official) favored Kowalski’s side and using his Wikipedia power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Wikipedia) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to Hewitt; see [6].)
When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that "you [Matthews] discussed this story with the [Wikipedia Public Relations] committee prior to publication [of the Observer’s libelous attack on Hewitt], and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom [Arbitration Committee] member to do." However, Mathews was "unrepentant" about his behavior. His justification was that his instigation of the libelous Observer attack on Hewitt resulted in continued favorable publicity for Wikipedia by the same reporter. Also, the article served as an object lesson intended to intimidate other academics from challenging censorship by Wikipedia Administrators less the same thing happen to them.

Given that we are on the topic of the incompleteness of the article, the talk page says:

"Ruud Koot removed the following material from the article:

Hewitt's recent work has centered on foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing.[8] This approach to cloud computing focuses on clients that are "privacy-friendly" because of the following
  • by default clients store information in the cloud that can only be unencrypted using the client's private key[9]
  • semantic integration of diverse sorts of information (calendar, email, contacts, documents, search results, presence information, etc.) is performed on the clients[10]
This work has resulted in the following developments:[11]


  1. ^ Carl M Cannon. (1988, August 7). HANDLING OF RUMORS STIRS DEBATE IN THE MEDIA. Philadelphia Inquirer,C.1. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1350979931).
  2. ^ "California extremist whips up Aids crusade / US public health debate stirred up by controversial politician Lyndon LaRouche". The Times. London. November 1 1986.
  3. ^ Olnick, Philip (SEPTEMBER 2. 1987). "Woman who works with AIDS victims found not guilty of battery". THE FREDERICK POST. (FREDERICK. MD). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Logic programming".
  5. ^ Robert Kowalski (May/June 2007). "Logic Programming in Wikipedia Update" (PDF). Association for Logic Programming Newsletter. 20 (2). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ a b c Carl Hewitt Corruption of Wikipedia Google Knol.
  7. ^ a b Carl Hewitt Middle History of Logic Programming ArXiv 0904.3036
  8. ^ Video recording of "Scalable Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing: a gathering Perfect Disruption" Stanford Computer Systems Colloquium on October 22, 2008.
  9. ^ Carl Hewitt (September/October 2008). "ORGs for Scalable, Robust, Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing". IEEE Internet Computing. 12 (5). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Carl Hewitt (January/February 2009). "Perfect Disruption: The Paradigm Shift from Mental Agents to ORGs". IEEE Internet Computing. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Carl Hewitt. "A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing". ArXiv January 30, 2009
  12. ^ a b Hewitt, Carl. "Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection". ArXiv. December 30, 2008.

Hussein Salem Mohammed

It is still an issue, in my opinion, because I continue to believe that Iqinn has misinterpreted policy.
I have done my best to refrain from challenging Iqinn's good faith. I am disappointed that he or she seems unwilling or unable to extend the same courtesy to me.
Iqinn recently initiated two threads on WPANI. In my limited experience with WPANI regular readers there don't appreciate issues being raised there, that have already been raised in another forum. So, I will be responding here to the comments Iqinn left at WPANI. Geo Swan (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Coming from ANI, I have closed the thread there and protected the article for a month to stop the edit war over these medical records. In my opinion, this is not primarily a BLP matter as long as the records are factually true (i.e., well-sourced) and in the public record anyway; rather, this is an editorial matter that needs to be sorted out on the talk page. Consider a WP:3O.  Sandstein  07:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am convinced it is a BLP issue. Highly problematic material it should be taken down until there is clear consensus. Still needs to be removed from these articles: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] [27], [28].. Iqinn (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking into your contribution history, it seems you're attempting to remove a lot of sourced material from various articles related to terrorist suspects. Why? Most of the material I've seen has been reliably sourced, and at some point -- when nearly every editor looking into the matters disagrees with you, perhaps -- you should step back and ask yourself whether what you are doing is productive. Unitanode 19:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's wrong in fact many editors agree with me. I have removed material only from a relatively small number of articles We speak of about 500-1000 articles surrounding terrorism suspects and the same problem replicates often into many similar articles. All of the articles have been written by the same person. The most articles have never been reviewed by the wider community. I remove material only if there are serious BLP issues. Iqinn (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Abdulhadi Abdallah Ibrahim al Sharakh

  • Iqinn keeps calling this material "poorly sourced":
    1. On May 20th Elizabeth Bumiller of the NYTimes did report a DoD claim that "one in seven" former captives were supporting terrorism -- based on an unpublished DoD fact sheet;
    2. The NYTimes report of the DoD claim was widely repeated;
    3. The NYTimes report of the DoD claim was embroidered;
    4. The NYTimes report was challenged over its fact checking, and journalistic integrity;
    5. A week later, on May 27th, the DoD published a report that was either the same or similar to the unpublished report the NYTimes had based its report on.
    6. Eventually the NYTimes ombudsman published criticism of Bumiller's May 20th article;
    7. But, as I have pointed out to Iqinn many times already, the specific claims the DoD has made are verifiable to May 27th DoD fact sheet. So they are not poorly sourced.
In his or her initial comments on the DoD claims it seemed to me that Iqinn was objecting to the wikipedia covering the claims because he or she thought they weren't credible, weren't truthful. But that is not our concern. We have to comply with WP:VER, which says we have to neutrally report what our verifiable authoritative references state. WP:VER says our aim should be "verifiability, not truth". When we doubt the credibility of our sources, when our personal opinion is at odds with what our references state, we have two choices: (1) forget our personal opinion, and stick strictly to what our references state; or (2) choose not to work on that article.
Iqinn was offended when I suggested they may have misunderstood WP:VER. But, based on their continued claim that the material is poorly sourced I continue to be concerned that their concern is based on a misunderstanding of WP:VER. Geo Swan (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When a source (here the NYT's) writes an article with serious allegations and days later add a note to that article that they were wrong and 'misreported'. Than it is irresponsibly to put only the 'misreported' allegations into the article as this could be harmful for the individual covered in the BLP.
Sorry but seeing your post here and others i ask myself if you are a Filibuster.
The talk page of the article where the material needs to be removed is here. Iqinn (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask you, for again, that you show us all the courtesy of re-reading the references, to confirm or refute whether they actually say what you seem to think they say.
The NYTimes link above continues to name 29 men the DoD claims were suspected or confirmed of "reengaging in terrorism". I am well aware that this material you find so objectionable has been commented upon by Clark Hoyt, the NYTimes ombudsman. He has acknowledged that Elizabeth Bumiller's May 20th article fell short of the journalistic standards the NYTimes aims for. But, no doubt unintentionally, you are seriously misrepresenting how far the NYTimes disavowal retraction went. You are also misrepresenting how long passed between the original article, and the ombudsman's apology. It was not "a few days". The ombudsman's partial apology was published two and a half weeks later.
The DIA published a memo a week after the information was leaked to the NYTimes, that also published those names. It is possible that this is a different memo than the one leaked to Bumiller, and on which she based her May 20th article. But it also, officially, lists those men. So the report that they were suspected of "reengaging in terrorism" does not rely on the NYTimes.
I was well aware of the NYTimes' ombudsman's comment, and I worked to draft our coverage to neutrally and accurately reflect what our WP:RS stated. At one point you said that the NYTimes' ombudsman's offered a partial apology for the May 20th article should accompany every reference to the claims initially published in the May 20th article. Since I thought my coverage of the NYTimes reporting on this issue didn't go any farther than the version it currently bears on its website I thought it was unnecessary to mention the ombudsman's partial apology on ever single article that referenced them.
I tried to address your concerns by suggesting that a fuller discussion of the May 20th article, be placed in one central place, and that the articles on each of the men named, should state they were named, and then link to that one central fuller discussion. [29], [30] I suggested that central discussion could cover how widely the original May 20th article was pounced upon by former Bush officials, and their defenders, how widely repeated its claims were, the challenges to its weakest elements, the ombudsman partial apology. I was frankly disappointed that you didn't see fit to honor my suggestions with a serious, meaningful reply.
So, no offense, I continue to believe that your repeated assertion that this information is not properly sourced is based on a no doubt unintentional policy misunderstanding on your part. Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at the sources already many times. Primary sources and really not the most trustful one. Full of serious allegations. So we rely on secondary sources who have a look at it to tell us what it means. Looks not like it isn't easy. As the NYT's got it that much wrong. That's why we rely on multiply secondary sources for serious allegations in BLP's of relative unknown individuals. If you really want to press this into the article.. that's causes really headache. The NYT's has change it's position about various things. To figure out there final position is difficult. Really headache... It must be phrased very carefully. People have started to re-write the section and i have also made an edit even i still believe it would be the best to cut out the section for the moment. Many sources will appear in the future if the allegations are really true. Iqinn (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Brie Gertler

I think she just squeaks by. If anyone wants to make an issue of it, there is always AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

Just doing due diligence on a source. Does this article meet BLP requirements? Yworo (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • This incident strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. I've never heard of Datamation before. Has this been covered anywhere else (outside of blogs / other unacceptable sources)? If not, then including it in the article would probably constitute undue weight. If it has been discussed in several other reliable sources, then maybe a sentence or two could be justified. *** Crotalus *** 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is so dumb. Everyone knows hacker grrls do it with vi, emacs is for wimps :D Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't include it, not because it's particularly a BLP issue, but because there are many more notable criticisms of Stallman that including it would be giving it UNDUE weight. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sons of Maxwell

This version includes questionable/contradictory/badly sourced biographical material on the lead singer, Dave Carroll in the "Personal life" section. I just want a second opinion rather than removing it myself. Thanks TH (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Moved from ANI.

We are having an issue here, and it concerns StephenLaurie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a suspected sock of User:Eleemosynary,an indefinitely blocked editor who has resumed activity at the article where the suspected sockmaster had been article banned. This article has been placed on probation by ArbCom and problematic editors can be article-banned at Admin discretion. On 21 July 2009, after several episodes of what might be described as "suspicious and tenditious" editing by User:StephenLaurie, an Arbitration Enforcement Request was filed by Durova280, as seen here. In part, she said:

StephenLaurie is an editor with highly focused interests, arguably a single purpose account. Nearly all of his article and article talk edits have been to the Matt Sanchez article and the related Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article.[31] The Matt Sanchez biography, a BLP, is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be Eleemosynary, who was article banned from Matt Sanchez in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account,[32] the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history.[33] With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username)[34][35][36][37] then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk.[38] Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report),[39] and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly.[40] A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog.[41] Durova280 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

These diffs show evidence of possible sockpuppetry by StephenLaurie, dubious editing habits, and the appearance of an SPA account. After deliberating,  Sandstein  felt there was insufficient evidence (partly due to technical shortcomings in the diffs) for an offical ArbCom sanction; however, the door was very specifically left open for individual Admins to review and apply their discretion.

All BLPs are sensitive and one that is on article probation is obviously much more so. In addition to issues raised by Durova, I had concerns about StephenLaurie's interaction wiith almost all other editors on that page, and his attitudes toward both the article and its subject. Specifically:

negative aspersions and speculation about good faith editors]

veiled accusations of meatpuppetry when others oppose his view

this entire line of dialogue was offensive in tone and nature as he (again, veiled) attacked the character of an honorable editor.

Finally, certain apects of his edit summaries like this, taken in conjunction with his other comments, give a certain air of excitability and paranoia to his editing. These are not greatly desireable elements in someone editing a delicate and controversial BLP.

Finally, as seen throughout most of his talkpage remarks, he seems opposed to any change which might cast a favorable light on Matt Sanchez, the article subject. That, combined with concerned comments from other editors, have led me to conclude that his participation in this article has become counterproductive. It appears that some sort of intervention is needed, and I invite the scrutiny of interested parties. Doc Tropics 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize this was a lengthy report about a complicated situation, but it's a wee bit demoralizing that over 18 hours after this was posted, not a single response has acknowledged being aware of it. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?Doc Tropics 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered posting this at WP:BLP/N? –xenotalk 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit I hadn't. This is only the third time in three years I've actually initiated a report like this. I was hoping for some Admin oversight, so brought it here. Is BLP/N the more appropriate venue? And if it is, should I delete this report from AN/I, or just leave it? Would moving it be considered forum shopping, or just correcting an oversight? And thanks for responding, I really appreciate it! Doc Tropics 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved it here for you. These folks are better versed about the BLP policies and the like. Administrators watch here too. It's not forum shopping since your report hasn't been actioned yet, so you're not seeking a better answer =) –xenotalk 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Doc Tropics, if you and Durova believe this is a sockpuppetry case, it needs to go to WP:SPI, where a checkuser can be run if needed. The sort of circumstantial evidence provided here is probably not enough, by itself, for a block.  Sandstein  17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I have repeatedly failed to file this report "properly", or in the proper venue; I hope that my clumsiness won't be seen as prejudicial in itself. Given that this situation is currently under discussion at 2 different boards, I'm profoundly reluctant to move it or refile it myself. Doc Tropics 19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary. Nathan T 19:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Nathan. I believe that evaluating the sock aspects (if any) of this case separately by the sock specialists will be beneficial. Durova's evidence is certainly grounds for a closer look, but that can't usefully be done at ANI, AE or BLPN. We can continue to discuss any required arbitration enforcement action against either editor independently of who (if anybody) turns out to be a sock.  Sandstein  20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks very much Nathan; your actions are appreciated. Doc Tropics 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul H. Carr (physicist)

The subject of the Paul H. Carr (physicist) article created it last week and I moved and expanded it. He is now interested in selectively removing certain publicly available information for privacy reasons. My own opinion is that if it's properly cited and neutral, it doesn't violate any policies and therefore it should stay, but as he and I are the only ones to have edited the article, I think it's time to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is publicly available, does not mean that wikipedia has to include it. If PaulCarr57 is the subject of the article and he does not want the material that he has removed being replaced, then I think it should be left out, given that he is not super famous. I think some other article subjects have also had similar information removed. Martin451 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read BLP policy, specifically the part which actually addresses how to handle private information particularly birthdates? Further can you tell me what the citation is for this information? All the sources appear to be offline ones and the info we're discussing is not directly cited so I can only guess. Is it the Marquis Who's Who source? If so, I doubt that this meets our requirements that the information be widely published given that we don't even accept it to establish notability of a person (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) note 5) Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The information is directly cited from Who's Who; the fact that Who's Who is not accepted for purposes of notability is beside the point. "Offline" is a tricky word and there's probably no benefit to us debating that here. Suffice to say that because more effort than a Google search is required to access a source online does not make it "offline". I believe that if a person does not wish their exact date of birth to be publicly known, they should not submit it to a publicly available book, and the policy does cover exactly that case: "have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release". I think that publication of one's information in sixteen different editions between 1986 and 2002 constitutes such reasonable inference. On the other hand, the subject of this article does fall into the "err on the side of caution" follow-on note. (For what it's worth, my opinion that this section of the policy is quite ill-advised, because it's only a baby step from there to "no, I'm not a member of <insert organization here>" or "no, I don't want it known that I was married to <so-and-so> in my article" and similar. That's not what Wikipedia is about.)  Frank  |  talk  14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Young Republicans

The controversy section of this article had some allegations of racism against the chairman. I found an IP (98.23.14.232) vandalizing/removing references from it, and reverted it as vandalism first, but blanked the section later as some of the sources appear to be blogs. From the page history it seems the text has been removed and put back several times[42][43]. As I said I'm not sure about the reliability of the refs, help from experienced users would be appreciated. Thanks —SpaceFlight89 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I request more eyes on this article as well. Some jackanapes slapped me with a level 3 warning for removing material that violated BLP. Mike R (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Homer Moore

BLP article edited extensively by the subject, User:Homer16moore. While the article is much better than most BLP's by the subject, it still needs some cleanup and help from BLP-experienced wikipedians. McJEFF (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chloe Smith - assuming office

Someone repeatedly has posted that Chloe Smith took office on both July 23, 2009 and July 24, 2009. First of all, it is impossible for someone to assume an office the day before the result was announced - so please STOP claiming July 23 as this day. Secondly, it is sourced numerous places that she is not an MP, merely elected to the seat. It technically remains vacant until she is seated in the house in October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohrflote (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As the man said, MPs take office when the polls close on election night (even though the result is not known). The oath they take later just allows them to sit in the House of Commons. So Chloe Smith was elected as an MP on 23 July 2009. If you're unhappy with this rule, you probably need to take it up with the ombudsman or something. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As I have just mentioned on the talk page, there is at least person who became an MP posthumously, and therefore could not take the oath, or sit in parliament. She has been elected as an MP, and the returning officer has declared this. It does not matter whether she actually takes her seat, see e.g. Bobby Sands Martin451 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Then there are those who were elected, but would not take the oath and therefore did not take their seats (eg, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness). They were still elected MPs, however. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mika Brzezinski

Resolved

--Unitanode 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Removing the 3RR violation text from my report (I am formulating a response on the user's page now). The BLP notice still stands, however. This is poorly-sourced blog material. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      I would encourage you to restore it, but struck-through, as it makes NH's response to your report a bit confusing. Unitanode 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For an insertion of material as potentially volatile as this is ("ill advised remarks regarding the racist arrest"), I don't believe that Kos is enough. Also, 3RR is just a "bright line", not a "permission to edit war up to here" standard. If one knows when they're "at the limit", it's probably an indication that more discussion -- not assessment of where the limits of our reversions are -- is in order. Unitanode 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I neutralized the section. It now reads a more neutral "Brzezinski made remarks regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates. Guests, including Harold Ford Jr, were quick to criticise her." I think criticism is OK, and if people want more information, they can link to the referenced article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Your latest version of the edit certainly seems more BLP-compliant, though I would still say that Kos is a bit dodgy as a source for any type or potentially controversial material. I would say the same thing about Little Green Footballs as well. Unitanode 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Using The Daily Kos as a source has been discussed here, but I don't see clear consensus. My suggestion is to post the question to WP:RSN to gather additional input. My personal opinion is that the information should be removed until The Daily Kos can be confirmed as a reliable source by consensus at WP:RSN. ponyo (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not saying that Kos isn't the best source in the world, because they do slant "left" and that isn't unbiased coverage (like you would find at ABC for example) but I think, at the moment at least, until other sources can be found, it is good enough.....for now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "good enough.....for now" isn't good enough for a BLP article. When an article makes a claim about a person, especially one that can be viewed in a negative light, it is our duty as responsible NPOV editors to make sure the sources are as reliable as possible. The very fact that you cast a bit of doubt on Kos tells me you shouldn't use it. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can create an account [44] and write their own diaries there. I wonder how Susan S's diary could be considered anything but unreliable source… —SpaceFlight89 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, now it doesn't matter. User:SpaceFlight89 removed it as it was written not by one of Daily Kos journalists, but one of the diarists (everyman bloggers). That is definitely not RS. If it were a Kos writer, I would say it was, but it is an everyman (in this case everywoman) so it is out. I will completely admit that I didn't check the link first. That is my fault and I apologize. So....this is over? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    I believe it is resolved now, and have marked it as such. Unitanode 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive67&oldid=1146453389"