Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repeat violation: Contentious material about living person Petro Voinovsky

Unfortunately, the contentious material has reappeared in its former position, only now to be joined with additional undocumented text in the sentence immediately following. Please remove this incorrect and libelous material as soon as possible. I hope this offense does note continue to reoccur. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in this matter. // Kerhonkson09 (talk)

According to this Indiana University Press publication, he died in 1996; the book places him in a context that is at least consistent with the statement in the article. The source quoted in the article is a translation of an article in American Russian-language newspaper Novoye Russkoye Slovo, as given on remember.org: [1] Is that a good enough source, even if the subject is deceased? JN466 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The sole mention of Petro Voinovsky in the book states the following: "Likewise, in recently published memoirs of the battalion's former commander, Petro Voinovsky (1913-1996), recalls that the unit arrived while 'the Khreshchatyk was burning.'" My contention is that this statement does not specifially implicate the individual as the article currently intends. The statement could very easily have been taken out of context. Would not linking the full context of the individual's statement in the actual "published memoirs" be the more prudent maneuver, especially considering the targeted opinion of the book's author? Likewise, the article in the American Russian-language newspaper reads more like a wild opinion than a properly documented research article in a respectable publication. I cannot see a single, reliable source in the entire article that doesn't follow a circle of poorly cited and unproven material. I appeal again for you assistance in the matter. Thank you. // Kerhonkson09 (talk)
I wonder if, given that the subject appears to be deceased, the question is not really one as to the reliability of the Novoye Russkoye Slovo, and of the website on which the article translation is given. It is certainly not brilliant. I think I'll start a post on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). --JN466 23:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana King

Dana King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Comments have shown up several times regarding Dana King's political views. The information is unsourced and potentially damaging, because as a news anchor at CBS 5 it is a violation of her contract to discuss her personal political views. I am asking that comments regarding her political views be blocked. See [2] Kpixtvprint09 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information like this shouldn't be added. If it's sourced (to reliable sources), it's fine. Rd232 talk 12:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Arindam Chaudhuri

Kindly have a look at the page Arindam Chaudhuri as some users are using Unethical language. Please help to stop it.--Gurmeet singgh (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rosario Marin

At Rosario Marin, User:ElvisWasMyDaddy (talk) keeps trying to put in the following sentence: "But what Marin neglected to tell the CFPPC is that the state's attorneys represent the state, not Marin or her private business interests" or some variation of that sentence. I have kindly explained to him/her on his/her talk page that the statement lacks a proper source. Nothing in the article's current sources, nor anything that I could find on the web supports this assertion (that is, we have no way of proving what Marin did or did not tell the CFPPC- there is no publicly available report that I can find, nor any newspaper article, nothing). His/her reply was simply that it is common sense that state attorney's represent the state, not public officials- to which I replied that that is not the point, the point is that the statement clearly tells us Wikipedians what Marin did or did not say to this commission without providing a proper source to prove it. On a side note, this user's account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of editing this article. The Original Historygeek (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Update- This issue is now being discussed on the article's talk page and, hopefully, may be resolved there. The Original Historygeek (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Freston

User from IP address 24.43.17.164 has repeatedly edited the Kathy Freston article, removing a good deal of referenced material without cause or explination. I have left an invitation to discuss the matter in the talk page; however, this user has persisted in not only deleting information not entirely flattering to the subject, but has replaced it with material that comes directly from the subject's promotional material, clearly violating the neutral pov policy. S/he does not appear to want to discuss the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.166.11 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

John Fashanu

Please have a look at this edit in the biography of a former UK footballer and TV personality. It's the first edit by a new account with expert use of a citation template. I can't decide whether the allegation is relevant to the article, if it's compatible with WP:BLP, and if the source (a Nigerian newspaper) is good enough. JN466 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Kapoustin and User:MKapoustin

Help is needed at Michael Kapoustin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MKapoustin (talk · contribs) disputes this reversion, which removed unsourced content. This user is the subject of the article (see Talk:Michael Kapoustin) and is having WP:OWN issues (see User talk:Ttonyb1#Michael Kapoustin - On the Question of POV, permalink). Could someone experienced with this kind of stuff keep an eye on this article? Cunard (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is reliable sourcing potentially available for some of the content he wanted included, albeit through quotations attributed to his wife. Certainly it needs to be represented more duly in the article than his initial drafts, but there's probably some middle ground to be found. Definitely never hurts to have more eyes on a wp:blp, especially one in which the subject is on-wiki and has expressed concerns. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Heinz Nawratil (again)

I am re-posting this request for comment relating to Heinz Nawratil in the Expulsion of Germans - last time it was here [3] but it didn't manage to attract much attention. Now the page has been protected pending the resolution of the BLP issue.

There are two questions here. 1) Can Nawratil be described as "extreme right wing author" (or "nationalist") and 2) can it be mentioned that he has written articles for the Holocaust denial/revisionist Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review (which has been described as a "an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations").

Sources

Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat

The "extreme right wing" is sourced to an article by Ingo Haar, a respected German historian. Haar in turn is relying on Martin Broszat, one of the most well known and prominent German historians of the post war period. The article is in Polish (though the author is German) and I have provided the relevant translation at the talk page. The source itself is here: [4] (pdf). The claim has been made that this is only an "indirect connection" and not enough for a BLP statement.

Writing for Holocaust denial journal

One of Nawratil's articles for the Journal of Historical Review is here [5]. In the article Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as "the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth" (this should probably be enough to call Nawratil a Holocaust denier)

So far the only outside comment has stated that this is enough to source the claim and not violate BLP.

I would very much appreciate it if further outside editors could take a look at the provided links and sources and comment on the articles' talk page or here.radek (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP problem. Sourcing being in other languages is not a problem under WP:V. The sourcing is clear and sufficient. The matter is also relevant to the subject at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil is misquoted above, the "quotes" from the Journal of Hist. Rev. are taken from the (italicized) introduction clearly not written by Nawratil, as the intro is referring to him as a third person. Further, I don't either see a problem with the language of the source, my problem is that if Nawratil is a neo_nazi, then many sources should say so, not just one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Still, he is writing for the major Holocaust denial journal/institute and praising a Holocaust denier. And we're not writing that he is a neo-nazi, rather that he is associated with the extreme right, which he obviously is, as the sources show.radek (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd like to note that we are not putting in the article that Nawratil is a 'neo-nazi' - since the sources don't say that. What is proposed that in the article he is referred to as 'associated with the extreme right' and a 'nationalist' - which the sources DO say, and that he writes for a Holocaust-denying journal - which he clearly does.radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the German "nationalist extreme far-right" is exactly what is colloquially referred to as (neo-)Nazis. I agree that in the far-right there are people believing in all kinds of fringe stuff, not only the verbatim Nazi ideologies. Yet, at least in German media, "far-right"/"extreme-right" etc and "neo-Nazi" are redundant terms. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but we are not proposing to put anything about the colloquial use of the word "neo-Nazi" in the article - we are proposing to put in the article that he is a associated with the extreme right, a nationalist, and a revisionist who writes for Holocaust denial journals which is what the sources say - readers can draw their own conclusion as to whether this makes him a neo-Nazi or not.radek (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

h-net.org/reviews

Here is another source which clearly takes a similar view of his writings [6]: By far the most cited secondary source for the DVD-ROM's "background" passages is Heinz Nawratil's Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, first published in 1982 and re-issued almost annually ever since. It is an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization. An excerpt titled "Prelude to Expulsion," for example, placed in the midst of video clips about the fall of Breslau, provides an account of German-Polish relations from 1918 through 1939 that consists exclusively of Polish mistreatment of Germans. The bibliography provided by the DVD-ROM is taken directly from the (then) most recent addition of Nawratil's Schwarzbuch. It includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime but none published in eastern Europe, either before or after 1989. Read as a text document, in other words, Die Grosse Flucht is jarringly dated and one-sided, a kind of time capsule of the rhetoric of the Bund der Vertriebenen circa 1955radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is a review of a Guido Knopp documentary that used one of Nawratil's books as a source. The reviewer says that this book is an "unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization", not that Nawratil is far-right. That Knopp used Nawratil as a source indicates that Knopp consideres him reliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is a review of Knopp's. But it says that Nawratil's book includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime'.11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

gew-huf-kassel.de and Grabert website

My German's next to non existent but thanks to the wonders of technology and babel fish a few relevant German language sources can be added here. For example this [7]. As far as I can make out on page 35 it states that Heinz Nawratil published together with Jorg Haider (who, according to Wiki's own article was known "for comments that were widely condemned as praising Nazi policies or as xenophobic or anti-Semitic") and Gerhard Frey ("politician and chairman of the far-right party Deutsche Volksunion, which he founded in 1971") through a publishing house of Grabert (here's google translation of German wiki on what is "one of the largest and most well-known extreme right-wing publishing houses in the Federal Republic of Germany" [8] and which as it happens, also launched the career of David Hoggan who's the guy who brought Holocaust denial to America) and which is described as a "central organ for revisionists" (i.e. Holocaust deniers) and something of a platform for writers of the "spectrum from radical right to neo-fascist". That last part I could use some help with if we have anyone who's fluent in German, but it's pretty clear what the gist is.

Not a RS: The source is an anti-fashist subgroup of a student organization. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the fact that they are an anti-fascist German watchgroup does not make them unreliable since that's the most likely source to list this kind of organization.radek (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the ASTA is the Allgemeine STudentenAusschuss, the elected representative body of all the students at a University, not just any student organization. Zara1709 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the website of Grabert publishing house (the major publisher of Holocaust denial in US and similar materials in Germany, see above) confirms the fact that Nawratil, Jorg Heider and Gerhard Frey all published from it in the same volume, together with the ALFRED Schickel we keep running into here (the guy who called the Holocaust "the extermination myth"): The Genocide of the Germans with foreward by Jorg Haider, chapters by Nawratil, Alfred Schickel, Gerhard Frey and Rolf-Josef Eibicht (according to German wiki an author from the extreme right wing spectrum. I'm sure other names on that list have some nice pedigrees as well.radek (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

imi-online.de

Since I'm doing this through online translators it's slow going but there's also this [9] (crappy google translation here [10] - but you can copy paste relevant passages into babel fish) - on page 18 it says (translated through Babelfish) apparently that Nawratil used to belong to the Wiking-Jugend ("a German Neo-Nazi organization modelled after the Hitlerjugend") and is listed among "the names of constituted right-wing extremists".

If anyone fluent in German wishes to provide more exact translation, I'd very much welcome it, but I think it's pretty obvious that if anything, the description that is being considered in the article text UNDERSTATES the degree of this guy's involvement with the extreme right.radek (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

the IMI source (an NGO) counts Nawratil as a "known right-wing extremist", and says he was an official in the Wiking-Jugend. Rd232 talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. Does the other one say that he wrote articles with Jorg Haider for a Holocaust denying publisher?radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The other source [11] says Nawratil published with Haider and Frey in the "50 years of expulsions" book published by the Grabert Verlag. It adds that Grabert Verlag published "Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart", which the source describes as the "central organ" (sometimes trans "mouthpiece") of revisionism in Germany. The document gives as a source for these claims the Handbuch deutscher Rechtsextremismus, p412. Note that the book "50 years of expulsions" [12] is a collection of work by different authors, so Nawaratil didn't collaborate with Haider and Frey, only publish in the same collection. Rd232 talk 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS: The source is an organization dedicated to unveal the "creeping militarization of Germany" (self-identification at http://www.imi-online.de/). --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the fact that this is an NGO does not disqualify it from being a RS. Please note that the source does not engage in any hyperbolic claims, merely notes that Nawratil used to be in Wiking-Jugend.radek (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

apabiz.de and Nawratil's publisher

Oh, and here's another one. Apparently Nawratil works for Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt as can be seen on this website: [13]. The ZFI is, according to Wiki, "a historical revisionist association", which of course means Holocaust denial and it "is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany. On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied". And out of the three functionaries of the association the other one is no other than the Dr. Alfred Schickel that we've met above, the same guy who talks about the "extermination myth" and whom Nawratil praises in the pages of the IHR journal. Again, someone fluent in German may wish to provide of the organization's mission statement as found under "Aktivitäten" on their website.radek (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The link you give is not the website of the ZFI, it's of an anti-fascist NGO [14] which lists Nawratil as a board member of the ZFI in its profile of the ZFI. I can't find a website for the ZFI. Rd232 talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right it's not their website - I caught that and corrected my statement above. It looks like a site that keeps track of right wing extremists and groups.radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
In a nutshell the website says that the ZFI is a right wing think tank dedicated to the trivialization of Nazi war crimes. They also research war crimes against the Germans in the expulsions. I am busy now, let me check this out on the German internet later today--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Pointer, since the Nazis and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany, these folks set up front organizations that use code words to communicate with the extreme right.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This link is informative, the ZFI is apparently mainstream in Bavaria, kein wunder!! A SPD delegate in Bavaria, a stronghold of the CSU, is questioning why the ZFI is not being sanctioned by the government. He questions why government officials sent greetings to the ZFI [15]--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS: The source is a self-identifying anti-fashist information center. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a feeling that any source I provided will be called not RS. Again, there's no extreme claims made here, just that Nawratil works for ZFI.radek (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And again, it turns out that Nawratil's own book was published by ZFI ("one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany"): [16], so he's clearly associated with them.radek (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redrawing nations

This source clearly states Nawratil has produced "nationalist writings": Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948, by Phillip and Siljak.radek (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expelling the Germans

This source clearly states that Nawratil is a "revisionist", which of course means here what it usually does: Expelling the Germans: British opinion and post-1945 population transfer in context, by Matthew James Frank.radek (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Extreme right wing fraternity

According to its own web page Nawratil is listed as an associate of the student organization which German wikipedia describes [17] as "often associated with the extreme right spectrum": [18].radek (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

He's listed as a speaker, not an "associate". That's an informal form of association, I guess, but not a formal one. Rd232 talk 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

(There are so many minor headings here that I can't leave a comment without adding a new one.) "Extreme right wing" may well be an accurate description, but I don't think there is anything close to a consensus in German society to call him that. Otherwise it would be reflected somehow in a German Google News search or the German Wikipedia. (He complained about his biography there, but his complaints were very minor compared to calling him an extremist.)

I believe there is a general consensus in German society to be antifascist in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. And there is a similar general consensus to be anti-Vertreibung (i.e. expulsion [of Germans from formerly German areas after WW2]) in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. The media observe this quite carefully, especially the part about not talking too much – presumably because they would lose a part of their audience otherwise. As a result there is a large political spectrum of opinions which somehow form part of this "consensus", in spite of any contradictions. People at either end only begin to be seen as extremists if they start doing something or at least come with specific demands.

Nawratil may well be operating right at the border between respectability and just representing this "consensus", and being a right-wing extremist. If this is the case, then talking about it involves breaking the taboo, i.e. organisations that talk about it are automatically considered left-wing extremists. In this case the sources seem to be things like an AStA (official students representation of a university, traditionally ranging from mildly socialist to sending money to revolutionary groups, now sometimes being taken over by right-wing extremists; this is all related to extremely low voter turnout) and a peace group.

All of this doesn't answer the question what to do here, but perhaps it gives some perspective. Scholarly sources or sources from outside Germany might help to get a more neutral view. Hans Adler 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! For the purposes of this discussion it's of course not necessary that a consensus in German society exist that he is an extremist - just that there are reliable sources that call him that. I want to note that we do have German reliable sources - Martin Broszat - that refer to him specifically in that way, as well as non German ones, we also have evidence based on his own writing for JHR and ZFI and we have the sources cited to the student organizations and NGOs which document further links (some of which have been independently confirmed here). I think for calling him an extremist we have more than enough.radek (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. It looks to me like there's clearly enough sourcing to label him a right-wing extremist. I don't know if there is enough sourcing at this point to label him a holocaust denier. It may make more sense for now to just quote him directly. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion should be moved to the article talk page, or at least to an archive of it. There's too much info here, I think, to let vanish into the BLPN archives. Rd232 talk 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok if I just copy and paste all but this comment and your suggestion?radek (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really a BLP issue

This is not a BLP issue. What we have is a controversial topic, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where one would have to expect that at least some literature is written from a partisan poin-of-view. We have one author (Heinz Nawratil) who has written about the topic; if this author has a partisan view, this is directly relevant for the article. Disputes over this should be directed to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, however, I think, the case is clear. If h-net describes a work of Heinz Nawratil as "an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization" H-Net Review, and other source say something similar, then the article has to make clear that Nawratil has a partisan view, everything else would violate wp:NPOV.

Just as illustration: A BLP issue would be a case of an article on a person notable for something a-political, say an actor or athlete. If this person had been, in his youth, a member of a far-right group (Viking Youth or whatever), then we would have to discuss whether this belongs into that person's article. But here we have a case of someone who has written a non-fiction work. If every time we have to discuss the reliability of a source and the due weight that it deserves someone would make a BLP issue out of that, this noticeboard would be stuffed. Not that is isn't anyway, but we would have even more cases here. Zara1709 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion looks like a BLP violation and an attack on a living person. It is not acceptable to label Nawratil as "right-wing extremist" because he writes about crimes of the Red Army. I would suspect the motif for such labelling would be communist symphaties on the part of the person who is labelling. Nawratil writes about crimes against German, which have been substantial, much like Daniel Goldhagen writes about crimes against Jews, each from their perspective (i.e. the perspective of the offended party, Nawratil himself being a victim of ethnic cleansing). If Nawratil, an established legal author and scholar in Germany, is an extremist, then Goldhagen is too. There's nothing wrong with having a partisan view, it's actually quite common about people who write about crimes against other peoples. Applying a special rule for people who write about crimes against Germans is racist and POV. UweBayern (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Julia Allison

See this. I have asked the subject in the past to submit all problems to OTRS, rather than publish private information on the talk page. This, in my view, is kind of difficult for editors, because we have to make the edits favoring the subject of the article with little or no reliable sources available. I have made some changes, but was wondering if someone else could make some changes. By the way, this is a difficult BLP article. In the past, we had to change her picture because the subject of the article did not like the picture at the time portraying her (off topic: Personally, I did not find anything wrong with the picture). The article is currently semi-protected, but has had protection problems in the past. miranda 05:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this now. –Whitehorse1 09:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes when this was posted, and managed to take another look today. (Incidentally, the current picture works better in my view.) I've cleaned up the article to bring it within BLP policy. While I don't doubt that there is room for further improvement, I believe this incident is resolved. –Whitehorse1 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

why the lucky stiff

Why the lucky stiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The alleged real name of the subject of this article was recently revealed on an anonymous website, evidently forcing the individual to vanish from the Internet. The article is protected until tomorrow, but editors have been mentioning the name and linking to the site on the talkpage. I've removed the name per BLP, to complaints of censorship. I'm asking here for eyes and to find out what the community norms are for what may and may not be discussed under these circumstances. Thanks in advance for any input.  Skomorokh  15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty clearly right in this case; while his name might not be "negative or controversial information", all information about a living person needs to be reliably sourced. Once it can be reliably sourced, if that happens, then it would make sense to include the name in the article. Nathan T 15:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the response, Nathan. Like I said, the article is protected, and BLP is pretty clear on sourcing within articles. It's the talkpage, where the subject of the article has been named and the links to the outing are present, that concerns me. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The name should definitely be removed from the talk page too. Personally, I feel it may be better to discuss it a bit more before removing it to avoid too much drama but if you want to remove it now, I know and I suspect others will support youNil Einne (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It's has been further discussed, and most people point out that the supposed real name should not be displayed. That said, Rubyinside mentions the supposed real name (see my comment below). --139.165.38.30 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I wanted to know if these sources could be considered RS. I'm almost sure the first one is, but I have more doubts regarding the second, which BTW mentions the supposed name and potential relation between it's publication and _why's disappearance, precising that they don't really buy the scenario. You can easilly make the connection by yourself by doing some OR, though, and there's an addendum to the last article pointing to an album on CDBaby where JG sings and play the guitar. So the article isn't very consistent.

--139.165.38.30 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pocket Man

The Pocket Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – The police claim they have the The Pocket Man, and two of Norway's biggest newspapers (Verdens gang and Bergens Tidende) have published the name of the Suspect. Today it was written into the article (diff 309605828), reverted (diff) on grounds Premature identification, and again reinserted (diff). See also this diff. What is the policy on this kind of matter? For the moment the administrators handling the no-wiki article has removed any link to the name. Nsaa (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are three articles in VG (Usually described as one of the three largest newspapers in Norway) and one in Bergens Tidende (Usually described as a "regionavis", that is a medium sized newspaper for a local area). Note that the name is not used in the main editorial archive for newspapers in Norway (Atekst). Jeblad (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The user User:Ola-Tore has been blocked on the no-wiki, see no:Brukerdiskusjon:Ola-Tore. Nsaa (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for merely suggesting on a talk page that information included in the largest Norwegian newspapers should be included in an article? (I haven't made a single edit to the Norwegian Pocket Man article). I think this speaks for itself. Ola-Tore (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Bergens Tidende is the fourth largest newspaper of Norway and not a local newspaper (it's more of a regional newspaper for Western Norway with a national impact, much like Aftenposten is the leading newspaper in Eastern Norway). Verdens Gang is the largest newspaper of Norway, not merely "one of the" largest. Ola-Tore (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You did more than 'merely suggest', you named. The possibly only reason you did not edit the norwegian article, is that is has been locked for editing by others than administrators. Why is this of utmost importance to you, to out someone before the case has been tried? It feels as if you are trying to judge the alledged perpetrator through an encyclopaedia. Are you? Noorse (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If he was named in some of the quotes, so what? I cited articles in Verdens Gang and Bergens Tidende and suggested the information from those articles should be included. Why is it of utmost importance to you to hide his identity when his identity is already made public and known to everyone in Norway, when it has already been on the front page of Norway's largest newspaper? Why did not Josef Fritzl or other similar people get the same treatment? Please read this article[19] where Bernt Olufsen, Editor-in-Chief of Verdens Gang, explains why the public should know his identity. Ola-Tore (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you don’t difference between a tabloid newspaper and a encyclopedia. --FinnWiki (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The editorial of Bernt Olufsen makes it possible to publish the name as "journalism" and thereby hide behind Personopplysningsloven §7. It simply stinks. Its about as much journalism as their "photos" in the same case. Jeblad (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm having to rely on Google Translate to try to understand the situation on no.wikipedia.org and how it might relate to the article here, The Pocket Man. It appears as though Norwegian tradition (or law?) does not allow the name of (certain?) accused criminals to be published until they are convicted? As has been pointed out on the talk page for the article, that is not the case under the laws where en.wikipedia.org servers are housed, and it is not against our policy so long as those sources cited are reliable, and if we are naming a living person, high quality. It does appear as though multiple Norwegian media outlets have now published the individual's name, so as long as that's sourced appropriately, I'm not sure that there's any further issue at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"Where en.wikipedia.org servers are housed" is intersting in Norway, but not more than that, each service avialable must make sure on an individual basis that the information is in fact valid and legal if the information has effect in Norway. At no.wp we try to make sure we don't push the envelope when it comes to identification of individuals, as there is a few options in local law to in fact publish legally. A few people tend to believe that we should publish anything that someone at any point in time has heard from someone aomewhere, including but not limited to someone that may have heard it from an alien or a dog during a drug trip. In this case a lot of newspapers has chosen not to publish the name because it is highly questionable that it can be defended both in court and in the press own no:Pressens Faglige Utvalg. It is in this context interesting that the english version chose to publish the name, but as this effectively bars any from Norway to influence the position it is not any longer any of the involved and concerned persons from Norways responisbillity to handle the case. Jeblad (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeblad, this is not your no-wp playground, can you please stay on topic? The problem here is not aliens, drunks or drug addiction, but that an individual human-being has been named by two or three newspapers, before proven guilty or not. AndersL (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Besides, although I rather would like that the name of the suspected person is not revealed before after an eventual trial, neither here on en-wp or on the no and nn wikies, I cannot see why Jeblad thinks the norwegian wikies would be responsible if the en does reveal the name...? If the French or Chinese for some odd reason starts an article on the pocketman, would no be responsible for the text there aswell? AndersL (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, he's been named (and prominently so) by most of the Norwegian press (three out of four of the largest newspapers, among others, see the article's talk page). The issue here really isn't whether he has been convicted - Josef Fritzl was named in dozens of Wikipedia languages almost immediately after his arrest. The issue is whether the information can be proved and whether the scale of the crimes justifies naming the suspect (Bernt Olufsen argues it does because of the scale and seriousness of the crimes). I think the fact that this case has articles in three Wikipedia languages demonstrates that this is an important case. Ola-Tore (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it a crime being suspected for a crime now? As the COPS (TV series) enphrase says: innocent until proven guilty. I see no notability or worthness of information in going public with names yet, no matter what stupid moves the media does. AndersL (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Who says he's guilty? He has been named as the suspect in a major case of child sexual abuse, he has even admitted to parts of his indictment. He is described as the indicted, not as convicted. Wikipedia did not suppress the identity of Josef Fritzl before his eventual conviction either. There are numerous other examples. When he's been on the front cover of the largest newspaper of the country and his name is widely used by the press, it makes no sense to suppress his name. Ola-Tore (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No one, and that is exactly my point. If he has admitted parts of suspected crimes crime is still not the same as that he has committed the crimes. Remember that psychiatric person from Sweden who admitted and withdrew more confessions than what it has been reasoned that he actually did commit (for instance the two boys who were later found alive)? Being a suspect is just that, being suspected. It would be something else if he already was sentenced, wich he is yet not. There was a case in Norway some years ago about a suspected nurse wich TV2 named, and the rest of the media slowly followed. I think I remember that when they found her not guilty in court, TV2 got a huge fine for naming her publically. Because of all the ethical questions, and since several people has been judged not guilty lately, I see no reasons for going public with a name we do not know for sure yet is guilty. AndersL (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


1) Wikipedia servers are based in the US, we follow the law in the US - that's the legal bit. 2) The man's name was printed in reliable sources - that's the WP:RS bit.

What more is there to be discussed on en.wikipedia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's against Norwegian law to name him, then most of the Norwegian press would be criminals. Ola-Tore (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is simply no issue for en.wikipedia - the sources are consider reliable and the naming of the suspect is legal here and there. What no.wikipedia decided to do is up to them and has absolutely no weight here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the legality of the publication is not an issue, nor the reliability of the sources. But we still have to consider the ethical implications, and whether the outing is in accordance with our BLP policy, and lastly, whether it's actually relevant and necessary to have the name in the article. Seeing as how even the outing itself has received significant coverage, I'm inclined to say yes. decltype (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Holmes à Court

I am new to Wikipedia editing so please excuse any lack of form, but this is a serious matter needing attention.

This record was edited on 28 July after much research including verifying certain facts with the subject, and all edits were flippantly undone by an individual who clearly has an interest in defaming the subject living person. As this living person owns an Australian Football team with a very colourful history and no shortage of fans across the entire spectrum of obsessiveness, there is a heightened risk that this living person will be the subject of dogged detractors so committed to damaging the substantial and valuable reputation of this living person that it is possible that this entry may have to be protected.

It is clear that Everton Dasent and his other aliases and accomplices, will continue to use this Wikipedia page to attempt to defame this living person causing great potential damage. In addition, this living person also has a claim against certain newspaper publications that have also been involved, at the hands of overzealous fans, in defamatory stories which have been published, so certain references are not reliable either.

Please advise the most suitable course of action to protect the objectivity of the facts relating to this living person. Thank you.

Slanter Remover Slanter Remover (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Beasley

Could a few people please add Michael Beasley to their watchlists? He has reportedly checked into rehab after some odd additions to his Twitter page [20], and the article is starting to attract vandals. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike S. Miller (again)

Repeated efforts by a dynamic IP (which is suspected to be the subject) to remove negative information from the article. I have reverted obvious vandalism here but I'm actually hesitant about the reverting the IP again, because I don't think any of the three sources that are used to back up Miller's firing from D.C. are particularly reliable. It's pretty well known that the incident occurred - Miller has mentioned it online although giving it a different spin - but I'm unconvinced that gossip columns are good enough to source it, even if they do claim to quote the subject. Black Kite 00:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think those sources are remotely reliable enough to source Miller's firing and the circumstances surrounding it. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Keene

Raymond Keene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there are concerns over recent criticisms added to the article. Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Raymond Keene article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jan Slota

Hello All. I removed a few images that linked Slota to a Neo-Nazi organization. Although he does tend to put his foot in his mouth and is not the best loved of Slovak politicians, he should not be linked to Nazism unless there is direct proof of his involvement with such a group. thanks User:Petethebeat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petethebeat (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Magic Johnson (living person article)

Resolved
 – not there any more; mainpage listing always causes problems

I thought someone should know and edit the Magic Johnson article because it calls him a 'nigger' ("Magic Johnson is a retired American nigger" goes the starting line). Also it was on the homepage and hotlisted for today, 14 August Eastern Standard Time) as a feature article.

Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.13.40 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Will Buckley

This page has been repeatedly vandalised. Thanks to the subject being in a controversy at the moment this is unlikely to stop.

Semiprotected for a bit. Sourcing is more than welcome on that stub. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson articles - heads up

It would be greatly appreciated that a couple of extra (preferably admin but not necessarily "exclusively") eyes especially on Michael Jackson and Death of Michael Jackson as news just came out that the Los Angeles coroner ruled his death as a homicide. There will obviously be some BLP issues regarding Jackson's doctor. MuZemike 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I would suggest temporary protection on the pages so there are no drive-bys from the anon users. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pages aren't protected pre-empitvley. DJ 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • We also have to be a little careful here, because according to this [21] the findings are not publicly announced yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • We have done it before. But beside that point, I just want to make sure that no Michael Jackson fan organizes any campaign against the said doctor on-wiki. MuZemike 07:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If they do, then the article can quickly be anesthetized. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Also note that, given past attempts to turn the redirects into articles, Conrad Murray and Conrad Robert Murray will require watching, too. See Talk:Conrad Murray#Redirect for more discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The Propofol article, which now also includes information about the circumstances of Jackson's death, will evidently need monitoring for the same reasons. Isn't there a good reason to avoid adding material that creates potential BLP issues to an article about a pharmaceutical? Steveozone (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Who is the living person that BLP would refer to?Bevinbell (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The physician. Risker (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
          • WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased, so it would still apply to violations related to Michael Jackson. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Really? I don't see a mention of that and seems counter-intuitive. I fully appreciate WP:BLP applying to the physician, any reference would need to be backed by credible citations with named sources and without conjecture or sensationalism. Bevinbell (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Yep. The "Dealing With The Deceased" section [22] states "Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper." Dayewalker (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
                • That language does not seem to be supportive - "material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines" emphasis on "other". Is there a discussion of this that you can point me to? Maybe the language should be edited to reflect more clearly the applicability to dead folks of the actual BLP? Why use the phrase "Biographies of Living Persons" instead of "Biographies of Persons"? It would seem that there is a clear distinction between the two (for legal and other reasons). Maybe I should move this discussion to the talk page of WP:BLP, but it seems really unclear to its applicability Bevinbell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Caster Semenya

I read about this case a few days ago but unfortunately didn't think to watch the article. For those that don't know, Caster Semenya is a South African athelete who has been required to undergo gender verification because of concerns she may have gained an unfair advantage. As you may guess, the article has had numerous issues including some editors trying to change the practice of referring to her by the female pronoun. While there's already been an RFC and most editors have came out against this, the eyes and voices of BLP friendly editors would be helpful to avoid further problems Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Alomar

Resolved
 – User has been blocked indefinitely by NawlinWiki for vandalism. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing problem on the article about Roberto Alomar, user Coolbeans5150 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked once for 24 hours due to BLP violation on the article. within 48 hours after the block expired, the user returned and re-started his edit warring about the content.

At no point has the user replied to warnings on his talk page, nor has he posted to discussions on the article talk page (where the issue had been previously discussed, and no WP:RS could be found for the claim). The only comment he has made has been on another user's talk page where he complained about censorship. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Disparaging comments regarding living person Alice Dreger at The Man Who Would Be Queen

There is currently discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding material recently added to the article about the above person. Does such material potentially violate BLP rules? John Carter (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

There'd been an edit war going on all day (perhaps longer) on this article regarding the inclusion of some information. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to do the reading to give an informed opinion on the actual content of the article and does the inclusion meet blp, but there's a clear need for someone to step in here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Part of the problem is the coatracking. There's actually more about the trial itself in that biography than there is at Chris Hani#Assassination, and most of it has nothing to do with Kemp. Uncle G (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi Jews"

It appears that people have been putting into the infobox on the Ashkenazi Jew article the pictures and names of anyone who they personally feel is an "Ashkenazi Jew". Yesterday and today I have removed all the living people from those lists, per WP:BLP, as none of the claims were cited, and, indeed, none of the articles on the individuals themselves had any cited claim that they were Ashkenazi Jews. Since then, I have reverted several times, as an IP editor and an established editor have insisted that the claims are non-controversial, and need no citations. The argument put forward is essentially that any Jew whose ancestors came from various Eastern European countries (e.g. Hungary, Poland) was inevitably an Ashkenazi Jew. I was at the point of protecting the article, but I thought I'd bring the issue here for other views. Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Louise Glover

Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article has recently had a number of new and IP users removing significant portions of the article claiming that it is upsetting the subject. I have tried going over much of the material and removing the less credible information. However the removals continue. Myself and others have noted that if there is a problem to follow the steps in WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you. However they seem to want nothing less than the removal of the entire article. I have protected the page for the next 4 hours. I would like some other eyes to take a look at it. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some minor changes- I explained it all on the Talk page and edit summaries there. Generally, looks pretty good though.MStoke (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like your vandal is back again, only created an account this time to get around the IP blocking. MStoke (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Herve Jaubert

  • This is to log complain for defamation against user Pemperous who inserted a libellous text in the article on august 24 2009. The article has been corrected. User:74.233.139.156 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (signing unsigned)
  • The affected article is Hervé Jaubert (with acute accent). There is relevant old matter in page Herve Jaubert (without acute accent). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Sally Boazman

Resolved

WMUK's just had an email from Sally Boazman saying "Basically, I do traffic news for BBC Radio Two across the afternoons, and have never authorised, or sought, an entry on Wikipedia, although there is one. However, it's full of inaccuracies and ideally I would like it completely removed. I'm hardly famous enough to warrant it!" The article only has one reference (and possibly not a reliable one). Could someone look into this, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I speedied it as a patent CSD#A7, the article basically took three paragraphs to say "she reads the traffic news on Radio 2, and before that she had a few other jobs in radio". Black Kite 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the information appears to come from both her Radio 2 profile and a biography on Aircheck UK so it's not like much of it isn't in the public domain already. It's interesting that this should happen a few weeks after this, apparently from another Radio Two employee. Perhaps more of them need reviewing. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice there was also a redirect to the article from Sally Bowsman. I've redirected this to BBC Radio 2. This may also need to be edit protected. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Sally Traffic. wrt Fenella Fudge, I think the ariticle history should be deleted, leaving just the redirect. Martin451 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a sensible idea. Have requested deletion. When it's done I'll recreate the page as a redirect to BBC Radio 2. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This was actually after I did a spot on Chris Evans' Radio 2 show about flagged revisions on BLPs. Sally came up after my spot and asked what to do about her article, because she's really not famous and it was terrible and she didn't like it. I said "email info at wikimedia-with-an-M dot org and a volunteer will hop onto it" and to tell anyone else at the BBC with a crappy article about them, 'cos it does get the right attention at the right time :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Curtis Salgado

Article has undocumented/unverifiable claim; "In the early 90's, he also briefly studied with Jehovah's Witnesses." Article fails to mention that Salgado was lead vocalist with Room Full Of Blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmaui (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nora Wall"

This may have been moved to Nora Wall by the time anyone reads this note. I'd like someone to have a look at this article who's more familiar with the specifics of BLP policy than I -- I think there's the potential for libel action here because there are some strong statements that don't seem to be specifically sourced. There are some general references to a specific Irish criminal trial but I strongly suspect this is not sufficient. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WKXW

This edit by an IP user 68.39.227.143 posts the home address of one of the talk-show personalities on this radio station (I have no way of knowing if its accurate or not). I reverted the edit, but feel it probably should be removed from the history as well, to protect the privacy of Mr. Bartholomew. -Sme3 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Oversight is the place to go when that type of info is posted. I've fired off an email to the powers that be. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Roxanne Shanté

Resolved

Roxanne Shanté's wikipedia biography (erroneously) states that she is 1) a Ph.D. from Cornell 2) a licensed psychologist practicing in Queens, NY 3) that her Ph.D. was "paid for through an unusual clause in her recording contract by her record label." Attempts to put in wording clarifying that records at Cornell show that she is not an alumna [23], records in New York State show that she is not a licensed psychologist [24], and traditional Ph.D. programs, especially for underprivileged and alternative applicants are fully self funding, thus not requiring any battle with a nefarious record label (even if she were in fact a student at Cornell, which pretty much definitively can be proven to be incorrect) are removed by her or her publicity company as quickly as they are put in. This file needs to be addressed by a Wikipedia reviewer so that Wikipedia is not compromised by this young lady's publicity company's apparent efforts to change the historical record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4nac (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The information that you dispute is sourced to a newspaper article which qualifies as a reliable secondary source under Wikipedia policy. Your attempts to disprove the statements made in the article by using primary sources is what we call here "original research", and that research and conclusions drawn from it cannot appear in the article because it is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. There are any number of reasons her name may not appear on the Cornell University website, and we cannot use that omission to "disprove" the work of a professional journalist. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has found her listed under famous alumni on Cornell's website: [25]. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Kirk

  • Mark Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a section in the article on Mark Kirk, a Republican congressman from Illinois who has announced his intention to run for the Senate, detailing several somewhat controversial donations. See this edit and the back and forth in the article history. Most of the donations are sourced directly to FEC reports. There is no question that these reports verify that these donations occurred, but is it enough to include in the article without a secondary source making any comment at all about the donation? One of the donations, from Tony Rezko, does have a secondary source (the Chicago Sun-Times) so I do not think there would be any reason to exclude it from the article, but should the rest of the donations have a secondary source commenting on them or should they be removed? nableezy - 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would think that, absent comment from secondary sources, a list of selected controversial donors would have to be removed. Picking and choosing from the donor list and only reporting those an editor considers controversial is editorializing. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Resolved
 – Vandalism reverted. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone has been adding false information to the Britney Spears article including stating that she was a porn star for 3 years and putting the words "fuck me" and "drop your pants" in her name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmycat (talk • contribs) 2009-08-28 00:04:26

Claim of libel at Alexander Mashkevitch

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sbakuria. Uncle G (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

See also this edit, where Sleuther2 (talk · contribs) expresses similar concerns at Patokh Chodiev. Uncle G (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Offit

Eyes would be welcome on this page. A new IP has been making subtle weasel edits, but their edit summaries and latest effort raise some red flags. I know fixing BLP issues circumvents edit warring, but I'd feel more comfortable if others in the community could help out too. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Satanists

This was redirected to Satanism with the edit summary stating that it's a "BLP violation". Is it really? It's just a listing of people along with all the rest at Lists of people by belief. Granted it's largely unreferenced but so are many others at Lists of people by belief. The question is, why doesn't anyone redirect List of Pagans as a BLP vio? or List of Methodists for that matter.. Is it pushing a POV to say that a list of satanists is contentious but a list of Christians isn't? I'm not advocating satanism at all here, just something to discuss. -- Ϫ 04:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

if they publicly espoused it, and it is of more than incidental significance, and they clearly called it that or the equivalent, and there are RS to prove it, it is not a BLP violation. Some, for example, are or were leaders in the Church of Satan. In any case, some of the people on that list are not LP. The move should be reverted, non-notable people removed, and sources checked for the others. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In theory, I agree with DGG, but this article is just a massive BLP violation, which if cleaned up would end up nearly a stub, with just Anton LeVey and his relatives/associates and a few arbirtrarily selected musicians. It includes professional wrestlers who are inappropriately treated as though their stage personas are real; George W. Bush (but not, curiously, Dick Cheney); Sammy Davis Jr (not a BLP issue, just loopy); a long "mislabelled" section which is mostly a coatrack for claims that individuals should be seen as Satanists, and various other inappropriate comments. It shouldn't even be kept as a redirect, but BLP-deleted to make the old versions inaccessible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
But how can it be a BLP vio if it's not even a bio? It's just a list of people. And what about my argument about mislabeled people in other similar lists at Lists of people by belief? Richard Dawkins, for example, certainly wouldn't appreciate being named in a list of Christians, yet no one would ever think to redirect the entire (unreferenced) List of evangelical Christians to Evangelical Christianity. -- Ϫ 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Populating any of these lists with unreferenced data is a clear violation of BLP policy. The policy is that we aggressively delete unverifiable biographical information - positive, negative, or neutral - from any article on WP, not just "biographical" articles. The question, in my mind, is what to do about these lists. I don't care if it's a list of tea drinkers, not one single living person should be included in the list without at least one reference to a reliable source. I agree that the redirect should be reverted and the list trimmed to only those entries which can be verified in reliable sources. If that leaves no one else but Anton LeVey then so be it. As for other such lists, as User:OlEnglish has pointed out above, these should be treated similarly. Again, even if it's a list of tea drinkers, if I don't see a reference to a reliable source, I will delete the entry, right down to the last entry in the list. The only reason I see to redirect would be if there is not one single verifiable entry in the list. Here we have at least a few. Let's revert and fix it, and let's fix the others as well. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

David Pleat

WMUK received an email this morning from David Pleat, as follows:

I am writing to make you aware that information given on myself David Pleat is incorrect and libellous.
I would like to provide you with the revised and correct information and facts.
Once these corrections have been made I do not wish for anyone to be able to change these details.

I've emailed him back (cc'ing info-en_at_wikimedia.org) pointing out that WMUK is not responsible for this content, but that "we'd be happy to forward on your views about any particular points to the community that work on that Wikipedia project, so that they can be dealt with in a suitably rigorous fashion and anything inaccurate can be appropriately corrected". I'll post any information I hear back here.

In the meantime, please could someone take a look at this article, and improve it as appropriate? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I dealt with Mr Pleat's email to Wikimedia when it reached OTRS. I think the main problem, which is a claim that he's Jewish (could be taken as libellous), has been taken care of. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think he might have been slightly more worried by this, which was definitely libellous! Black Kite 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but there's more … Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly confident that the ethnicity/religion claim is not the problem here, and the major problem is the content that has been brought up on the talk page again and again and removed from the article again and again. It is, as I and others have noted on the talk page, unacceptable and unencyclopaedic personal analysis of the subject's professional abilities, comprising in no small part an entirely unsourced list of errors that this person is supposed to have made in xyr professional career as a sports commentator. Full marks to the editors who have been removing it on sight.

    I looked at the remainder of the article, and it seems that the continued reversion of the major vandalism has blinded editors to some of the (comparatively) minor vandalism and badly sourced or wholly unsourced attack content, of which there is quite a lot. For example, there is an assertion that this person had been convicted for kerb-crawling. The only good source that I can find states that this person was cautioned for kerb-crawling, and immediately goes on to state that the subject contests reports about this for being "misinformed". And then there's an awful lot of content that seems to blame this person for the ill-fortune of every football club he has every come into contact with. And all of this without any sources at all, despite protests about writing without sources on the talk page.

    I am going to consider this, but I am strongly tempted having read through the article and back through its edit history to delete this article in its entirety and start it again from a stub using proper sources. The edit history, current content, and general standard of writing are atrocious, and M. Pleat has my sympathies. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    • I would completely support deleting it and starting it from scratch. I must admit I just scanned it for obvious BLP issues, but the general tone of it is terrible. There's no doubt that Pleat had his critics during his career but that's just ridiculous. Black Kite 15:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the prior article and edit history and started again as a stub, including no content for which there is no source cited. (I was even strict about adding the player categories until I had a source confirming the information.) I've got as far as 1987 in this person's career. All help from experienced BLP editors welcome. Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • New email. He's angry about his religion being included (which to be honest is not something we can help with, [26] is a good source for his Judaism). He does, however, state that "I have been subjected to tabloid allegations about my private life,which were untrue and libellous." - we need to be careful about this, I feel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Then he, and you, are both out of date, since the re-created article included nothing about religion. (The subject wasn't in any of the sources that I used. To be frank, it didn't even occur to me to even consider the matter. I spent most of the effort attempting to find a decent source that documents this person's career as a sports commentator in any detail, without success.) Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought that on a BLP if a person has not declared his leaning towards his religion then even if we have a cite that he is a cristian then unless he himself has identified with it in public then we leave it out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit of an attack piece, yes the rubbish allegations are there, awful read. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Also the picture of what is supposedly him is worthless, it could be anyone.Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thats what it is, he was allegedly cautioned 3times for curb crawling and wright called him a pervert. He was never charged and I would say it's not worth inclusion. Or if you want to keep it, it needs to be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Marc Nelson

Resolved

Marc Nelson is receiving continuous vandalism edits from an anon IP. I would a appreciate an admin looking into it. MStoke (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Ebell and Richard Seigler

  • More interesting is the user's concern with the article Richard Seigler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has a Controversy section that outlines an incident where the subject was briefly charged with a crime, apparently on the testimony of a jilted girlfriend, and then had charges eventually dismissed. It might normally be of such little consequence that it could be removed from the article except that the incident appears to have had an impact on his career; he was released from an NFL team's practice squad on the day he was arrested. Again, I have tried to re-write by adding the context of the jilted girlfriend being the source of the charges but some more editor's input here would be good. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aleksandar Kolarov again

The article Aleksandar Kolarov contained some vague and barely sourced accusations of criminal and illegal activities. I raised this on this Noticeboard back in May and Skomorokh (talk · contribs) removed the disputed content. 65.95.238.5 (talk · contribs) put the BLP violations back in, verbatim, without addressing any of the concerns. I removed this a few weeks ago, but it has been restored again. The edit accuses several people within the Serbian Football Association, Zvezdan Terzić in particular, of breaking their own rules to favour one club over the other. The sourcing is scant at best. There are some vague and passing references to one report. The report covers only one or two of the assertions. Please keep an eye on this. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Manoj Das

Resolved
 – Please use some nous next time, Skpadhi. It took you far more effort to come here and write the text below than it would have taken you just to do this, reverting the vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what made the writer of this article call Mr.Manoj Das AN STUPID INDIAN AWARD WINNING AUTHOR ?? MY OBJECTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CALLING SUCH AN EMMINET PERSON STUPID IN THE OPENING LINE OF THIS ARTICLE. THE LINK TO THIS ARTICLE IS AS FOLLOWS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Das. PLEASE RESOLVE THSI MATTER URGENTLY OR MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpadhi (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg (2nd request)

This is my second request for assistance regarding this article. My first request was ignored. The article now has two different IP editors who are dedicated to filling the article with negative, cherrypicked quotes to make the subject of the article look bad, but have no interest in editing any other part of the article of a journalist with a 30+ year career. So the article is rapidly becoming a list of out of context Totenberg quotes and complaints from the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, with relatively little in the article to indicate that this is one of the most respected journalists in the US. I have no interest in this article being a hagiography, of course, and naturally criticism is appropriate, but I feel the IP editors have no interest in "appropriate", nor any interest in the relevant policies, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Third party assistance is badly needed here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are not out of context and all include verifiable references. Speaking of trying to make subjects of BLPs look bad, your edit history is filled with examples of you trying to make conservatives look bad, along with justifications in talk pages for other peoples' poorly sourced materials--see the Mark Levin discussion. While you seek to make conservatives look bad, you work very hard at keeping negative material from articles on liberals like Totenberg. On your user page you actually identify yourself as a partisan--a Democrat. There is plenty of material In the Totenberg article about respect for Totenberg--you have added numerous awards to the article in addition to the ones that were already there (see also the number of positive references in the article). You have also worked to blunt criticisms of Totenberg. Most of my additions to the article have been summarily removed by you and then edit warred when I try to restore the addition. You usually avoid trying to come to an agreement in Talk pages about how additions should be added--you just delete the additions. On the other hand, I usually let your additions stay.--67.232.93.56 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I took a look, moved some things around a little, but I don't really see a big issue in the article's current form, at least from a BLP perspective. I have commented on the talk page there. - Crockspot (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You think the most recent cherry-picked WSJ quote is appropriate? Why? Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Attacking my work on other articles is not a response to the issues raised here. The fact remains that you and the other IP editor have worked exclusively to introduce negative elements regarding the subject of the article, mostly in the form of out of context quotes. This is not balanced or BLP appropriate editing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem here, but it looks more multiparty edit brawl in nature than an intractable BLP problem. There are two seperate criticism sections and they are poorly cited and phrased. "Some have...." is always a bad contruction."--Tznkai (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add that a long time editor (since 2005) has been driven off in frustration thanks to the IP editors. Even if you don't take my word for what is happening on the article, obviously something is going on there that requires intervention. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chima Simone

Post by blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[Chima Simone] is an article being redirected to the article [List of Big Brother 11 Houseguests (U.S.)] Chima Simone is currently appearing on the Hollyscoop Show as well as making other appearances not related to Big Brother. Her complete bio [Chima Simone] is not reflected in the [List of Big Brother 11 Houseguests (U.S.)] and should not be redirected accordingly. Chima Simone would be better served by having the [Chima Simone] article deleted altogether rather than redirected repeatedly causing editing warring with that particular user. Note: [Jessie Godderz] is also being redirected. Both former house guests are the most notable for accomplishments outside of the Big Brother game. Unable to edit myself (revert) due to [List of Big Brother 11] article being semi-protected until September 26th, 2009. Redirects have to be removed by administrators, indefinitley or I request [Chima Simone] deletion for improper biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INTEL-12 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This new account certainly appears to be related to the indef blocked (for legal threats) Show-Truth. Dayewalker (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No diversions necessary, this account is non-related. Please address issue at hand (see above). Remove redirections for [Chima Simone] & [Jessie Godderz] or delete bios [Chima Simone] & [Jessie Godderz], very simple. Current editor should not be able to claim these bios as their own by redirecting to character sketches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INTEL-12 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for evading the WP:NLT block of User:Show-Truth. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hart

Resolved

Could somebody please pitch in at Peter Hart? There are definite WP:Coatrack issues. Let's just note that the Controversy section is about 3 times the length of the rest (excluding refs and bibliography). Thanks. Rd232 talk 09:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, this BLP has rather similar issues: Emma Brockes. Anyone to pitch in? Rd232 talk 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and work on Hart. There are some serious coatracking issues, not to mention a blatant copyright violation. Rockpocket 18:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hell. I'll take care of Brockes too. Rockpocket 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Liz Fuller

An almost unsourced article to begin with, most of the recent edits consisting of additions to the list of people she's been romantically linked to. Some of which fairly well reek of attempts at being funny. Far as I can tell the article, and especially the recent edit history, is an absolute minefield I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to even begin to sort out. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "love life" section and a few other dubious additions. It looks like parts of the article are based on the biography formerly at http://www.lizfuller.com/bio/index.asp (currently a dead link, but an archived version is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20071218051536/http://www.lizfuller.com/bio/index.asp). The article still needs more sources; I haven't been able to find much that is reliable. snigbrook (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Feminazi

Feminazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article quickly turning into a dumping ground for every MMFA piece about Rush Limbaugh using the word. While I hate the word myself (and any example of Godwin's Law for that matter), I don't think itemizing every single time he used the word as particularly due weight. Here was the version before I hacked some of the blogs and MMFA off: [27]. I have since edited, nay hacked it down so that it wasn't so one-sided, but I still believe there should be eyes on it. Soxwon (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

— Preceding text originally posted on WT:BLP/N by Soxwon (talk⋅contribs) (migrated by Whitehorse1 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Stephen Hawking" article

The biography section for Stephen Hawking is most definitely libellous, but when I attempted to edit it (only to remove the libellous material) it showed up differently. I'm not sure what's going on, but what shows up on my screen is quoted below:

[vandalism redacted!]

Smacks of Wikipage vandalism, no? This is the link I used to get to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

The page was vandalized, but has been restored. You probably still have the vandalized version in your local cache. Clear the cache, or do an explicit reload, or go to the latest static version on the article history to see the real current version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:REFRESH tells you how - in short: go to page, hold Ctrl, press F5, release Ctrl. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Schulz, thanks for the heads-up. I had never visited the listing before from the computer I used (at work, and without my user name so I couldn't sign in), so I don't know how it was in the cache on the computer, but I appreciate the information. Also, kudos on the vandalism redaction. I felt terrible posting it, but also wanted it to be clear just how awful the vandalism was. Regards, Rorieface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorieface (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael_O'Malley

  • Michael_O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A prominent person my my industry came to me about the lack of wiki page on myself, and offered to put it together. I agreed, edited it, and posted it. If this is not acceptable can you please let me know the right way to go about it. //

"Michael O'Malley"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzitup (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 August 2009

Article can be found here
User:Rzitup/Michael O'Malley (edit | [[Talk:User:Rzitup/Michael O'Malley|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin451 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this compliant with biographies of living persons?

I recently updated the article Ilisha Jarret, what do you think ? It`s kind of strange information, but news source says is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyisthisnotme (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really relevant in a biography though, hence I have removed it. Kevin (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion would be useful here. My removal was reverted, and I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Kevin (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is she even notable enough for a bio? I agree there could be BLP issues, and it is better left out, personally I would nominate it for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Avrohom Bitterman

Resolved
 – 173.35.189.227 found {{prod}} some minutes after writing this. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is unverifiable, and contains information that is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.189.227 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy per WP:CSD#A7 - no indication of importance or significance. – ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook

A couple of editors have been adding to the Jonathan Cook article things about Cook's articles appearing in some less than reputable places. See here and here and here. Cook wrote an article that as far as I can tell first appeared on the al-Ahram website on 8/2/2007 and here on 8/9/2007. David Duke publishes the article on on 8/21/2007. That Duke apparently liked what Cook wrote is being used to associate Cook with what would further Duke's antisemtic and white pride agenda. Not a single secondary source commenting on this supposed controversy is presented to justify such an association yet it is continually being readded to the article of a living person. nableezy - 06:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP cannot be used a loophole to censor the fact that his articles have appeared in certain publications. Saying that his articles have appeared somewhere does not mean that it was the author's intention for the article to appear there. But at the end of the day, where a person's article appears is part of the person's notability. We can't just write that his articles appeared in mainstream sources and hide anything that's non-mainstream.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are manufacturing a controversy without a single secondary source mentioning it. And what is the relevance of David Duke commiting copyright infringement, as well as the 100+ other places you can find this article to a biography of Jonathan Cook? This is an attempt to link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. nableezy - 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Chill with all the drama. There's no "manufacturing of any controversy." Articles about authors include information about where they are published. If they were published in notable publications, whether mainstream or non-mainstream, this information should be included in the article. We can't use WP:BLP as a method of creating a false impression that an author is only being published in mainstream sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am "chilled". You cannot link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. That David Duke reprinted an article by Cook is wholly irrelevant to a biography of Cook. Multiple reliable secondary sources making note of such a relationship are required for its inclusion. nableezy - 06:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Where an author is published is certainly an important aspect of an author's bio. Reliability is not an issue here. David Duke's website can be relied on for the fact that this guy's articles appear on David Duke's website.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are using the word "published" like it implies some link between Cook and Duke. There is a claim of copyright on the al-Ahram source, which predates the Duke reprint by several weeks. You are using Duke's infringing of that copyright by reprinting the article. You are doing so to make a link between somebody widely considered a racist and a journalist where there is no evidence that either Cook or al-Ahram consented to Duke reprinting the article. You are doing so without a single reliable secondary source saying one word on this. So you are violating both WP:BLP and WP:LINKVIO (linking to copyright violations is also prohibited). nableezy - 07:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Where a an author is published is an important part of an authors bio. Full Stop. The copyvio issue is a bunch of issue-clouding. But now that we're on the subject, I dunno where you're getting your info that David Duke made some copyright violations. If there's any BLP violation, its right here on this talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If you dont know it is because you are not looking. The article appeared well before Duke reprinting it with a copyright claim 8/2/2007 © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved. But that is indeed a side issue to the violation of WP:BLP you are intent on including. nableezy - 07:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Written in small script as not to cloud the issue: Please provide a source that David Duke violated any copyrights. Your investigations are not sufficient. The irony of violating WP:BLP in this very thread is delicious.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think we have to assume that Cook has no control over which websites pick up his articles. Unless there's some indication that they're there with his blessing, I don't see how we can write about it. It's better to use mainstream secondary sources for anything contentious in BLPs; primary sources tend to lead to OR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
An integral aspect of an author's bio is where he or she was published. The types of news organizations that publish what the author writes tell readers a lot regarding the subjects the author writes about. It doesn't make a difference if the author gave an affirmative consent each time it was published. We give the readers the information in a neutral manner and they can come to whatever conclusion they wish. But we certaintly cannot mislead readers, under the guise of BLP, that an author has only been published in mainstream sources when he clearly hasn't.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't make a difference if the author gave an affirmative consent each time it was published. complete crap - as far as I can see Dukes has posted the first bit of it and a link to the original article - this is not published by and that claim should not be made in the article.--Cameron Scott (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's highly misleading to claim someone was published in a certain source if all that's happened is it's been discussed on a fringe website. Many websites particularly blogs, both fringe and non-fringe take the work of other people as a point of discussion or to support their POV all the time, sometimes taking it out of context or in a misleading way. The fact that some website has done this for Jonathan Cook is irrelevant unless this is widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. I'm sure you could find this with many of the more controversial journalists and commentators, and believe me if you tried to do this with most of them, you'd be blocked quick fast. The wider issue here is somewhat common with BLPs of journalists and commentators. Generally speaking, we should take great care with using primary sources (i.e. the authors published work) to try and demonstrate their viewpoint as it's easy to push a POV about the person or manufacture controversies that don't exist (even when we don't call them controversies) by selectively quoting something that someone said because an editor finds it interesting. IIRC, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) are good examples of these. The way to avoid this, as has already been mentioned above is to only mention things the person has said that are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. This isn't misleading readers. In fact it's precisely the opposite. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dore Gold

Mr. Gold is a living person. An editor is repeatedly calling him a 'propagandist'. I've warned him that this is a BLP violation (in fact, very likely a libelous statement) but he persists. Some administrative action is required here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested the editor refactor his comment. Rockpocket 06:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The background is that User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen wants to support Dore Gold as a reliable source of historial facts in Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1948), and I don't believe he is a reliable source for that. Everybody who has been watching TV for the past several decades has been Dore Gold on TV spinning the Israeli position on something. He's a part of the Likud establishment, an Israeli politician of the right wing, and his writing reflects that. Moreover, what is the point of having rules about reliable sources if I can't make an argument that a particular source is not reliable? This is an example of me trying to maintain standards, and I think my record regarding use of sources is the best in the Middle East section. And "propagandist" is a mild word in this context; the idea that someone in Gold's position would be offended by it is just silly. The guy is a lifelong politician and diplomat who promotes his country and his party; he knows that, everyone knows that. Compare to the description "assorted drivel" that Gilabrand just used of academic historian Ilan Pappé on the same page. And User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen him/herself doesn't shy from referring to a Palestinian journalist and another person as "well known partisans...obviously not WP:RS for anything other than the opinion of their authors". Or from calling academic historian Nur Masalha a "extremist Palestian activist". Pots? Kettles? But to conclude: from now on I will refer to Dore Gold as partisan source not meeting the requirements of WP:RS and will stop calling him a propagandist. Zerotalk 13:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe Gold is a reliable source for historical facts - take your concerns to WP:RSN. You've been asked to remove your BLP violation from the page - please do so. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I gave two examples of your similar comments. When you remove them, I'll remove mine. And, no, I don't need to take every RS issue to RSN, I'm allowed to read the policy and apply it with common sense. Zerotalk 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Saying someone is partisan is not the same as calling him a "propagandist". You were asked to remove your BLP violation by an admin, and that request is not conditional on anything. Please do so. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Calling an official government spokesman a propagandist is a far milder thing than calling an academic historian an extremist activist. Forget the "partisan" journalist, show us that you are really motivated by BLP concerns by deleting your comment on Mashala. Then I'll be happy to remove my much less serious comment on Gore. But we can start a new section here on your own BLP behavior if you prefer. Zerotalk 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my request, Zero. There appears to be a dispute about the reliability of sourcing - which is somewhat beyong the scope of this noticeboard. I would suggest you both avoid using labels with regards to living people in future )you don't need to call someone an extremist or propagandist to explain they are not a reliable source) and, as a matter of good faith, both refactor the examples listed here. Alternatively, since neither are particularly egregious, it might be better to simply draw a line under past transgressions and move on to deal with the real issue. If you feel unable to resolve that yourselves, dispute resolution may help. Rockpocket 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems LoverOfTheRussianQueen has been blocked indefinitely for multiple sockpuppetry. Why am I not surprised? But I'm going to demote Mr Gore to a mere partisan anyway. Zerotalk 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, perhaps not surprising. I'm sure Mr Gold will sleep easier in that knowledge ;) Rockpocket 02:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bryant (politician)

  • Michael Bryant (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Toronto-area politician/businessman involved in a motor vehicle vs. cyclist incident late last night which resulted in a fatality, and the article has undergone considerable editing since then, including a range of BLP violations. Since there is good content also being added by IP and non-autoconfirmed editors, I don't want to ask for protection, but the article would benefit from plenty of eyes right now given its current activity (both editing and viewing). Risker (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep and eye on it tonight. Rockpocket 02:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Pavlina Bio

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

This article is in total violation of Wikipedia standards and is living off of irrelevant references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunsizzle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Joni Eareckson Tada

Hello all - I'm hoping some brave soul could take a look at the Joni Eareckson Tada article. Although there are no contentious or urgent negative comments that are in need of removal (which I would have done myself), the entire article seems to be an over-the-top puffery piece. I had originally just tagged the page with a NPOV and Refimprove tag, but was requested to add additional information on the talk page today. After revisiting the article I'm even more convinced that it needs to be rewritten. There is some interesting and valid information contained within the article, but it is so confabulated as to be nearly unreadable. Any help in pruning the article and adding some third party sources would be appreciated. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bandar bin Sultan

I've protected Bandar bin Sultan today, following a swathe of edits from a migratory IP making claims about the subject's parentage. To my mind these claims are entirely defamatory, and they're certainly unsourced. Blocking individual IPs seems futile, and I don't think a rangeblock is called for. I've failed in my attempts to get the IP contributor to provide any source at all. If any uninvolved administrator feels the article should be unprotected, and that some kind of other dispute resolution is practical, then have at it (although I consider myself uninvolved, having edited the article solely in an administrative capacity). This is, incidentally, the second (substantively unrelated) time someone has been adding stuff about Bandar - last time it was claimed that he'd been arrested following an abortive coup-de-tat. I really don't think the two episodes are related, but you never know. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Patrick Kennedy II

Can someone post the notice on challenging the neutrality of an article on the Joseph Patrick Kennedy II article? I don't know how to post the notice. The notice is needed because only scandalous information is allowed and all positive information is being deleted. I posted a complaint on the discussion page and someone deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk • contribs)

Not done. Continue the discussion on the talk page please. ƒ(Δ)² 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, someone removed his talk page complaint because it was in CAPS. --CliffC (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but there is a new discussion on the talk page. ƒ(Δ)² 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Judith Sheindlin

Judith Sheindlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Also: Judge Judy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:DANIELARAGONLAW appears bent on revenge for being completely humiliated on the Judge Judy show a way back (look it up Daniel Aragon and Judge Judy on YouTube if you wish.) After he created a sockpuppet and put some real vile stuff in one or another of these articles, I blocked him (and the sock), but folks should keep an eye out. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Jpgordon. I've added both to my watchlist. –Whitehorse1 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As above. Will keep an eye out. ƒ(Δ)² 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Demagogy

  • Demagogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Another round of attempts to list "modern" demagogues. As in past efforts to do so, the listed names tell more about the adding individual's personal politics than the subject of demagogy. --Allen3 talk 13:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pranknet

This article contains biographical information about several living individuals - all of whom have received some level of media attention for their actions, but most have not been subject (yet) to criminal prosecution or a trial. Could an someone who is more active and current on guidelines in this area than I currently am give this a once over? Fawcett5 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your notice here, I had created a new one below and am merging it into this section (below). I had similar concerns but got reverted. Can we bring some other editors in? NTK (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite one month ago, The Smoking Gun published a credible investigative report revealing the true identities and biographical information of the founder/leader "Dex" and multiple other members of the Internet group Pranknet, which is responsible for all sorts of criminal phone "pranks" causing untold damage and humiliation throughout the United States. One of the alleged members, Shawn Powell a/k/a "Slipknotpsycho" has since been charged as a result of the report

Since the report, the Pranknet article was rewritten to attribute the heretofore anonymous/pseudonymous criminal activities of Pranknet and its members to the persons identified in the TSG report, as well as wholesale inclusion of the biographical and factual allegations against each of these persons in the TSG report, all of whom had previously acted anonymously/pseudonymously.

My removal of the identifying information was reverted. I contend that a single private investigative report, however credible, is not sufficient per WP:BLP to both identify all persons involved and to adopt its factual allegations. I have no quarrel with including the report and a link to it (I left it in with my edit) as well reporting on Shawn Powell's arrest, and adding references and links to any additional reporting. However given the seriousness of the criminal accusations I do not think that a single, even reputable report, suffices at this time to "out" anonymous individuals on Wikipedia itself and adopt its findings, which should be referred to as allegations. I fully expect that the situation will rapidly change as more individuals are charged and there is a public investigation and further reporting. I do think that breaking allegations against private individuals, especially damning allegations as these are, should be treated conservatively per WP:BLP. NTK (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree; the personal details are not necessary for an understanding of the topic, and the possible damage from a wrong identification, no matter how unlikely, would outweigh any benefit. --NE2 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I thoroughly disagree that the article violates BLP. The personal section is the meat of the story and very much central to understanding the topic: These guys ARE Pranknet. Moreover, the section previously blanked by NTK contains more reliable sources than just TSG. The paragraphs regarding the Pranknet members are relatively short, factual, cited and verifiable. Nothing in this disputed section is original research or an unverified claim: it has all been public knowledge as a result of multiple news reports in multiple mediums, most of which have far greater traffic than this particular article does (based on pageview stats, the Pranknet article gets a couple hundred views a day, compared to the millions who probably read TSG and newspapers.) Wikipedia is not "breaking" anything or "outing" anyone becuase this has all been public knowledge for a month now. BLP does not require that all negative information about living people be purged from Wikipedia, rather it requires that it be verifiable, neutral, well-cited by reliable sources and contain no original research or unverified negative claims. I am very much happy to see the article improved, and if specific language can be rewritten, added to, or specific details (like hometowns) removed than I'm all for it. As I said on the article talkpage, everything can be made better. But I do not think blanking 3/4 of a well-cited, verifiable article is improvement or an accurate implementation of BLP. Rather, we should strive to improve the article by adding additional citations where necessary and revising the language if necessary. NTK brought up a helpful omission on the article talk page that the Globe and Mail article seems to indicate Pranknet denies that Dex is Malik, which I will add when I get a chance later tonight. It would be nice if he added it himself instead of attacking the article wholesale. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm continuing to improve the article, have added several additional references for verification, revised language to show more ambiguity, etc. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The biographical information is verifiable and is not original research. We are simple restating information verified and published by other quite reliable sources. We have done our best in the writing of this article to keep it NPOV. If you feel the text needs editing for better NPOV, please go ahead. We can't be afraid of citing reliable sources that contain difficult content. Furthermore, there is a lot of information we've intentionally LEFT OUT of the article (such as phone numbers and street addresses of the individuals which were made public by TSG), because it is not encyclopedic and also would violate BLP practices. Ouellette (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ogi Ogas

Just a heads-up that Ogi Ogas may bear watching. He's kicked up a big firestorm in online fandom (see http://linkspam.dreamwidth.org/5800.html) leading to pressure to include more material on that in his article, but most of it is from far-from-reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Barkow

Rachel Barkow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A New York Observer article described her "as the ‘counter-clerk’ [to Antonin Scalia]—the nickname given to the Democrat he hires to sniff out political biases in his arguments." However, an anonymous IP user removed that statement again and again and again, claiming that the Observer article is flawed and that he/she "knows" Barkow. Now what to do? I just gave up reverting because I'm sick of that edit war. Is there any rule or guideline how to deal with this? All I know is that WP:COS prohibits authors "from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." // bender235 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Naledi Pandor

Unsourced BLP, issue of IPs both in main article space and talk page posting contact info. Could use some extra eyes. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove again

Someone is going to have to step in at the Karl Rove article, I feel. I'm unwilling to get involved in an edit war, where admitted right-wing partisan Soxwon is removing sourced material to fit his agenda. Look at the edits, look at his admitted political views on his talk page, and tell me what you think. Jusdafax (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, he removed something that was supported by a youtube video, which is not a reliable source, he simplified and neutralized a statement about a third party who is not the subject of the article, and he removed something claimed to be "oft cited", which did not have a supporting citation. From a BLP perspective, he did fine. Just because someone is open about their political affiliation does not necessarily mean they are editing with an agenda. We all have slight biases, even those who do not disclose their politics on their profile page. I would suggest you try discussing the article with the editor on the talk page, and try to learn to work together, and understand each other's concerns. The concerns you raise here are not a BLP issue, in my humble opinion. - Crockspot (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of either of our views it is obvious and undeniable that this article is a current hot spot of contention. On Aug 19, an editor on the Rove article was blocked after nearly two weeks of turmoil. I disagree with your opinion; I contend my concerns have been placed exactly where they need to be placed, where I and others can discuss and learn from them. Indeed, it could be argued that your statement is designed to shut down debate. Jusdafax (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Having had a quick look at the article it needs a lot of work and is generally a pile of negativity against Rove who IMHO, has been one of the most influential political figures in American, and by extension, world politics. Do I think he's also a worm? Possibly, but my opinion matters not. Look to neutral reliable sources, and there are many, to lead the way and you just may get a good article there. -- Banjeboi 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi's analysis could be read as presuming that notability (and political influence) precludes being any kind of a bad sort, which is actually the thrust of a lot of RS material about Rove. When unpicking the undoubted problems with the Rove article, we should deal with establishable facts, not being nice or nasty to him. This is the challenge in dealing with the negative coverage: neither laying on him matters which are unverifiable, nor suppressing material that is entirely due. So far the problems have been with people who either want to cast him as the devil, or as an innocent Joe unfairly slurred.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, one can certainly be a notable jerk. The point is that whether or not I like a subject we let the sources lead the way. The article is a pile of negativity presented in a POV manner. We can let the facts speak for themselves in a NPOV manner and still cite that he is seen as a bad sort. We don't state that we think he's a bad sort, we let the sources state that and everything else. -- Banjeboi 19:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that it is all right to trash Karl Rove because you think he's a jerk violates the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Justafax and VsevolodKrolikov seem to be the same person. Justafax keeps referring to my getting blocked. I got blocked out of frustration. Everytime I made a legitimate addition to the Karl Rove page, my edits got immediately deleted. So out of frustration I just went back in and reverted them. I was actually blocked less than 24 hours because an administrator told me what I needed to do to get unblocked. But Justafax is an ugly dog with a bone keeps taking stuff my talk page and posting it inappropriately in on the Karl Rove talk page. Justafax is like a cancer and so is VsevolodKrolikov and I believe they are both the same person.96.41.72.156 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

I believe that recent edits by User:SlimVirgin at Lyndon LaRouche violate WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples below are characteristic. The general effect of these edits has been to eliminate well-sourced material that presents LaRouche in a favorable light, while giving disproportionate amounts of space to highly derogatory criticism from obscure individuals, in a manner that overwhelms the article and appears to take sides. SlimVirgin has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. [28] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
  2. [29] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
  3. [30] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
  4. [31] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  5. [32] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  6. [33] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  7. [34] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  8. [35] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  9. [36] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  10. [37] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  11. [38] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  12. [39] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
  13. [40]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
  14. [41] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
For anyone who wants to look at this, the article is undergoing a long overdue clean-up, mostly Will and I doing it, and it's not finished yet. The writing's being tightened, the refs sorted out, fluff removed, over-reliance on LaRouche removed, better secondary sources added, criticism absorbed into the text rather than hanging separately, narrative flow improved, and so on. This is the version before my first recent edit (113 kilobytes); and this is the latest (91 kilobytes), so people can judge for themselves. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
And the end result is an "attack article" incompatible with BLP guidelines.--Leatherstocking (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Both Will Beback and SlimVirgin are quite capable WP:FA writers - I am sure they will do fine with the clean-up. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note on forum shopping

Howard James Hubbard

I've just removed an unsourced "controversy" section from this BLP, I would appreciate some extra eyes on the article for a bit. -- Banjeboi 15:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Coughlin

  • Kevin Coughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Journalist writes about subject of article. Journalist loses job, through circumstances that aren't quite clear. Journalist sues subject of article. Lawsuit reported in another major daily. Journalist, who happens to be a Wikipedian, then edits about the pending suit (in which he is a party) in the article. This one has WP:COI written all over it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This is untrue. The lawsuit is over. Renner dismissed Coughlin from the lawsuit. And Scene settled the lawsuit on Sept. 1. If you read the article from major dailies that were sourced in this article, you will find this to be true. Everything written on Coughlin's page is factual and is backed up by the three reputable sourced Renner has already sited. There is no legal concern as all this has been reported by The Akron Beacon Journal, the Columbus Dispatch, and the Association for Alternative Newsweeklies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.0.247 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin Lewis (financial journalist)

Biography on Martin Lewis (financial journalist) has been changed several times by IP addresses either associated with the subject or IP addresses identified as for anonymous surfing. Is there a Wikipedia policy when this happens?Thefourthestate (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The others look like dynamic (and probably residential) IP addresses: Deutsche Telekom and Tiscali UK. There is a conflict of interest noticeboard, but it could probably be discussed on the article's talk page. Maybe the user adding the {{advert}} template could explain on the talk page why the template is being added. snigbrook (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious why. The sections Petitions, Campaigns, Icelandic Banks, Recognition aren't encyclopedic. And there are vast amounts of references to the subject's website, and the other references are mostly media references listed on it. Rd232 talk 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Coghill

This biography of Jamie Coghill was created by User:The Jimmy C and appears to be a conflict of interests, given the artist's nickname (The Jimmy C) and the User's name. I'm inexperienced with COIs and with BLPs in general, so any input on the article (and the fact that it is completely unreferenced and, I suspect, not terribly notable) would be great. DreamHaze (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Coghill. Kevin (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New user locomot creating category: anti-Israel and dumping in living persons

This new user (started 24 August) is making a tremendous amount of posts, but I noticed her/him due to categorizing John Mearsheimer as anti-Israel. Went to that page and discovered only five articles in the category, one of which was Jimmy Carter. Given the subjective nature of this category, I suspect this must be a violation of BLP. Can someone look into this? Thanks in advance. Academic38 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Israel is now unpopulated apart from Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. Possibly could be nominated for deletion - I'm not sure what else would be acceptable in the category. Rd232 talk 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Is nominating a category for deletion any different than nominating an article for deletion? Academic38 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's similar, but make sure to go to WP:CFD and follow the instructions there (as opposed to the instructions on WP:AFD). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay Yadav

Biography on cardiologist whose notability I can't assess:

  1. Too much focus on one incident and not on his life and works (BLP balance/NPOV/WEIGHT issue of a negative but sourced kind)
  2. Should he have an article anyway?

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say he doesn't satisfy notability guidelines (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E). An AfD is probably in order here. ƒ(Δ)² 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Afd opened, discussion here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "crackpot" in John Hagelin

John Hagelin is a co-developer of one of the more successful unified field theories and writer over 70, frequently- cited, peer-reviewed papers. He also, in two papers, indicates that he sees an identity between this unified field of physics and a unified field of consciousness. The John Hagelin article quotes from Peter Woit's book, [44], (pg206/206) that says that most physicists think of his ideas as being "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot." It's important to say clearly in the article's Reception section [45] that most physicists don't accept Hagelin’s ideas in this regard, but I wonder if, given BLP, we need to quote the most extreme language in the source, the word "crackpot." Would it be more appropriate to say simply something like this? -- According to Peter Woit, most physicists reject Hagelin's idea that there's a connection between the unified field as understood by physics and a unified field of consciousness. The whole reception section may have problems but maybe we could start with this one.(olive (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

The statement is a direct quote from a highly-regarded book, and I believe that it accurately reflects the views of the great majority of physicists. I don't see any undue weight issue here, as the section is currently written. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
For reference, here is the text in question:
  • Peter Woit says in his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And The Search For Unity In Physical Law, that "Virtually every theoretical physicist in the world" rejects Hagelin's attempt to identify the "unified field" of superstring theory with the Maharishi's "unified field of consciousness" as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot".
While we're evaluating this, it is relevant to note that an editor has also requested that this be removed (Talk:John Hagelin#Reception section: concerns):
  • Physicist Victor J. Stenger wrote in The Humanist that "quantum consciousness" as described by Hagelin is a "myth" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."
A good strategy for writing Wikipedia articles is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. These appear to be accurate summaries of reliable sources, presented neutrally. They both appear to be significant points of view and so should be included. Both are short and do not appear to have undue weight. I don't think the word "crackpot" violates any core policy. It comes down to whether the term adds information to the article. I recently argued in a different dispute that the word "dingbat" didn't add any value to a biography because it's not informatiove.[46] OTOH, "crackpot" is a more specific criticism for a scientist, similar to calling someone involved in medicine a "quack". If there are reliable sources that express a view that the subject is a crackpot, then I think it might be a violation of NPOV to omit that. More generally, I'm concerned about the removal of criticism from the article. There appears to be a pattern of non-NPOV editing on articles related to the TM topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate to call into question the entire article in response to a fairly and neutrally written request for assistance here. You immediately colour the situation, and skew any possible fair response. You also fail to note the reasons the editor is concerned about the Stenger lines.
In terms of the word "crackpot", it is the most extreme language used, and the question I had is whether a middle ground summary would be more appropriate in a BLP article. Nowhere does it say in BLP if it adds something to the article, go ahead add it, and no single word violates a core policy. BLP does say, "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement" A good example of an article that could have used the most extreme examples available but did not, and instead is neutral and factual is the George W Bush article.(olive (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
You wrote, The whole reception section may have problems..., so it does seem germane to mention other parts of the criticism section. Since you wish to remove this bit of criticism it's relevant to note that other bits of criticism are also being proposed for removal. I don't think that laying out those fact prevents a fair response.
Our writing style is not in question here, since this is a verbatim quotation.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You called into question all of the editing on the article. And I am quoting WP:BLP.(olive (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
I proposed removing Stenger, because he says that Hagelin often talks about quantum consciousness. I can't find any instance where Hagelin has spoken about quantum consciousness. I don't think he's ever used this term. I'd appreciate if someone could find and instance. Stenger gives nothing to back up his statement. My feeling is that it's a questionable source if it doesn't give an instance and no instance can be found. TimidGuy (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The word "crackpot," as used in this article, and other such words used in these quotes, represent ad hominem attacks. Use of ridicule and ad hominem attack is the lowest form of argument, hardly one that belongs in a good WP article. The following advice under WP:BETTER is well worth keeping in mind: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." ChemistryProf (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I should note that now another set of criticism has been proposed for removal.[47] I am concerned that the criticism of the subject's scientific work is being systematically reduced. This doesn't appear to be a BLP issue, but it may be an NPOV issue.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a suggestion for rewrite which the editor says he feels was more inline with WP:BLP and should not be characterized as a removal which is untrue. As well, this is a suggestion and is open to comments and is not a fait accomplis. I suggest you take this to the NPOV /Noticeboard if you have concern about NPOV.(olive (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
I wanted to add that we don't add information to an article because we have a source for it. We edit discriminately, and make sure in a BLP that "sensitivity" as per WP:BLP to the subject is maintained. Thinking the word "crackpot" is an appropriate word to describes scientists while "quack" is good for medicine is way beyond my comprehension, and I don't see support for that theory in Wikipedia. They are name calling pure and simple, and insults, in my mind. We can describe the situation without stooping to the same level an author does who in describing this kind of situation is so lacking in vocabulary they have to resort to name calling.
Is this word "crackpot" significant as a descriptor for Hagelin. Have many people used the word so the word becomes a noteworthy and necessary description when talking about Hagelin. I don't see evidence for that.(olive (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
We're not calling Hagelin a "crackpot". We're quoting a notable source who has called him that as part of a critique of the work. While the quotation of the actual word is open to debate, I don't think there's any basis for removing the criticism itself. Wikipedia defines a "crackpot" as "a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false". We could insert text to that effect in place of the word itself, but I'd still say that's watering down the criticism.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the word itself is not well used although the criticism itself is noteworthy and should not be removed but should be reworded more in line with the Wikipedia:BLP Policy .(olive (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

It's part of a direct quote from Woit in the article, so we cannot reword it. It's not our wording to change, but Woit's. We can't reword direct quotes and we shouldn't try to water them down if they're on-topic and reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion of "most physicists reject Hagelin's idea that there's a connection between the unified field as understood by physics and a unified field of consciousness" does not appear to be a fair summary of the criticism, which can be found here: [48]. For example, rather than "most physicists" he says "virtually every theoretical physicist in the world". They don't simply "reject" it, the author says they "reject it as utter nonsense and the work of a crackpot". If you can prepare a more neutral summary of Wpoit's criticms I'm sure no one would mind using that instead of the quotation. But so far I havne't seen such a summary being proposed.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No of course we can't reword a quote, but use of the quote is a choice not an obligation. A word that is cherry picked out of much longer text and is the most derogatory word in the text is not representing the source fairly and in a BLP is transgressing what a BLP should be. This isn't watering down its writing in a summary style with the BLP guides in mind.(olive (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
I have to agree with Olive on the point "that we don't add information to an article because we have a source for it." Many "negative" quotes could be found for countless BLP articles if one was to take the time and effort to find them. Of course we need to present praise and criticism for Hagelin in a balanced, neutral NPOV way, supported by RS material, but I feel it is bad form for editors to seek out material to insert to specifically and blatantly try to damage the reputation of the person. --BwB (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It follows directly from WP:NPOV that in cases of fringe scientists such as Hagelin we should seek out and include mainstream reactions to the work to document the fact that it really is fringe and describe the work neutrally. We shouldn't avoid doing so merely because it would hurt someone's feelings. And if we have a direct source saying that he's widely regarded as a crackpot, it would be a gross misrepresentation of that source (and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV) to water it down to "some scientists view his work as unscientific" or something more generic like that. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hagelin is hardly a fringe scientist. Over 70 widely cited papers in peer reviewed journals and to quote Peter Woit "many of them published in very prestigious particle theory journals" and two controversial papers does not make Hagelin a fringe scientist by any measure. Nor is "crackpot" a term that is used anywhere else so the term itself is not noteworthy in terms of Hagelin. Hurting someone 's feeling is not an issue but following BLP which itself uses the term "sensitivity" is. I guess I would see that the issue is creating neutrality rather than watering anything down.(olive (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC))
Echoing Olive -- Hagelin played a major role in developing the leading grand unified theory in physics. He's recognized for that, including an article in Discover magazine. Do a search in Google Scholar on his name and you'll see his many papers in Physics Letters B, which is the top physics journal in the world. And he's hardly the first scientist to suggest a connection between the unified field and consciousness. Other's who've suggested this include Nobel laureates Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, and Brian Josephson. TimidGuy (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. Hagelin is absolutely a "fringe" scientist when it comes to his claims about the unified field and consciousness, his claims about the effects of TM, TM-Sidhi, Vedic Astrology and teams of Vedic Pandits performing yagyas to influence world events. There is no mainstream physicist in the world that endorses these views. "Crackpot" is an accurate description of the reaction to his theories by the scientific mainstreamFladrif (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Add another Nobel laureate to TimidGuy's list: Erwin Schrodinger. I guess if these scientists are crackpots and fringe scientists, then the Nobel Prize must be reserved mainly for fringe scientists. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but misleading. Getting mentioned in the Quantum mysticism article is not an endorsement of Hagelin's peculiar views.Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hagelin, in dealing with the subject matter of two papers we are describing here may be described as dealing in areas that are fringe to so called mainstream science, he is however by no means a fringe scientist, whatever that term may mean, and labeling him this way given his career and main body of work is inaccurate and misleading(olive (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
The primary focus of Hagelin's career for the past 25 years has been in these fringe areas, and not in mainstream theoretical physics. He has done no mainstream science whatsoever in well over a decade. To say that we're focusing only on two papers is misleading and out of context. The reason he has only two papers on the subject is that he is unable to get these theories in to mainstream publications. The two papers on unified field - consciousness were effectively self-published by Hagelin in "Modern Science and Vedic Science", journal published by Maharishi University of Management, which began when he joined the faculty. Indeed his such paper on unifield field and consciousness was in the inaugural issue of that journal. Neither of these papers are cited by any mainstream physics paper or publication. But, it is the central focus of Hagelin's career since he moved to MUM. The article prominently features the serious science that he did prior to changing the focus of his career, and also prominently features the positive reception of that work, so it is incorrect to suggest that his collaboration on various serious theoretical physics areas is not being given proper acknowledgement and weight. Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This BLP/N issue concerns one word. Your information on Hagelin is inaccurate. If you want to continue discussion of your points, for example weight in the article, we should take it back to the article discussion page. On this page we should stay with the original issue for which this BLP submission was made. (olive (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
Yes, this discussion has deviated from the main question--the appropriateness of the word "crackpot" to describe anyone in a BLP. As was suggested earlier, the following advice under WP:BETTER is quite specific: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." This statement is referring to the tone of the BLP as a whole. The term "crackpot" is emotionally loaded, and the editor who chose to place that quote in the Hagelin article changed the tone of the article, whether or not he/she intended it. Some editors here have insisted that the word is necessary to properly convey the attitude of many of Hagelin's colleagues, but the source of the quote, in attributing this position to "virtually every theoretical physicist in the world" cites no one. It is his own choice of words, and in choosing to do so, he is blatantly injecting his own OR. Are we arguing here that although WP guidelines do not allow OR from its editors, it not only allows but encourages using the OR of other individuals, even if the language is highly inflammatory and possible litigious? Seems to me that if such a thing were to end up in court, a judge would have no trouble finding solid ground for holding WP responsible. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Now you are the one injecting an emotional tone into the discussion. Please see WP:LEGAL: although you appear not to be making a direct legal threat, you are using vague hints of legal issues to attempt to push the discussion in a certain direction. As for original research: it is not forbidden for us to report on the published research of others (such a position would be absurd), only to do so here ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The point I was emphasizing is that in WP:BETTER and other places, WP guidelines recommend that the tone of all WP articles "remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." There is a way in which one could use a quote containing a loaded term such as "crackpot" while maintaining a "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate" tone, but this was not done in the case under discussion. The current use of inflammatory quotes in this BLP is a clear expression of the opinion of an editor about Hagelin, whether they intended it that way or not. As brought out in the discussion above and in WP:QUOTATIONS, this is not a recommended use of quotes. Under When NOT to use quotations, we find the following: when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias." It continues: "This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." The action choice for the article under discussion is either to leave out the inflammatory language and state the ideas in more neutral terms, or use the quote in a way that is not a "backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject." ChemistryProf (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well phrased CProf. --BwB (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As User David Eppstein astutely observed above, this dispute appears to be solely about the emotional response of a handful of editors with ties to the TM Org. They are upset with the word "crackpot", used by a prominent, reliable source to describe the views and theories of one of the senior-most members and heads of the TM Org. There is absolutely nothing wrong with accurately quoting a prominent, reliable source directly relevant to the reception of those views and theories in the mainstream scientific community. No relevant Wikipedia policy has been cited to support their claim that the word shouldn't be used or that it should be watered down by substituting some more palatable term. That, however, would be wrong and a direct violation of WP policy that requires that sources be accurately represented with neither overstatement nor understatement.Fladrif (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. I thank the editors who have commented here. Disagreeing with them in a discussion is quite different than your highly generalized allegations above. We are here to hash out an editing concern and not to attack anyone. Relevant policies in fact have been cited. What is missing is agreement on how those policies apply to this situation-a very legitimate discussion.(olive (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Look, I understand that it is stressful for some editors here to see MUM faculty members and their theories and methods being called "crackpot", whether it's by Woit [49], or former MUM Dean of Faculty and Physics Dept Chair Dennis Roark [50] or by Iowa State University professor John Patterson in the New York Times [51] or James Randi [52] or Salon [53] or, ...well, hopefullyyou get the point. The point is, lots of reliable sources report the Hagelin's views and theories are widely considered to be "crackpot", using that precise term, and accurately reporting that in this article is in perfect accord with Wiki policy. Other terms used in these sources to describe Hagelin include "grade-A nut job" and "cult leader". Crackpot is hardly the harshest term that might be selected.Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Fladrif, what you see here are some editors getting feedback in an appropriate forum in regard to how policy may apply to a particular situation. These are editors who, unlike you, have never been warned or blocked for making personal attacks. Your constant ad hominem isn't appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What I see here are some editors who aren't getting the feedback they were hoping to get on this forum, and who are either arguing with it here or ignoring it back on the article and its talkpage. These are editors who, unlike me, have been repeatedly warned at WP:COIN that because they have direct conflicts of interest in the subject-matter, they are not to edit the Transcendental Meditation-related articles.Fladrif (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Fladrif. Your constant and inaccurate references to the COI issue is harassment, as is your attempt to slam the entire MUM faculty in your post above. You have been asked to please stay within the confines of the discussion without attacking the editors here. This issue is not being discussed on the TM article rather an entire section is being discussed; I would appreciate accuracy. I thank and respect the input of the uninvolved editors here, but feel the issues specifically surrounding a BLP have not been addressed, In addition there have been numerous inaccuracies, attacks, and red herrings in this discussion which have helped to create an embarrassingly long and non productive situation. My suggestion is to take this back to the TM talk page and attempt to reach an agreement and or compromise among the editors there taking into consideration the input of the editors here (olive (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

T.R. Reid

I'm T. R. Reid, the author and reporter described in your article "T. R. Reid." There are some mistakes in your article. Since so many people use Wikipedia, I regularly have to respond to users who have found inaccurate info in your article about me. These errors proliferate like mad.

My sense is that it's extremely hard to get this stuff corrected. Is there anybody at Wikipedia who is responsible for correcting errors? I'd like to get accurate info. in the bio of me, but can't figure out how to do it.

Your software was concerned about "excessive amounts of consecutive whitespace" (whatever that is) in my comment. I hope you will show the same concern about getting the information right.

Please help! --thanks, t.r. reid —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRREID (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. If you are actually T.R. Reid, it's good that you're open about it. Although anyone can edit wikipedia, directly editing material about yourself is a conflict of interest and is discouraged. Instead, the best thing to do is go to the talk page Talk:T.R._Reid for discussing changes to the article and post your specific concerns there, and other editors can respond. I've set up a section for you to add to. By the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes (~) so that your automatic signature comes up, and people know who's posting.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You also have the option of contacting OTRS volunteers via email. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem for details. -- Ϫ 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking it's only hard to fix errors if they appear in reputable published sources -- that always makes things difficult. Uncontroversial errors are usually easy to fix -- just point them out at the article's talk page, Talk:T.R. Reid. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing hard about removing poorly sourced information, no matter who makes the request. WP:BLP is clear that any contentious edits are to be removed until they can be strictly sourced per WP:RS. TRReid, I have made a couple of edits; what other errors or additions do you see that we can help you with? Flowanda | Talk 11:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see and help at the discussion about sourcing: Talk:T.R. Reid. Flowanda | Talk 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-inserted material (verbatim quotes) that had been less than optimally sourced, with it sourced to the magazine Counterpunch, which publishes notable writers and commentators. The material was removed. Counterpunch has a particular opinion bias, but I do not see how it is an unreliable source for verbatim quotations. The quote was about PBS, and PBS responded to it, so I am puzzled as to how the material can be considered a violation of BLP. There is no record of TR Reid or anyone disputing the veracity of the quote, and it has been re-published in several places.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The material has now been also sourced to the PBS website and to Current_(newspaper), the US public broadcast trade journal, as well as Counterpunch, but an editor is still objecting. Is there something about BLP sourcing I don't understand?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Help! He is now claiming that PBS is "self-published" if it reports on criticism about itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Diane Tell

89.3.21.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing this page, claiming to be the subject, seeking to have her date of birth and age removed from "Wikipedia US" in the same way it has been removed from "Wikipedia France". Looking at the French article, there is indeed no DoB on the page. More eyes and thought are required here. This was originally listed on AIV but it is more appropriate to take it elsewhere. ➲ REDVERS The internet is for porn 09:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since writing the above, the IP switched to vandalising the article, so I reverted and semi-protected it for 5 days. This does nothing to solved the underlying problem. ➲ REDVERS The internet is for porn 09:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are a few issues here. One is the content itself, is the birthdate reliably sourced? Then is it that important? If we have compelling evidence the BLP subject tries to keep it private it may need to be redacted in some way, possibly using just the birth year than the full date as that is a BLP issue to help prevent identity theft. See if her websites and what the most reliable sources use. If she herself seems to advertise the date then there's little reason to leave it off. If she seems to avoid it then I would go with just the year. -- Banjeboi 15:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Alas, the year is the thing the IP was vandalising. (BTW, I have no interest in the article in any way, I just tipped this out of AIV). ➲ REDVERS The internet is for porn 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a discussion on birth date and year should be sorted out a Talk:Diane Tell first. There are contradictory sources (1957 vs 1959) and it would be a good to determine if consensus can be reached on what dob/year should be established, based on available WP:RS. Dl2000 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
MY NAME IS DIANE TELL, my email is [email protected], I'm the one that claims to be the subject, I'm the vandal, the very mean IP that had the "outrecuidance" of contributing on my page lately. I am taking the time here to respond to wiki volonteers who say "have no interest in this article in any way" but are contesting my contributions. I do admit that my preference is to "Not communicate on my age" for privacy reasons among other choices. I think we live in a society obsessed with age and I desagree with this fact, no matter what the age of the person is, so when I can, (obviously it is impossible on this web site) I try to be discrete about it... Of course it is sometimes important to have those facts right but most of the time knowing the age of a person tells you absolutely nothing about him or her. On the other hand, it can be discreminating in many cases. I could go on and lay arguments about how detrimental, especially towards woman, focusing on ones age can be. That's all. Now this discussion on my particular age on this wiki page is a proof of what I just wrote. When I started singing, I was very young and sang in bars so I had a false ID aging me a few years... Those who need to know my age can get it easy. What matters most to me is the way wikipedia has been dealing with this and me as a living person contributing to a public page about myself... I was cut off, accused of vandalism, corrections on other matters where deleted etc...

Now that this is all said, my problem with my wiki page is that the references you quote are nonsense, just ridiculous... I know, all you are trying to do is, so and so says this, that other person says that, for neutrality reasons and only about my age.... But...Anyone can and will link to those websites and references and find the most ourtragious information, will copy paste it, and that lie will spread like a virus on the web. That is what happens, it does all the time, and for a public person, it is very difficult to mannage. How can you rely on The Canadian Encyclopedia web site where was added so many silly lies about me 20 years ago, no up dates, and make this link available to your readers calling it a reference.... Is it because it says Encyclopedia in the title ? How can you rely on newspaper magazines as sources. Your other references about me : Télémelody, MCM, Ramdam, Hergé fan site, do you know what these pages are ? It's like quoting Echo Vedette or the National Enquire for pete's sake ! This is not serious work, these are not serious references. If my age was not mentioned those stupid references would not be needed and that would solve the problem.

My wiki english page is very important to me because we have a very good revised website opening on thursday that is visited by people from over a 100 countries and other Web 2.0 pages, but they all are in french. The idea was to tie my official site with yours so english readers could get english information...

This experience makes me very suspicious about all wiki articles. From what I understand, people "with no interest in any way" in an article as one person mentioned earlier, consider themself "justicier", and run the show... so you win. My page is yours. I just don't care anymore.

Just to show how not serious this Canadian Encyclopedia source is....

quote « In 1981, Diane Tell represented Quebec at the Spa Festival, Belgium, with 'Maître en parologie' and 'Si j'étais un homme,' (she was the only female participant). The latter song truly showcased her talent and won her a trophy at the MIDEM in Cannes in 1982. »

Correction : I represented Canada in Spa, chosen by Radio Canada with 4 songs including « Si j’étais un homme » but was eliminated from the contest at 2nd round… and did not make it to semi finals…. The Trophy won at MIDEM was for my 4th album « Chimères » published a few years after the Spa event and it did not contain Si j'étais un homme.

quote « She then began singing with the jazz group UZEB, adding a unique ability to her performing style; with the group, she appeared at Montreal's Forum and toured in France. »

Correction. I never performed at the Montreal Forum with UZEB nor did I tour in France with that band.

quote « Appearing once more at the Olympia in 1989, she also starred, along with Renaud Hantson and Nanette Workman, in La Légende de Jimmy, a rock opera by Luc Plamondon and Michel Berger (staged by her husband, Jérôme Savary). »

Correction. I was never married or engage to be married to Jérôme Savary.

quote « Les Cinémas-bars. 1977. Pleiade 2424-16 and Poly MIF-1-5313 »

Correction. The name of her first album is not Les Cinémas-bars, it’s Diane Tell.

A really desapointed wiki user. Diane Tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane tell (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Horowitz

I have protected this article, and unblocked the IP that Horowitz himself seems to have been using, because of what seems to be politically-motivated editing of the page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Might want to drop the IP a notice of your actions. Tan | 39 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly inserts the unsubstantiated (and untrue) claim that Frank's father was "involved with the Mafia". LotLE×talk 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's sourced to a New Yorker profile by Jeffrey Toobin. The source says: "According to Frank, his father was involved with the Mafia." So the edit seems reasonably sourced to me, and it attributes the claim to Frank himself, as does the source. It's basically a sentence from about halfway through a 1,000,000-word profile, so picking it out to be featured in our article might be questionable in terms of giving it undue weight, but I don't see a BLP issue here since the source is reliable and the edit reflects its content accurately. MastCell Talk 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kari Ann Peniche

Various sources, the most reliable of which appears to be the New York Daily News, have reported that the LAPD is investigating a video that featured Peniche and two other celebrities for possible criminal activity. They also quote various celebrities making statements about some alleged criminal activity.

It's my view that this info is not sufficiently substantiated to be included, and that even if it were, without a criminal conviction it seems unlikely that it needs to be in an encyclopedia article. But other editors are rather insistent about including it. I'm not intimately familiar with how BLP issues like this are handled, so I'm seeking a more experienced admin to make a call on this one. Thanks for any insight or assistance. -Pete (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul_LaViolette

There is an RFC concerning notable biographical details. Please comment.Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed rumors in André Bauer article

In the last week or so, South Carolina LG André Bauer has been the subject of allegations about his sexuality from a blog[54] which does have a pretty good track record in making such allegations but is nonetheless a one-person blog. I have gone ahead and removed the lengthy section[55] about this on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds; the sole direct source is this blog, and while one local TV station and one national LGBT publication mentioned it, they simply covered the controversy, such as it is. As I recall in the case of the John Edwards allegations last year[56], the Enquirer was not good enough (even though they had a good track record on the subject) and coverage of denials was not considered significant enough at the time, even though they had appeared in higher-profile newspapers. If it's true, it will eventually out (so to speak) and find a place in the article. For now, I'm expecting to be reverted on short order, so I figured I would bring this to your attention. Cheers, WWB (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones

Our Van Jones article can probably use some experienced eyes to take a look at it. Van Jones has been in the news lately for calling an opponent political party "assholes"[57] and for signing a 9/11 conspiracy theory petition[58]. There's a lot of edit-warring going on (including claims as to whether or not he's a communist.) To make matters worse, the article is using blogs and opinion pieces for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bump. Ongoing debate about how to present his resignation - more eyes may be helpful. Rd232 talk 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Franken

Al Franken is not an IOOF member. I have no idea about the reliability of this website, but the original statement is unsourced. I think we should remove it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

done. It was added a year ago, without a source; perhaps someone should take it up with that editor. Rd232 talk 13:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, on the Independent_Order_of_Odd_Fellows page, it might be an idea to turn the See Also "notable fellows" into prose, explaining who they are, what significance fellowship had for them. Rd232 talk 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Clausen

  • Jimmy Clausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A current college football quarterback at a major college (which is the only thing that makes him notable per WP:ATHLETE). Two items were in a section entitled Incidents involving Alcohol both of which occured years ago. The first was a picture of him in the newspaper with what might be beer in a cup which is clearly non-notable gossip. One was an incident with him as a minor with him driving someone else to a store where the overage person purchased alcohol, there was no alcohol in his system. In this incident (which occured as a minor) he never went to trial and after one year, the incident was stricken from the record, which means it should be stricken from here too as it is not very notable anyhow. Leaving either items in Wikipedia gives more importance to the topic than it deserves and violates the privacy of Mr. Clausen. It clearly doesn't belong to remain forever in an article about a football player. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
By "years ago", Kelley means within the past 2 years. Both incidents gained significant coverage, and are properly sourced, so no conflict with WP:BLP. Furthermore, very much worth pointing out that Kelley has quite the history of pro-ND POV edits (which is usually what we deal with when people try to delete this section of the article). Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Just an aside before I respond to KelleyCook's concern. What makes him notable is that there is substantial coverage of him which is contained in reliable, independent sources. The fact that he holds an arbitrary job (like the quarterback on a college football team) is inconsequential with regards to the existance of those sources. Back to the question at hand. The existance of a reliable source for a "fact" is not a club to weild to force others to accept one's own version of an article. Reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient reason for writing something in an article. WP:UNDUE specifically states that information which is included in an article should not be given weight out of proportion to the importance of a topic. Furthermore, WP:BLP states that WP:NPOV (of which WP:UNDUE is a subsection) must be followed strictly and conservatively, and that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." As a counterpoint, there is a counter-statement in the same policy (see "Well-known public figures" section), and for someone who is name is mentioned daily at ESPN, I would consider him Very Well-known) it states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The deal is, the person looking to keep the information in the article needs to establish that the incidents are both notable and relevent, and well-documented (see WP:BURDEN). In this case, the fact that the reported information about Claussen's drinking has NOT been reported beyond the initial incident, it does not appear that the world at large considers the events to have a historical significance, per WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia is not meant to be a paraphrase of every event merely because it appeared in a newspaper once. Others may feel free to comment, but it looks, from the balance of the article, that the preservation of a couple of underage drinking incidents from a couple of years ago is out of balance with the coverage such events represent in the world outside of Wikipedia, and as such, they probably should go altogether. --Jayron32 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Xujia Wang

Resolved

Created as a negative biography of a marginally notable individual. May need eyes/further community discussion.  Skomorokh  08:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about what your concern is, as it seems that you are the editor who actually restored the negative material here. Can't it be argued that until the article is more defined, inclusion of this insider trading incident fails WP:WEIGHT? My view would be that it's very wrong to reduce the entire life of a person to one incident of insider trading, even if it happens to be true. It's the job of judges & courts to deal with insider trading, not Wikipedia. Other opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted it here because it is ineligible for speedy deletion but could become a magnet for unproductive contributions. I added the reliably-sourced content as it is the primary claim to notability of the topic. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have voted to have the article deleted. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like article was deleted, guess it's resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

David Thorne (writer)

Editors involved:
Thedarxide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Scott.Mintred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Simon Dempsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since I am coming close to violating the 3RR, I am requesting comments for third parties. The trouble with this article started with this [[59]] by Simon Dempsey, which he described as "undoing a personal attack". The edit in question did not appear to do this, and I reverted it back to the prior version, and then went through the article making it more neutral and requesting citations. This was then reverted by Simon Dempsey, and I asked why on his talk page. His response was that Scott Mintred was "a twit" and stated the addition was an "abuse". I then put back the article with the citation requests and more neutral language, with further discussion on Simon Dempsey's talk page. He then stated that it was too dangerous to list the subjects place of work, and further reversions followed. Simon has stated "I work with David [...]I appreciate you know what you are doing but this information is not to be listed".

I would like some opinions on my requirements for citations, whether I am being too strict for a BLP page on toning the language, and whether listing publically available information is, in fact, "dangerous". Also, does Simon Dempsey have a conflict of interest? Thedarxide (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Leighton Meester

At the moment the article about actress Leighton Meester is using a primary source (her birth certificate) as a reference for her birth location. This is potentially a touchy BLP issue since she was born in prison, but it also seems a bit odd to have Wikipedia list her as born somewhere different than what secondary and tertiary sources say. Secondary reliable sources mention her birth location as Marco Island (presumably because that is the info Meester gave them) (AP,People, CTV.ca) as do the common tertiary sources (TV Guide, TV.com, imdb). I'm taking this here because I'm not familiar enough with the use of primary sources in BLPs to make a judgement call myself. Siawase (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Start with the best sources which do support the born in jail bit but rework the content to be all about Leighton rather than criminality of parents. This is a very interesting aspect but we should phrase it NPOV and show how it affected or didn't affect her. -- Banjeboi 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Secondary sources do state that she was born in Texas, including the one I added to the article along with the primary one (namely an article from the Chicago Sun-Times by Bill Zwecker, archived at that link). All Hallow's (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If there are sufficient secondary sources we don't need to use her birth certificate, right? btw, looking at the search benjiboi linked, some of the sources seem to say she was born in a halfway house rather than prison, but maybe details like that are better discussed at Talk:Leighton Meester. Siawase (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this person, but in cases like this, I generally think it's best to write Wikipedia text which exposes the inconsistency. "News sources have reported her birth as ABC, but her birth certificate states XYZ." Obviously that's a very simplified version, but I'd recommend something along those lines. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I found a Rolling Stone article that describes the circumstances in more detail than the google news articles, and updated the Meester article accordingly (see Talk:Leighton Meester#Birth). The only thing the birth certificate is used for now is to pinpoint the exact county (which perhaps doesn't need to be mentioned?) Siawase (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Good work! -Pete (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the birth certificate with refs to the print version of the Us magazine ref already in the article. Their account was very detailed but omitted the county, so I removed that from the article. Siawase (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

I haven't edited biographies in a while, but it strikes me as violating WP:BLP to open one with

Paul A. LaViolette (born ca 1948[1]) is an American scientist who has proposed unorthodox physics theories and interpretations of the Bible, Mayan pictograms, the Zodiac and ancient Vedic stories.[citation needed]

User:Meco sees nothing wrong with it. I don't care about this guy, so I'm posting this message here as my last involvement with that article. Pcap ping 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I am posting an advisory there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No, this is a BLP issue. If you can't provide a reference for the very first statement in a biographical article, which is quite negative towards the subject, then either BLP has been changed beyond recognition in last year, or the Wikipedia attack machine just soldiers on, even after the editor that added the claims in the first place got indef blocked. Pcap ping 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pls write protect the Biography of Arindam Chaudhuri

Dear Administrators,

Regarding Biography of Arindam Chaudhuri Kind Attention:- There are some unwanted Controversial material (in the External links heading) not relevant to the persons life but to the organisation he works in is being posted. I request you to Kindly take care of the following unwanted edits.

I have also noticed that these edits are usually done by the users using IP addresses as user names like 210.212.5.88 or 208.59.129.108 also in recent times Unethical language was being used addressing the name of the person directly which i feel is against the norms (which can be seen in the earlier edits done by 208.59.129.108 link to which is as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arindam_Chaudhuri&oldid=310104318))and i have also reported it in this section only for the same. Kindly take care of the same or make the article protected so that unwanted edits can be avioded.

Thanks and Regards--Gurmeet singgh (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's very little activity going on when compared to other articles and it's easily revertable so I doubt the artcle needs protection (I'll put it on my watchlist). For future reference, requests for page protection can be made here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Trexler, Phil (June 2, 2009). "Journalist Sues Cleveland Scene Over Firing". Akron Beacon Journal. Akron, Ohio. Retrieved 2 January 2009.
  2. ^ Nash, James (September 3, 2009). "Fired Reporter Claims Measure of Vindictaion". Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved 3 September 2009.
  3. ^ Trexler, Phil (September 4, 2009). "Reporter Settles Suit with Cleveland Scene". Akron Beacon Journal. Akron, Ohio. Retrieved 4 September 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive70&oldid=1142498388"