Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79

Kim Hollingsworth[edit]

What I am amazed at is that I, the subject, made an attempt to do a wikipedia entry and it was rejected. But now I see a few weeks later there is a factually incorrect page under my real name. I want the whole thing removed in 48 hours. Otherwise the lawyers will be put onto it. You have just entered details about someone who was in witness protection, and if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame, your stupid site listing personal information without even checking with the living person. GET IT ALL OFF!!!! Kim Hollingsworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) IF YOU WANT AN ENTRY IN THIS WELL I WILL GIVE YOU ONE, BUT THIS INFORMATION IS PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER. ALL OF IT- OFF! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kim Hollingsworth seems to be well sourced. If that's you sorry it doesn't look like much can be done about it. If not then understand that there are many people who share the same name. Both of these are fairly common. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame". Well, that sounds more like Pauline Hanson ("if you are seeing me now, it means I have been murdered"). Melodrama aside, please advise (with references) what information is incorrect and it can be corrected. Also, please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the individual in question lives publicly, including posting her name and phone number for an animal-rights rally, I don't believe the OP. Oh, by the way, it's very easy to see that the IP geolocates to an ISP in Sydney, Australia, so it wouldn't be too smart for a person in protection to be posting here without a login! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have problems regarding content in a biography that you claim to be yours you need to contact the OTRS team, if you visit this page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I know they are open to consider requests from living people to remove content that may be damaging or demeaning to that person. Since you have expressed a very high level of concern, I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction than attempts to edit the article or discussion here, regards, feel free to comment further here or on my talkpage if you have any other questions regarding this that I can perhaps help you with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Malloy[edit]

This man gained a bit more notoriety by claiming right-wing talk show hosts were guilty in the September 11th attacks. It will surely get more attention. As is, the page is an unsourced nightmare. I don't want to touch it right now without some form of consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some quite controversial content there, some of it uncited for long time, and the 3 citations that are there don't look very good, one is the brad blog another is Green 960 pages, blog neither of which is imo a wikipedia reliable source and the last one is the subjects own Mike Malloy Show site? so it's not a good independent source either, imo the uncited stuff that is in any way controversial needs removing straight away, I would remove the blog citations and stub the article back to a couple of lines and add the Mike Malloy show site as an external link and either work to improve it with new citations or add a uncited blp template and then as is going on around prod it . Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it back leaving only a few simple details, and tagged it as uncited, if someone is interested in the topic, it is in need of a copy edit and a couple of references. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. V. Grant[edit]

W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm requesting help in resolving a long dispute. I figure that if we can get an expert in that will mediate it it should help some. I'm about ready to just send it to Afd and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 January 2010

An article such as this one will never be neutral. On one hand it is currently unbalanced in the amount of coverage it gives his crimes and detractors. OTOH the whitewash version created by the WP:SPAs is simply unencyclopedic. Martin451 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Daroff[edit]

The article and the image within are a hint that William Daroff and the uploader of the image User:Repjew might be the same person. Can somebody with more clue on this kind of topic have a look.--Stone (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any wiki bio that doesn't have any criticism at all is unusual indeed, I have tagged it with COI and NPOV template and left him a message asking about it, the article is well cited and not over bad, just a bit one sided, I really dislike lists like this though...He has also been widely quoted in leading news outlets, including The New York Times[14], The Washington Post[15], USA Today[16], The Los Angeles Times[17], Newsweek[18], The International Herald-Tribune, Slate[19], The Jerusalem Post[20], Ha’aretz[21], The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)[22], The Forward[23], and newspapers around the world. He has also made frequent radio and television appearances[24] Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the questions. I do not know Daroff. It is my intent to write entries on Jewish political leaders, and this was my first attempt. I wanted to say that he's often quoted in the news media to show that he's newsworthy. I figured that the laundry list of articles would serve as a sufficient way of showing that. Since I think his being quoted in the media is relevant, how should I cite that? Also, I included his twitter feed since that's how I learned he existed and because the newservice JTA called him among the most influential Jewish twitterers in the world. So, his twitter url seems relevant. Should I make it an external link at the bottom? Also, do I really need to find something bad about the subject to make this a complete entry? Thanks for your help - as a newbie, I appreciate it. Repjew (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Walker[edit]

Resolved

– subject was as predicted alive and well.

Could people take a look at this article please? IP editors are repeatedly editing the article to claim that the subject has died, without any corroborating sources. This happened in December, and again today. Murray Walker is very famous in the UK - particular in Formula 1 circles - and if he had actually died, sources would be easy to find. Google News finds nothing.

WP:3RR suggests I bring this up here rather than rely on the BLP exception to the rule (which I believe applies) - so that's what I'm doing. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations and blatent vandalism are exceptions to 3RR, and unless there is a reliable source saying he is dead, claim that he is dead is BLP vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather what I thought. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Foster[edit]

I'd appreciate some input over on Peter Foster.

Brief background: Peter Foster is an Australian who's been jailed in three continents for fraud, false advertising, and other such offences. Media outlets commonly describe him as a 'con man'. According to this Courier-Mail article (as reproduced on PF's website - I have not sighted the original) his mother called him "Ratu Galoot" (King Fool). An ABC piece described him thus:

"Interviewing white collar criminals like Foster is probably the toughest part of this job. They’re harder to talk to than politicians because lying isn’t just a habit for them, it’s a business practice. If they can they’ll try to play you like they play everybody, with a carefully marked deck. The trick is, to recognise the cards. Tonight’s main guest Peter Foster is ultimately in the business of selling himself. He bought [sic]the full deck of cards marked ‘trust me’ to our studio."

The original version of Foster's WP article was created in 2005 by Ratugaloot (user has a total of three edits, all to that article). While it acknowledges his criminal record, it comes across as a puff piece: 'Said to be fiercely intelligent, charming, witty and entertaining, he has also been labelled as “the greatest conman of all time,” in Nigel Blundell’s 2004 book, “The Sting: True Stories of the World's Greatest Conmen”.'

The article was subsequently edited by User:Kingcoconut, an apparent single-purpose account created one day after Foster was released from prison.[1] It has also been edited extensively by anons (see the PF talk page for detail). Both Kingcoconut's edits and the anons' have concentrated on playing up Foster's "celebrity". There have been repeated attempts to emphasise the "international playboy" angle on the strength of a few articles that have used this as a throwaway line - even though those articles give vastly more coverage to his criminal activities.

As discussed on Talk:Peter Foster, many of these edits are unbalanced and poorly cited, and some are hard to see as anything other than bad faith. Examples include 'citations' to sources that do not support the content attributed to them, and to sources that are difficult to check. After hunting down several sources and finding that they had been dishonestly used, I am unwilling to trust any source offered in that article until I've checked it to confirm that the citation is accurate.

When other editors have attempted to rebalance the article, Kingcoconut and anons have complained vociferously about bias etc. (Foster took a similar course of action after an ABC interview turned out less favourably than he had hoped.)

On the one hand, I appreciate that WP:BLP requires us to be careful in how we write about living people, for good reason.

On the other, based on editing style, agenda, etc, I am convinced that Ratugaloot, Kingcoconut, and the anonymous IPs are one and the same person, and would lay good money that that person is none other than Peter Foster. Whether or not I'm correct in that belief, it's clear that they are trying to promote Foster. I don't believe BLP requires us to accept that. However, I get nervous deleting favourable material from a BLP on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT - what's the best way to deal with this issue? --GenericBob (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accept no fluff...he is not a major criminal though and he is a living person, the article is a bit poor and a bit excessively negative towards him imo, yes I know, all the tabloid style reports are negative so what can we do..what I find is that if you write a decent encyclopedic style article the article will be respected and will stabilize, people will come there and read it and think, yea, that was imformative. Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orca Conservancy[edit]

I've been concerned about changes made to Springer (orca) and Luna (Orca) for several weeks. Content was recently added and re-added by editors who appear to have a close relationship with a person I'll call M.H.: Babywildfilms (talk · contribs) and Mrjoshuawells (talk · contribs). Much of this is sourced from a document called "The Springer File" which is here: http://www.orcaconservancy.org/ . The Springer File is a mixture of copied newspaper articles and original pieces written by M.H. The parts written by M.H. include extremely POV commentary about named living individuals. See, for example, the section titled "OC TIMELINE: ”THE EVIL DR. NIGHTINGALE”. I would be happy to remove *everything* sourced to the Springer File and all links to it. I've been posting messages for weeks to get more eyes on this article, with little response, but I only just realized the severity of the BLP problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've removed all URLs that lead to the website. The website itself contains clear BLP violations. A question for the community is whether this website may be used as a source at all, or whether all material that relies on it must also be removed immediately and without discussion. There are IMHO good reasons to remove it, in addition to BLP. The question is, how urgently does this have to be done? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should fix the BLP violation quickly and do not worry about 3RR. As for the source, if you care to nail it down, I would take it to the RS noticeboard.--Jarhed (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Solomon[edit]

I just protected that article for editwarring over a new addition; most recent reversion. It is stated that the quality of the sourcing falls below that required by WP:BLP, but I would like to request review as I am not sure that any violation is egregious enough to invoke the BLP-hammer. If any uninvolved party concludes that this is warranted, please revert through the protection. The current discussion is at Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Environmentalist (2). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any real BLP reasons for concern. Specifically anyway all of the arguably weakly sourced material is positive about the living person so we are in peacock and undue territory nowhere near a defamation. --BozMo talk 10:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gruber (economist)[edit]

Several single-purpose accounts are persistently adding large amounts of negative material which is sourced solely to weblog entries and op-ed pieces. The SPAs engage in edit-warring when the material is removed.

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

— goethean ॐ 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked for 24 and a sock farm is under investigation, obama health care issues, awful, I have watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting the fact of the socking, one of the queries is of the sourcing. Does an op-ed from New York Times, etc suffice to add the bit that's trying to be added to the article. NJA (t/c) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's vastly WP:UNDUE for more than the passing mention I've left in; and the sources are either bloggy, partisan, or primary (the Times note is a primary source here). Rd232 ^talk 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Keel[edit]

The background information on this page comes word for word from the president's biography at www.georgiasouthern.edu/president . Every external link goes straight to a marketing page for Georgia Southern Very biased information. 141.165.171.60 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the copyvio material and deleted two external links. If the university would like to release the copyright text for use, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you have ongoing concerns about bias you could start a discussion on the article's talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weisbrot[edit]

Some recent editing at Mark Weisbrot (a left US economist) sought to characterise him as "a vocal supporter of Hugo Chavez in the United States", as the second part of the first sentence, no less.[7] That morphed into this version, where a similar meaning is given in the final sentence of the lead ("an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies"). Apart from the question of due weight, there may be issues of synthesis (possibly) from sources not necessarily reliable, and of over-generalising (being an economist, he's mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies). The "Latin America" section seems now also to have developed into an attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez - which is particularly obvious and questionable in relation to the "South of the Border" film, on which he was an "adviser" to an unspecified degree. The final part of that section, associating Weisbrot with the Venezuela Information Office via a National Review article referring to the organisation he works for, seems again somewhat synthesis. Some additional eyes please. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232, I took a look at it. Far from being synthesis, it looks like an accurate summation of information and statements made in reliably sourced articles. It's not just NR here; one of the cites in the introduction is the NYT. SandyGeorgia (the editor introducing this stuff) seems to have a good grip on neutrality and the situation. Ray^Talk 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated :) As a side issue, it would be helpful if others would keep an eye on the edit warring of JRSP and Rd232 across Venezuela/Chavez/BLP articles. In this article, they reverted together to exclude this info. Rather than discuss and improve articles, even when text is clearly sourcable, they just remove whatever is inconvenient. In another article, they revert to include a source that did not say what they said it said (the US State Dept never said Chavez was "illegally" detained, but they revert to include that info.)[8] Getting more eyes on these issues across all Chavez/Venezuela articles now would help. It would be helpful if they would learn to collaborate and discuss rather than edit via revert. For example, if Rd232 thinks the current section is an "attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez", he is welcome to actually work on the article to expand it via editing, not reverting sourcable additions. I already spent ten hours cleaning up the mess that was previously there :) P.S. I didn't "introduce this stuff" :) The text was originally added by another editor, cited to the New York Times,[9] summarily reverted (as is custom across Chavez/Venezuelan articles, even though it's easily sourced),[10] [11] [12] so I began to look at the article and the issues, which led to cleaning up a very poorly written article. Further, Weisbrot's involvement with Chavez is not confined to "economic policy" as Rd232 alleges: for example, the advisor role on Stone's film, and this example (there are many others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent. Rd232 ^talk 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libel? Excuse me? Is that a legal threat? You added back text that incorrectly represented a citation. Where is the libel in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a habit, Sandy. What I said was "misrepresentation verging on libel" (and of course it's not a threat). You knew or should have known (and certainly should have checked at this point) that I did not do that deliberately. You removed a word saying it was unsupported by the existing citation, which I didn't originally add. In response I readded the word with an additional source. Prior to that there was a to-and-fro between two different versions, but nobody'd said the word wasn't supported by the existing source. What does any of this have to do with current issues at Mark Weisbrot? Not a damn thing, it's pointless historiography. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a habit of verifying sources and supplying diffs which plainly back what I state. Your version above is incorrect: you reverted to text which is not verified by the source given;[13] at that point, I hadn't edited at all. You did it not once, but three times.[14] [15] I didn't edit to remove the word until much later.[16] Your edit history shows you do edit by reverting on Chavez/Venezuela articles quite a bit; when you revert to text that is not backed by the sources supplied, that's the same as adding incorrect info yourself, whether deliberate or not (noting that I never said it was "deliberate", just something that you've done). Editing via revert is bitey, discourages others from participating, and lowers collaboration among editors and the possibility that articles will be accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs supplied verify what I said. On that one word the text was not supported by the ref; a ref I didn't add and which had been there a long time and which no-one had at the point said didn't support the word. Within minutes of someone (you) pointing that out, I supplied another ref. And again, the prior re-adding of the word was as part of editing back and forth over a number of changes, a fact you conveniently gloss over, enabling you to imply I should have checked the source given for a single contested word (there were lots of changes, and sourcing wasn't the reason given for removal). Why you're trying to paint me as a liar and bad faith manipulator, I do not know; but that you do it repeatedly on a topic irrelevant to the subject in hand is really quite aggravating. Rd232 ^talk 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, back on topic. You requested other input here, and although no one yet who has visited the article or this page has agreed with you, you nonetheless removed fully cited text and continue to claim that it is original research and synthesis. Could you please explain why we don't want Wiki readers to know what reliable sources have to say about Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research and Venezuela Information Office? Wiki is not censored; please see WP:CONSENSUS, and restore the cited text. And yes, "verging on libel" is clearly a threat, as it could have the effect of silencing someone with whom you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic (remember that? good) you're quite plainly wrong: user:John Z agreed with me below, and made an edit backing up his comment. Rd232 ^talk 22:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, JohnZ did not agree with you, and removed the one clause that he had a problem with (which, by the way, came from the South of the Border article, as a claim that US critics had a problem with the film). Please do read his response, and refrain from edit warring against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've commented at WP:ANI#Legal threat, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, just a statement of fact that may be wrong or true. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of WP:BLP is to prevent libel on behalf of Wikipedia. Sandstein 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, could you please take the time to read the statement again? He did not say the article was libelous; he said my characterization of the edits was verging on libel. That is plain. He is saying I misrepresented his edits with regard to the State Dept sourcing issue, which I plainly did not, as shown by the diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, that is indeed more problematic; not a legal threat stricto sensu but such comments should be avoided if only for reasons of collegial courtesy. Sandstein 22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs show what happened. It's your interpretation thereof which is mispresentation. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuela emphasis does seem a little WP:UNDUE. The statement that "South of the Border,a 2009 film about Chavez which was not well received by US critics", citing mainly negative reviews is a clear case of OR, so I removed it. A statement of expert consensus, particularly in a BLP, must be sourced and preferably quoted, and the relation of the film's reviews to Weisbrot is too tenuous.John Z (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a positive review, by all means, add it. I couldn't find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

Comments please re a WP:Synthesis concern explained at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Synthesis. thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 is still edit warring to remove the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drawing on the BLP exemption for 3RR. For those who can't be bothered to look it up, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I assert that the material is WP:Synth, and I await some additional editors helping to resolve that issue. (Existing editors actually addressing the issue would be nice too.) Rd232 ^talk 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seem you're the only one who sees synthesis here, and you're still reverting. Can you please explain which part is poorly sourced? Wiki isn't censored, we report what reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer the case with John Z commenting now, so presuming that ain't gonna settle the issue, more input would be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize the arguments were still going on here. A general comment. Weisbrot is an economist, not a film-maker or professional co-writer of letters to the editor. I doubt he spends very much time on either activity, and is not notable for either. If he is the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South, and an adviser to Hugo Chavez, that is what the "Latin America" section should focus on. A second general comment: Links and sources for an article should generally at least mention and preferably significantly treat the topic; especially in a BLP. If not, they should almost always substantially cover something directly, integrally and particularly connected to the topic, here CEPR or maybe Bank of the South, for explanatory purposes. Otherwise it is almost impossible not to violate OR and UNDUE.John Z (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

In spite of absolutely no support for his claims, after review on three different dispute resolution forums, Rd232 is still removing reliably sourced content, against all consensus. Is Rd232 immune to being blocked because he's an admin? Multiple diffs of his frequent edit warring and invalid reverts have been given; 3RR warnings are on his talk page; we have evidence of tenditious editing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, in spite of no agreement or consensus at multiple forums of dispute resolution. The "advisor" statement has two reliable sources. Rd232 is claiming a BLP violation when the sourced statement is even hosted on CEPR.net, where the subject Mark Weisbrot is co-director. If Mark Weisbrot doesn't have a problem with it, why does Wiki have a BLP issue? The page on CEPR.net says "Segun fuentes cercanas, el propio Chavez consulta con cierta frecuencia a Weisbrot ... " (According to close sources, Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with certain frequency ... ). Hosted by Center for Economic and Policy Research, where Weisbrot is co-director. The BLP argument does not hold, and Rd232 is edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the article turned an activity - "Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with a certain frequency" into a position: "adviser". I saw that issue before but overlooked it this time, I was distracted by the quote in the footnote referring to the Bank of the South. Rd232 ^talk 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you can certainly reword the text if you don't like "described as an advisor", in spite of two sources that back that up, but what you can't do is edit war with the excuse of BLP when Weisbrot himself hosts the information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop multiplying this issue. The discussion is on the article talk page, and I don't want to waste time clarifying issues in multiple places. Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not immune. Please don't use BLPN as a forum for these sort of comments. WP:ANI is that way. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update2[edit]

More issues arising about sourcing of other contentious claims made (Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Adviser.3F) and ongoing discussion about the other issues. More input on the article talk page please. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simcha Jacobovici[edit]

There may be nothing factually wrong with this article, however I do feel that some of the information provided may be blown up or far fetched. I can definitely tell that whoever wrote this article has ill feelings towards Mr. Jacobovici. I feel that this article is more of a slander page. I feel that Mr. Jacobovici is wonderful at what he does. I am not a professional in any way, but I do have a good bit of knowledge concerning the Bible and history, he does a great job at accurately portraying these events. I do hope that someone can take a look at this. It would be such a shame that just a handful of people's views can taint other's who read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.137.168 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit negative, criticism of criticism viewed critically, any takers? Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is kinda in my specialty area, so I will see what I can do. I don't think the BLP issue is a serious one.Jarhed (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Iglesias[edit]

Article needs quite a bit of work, he went triple platinum and is pretty damn popular. Article... not so much. Comes off with an informal tone, reads like it was written with a giant bias and is poorly worded. "fat" might be replaced with "obese" or "over-weight" in a lot of instances, capitalization is lacking, and there's a lot of poor formatting. The notable works is outdated, references don't exist, etc...

Any of that may be true about this or many articles, but I see no BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kelley (artist)[edit]

Anon editors reinserting promotional material, starting with "Since the passing of Warhol, Kelley's sublime creations have vaulted him to the forefront of the global art scene".[17] Ty 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "notable" tag. He seems to be far less known than Mr. Warhol. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notable tag: Kelley is notable. That he's less well-known than Warhol is not a notability issue (fame and notability are quite different). The article is sourced and his notability is asserted and sourced. The article could use more references and should be expanded, but I don't think notability is the issue here. What Ty is mentioning above is POV pushing: Kelley is "big" as far as these things go, but "the forefront of the global art scene" is questionable. I'm sure most visual arts editors on Wikipedia could name a few more at the the "forefront" whatever the hell that is. (Where is this forefront and how do I get there?) As far as "sublime creations", well I think we know where that can go. Kelley's work is a lot of things, but sublime it is not. We just need to be vigilant here with those kinds of edits. freshacconci talktalk 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vaulted to the forefront" is purple and florid, but on the other hand, please try not to remove writing flair for no reason, especially on an artistic entry. Artists tend to write artistically.Jarhed (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Halvorssen Mendoza[edit]

Rd232 again (see Mark Weisbrot thread above). In this edit, Rd232 repeats selective info from Thor Halvorssen Hellum, (Sr. vs. Jr.) in a BLP that now reads as an attempt to smear Thor Jr. with allegations about his father, Thor Sr., although the Thor Sr. article is already linked and info about Thor Sr. belongs in and can be explored in more detail in his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? As you can see from the diff provided by Sandy, I moved the existing para from one section where it really didn't belong to one where it does (though it may need trimming). And don't you think you might have tried raising this on the talk page before posting here? Or, er, editing? Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly claiming the paragraph is an attempt at smearing is fucking funny, excuse my language. Key phrases: "trumped-up charges" and "He was found innocent of all charges." and the bit about Jr is "led the campaign for his father’s release, enlisting the help of Amnesty International". Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapse off-topicness

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since your editing of this nature extends across all Venezuela/Chavez-related articles (see ANI, this board, and RSN), and keeping up with all of it is time consuming, I'm more interested in getting impartial observers to weigh in for broader input vis-a-vis the trend. Clean up your language :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think that the only reason you dragged the "legal threat" issue to ANI after I clarified that it was not a threat (not that it was really a reasonable interpretation in the first place) was so that you could mention "ANI" later on. At any rate it was a complete waste of time you were entirely responsible for. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't clarify or apologize until I brought it to ANI; please stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare make another false statement and then have the cheek to say "stay on topic" to shut down correction of it. My first response to you when it became clear you were concerned about the remark: on my user talk: 07.57 26 Jan "peruse wikt:threat". Second, here on BLPN: 09.08 26 Jan "of course it's not a threat". Your ANI post: 21.27 26 Jan. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link to "dictionary" is not a response, and a followup with your definition of a threat isn't either; you didn't respond until I took it to ANI, where it was clarified that, on Wiki, it falls under harassment, not threat. Please stay calm; your posts are becoming increasingly agitated and off-topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit my first response was perhaps insufficiently clear (though in context of your seemingly not-terribly-worried comment on my talk page it seemed apposite). But the second "of course it's not a threat" comment in response to your "Is that a legal threat?" question prompted an ANI posting how? And by the by I apologised for the remark; you haven't apologised for the original misrepresentation; rather you repeated it. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a third party could mark this Resolved, if they think appropriate. The original question was a non-issue and the off-topicness is better not pursued. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no the original issue at Thor Halvorssen Mendoza is not at all resolved; in fact, no one has even looked at it yet. We have what looks like a smear in the article, and a thread that was diverted to a discussion of previous harassment, still with incorrect claims about what my diffs clearly showed (four reverts to incorrectly cited text) on a different article. An alternate is to cap off the diversionary posts that started with your post of "I'm starting to think that the only reason you dragged the 'legal threat' ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, four reverts to incorrectly cited text which nobody knew was incorrectly cited, and the minute you pointed it out the issue was addressed. Your persistence with that irrelevant non-issue has crossed the line into disruptive. Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to explain the nature of the "smear"? Or better yet fix it? If it's really a smear, then per BLP you should be removing the offending text, not farting around with BLPN. BLPN comes if discussion on the article talk can't resolve the issue. Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I am here to help sort this out. I made some changes. The father's arrest and incarceration seem worth including, but I tried focus it more in relation to the son. I also made it a subsection. If it needs to be made clear that the arrest was improper in the thread title, that's okay with me assuming it's supported by sources. I saw in one of the sources the term "frame" is used. Perhaps that would be good to work into the conent? What exactly was he framed for? I put trumped up in quotes, it's fairly colloquial for an encyclopedia. Were the charges found to be fabricated in order to frame him? Maybe it would be best to state that clearly? I also adjusted the "privileged" bit from teh New York Times (although I didn't see a cite for it???). That's a loaded term so I just put that he was well off or something. I'm not sure it needs to be included. The article says his father was a minister so it seems to me to go without saying. As far as the lineage, I'm not really sure what that's about or if it's relevant (I am a direct descendant of the Aristotle and Pinnochio) it seems like it might be an effort to smear him or make him look like an outsider? But if it is to be included it certainly needs to be cited. Please let me know if there are any questions or I can be of further assistance. I am always happy to help, especially two editors whose work I always appreciate, except when they dare to disagree with me. Please keep that in mind. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems basically fine and I've added the oddly missing NYT source. But there is now a new problem: WP:UNDUE prominence. When you add a subssection heading for something, it sticks out in the Table of Contents, as well as in the section. I'd leave it in that section without a heading. Unless perhaps more sources can be found to more clearly link the father's arrest with his later activities, which seems very possible. If it can be shown to be important enough, it may deserve a subhead. Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, and I kind of like to have more than one subsection if there are to be subsections. I'm okay with it not being sectioned, but it is a block of content that holds together well and isn't quite in sequence with the rest of the chronological background, which is why I broke it out. As far as undue it does seem that his involvement with human rights groups and his career interests got started from those events, even if there is not yet a source noting a direct connection. As you note, there may well be one, or he may say so in an interview. I haven't looked. So that part of his life does seem quite relevant and important in the direction the rest of his life has taken. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Whittemore[edit]

TerryE has placed a BLP tag on Harvey Whittemore, an article I created about one week ago. TerryE states that I have engaged in "deliberate deception" in the following sentence: "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas". Two sources are cited: a New York Times article explaining a tax break bill before the Nevada legislature and Whittemore's role in the lobbying, and a Las Vegas Review Journal article about the passage of the bill. It would appear to me that this sentence is not even a potential BLP violation, but I would appreciate other opinions. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Lobbyist/Attorney. I asked for the removal of this sentence because the nowhere in the (Internet accessible) RS did it state that Whittemore accomplished any tax breaks. This is pure WP:SYNTH or WP:OR of KCACOs part. I asked him to provide the exact quote or remove the comment. In response he added a second reference, implying that this now addressed the text. So I paid my $2.95 to get a copy of the RS and checked. Guess what? still WP:SYNTH or WP:OR but now with obsufscation. See the discussion. I would be happy for some more experience editor could give me the appropriately politically correct Wikipedian expression for this action and apologise if "deliberate deception" is overstepping the mark. -- TerryE (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recently created article (Jan 10, 2010) with three main contributing editors:

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The original creator
TerryE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The author of this notice
Ward20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though there are other editor involved, these three are also the main contributors to the

The main reason for this notice is because of failure to progress some disputes discussed on the talk pages. Examples include:

Lobbyist/Attorney. See also the discussion Another WS:BLP WS:NPOV issue -- Lobbyist/Attorney. The main issue at point here is not that HW is a lawyer that specialised in lobbying but on the inaccuracies (the wording in the article is an inaccurate quote from the RS) and bias of the reporting (these inaccuracies enhance the critical nature of the content; any balancing positive content is omitted).

Coyote Springs section. See also the discussion Talk:Harvey Whittemore#WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack. Coyote Springs is a new development in Nevada by Coyote Springs Land which is a subsidiary of Wingfield Nevada Group of which Harvey Whittemore is the chairman and founder. This section occupies some 65% of the HW content most of this material relates to controversies to do with the development. There is little coverage of the positive issues and not of this material is covered in the Coyote Springs article itself. Whilst I agree that HW is a major player within Coyote Springs Land, the correct place for balanced reporting is in the main article, with a balanced précis here. This content is biased WP:COATRACK material.

I am sorry if I've made any procedural errors in this notice as this is the first time in two years of editing where I haven't been able to resolve issues through amicable discussion on the talk pages. There is a fundamental divide in attitudes and approach to this article by Keepcalmandcarryon vs. TerryE and Ward20. I didn't think that HW was really notable enough to merit an article but it's really hard going when you need to try and source every RS to validate that the included text is actually a verifiable, accurate and neutral summary of the wording in the article. I would like to solicit independent feedback before proceeding further -- TerryE (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for adding a duplicate section. I posted my intent to create this section on the talk page before doing so and Keepcalmandcarryon posted his view in response. Nothing wrong with that but there's no point in having two sections. -- TerryE (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a bit of 2 plus 2 equals 4 and also like this one event is being given undue weight and has been cherry picked as a single achievement from what is probably a long list, I would remove it or rewrite it to more accurately reflect the citation and add some more achievements so that this chosen one is not given undue weight in the way of.. he had many achievements including this one! Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whittemore does indeed have a long list of accomplishments, most of them relating to casino legislation and his various Nevada business ventures. The section in question here includes several accomplishments as examples, but begins by noting the subject's reputation as a successful and accomplished lobbyist. The arts tax break was chosen as one of these examples because it was featured in the national media, not just local papers. In any case, this issue is clearly, at most, an issue of weight and wording, not a matter of BLP violation (unsourced, poorly sourced, or defamatory statements). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide (here) quotations from the sources backing up the claims made for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From The New York Times, 12 April 1999: "Mr. Wynn is hedging his bets. He is lobbying the Nevada Legislature to pass a bill granting tax exemptions on the collection that would amount to a one-time sales-tax break of $18 million on the purchase of the art and $2.7 million each year in property taxes" and: " Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts, said Mr. Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of paying taxes on the Bellagio collection. The collection, which includes works owned personally by Mr. Wynn (which he leases to the hotel) and others owned by his corporation, is classified as inventory because the works in it are for sale. As such, Mr. Whittemore said, it would already be exempt from sales tax. The interest in passing the law is altruism, Mr. Whittemore said, so that those who buy art will want to show it for the property tax breaks they will get. 'You're trying to encourage the public display of art.'"

See also: Las Vegas Review Journal, 02 April 1999, "Wynn offers Bellagio art show discount for Nevadans", in which "Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore told the Senate Taxation Committee..."; LVRJ, 08 April 1999, "Wynn's tax break compromise gains OK from committee", stating, "During testimony last week, Wynn lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said Wynn has sold..."; LVRJ, 14 May 1999, "Wynns art tax break endorsed by Assembly committee", containing: "After the hearing, Mirage Resorts lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said..."; LVRJ, 04 March 2000, "Art tax exception will proceed", reporting, "Harvey Whittemore, a Reno lawyer who represents Wynn before the Legislature, said the art collection was part of the deal..."; LVRJ, 30 August 2000, "Rules finalized for art tax break": "Wynn attorney Harvey Whittemore said..." These sources may give a general indication of the level of RS support for Whittemore's involvement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that these comments support the content.."Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, in fact the citation says that Wittmore said that Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of taxes and Whittmore was not specifically lobbying for a tax break, even if a tax break was the outcome. It is 2 plus 2 equals 4, a bit like saying.. Harry was a lawyer and that made him overweight.. when it wasn't the work as a lawyer that made him fat but the fact that he was paid a lot and he spent all his money on food that made him fat. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest we summarise this content, which clearly states that Harvey Whittemore was the representative of Steven Wynn/Mirage in lobbying something related to taxes (whether it's a "tax exception", a "tax break", or a "tax break compromise" as stated by reliable sources)? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as it is disputed and the current comment is not supported by the citations I would just suggest just taking it out. There are plenty of other links in the article connecting him to the casinos, if that is the value to the reader and objective of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for keeping this going, but I'm not at all excited about removal of reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia articles, especially when the information involves one of the most prominent episodes related to the subject, and would prefer an alternative formulation of what these sources contain. I have asked at the article, and I now ask here, which of the following statements, supported by multiple RS, are in dispute:

Whittemore was the Wynn/Mirage lobbyist (NYT, four Las Vegas articles)
Whittemore testified before the Nevada legislature in this matter (four Las Vegas articles)
the goal and/or outcome of the Wynn/Whittemore proposals was a tax cut (NYT and Las Vegas articles).

If, as I maintain, they are not in dispute, how can we best summarise them accurately? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was the source I perhaps should have included when I opted for the more prominent New York Times: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 02 May 1999, Ed Vogel: Harvey Whittemore "lobbied the Senate Taxation Committee to kill Sen. Joe Neal's bill to impose a 2 percentage point increase in the gaming tax. Then he persuaded the Senate to vote 14-7 for a bill that gives Mirage Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn tax breaks on his $300 million art collection." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There it is in big letters, the lobbying for whatever is what he did, one of the outcomes was..bla bla..we shouldn't remove the middle bit, if fact we don't even need the end bit, the article is about Whittmore, not how some casino boss benefited from his actions, just take it out, it is unsupported by the citations. take it out and you will see that it is not even important, the article is as good and as informative without it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, an interesting discussion. As far as an RS has said X and we repeat it or précis it in such a way as not to alter its meaning then Wikipedia is safe. My understanding is that the presumption is that if the subject had a problem with the content then he or she would seek remedy from the RS; all Wikipedia is doing to attribute X to the RS. However, synthesis oversteps this mark. So quoting a verifiable RS is fine by me if the editor finds an appropriate source. When an editor are introduces potentially contentious wording from a printed source (and provide the URI when online copies are available, then it would greatly help others if the originating editor quoted the exact extract in the discussion. I am not a professional researcher and I have to pay to verify such sources.

I also think that balance or neutrality is orthogonal to verifiability. When picking a couple of sentences from a few thousand line article, we should be asking the question "have we maintained the overall balance?" and not seeking the two most juicy quotes which underline a specific POV. I also think that we've lost site of this in the HW article, and not yet covered it in this discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas" was an inappropriate summary of the sources. --JN 466 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some feedback on my original post or suggestions on how to proceed. Here is the timeline to date:

17:57, 17 January 2010 -- TerryE announces his intent to raise BLPN on talk page [18]
18:15, 17 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon raises a BLPN issue [19] "Harvey Whittemore"
18:50, 17 January 2010 -- In parallel TerryE raises a BLPN issue [20] "Harvey Whittemore".
On review TerryE realises that there are now two issues as Keepcalmandcarryon has acted on his "intent" post and raised his/her own issue whilst he was drafting his. So for simplicity the he merges the two into a single issue [21]
The following discussion now focuses on Keepcalmandcarryon's initial point, culminating with Keepcalmandcarryon posting on an extra reference which addresses his/her original point at 22:02, 17 January 2010 [22]
01:11, 18 January 2010 -- TerryE's content is not discussed, so TerryE then posts a comment that this discussion has not closed his original issue. [23]
23:57, 22 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon posts on HW talk intent to remove BLPN dispute tag. [24]
16:06, 23 January 2010 -- TerryE points out that the dispute is not closed [25].
16:29, 23 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon repeats that dispute is closed[26] and removes the tag [27].

I, TerryE, have now undone this removal. What I am asking is how do we proceed in these circumstances? I believe that Keepcalmandcarryon feels that he/she is entitled to close the issue as the "originator". However, it was my original flag and intent to raise an incident that triggered this in the first place. The whole article is very WP:NPOV and some 75% of the content really belongs in other articles, Coyote Springs and Whittemore Peterson Institute. -- TerryE (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me posting back again, but I would really like some neutral third party review of this issue. It's just that one of the editors involved in this has decided that this dispute has "timed out" and decided to remove the dispute and NPOV flags. I have reverted this, but I fear that this could descend into an edit war without mediation. -- TerryE (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a main contributing editor to the Harvey Whittemore article, and after reviewing many sources the last few days here are the present issues as I perceive them. The article contains too much weight on Coyote Springs. The details about a 30 billion dollar project in the middle of the desert are complex and the regulatory issues vast. Much of the material is peripheral to HW. The article is more negative and concentrates on development issues that have been resolved than two of the summary news pieces used as sources.[28][29]. The news sources that deal totally on Whittemore in the article talk about his critics and his supporters,[30][31] but the WP article seems one sided about only describing his critics. Another major issue is how the material from the sources is biased. I will pick a few examples but there are many more throughout the article. The article states, "According to the Los Angeles Times, Whittemore helped advance the careers of two sons, including Leif Reid, Whittemore's personal attorney. Responding to allegations of favouritism, Reid's office stated that the Senator's behaviour had been "legal, proper and appropriate"."[32] There must be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR because the material is not in the source. Similarly, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore."[33] The source actually states that Judicial Watch sued the Bureau of Land Management for documents to find out if undue pressure was exerted on the federal government on behalf of HW, not that it was alleged. Going though each sentence and every source to find this type of bias is tedious. Ward20 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences on Whittemore and Reid are reliably sourced to the LA Times:

"Whittemore also helped advance the legal careers of two of Reid's four sons. One of the two, Leif Reid, who is Whittemore's personal lawyer, has represented the developer throughout the Coyote Springs project, including in negotiations with federal officials" (LA Times, 20 August 2006)

"Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times reported on Reid's role in assisting Whittemore in getting necessary federal approvals for parts of the project. Reid's office said his involvement was legal, proper and appropriate" (LA Times, 29 August 2006)

Similarly, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore" is completely consistent with all available sources, including the Pittsburgh source and the following:

"A conservative group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management for records about any role Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians had in a real estate development project in the state" (MSNBC, 19 September 2007)

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed an open records lawsuit on September 5 against the Bureau of Land Management as part of its investigation of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and his role in a massive real estate development project in Coyote Springs, Nevada. At the heart of Judicial Watch's investigation is whether or not Senator Reid improperly used his influence on Capitol Hill to pave the way for the development project in exchange for campaign contributions and other favors from lobbyist and long-time friend, Harvey Whittemore." (Market Wire (DC), 18 September 2007)

"A conservative watchdog group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management seeking documents that might link Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and two other Nevada lawmakers to approvals for the massive Coyote Springs real estate development. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the group was focusing on reported actions by Reid, the Senate majority leader, in moving along the project headed by Reno attorney and developer Harvey Whittemore" A quote from Judicial Watch is included: "If Senator Reid sold his public office to advance a development project that would financially benefit his friend and a member of his own family, he should be held accountable to the full extent of the law" (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 19 September 2007)

If the language used in the article were somehow objectionable (i.e., if reliable sources indicated that Judicial Watch did not suggest that Reid and others had improperly aided Whittemore and that Judicial Watch was suing the BLM just for the hell of it), it would be a simple matter to change the wording to "Judicial Watch sued to find out if..." That Ward20 and other editors present no such sources, object to researching the issue, and elect to portray such trivial differences as an NPOV dispute, a matter for the BLP noticeboard or indication of personal bias on my part is, quite frankly, a bit curious. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bell[edit]

I am requesting the input of an administrator for a dispute on the megachurch pastor Rob Bell article. In the controversy section of the article I added a few lines detailing a significant criticism that has been made of Rob Bell in at least two leading evangelical sources. One of these sources is the blog of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) which is a leading voice with regard to the criticism at issue. Anyone familiar with the gender debate in the church will recognize CBMW as the leading conservative voice in the matter. The other source is some self-published media of Mars Hill megachurch (Mark Driscoll's not Rob Bell's) which is also a leading news/information outlet in the American evangelical world. These sources contain witness information and also contain comments by leading evangelical Wayne Grudem on his personal involvement in the issue. Given the notability of the sources and the fact that they contain information from witnesses including bible scholar Wayne Grudem himself I thought it deserved a mention in the criticism section of the Rob Bell article. I mentioned it in a responsible manner being careful not to pass criticism off as fact - rather I described it as 'allegations'.

However, an edit war has ensued as two other editors do not want the information to be present and they say Wikipedia rules do not allow a blog to be a source. I have read the relevant part of the rules and I find no categorical prohibition of blogs or self-published media, and given the notability of the sources I think they are valid, especially as they are not mere opinion but contain interviews with witnesses and comments by Wayne Grudem himself. Please would an administrator resolve the issue. I have tried talking to both of the editors on the discussion page, our dialogue can be read here for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rob_Bell#Controversy_section.3B_Basileias.2C_Henrybish_and_Lyonscc

Thanks--Henrybish (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, 'Controversy' sections are discouraged. They invite people with an axe to grind about the subject and can lead to undue weight being given to certain aspects of a person's biography. Secondly, undue weight should not be given to a particular viewpoint. There is an awful lot out there regarding Rob Bell, and if all there is about this particular issue is a blog post which has been reposted in a couple of partisan sources, then it should be given very little, if any, attention in the article. Thirdly, reliable sources should be used. I have no idea who 'Jeff Robinson', the person who wrote the blog piece is, but blogs are very rarely used as sources, particularly if it is negative information about a living person. In summary, I agree with those who have removed this section, and you should not be edit warring for it to be included. Kudos, for bringing it to this board, but please do not carry on reverting.

If this dispute has been widely covered in other areas, I'm thinking newspapers or magazines such as Christianity Today, then it may have an appropriate place in the article, but not with the current sources. Quantpole (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not necessary for an administrators opinion. The opinion of any experienced wikipedian, and here's the key bit, founded in policy, is as good as any administrators. In wikipedia, administrators have certain powers (like blocking people and protecting articles) which they can use when things get out of hand, but their voice doesn't count for any more then any other experienced wikipedian. Note that any editor can request the help of an uninvolved administrator as necessary for the same purpose and while quite a few administrators frequent here, it isn't necessarily the best place to get the attention of an administrator when action is needed even on BLPs (it is the best place to get advice as you seek above from wikipedians experienced in BLP matters)

Commenting on the issue now, as others have stated, based on your description (I admit I haven't read the sources), they most definitely aren't good enough. I would note WP:BLP says

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

An additional note, since I read some of your talk page comments, you may want to see WP:AGF. In particular, accusing other editor of trying to keep negative information out of articles, censorship, having a hidden WP:COI or otherwise acting in bad faith should be avoided, particularly if you don't have good evidence.

Finally while I commend you on bringing this here, it's normally a bad idea to edit war when adding information people have disputed for policy based reasons, particular when adding negative information on LPs. Discuss first. If you can't reach an agreement, come here as you've done now. Wait until you've achieved WP:Consensus before adding the disputed information.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I will respect the decision. I do have one question that still seems to make this verdict seem a bit stringent - the two sources that I used are both leading voices in the evangelical world. I understand that they are both from organizations that hold an opposing view to Rob Bell, but almost all criticism is partisan and surely that does not mean it should not be heard? - especially if it is from prominent sources who use witness information. Wayne Grudem himself is even interviewed in the article. And I did make it clear in the text that is was an allegation rather than a fact, and I kept it short. Regarding the Wiki rules, the last line that was quoted says:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

I don't see why my CBMW source does not fulfill this, since CBMW acts as a news organization with regard to the church gender debate - see their statement: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building. They are a very well known and prominent voice in the evangelical world (see the list of council members: http://www.cbmw.org/Council-Members ) and I would have thought that their criticism deserves to be heard, regardless of whether one disagrees with it. Waiting for Christianity Today to cover the issue - as one of you mentioned, is not really a fair call because they themselves are a predominantly egalitarian (Rob Bell's view), and they can't be expected to cover every single story regarding every megachurch pastor anyway. The fact remains that there are only a few official outlets that critics have, and CBMW is the most prominent of them - its news blog and its journal. It just seems as though it is a little stifling of information to require that criticism is not allowed from the opposition, this is rarely the case elsewhere in Wikipedia. Again, I appreciate your input, and I take on board the comments about refraining from making accusations against other editors unless well supported, and I will respect the decision but I would really like someone to help me understand why CBMW may not be used as a source for making a significant criticism of Rob Bell known. I am really being so unfair in this? Regards--Henrybish (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I have had a closer look through Wiki's rules and here are some quotes:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

If you are familiar with the gender debate in the church you will know that CBMW (from whose website one of my sources comes from) is one of the most prominent voices in this field. It is true that they hold a very different view than Rob Bell, but this does not mean that they are untrustworthy. Opposing views deserve to be heard if they are from prominent enough sources (see below). Here are some other quotes from Wiki's rules:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

Again, CBMW specialize in reporting on the gender debate in the church. See here for what they do: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building . Also from Wiki's rules:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format."

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"

So these would validate expressing Wayne Grudem's own view of Rob Bell's conduct since the source thus validates that the world-famous scholar Wayne Grudem did indeed make these comments about Rob Bell.

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." I did not devoted disproportionate space to the matter (just a few lines) and was careful not to present it as 'fact'.

Is it still unfair for me to use this source? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybish (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC) --Henrybish (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content about living people should be cited to the strongest possible sources especially if it is controversial, disputed content . Off2riorob (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It may be acceptable to mention Wayne Grundem's views on Rob Bell in the article on him, using his page as primary source, if that were in some way highly relevant to his biography.~~ (Actually I was never comfortable with this and realised it's dealt with at WP:BLP and the answer is no this isn't acceptable since they deal with a third party.) However it's clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP to use a primary source for mentioning Wayne Grundem's views on the article on Rob Bell since it has not been demonstrated that Wayne Grundem's views are particularly relevant, since it seems no one is particularly interested in them (hence the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources). Note that you quoted something which said "and Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). You seem to have missed the fact that regardless of how much space you devoted to the matter, you were using a self-published blog, which as has been explained isn't acceptable in a BLP. P.S. Looking at the article itself, the quality of sources isn't particularly great. Nevertheless they mostly appear to be better sources then the ones you are trying to use. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Doniger[edit]

Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Raj2004 is edit warring [34][35][36][37] in order to add highly negative, unbalanced, inaccurate, and poorly-sourced material to the Wendy Doniger article. Wendy Doniger is a highly distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. The added material gives a highly politicized perspective on her career. The material should be removed immediately and a balanced, accurate account of the reception of Doniger's career should be added. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the material is at least badly worded; it seems to be written to emphasize sensational stuff about sex. I would suggest perhaps rewriting it to tone it down and get the point that Doniger has been criticized across without the sensationalism. I am not going to try myself, not being an expert on Doniger's work. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too bad now, rude, crude and lewd, I'm no expert but she is into tantra and the traditionalists don't like her, it was worse but bearable now. imo, and appears to be stable, so... Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat more complicated than it looks at first, although the WP policy aspect of it is probably clear. The real issue is that, given the general thrust of WP policy on BLPs, such articles really should not have "Criticism" sections at all. How do you criticise "mainstream" without allowing "fringe" into the picture? And if there is a controversy, would that belong in the BLP or in a separate dedicated article (with a "See Also" in the BLP, at most)? While this justifiably protects notable people from (opportunistic) mudslinging, it also serves to shield the less than worthy (like Doniger -- which is the complication referred to earlier.) But that's just the way the cookie crumbles on WP, the price to pay for sanity. Next case. rudra (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure. Wendy Doniger is "less than worthy." And I'm the pope, up is down, black is white, etc. It's like the Bush years all over again. — goethean ॐ 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are missing the point. That she is no great shakes as a scholar is no surprise, but no estimation, not even one that sings her praises to high heaven, can be suitable material for a BLP unless it is sourced to a work specifically on her scholarship. None such is likely to be found or even forthcoming, so the entire idea of "evaluating" her work is not only moot but also an open invitation to POV-pushing. rudra (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only scholarly review of (some of) her work has been by Michael Witzel (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). It's a legitimate review because it is by a recognized expert in his own field of expertise, namely Sanskrit. Witzel restricted himself to the quality of her work in Sanskrit, which he found unsatisfactory. Despite the hype going around, she is not a Sanskritist, only someone who knows Sanskrit (because she has to). Her actual specialty is "religion", and that is what she happens to be a professor of, in a Divinity School. As far as her scholarship there is concerned, I know of no scholarly review -- hardly likely anyway, as when it comes to Woo, anybody can say anything -- but it's somewhat telling that other leading scholars of Saivism, Shaktism and Tantra (such as Alexis Sanderson) hardly ever cite her for a finding or an insight. But naturally her students and proteges ballyhoo her: in profusion, of course. rudra (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be talking to yourself now, may I suggest that you find a more appropriate, preferably off-wiki venue for your editorializing? — goethean ॐ 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers[edit]

This biographical article appears to be well written. However I see only one citation for one aspect of the scope of article.

Much of the Introduction, Career, Personal Life, Styles, etc. are not sourced/given citations.

Is there a standard way to approach this/template to place on the page to encourage readers to add content and citations or at least mention them on the talk page so other editors can increase the quality?

Since I seem to find myself here in BoLP more often than anticipated if anyone can contact me on my talk page to help with basics or to help discuss standard procedures I would appreciate it greatly!

Der.Gray (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficent refs added to make notability clear <g>. There is absolutely nothing contentious in the BLP at all. The Times articles actually cover a great deal. Collect (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Collect! Ug I really need to take a day and fully learn enough about BLP so that I can do more to be productive rather than just saying "hey how can this be fixed?" ;) Der.Gray (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Flurry[edit]

Founder of a splitter church, and therefore a subject of sectarian anger from many members of the original church. We have a DUI arrest with primary (as in court document) sources, with one link going to the talk page(!) as a source. There were huge sections of completely unsourced OR describing why this fellow a is a Very Bad Man. I've removed most to the talk page. Don't know what to do about the arrest bit. Advice? Auntie E. (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awful, I took some more out, more needs removing if anyone wants a go.. some what look like primary citations with negative content, Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More gone now. I am thinking "is this even notable?"--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting better the more thats removed, I also had that thought, I don't know..a minister, perhaps, if the primary citations from the Philadelphia church of god are taken out there is nothing much left. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography - not a theological treatise. Collect (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Anne[edit]

Category:English criminals is being added as she has a minor criminal record. It is not a defining characteristic so should be removed IMHO. Category was last added here I think: [38] Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as inappropriate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël de Ridder[edit]

Daniël de Ridder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unregistered users as well as registered users continue to insert Israeli nationality to Daniël de Ridder's page despite citations given that he is not Israeli. They also keep adding a lot of speculation into the article regarding the nationality. NYC2TLV (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moyers[edit]

I have introduced two items to the Bill Moyers article. These items were objected to on the basis of not meeting BLP requirements. Please look over and give your opinion, citing specifics of BLP policy:

1. Under the direction of President Johnson, Moyers gave J Edgar Hoover the go-ahead to discredit Martin Luther King, played a part in the wiretapping of King, discouraged the American embassy in Oslo from assisting King on his Nobel Peace Prize trip, and worked to prevent King from challenging the all-white Mississippi delegation to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.^[1]^[2]

2. Allegations of hypocrisy on the influence of money in politics

Though Moyers regularly objects to the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.^[3]

Discussions at Talk:Bill_Moyers#Addition_of_unsourced_or_badly_sourced_derogatory_material and User_talk:Drrll#Bill_Moyers --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Brindal (12th May 1948 -)[edit]

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

2nd February 2010

Dear Sir,

Purported biographical details of myself are inaccurate, poorly sourced, contravene a number of Wikipedia policies and, are, I believe in at least one instance, libelous

The reference quoted is “SA Election 2010 Poll Bludger”. I note that it is used as a source in other articles in Wikipedia and on perusing a number; I found them similarly both inaccurate and less than encyclopedic in style.

I have read on your site that questions as the efficacy of this source have previously been raised with the editors. I am surprised that they have not ascertained that Poll Bludger and the closely aligned “crickey site” while containing valuable “insider information”, report with particular slant and bias. It clearly offends Wikipedia’s “neutrality” principle”

I edited the text in January. This is recorded in the history of the article (lwjb). However, I note today that my text has been deleted and the original re-inserted.

I find this offensive as it ensures that, in this instance, Wikipedia continues to reflect matters of fact inaccurately.

The offending passage in Wikipedia reads “…Involving claims of extortion and a relationship with a 24-year-old man whose financial affairs were administered by the public trustee due to "mental incapacity". He was forced by his party division to withdraw, he retired in October. [1]”

However, the quotation referenced reads as follows” He withdrew from politics altogether in August 2005 after outing himself as a bisexual and admitting to an affair with a 24-year-old man whose financial affairs were administered by the public trustee due to “mental incapacity”.

Note that there is neither a Reference to being “forced “ by my party to withdraw” or to “retiring in October.” Poll Bludger makes the equally invalid assertion that I “withdrew from politics altogether in August 2005”.

My editing was both accurate and neutral.

I resolved, in August, without pressure from my Party, that I would not seek to continue as a candidate at the next election. I served the remainder of my term and in fact retired at the state Election in March of 2006.

This can be verified by numerous articles in the “Advertiser” ,references to my speeches in Hansard, or to the following website http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1433760.htm, which is a recorded interview with me broadcast nationally on 9th August 2005

The statement is I believe both libelous and possibly criminally defamatory of myself and the other party involved when it uses the words “due to "mental incapacity".

While the incident was inappropriate, in terms of its setting, it was a consensual act between adults. To sensationalize the story, sections of the media asserted that the Public Trustee controlled the other parties Finances (true. A statement of fact) “due to mental incapacity.”

This assertion has no basis in fact and is not the result of any statement either by neither the Trustees nor the authorities that made the Order. Indeed, the matter was looked at by the Public Advocate, who was concerned that the order represented. a possible deliberate manipulation of the person’s affairs,

Importantly, the South Australian Police treated the other party as a “consenting male adult” That is, his ability to consent was not in question.

The editors may feel that Paul’s status as to the administration of his finances has a bearing on consent to a sexual act or to the article (apart from the deliberately calculated purpose of diminishing in the mind of the reader the consensual nature of the act). I do not think it serves any purpose other than a calculated libel. Because the assertion as to financial administration a statement of fact I did not delete it myself. However, I ask you to consider so doing.

I appeal to the Editors to re-instate my Editorial corrections and to delete completely the offending sentence.

I ask that you protect the article from further erroneous insertions.

I use Wikipedia a great deal and place much store by its work.

However, the matter about which I write has placed me in an invidious position. If I cannot receive timely adjudication from the editors I will have no alternative but to seek injunctive relief and damages

Yours faithfully Mark Brindal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwjb (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of discussion on this topic that I could find, I made two edits [39] [40] as an initial attempt to address these concerns while they're under discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Dad Poor Dad[edit]

Rich Dad Poor Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At issue is a link to a self-published polemic anti-Kiyosaki site by John T. Reed. The site can be found at http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html. Reed is a competitor of Kiyosaki and hardly a neutral unbiased source. The site clearly make defamatory statements about a living person. It is not simply a book review site as misrepresented by ThuranX. The issue has been discussed here on Talk:Robert Kiyosaki and it was agreed that it should not be linked. I do not believe it should be linked from Rich Dad Poor Dad either. Could someone please take a look into this situation and discuss the WP:BLP policy and the potential legal liability incurred by linking to this site with ThuranX? TIA, Yworo (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, yworo made no effort to demonstrate ANY prior discussion. Second, Reed's review is cited by other critics. Yworo's editing history shows a disturbing amount of work on various products and 'entrepreneurs', to be polite, all of which seeems designed to shine only the most positive and glowing of lights on them. He removed criticism and didn't move it until challenged, and so on. As such, I am quite concerned that he will remove Reed, then use that as leverage to remove any criticism which mentions Reed, thus resulting in a whitewash of the material.

Further, the discussion Yworo points to never demonstrated any such consensus to remove the material, and makes good arguments for retaining it. In fact, the only 'conclusion is one editor's statement a full year later, unilaterally deciding the matter, hardly any establishment of consensus. Slightly more salient is the number of search results linking the two, and the content thereof, a number of which, including two used int he RDPD article, cite Reed. ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly an attack site and refers to the subject as a "bad liar". We cannot link to attack sites. Enforcing WP:BLP rules is immune from consensus, it is required. Consensus cannot override it. Yworo (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Griffiths[edit]

User:B626mrk has removed the "sex scandal" section on Nigel Griffiths a few times (eg: diff), giving an explanation on his talk page. I think the section is supported by the references, but I'd like to ask others to take a look to see if that section is fair. The source is the original News of the World article; other sources in a search are just newspapers reporting on that article without adding anything. More balanced sources would be helpful, but I can't find any (there's no response on his website, for example). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex scandal is a bit of a loaded section header. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The supporting citation is a bit low brow but quite a titillating saucy read. Off2riorob (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from a question that I asked at the RS noticeboard that the news of the world and the guido blog are primary citations for this information and not to be used in this case in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I agree with some of the comments in that RSN thread: The News of the World is a proper newspaper, albeit a tabloid as that term is used in the UK. As such it is a reliable source and can be used as a source for what is reported in a blog. However, reports in only one source probably are not sufficient to deal with undue weight concerns. – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marijan Dundek[edit]

Discussion in progress at WP:NCHP. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marijan Dundek The draft article is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meechpod/new_article_name_here (I can't seem to format this link properly - sorry!)

Please accept my apologies if I shouldn't be posting this here. This article is already being discussed on the 'New Contributors Help page' [[41]]. But I am confused about the different feedback sections - Editor Assistance, Requests for Feedback, New Contributors Help page - and now I see there's a separate section for BLPs, and I thought perhaps I could get further clarification for the main issue regarding notability and sources.

In the feedback on the page mentioned above, it says that a couple of reviews or notices of a book in trade journals do not constitute valid sources. Why is that?

The editor also said that I don't provide sources for 'most of the information' I say about the subject, but I'm not clear how such biographical details (where he worked, travelled, etc) should be sourced (I got the details from the subject himself, as I am the editor of the book mentioned in the article, and from an interview that hasn't been published yet).

Anyway, any further clarification would be greatly appreciated, and again I apologize if I shouldn't be writing this in this forum (and also for duplicating this discussion for which I've received some feedback elsewhere). If you feel this article will probably not fulfill the criteria without substantial additional sources please tell me and I'll retire it for now.

Thank you for your time and patience with this newbie! Meechpod (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What your in need of is a claim to notability to meet WP:BIO and some independent third party citations WP:RS that are talking about him, right now I would say he is not notable enough for an article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Charvet customers[edit]

Resolved

– removed, looking for a stronger assertion of patronage.

Odalcet claims my sourced statement that Chavez wears Charvet shirts was defamatory. Further to TransporterMan's 3O, I brought elements to prove the media was reliable, the journalist professional and - more important - the source was supported by others. 3O considered burden of proof was reverted. Odalcet still claiming defamation. Consensus seems out of reach and discussion is lacking civility. Advice would be welcome. Thanks, Racconish^Tk 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations appear weak to assert that chavez is a customer of that company and add him to that list and as the claim is a bit controversial and is disputed you should remove him, I have commented on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources did write "acquired"... This reminds me of a passage in Marcano's bio (ch.11): "On one occasion, [Chavez] spoke of the distress he had felt one day upon opening his closet to find more than one hundred suits. Someone had bought them he said, without his knowledge"... Responded on the talkpage. I was hoping for some kind of consensus midway rewording. Thanks for taking the time to look into the matter, Racconish^Tk 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tebow[edit]

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

Several have added FACTS that editors are not alllowing. These items were objected to on the basis of being POV when they are facts not opinions.

njw 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs)

Well, I have had a bit of a look and it seems to be an american footballer and some pro life issues, it all looks good to me, there are also a couple of experienced editors there, if you have something you want to change instead of getting reverted, talk to them about it on the talkpage first. Off2riorob (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DUH like we (multiple) didnt do that already —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the answer you wanted, sorry about that. Next time just tell me what to say. Off2riorob (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Wells once again[edit]

Once again, an editor has come through and returned content to this article about a "marijuana arrest" that ultimately ended up as a traffic conviction for reckless driving. The restoration of this section clearly violates WP:BLP. Any content implying otherwise is a clear violation and clearly exposes Wikipedia to a libel charge. This has been addressed at WP:BLP/N more than once here, here and finally here, where the facts of the case regarding what amounts to a traffic conviction is being given improper weight with this content. Her "arrest" was ultimately a traffic stop. The editor equated this to the Mel Gibson DUI incident even though the events surrounding that issue was far greater than this one. Please weigh in on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP cases referred to above mostly deal with an earlier revision that put undue weight on the incident. I agree that it shouldn't be given a whole section, but this incident was covered at the time by the Boston Globe, USA Today, the Associated Press, CNN, and many other outlets. As I said on the talk page, it's hardly libelous to say that she was arrested, there was marijuana in her car, and she ended up with probation on a reckless driving charge when these facts are conceded by her own lawyer on her own web page. This incident shouldn't be given undue weight, but it did happen, it was widely covered, the basic facts are uncontested, and it's silly to say that it shouldn't be on the article at all.—Chowbok ☠ 06:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really libelous (but i'm not a lawyer) as such titillating content was printed, it is just a negative portrayal of the events, if you write it neutrally you have nothing left, the weed charges were dropped, someone else got charged with that, so we have no need to mention that at all and then what is left? A very minor traffic conviction unworthy of a mention. Off2riorob (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. It's a WP:WEIGHT violation, and not encyclopedic. The Mel Gibson DUI incident wasn't notable because of the DUI, but because of the racist remarks he made in the course of the arrest that garnered extensive attention. The issue here is one of WP:EFFECT: Mel Gibson is still feeling the effects of the DUI incident, while if Wells drops dead tomorrow, her traffic stop wouldn't be in any serious obituary. THF (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really "very minor" if you're sentenced to six months' probation? I don't know anybody who's been given probation for a simple traffic offense. —Chowbok ☠ 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do. It's a criminal offense in Virginia to go 20 miles over the speed limit. THF (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you clearly haven't been to traffic court and listened to fines and probations handed out. Now, if she was sentenced to 6 months in county lock-up, maybe, but your knowledge about what traffic court hands out is lacking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I'm really more going off the press coverage, which seems to me significant, even if she wasn't convicted of what drove the coverage in the first place. We cover high-profile acquittals in plenty of other cases.—Chowbok ☠ 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except she wasn't acquitted. She was not tried nor sentenced or plea bargained. For whatever reason those charges were dismissed in favor of reckless driving. It is a non-essential, non-notable traffic conviction. Not anything that is notable or life changing. This isn't the New York Times, we don't include all the news that's fit to print, we include content that effects someone's notability. That she appeared in Gilligan's Island is not effected by this in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the weed issue was dropped and nothing to do with her in the end we should not mention that, so what do you want to add? Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prasad Shrikant Purohit[edit]

Prasad Shrikant Purohit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP is related to the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings FA. I myself added the sentence about the Pakistani Prime Minister's allegations, but given that it is another unproven allegation of criminal activity, albeit from a very prominent source, I wanted to bring it to the board's attention. As a BLP the article is really rather pitiful, just a bunch of suspicions and allegations; I wonder if we should delete it. At any rate, we need to think about how to present such figures. --JN 466 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current treatment is, while not satisfactory from an informational standpoint, likely the best we can do given the state of the sourcing out there. There is a fair question about whether this article fails WP:BLP1E, especially as the colonel seems to have become obscure, but aside from that, I don't see any problems with the article as it stands. Ray^Talk 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motsoko Pheko[edit]

As this is the second time I have seen this editor insert unreferenced contentious information in this article, and as I am having other problems with him also (eg I had to warn him about comparing editors with Nazis today), I'm bringing this here. See [42] (my guess is that the editor, who is presumably using his real name if he isn't impersonating a real person, is the author of the book), and his latest edit, [43] (the 'ludicrously believes'). I think there is probably a serious COI here as the editor in question seems to know the person and both (presuming the editor is Ntsukunyane Mphanya) are African politicians. Thanks. I'll notify user:Ntsukunyane Mphanya. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that the article also has this: " two bogus Doctorates in Jurisprudence degree and Theology respectively.Template:Mandela and Sisulu:Equivocation, Treachery and the Road to SharpevilleShapeville Writers collective www.scribd.com " which is from this [44], presumably the forthcoming book, which relies in part on Wikipedia. Pages 5 and 84 are the sources (you can search the document). Doesn't seem to have any named authors. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't screw things up for you, but before finding this notice I happen to have gone and deleted all the problem sections mentioned by Dougweller. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ntsukunyane Mphanya is indeed a real African politician, but the person posting under this name @ en:wp is almost certainly his former comrade-in-arms Bernard Leeman, which is why Leemans 'books' are being pushed in a variety of articles. Leeman has used Mphanya's name as a cover elsewhere on the internet.--188.220.243.89 (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be WP:Impersonation, which says "If you have been blocked for using your real name, please don't take offense; we're trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you! You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove you are who you say you are. You can do this by sending an e-mail to [email protected]; ". Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shing-Tung Yau[edit]

Yau is one of the world's top mathematicians, and his recent award of the Wolf Prize in Mathematics has set off editing of his biography from a couple of accounts not too familiar with our house style. Large additions have been made that are not neutral in tone. While Yau's distinction in his field is undoubted, the article must not be allowed to lapse into hagiography. There have also been copyright issues, with chunks of a Chinese academic website being copied in. The biographical material needs careful referencing, and claims for priority in Yau's scientific work also need watching, since there are some over-enthusiastic followers. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Epstein/James O'Keefe[edit]

User:Gamaliel is trying to use a Max Blumenthal article in Salon to say that Epstein and O'Keefe "planned an August 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism", featuring as its key speaker Jared Taylor, founder of the white nationalist publication American Renaissance." Blumenthal offers no evidence for his assertion that O'Keefe planned this event rather than just attending it, and this is generally a terrible, partisan, unreliable source to use for the purposes of calling O'Keefe a racist. This material is being added to both Epstein's and O'Keefe's articles.Prezbo (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article in a reliable source is being used for this information. I don't see what the fuss is about. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is being actively discussed at Talk:James O'Keefe. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn[edit]

Category added

This is hardly the injustice of this century or the last, but the great Russian writer ALexander Solzhenitsyn is not connected to the category Russian short story writers. Solzhenitsyn is more remembered for his novels and non-fiction, as well as his advocacy for many causes, than for short fiction, but he did write many tales and stories, and several of them are excellent. One, Matryona's Place (aka Matryona's House), is--in my opinion--a masterpiece, and has its own Wikipedia page.

Anyway, I think Solzhenitsyn should be added to this category.

Thanks,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.138.69 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I think you've come to the wrong place - this page is specifically for issues connected to biographies of living persons (Solzhenitsyn died in 2008). But if he belongs in the category, you should be able to edit his page to add him there. --GenericBob (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Alhashimi[edit]

Done

Hi, could someone with an interest in Arabic alternative health take a look at Mohammed Alhashimi? Thanks Ϣere SpielChequers 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was weakly cited and controversial so I have stubbed it back to the cited content and as he does not appear to be notable I have prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ϣere SpielChequers 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Gardner[edit]

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

Dispute over sourcing and copyright of some added text. See page history. Some extra attention here would be appreciated, Cirt (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the pre-copyright version as a start. Seems that User:ProjectZero new editor needs some guidance. I'll try and help.--Slp1 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about red links in progress at List of male performers in gay porn films[edit]

Since this is a BLP-related issue and deals with an article previously discussed here, I think it is appropriate to mention the Request for comment currently underway about the inclusion of red links in this particular list. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Uccellini[edit]

Hi all. Louis Uccellini is currently the director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and he helped to develop the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, as well as write dozens of meteorology publications. The question is, is he notable enough for an article? I recently wrote one on his colleague, Paul Kocin, but I'm unsure whether Uccellini passes the notability bar. Any help appreciated! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're both good guys. I can't see what either of them has done to deserve a Wikipedia article on them with its possibilities for vandalism and other forms of abuse. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I have/intend to have both of them on my watchlist. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but will you be active on the project as long as these articles exist? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Wikipedia will have other editors for a while. I don't really think I need to be lectured on the sensitivity of BLPs, since I spend a good portion of my time dealing with them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New-ish RfC on content and sourcing[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention, and please feel free to remove this notice if it's inappropriate here ... but I started an RfC several days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content, to discuss what to do with content in older BLPs that is unsourced. Some of the immediate issues around that RfC are resolved among the involved editors, but it's probably a broader discussion worth having. This is a side discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, where we're talking about how to handle the backlog of completely unsourced BLPs. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marisabel Rodríguez de Chávez[edit]

Another Venezuela article, Hugo Chavez's ex-second-wife. I do not know if there's BLP vio here; I simply do not have time to look into it. I think most of it is true and can be sourced, but there's a lot of unsourced text under "Death threat". A Spanish-speaking editor is needed to source it; I can't do it all, and I'm posting to WP Venezuela and getting no help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the death threat section out, I searched for it on Google but found nothing, the article is very poor and is uncited, if anyone is interested in her the article needs improving. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that you'd have to search in Spanish (eluniversal.com and others), and I just don't have time to get to all of it. Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Person is divorced[edit]

What to do in this situation? A reliable source states that persons A and B were married. No reliable source states that A & B are divorced. But they are in fact divorced. Do we continue stating that they are married due to "verifiability not truth"? What if A himself (purportedly) as an anon updates his marital info? Do we then allow the statement that they are no longer married to stand without a source? Perhaps better to remove the whole bit on their marriage altogether? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's doubt take it our. Verifiability is needed, but if there's genuine reason to think the sources are out of date, then we need to be cautious. At very leat go for something like "The New York Times in 2006 recorded that he was married to Jane Smith".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ze'ev Tahor[edit]

An editor is edit-warring fairly egregious violations of BLP into an article,[45][46][47][48] despite being reverted by three separate editors. The claims made about this individual are nowhere to be found in the source provided (e.g. that he is that he "lied", "is highly controversial person", "infuriated public opinion in Poland, Germany and Israel by false claim", and that "His opinions are sometimes compared with Holocaust denial"). He also attempted to add the claim to the Holocaust denial article.[49][50] Additional eyes/views would be appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Bible Understanding[edit]

This article on a controversial religious group seems to be at least partly written by a disgruntled former member and has major BLP problems which should be looked at by a neutral person. Thanks. Borock (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yickes. Speedy deleted as an attack. Happy to undelete if any established wikipedian wants to use whatever is useable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll put 10 minutes into it, and come up with a stub. It's clearly notable, and warrants a wp article IMHO, while apparently some controversy has swirled about it. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, create a stub, but the article was terrible. The sources were terrible. It was POV and incredibly negative.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub -- let me known what you think. As far as negative info about it, I've reflected some of the controversy. There's more out there on the "church", and the controversial aspects of it, if someone wishes to beef it up, but I think that as of now it's accurate, balanced ... though more reflection of the controversy would not hurt, and there is enough in it to survive AfD if my wikihounder chooses to AfD it.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Grilli[edit]

Person is editing their own page to use as an advertisement for their various websites. Completely self promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidt28 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left him a message on his talkpage asking him not to edit the article until its sorted out and left a note at the RFC usernames board . I reverted the promotional edits . Off2riorob (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This probably belongs at WP:COIN. Woogee (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Swett[edit]

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

Mentioned on The Daily Show, then was hit by some vandalism. Could use some improvements. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants[edit]

I'm not entirely certain, but I think that this list is a bit problematic. Is it a problem that so much potentially controversial information on these people is uncited? I don't know, I thought I'd bring it up here though since some of them are still living. Better to bring it up and be wrong than to not bring it up at all, right? 96.52.12.116 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly problematic is the claim that 'it should be taken as evidence that the person could not "keep their story straight" and thus their claim is suspect'. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if it's any worse than List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians: "Although statistics say that this number of supercentenarian claimants does not make sense, it is impossible to make sure that each of these people is lying." But, as AfD has shown, this is what people want on Wikipedia. I may still take a look into it... sometimes trying to fix these problems is the only way I can get vandalism on my talk page and nasty comments on the talk pages of the articles... makes me feel like I'm making a difference, you know? Haha. Cheers, CP 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Debbouze[edit]

Hi, I am new to this so please can someone verify or tell me what to do in a situation like this, its about Jamel Debbouze article. I placed some BLPunsourced tags on some a very questionable section on Mr. Debbouze page. I was directed from Melissa Theuriau's page, he is her husband, a famous French actor/comedian. The section in question is in his biography, it mentions that he was accused of manslaughter early on in his life including a mention of an injury sustained that paralyzed his arm, I checked the talk pages as well and a question was raised about his amputation 3 years ago it was recently changed to paralysis. The section mentions some very serious libelous charges without any reference or source, I don't know the exact policy So I tagged the section, Maybe an admin can look into it. In contrast, the rest of the article paints a glowing picture of his career again most of it without proper references. --Theo10011 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - rewritten paragraph to a more neutral tone, sourced. MLauba (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that MLauba, much better now. the rest of the article still needs more references though.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Tammet article[edit]

User 85.210.180.155 is in breach of Wikipedia's rules regarding original research and the posting of unsourced or poorly sourced information for biographies of living persons.

I have removed his edits that breach these rules and each time he has reinstated the edit, sometimes within a matter of minutes.

I have explained to him that he is in breach of Wikipedia's rules on several occasions on the article's discussion page, but he ignores this.

I have also repeatedly asked him to provide published sources to support his edits but he has not done so. He claims, incorrectly, that the burden of proof is on the person who removes unsourced claims. In fact Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living persons state clearly that the burden of proof lies with those who add or restore material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has also started the same thread at ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for three days, IP repeatedly adding uncited content, I have added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combining two related sections together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tammet[edit]

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

I full protected this page due to a dispute reported at WP:RFPP. Other admins please investigate and feel free to edit over the protection (leaving it protected) in order to remove questionable and/or unsourced material. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there is a thread above, good. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Butler[edit]

I'm fighting a recent battle where several editors, including one who seems to have a COI over the source, keep sourcing claims on the Gerard Butler page to a fan site. I'm reverting their edits every day, and have tried to explain the WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements, but the fan site sourcing continues. Woogee (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a polite clear comment about it on his talkpage and point him to the exact point in the guidelines that explains it, this or is it WP:FANSITE well thats what I would try. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I hate Haiti, and am working for Hello magazine. Woogee (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he reported you as a vandal, hehe..it not working out, if he isn't shaping up soon and continues the same path it may go badly. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed links to drug trade[edit]

Could somebody please have a look at this edit to Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. The allegations of drug ties (and claims of "intercepted communications" relating to a supposed $250m payment) rely on the supposed validity of documents recovered from a laptop after a military strike on foreign territory (Colombia striking Ecuador); the validity is disputed, [51] including by the head of the OAS.[52] Some data from the laptop (sometimes called the "magic laptop") has been shown to be false.[53] Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this case, so can't opine, but it appears that Bloomberg says in May 2008 that Interpol found the laptop authentic (I believe that was after the LA Times report above). I also notice The New York Times in the sources there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they report it, it must be true - Jayson Blair notwithstanding. Interpol made some examination of timestamps (which examination has been criticised [54] [55]), but it relies entirely on the Colombian chain of evidence, which Interpol acknowledged had problems. [56], [57] And the remark that the LA Times report precedes the Interpol examination misses the point entirely: the LAT report shows that the Colombian government's fraudulent use of data from the laptop: "a photo from Reyes' laptop leaked to El Tiempo newspaper that alleged to show Reyes with Ecuadorean Interior Minister Gustavo Larrea did not actually picture Larrea."[58] Rd232 ^talk 10:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not know the case, but if I'm reading correctly, it looks like you're suggesting that Venezuelanalysis.com-- a website run out of individual's homes, funded by Chavez, with no journalistic credentials and known to be partisan to Chavez-- should be given more credibility than the LA Times or The New York Times. There may be a content dispute here, or need for expansion of the article, but text sourced to Bloomberg, the LA Times or The New York Times wouldn't typically be a BLP violation (particularly when a partisan website like Chavez-funded Venezualanalysis is the refutation). Since I don't know the case, all I can see here is that you're asking us to believe a partisan website over highly reliable mainstream sources. Expansion of the article would have to account for our BLP policy: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's no surprise to see you're repeating unproven claims about Venezuelanalysis, and ignoring the views at RSN that VA can be used as a source. No surprise either that you ignore El Universo[59] linked above, or heise.de linked above [60] - a German source described in Venezuelanalysis in English. But then information not easily available in English automatically becomes untrue when reported by Venezuelanalysis - by some mysterious process of alchemy known only to you. Rd232 ^talk 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't derail the discussion here, avoid personalizing issues, and do re-read the threads at RSN. This is a BLP; Venezuelanalysis may have some (limited) use on Wiki but BLPs aren't one of those. At any rate, this article is now clean, I don't know why *I* have to do it or why you pinged me about it, and please continue your RSN discussion in the appropriate place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's laughable. You brought up the credibility of VA here; and its relevance here is in summarising other sources (also provided) casting doubt on the serious BLP allegations. (Look, I know how to bold too!) Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for derailing discussion - that's your speciality. Here, you've successfully avoided addressing the LAT point. Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section has had a small rewrite to take some of the weight out of it, is it a bit better or are there still issues with its inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the current version complies with BLP. Notable allegations are well-sourced, and the denial is noted. THF (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup there, and left an inline query (can we clarify to our readers what "AFP" is)? [61] Interestingly, there are other statements in the article that could be a BLP vio (about his involvement in Chavez's 2002 coup attempt). I didn't pull that content since it's well documented, but someone needs to source it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the AFP, I didn't expand it as I was unsure, I thought it was the Affiliated press but I see it isn't its the American Free Press which perhaps makes a difference in that section. Off2riorob (talk)

Are you sure? AFP usually refers to Agence France-Presse. If it's American Free Press, it has no business being in a BLP, much less given the misleading AFP description. THF (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on second look you are right Ted, I have corrected it now. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agence France-Presse does not, IMHO, raise any RS concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just flagged some other problems there as needing citation; in a BLP, they really should be sourced, although I believe it's all well documented. (I work in bits and pieces ... will make you crazy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new section now is the best bit, who is going to do the searching for the rest??? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my Wiki work to clean up these Venezuela BLPs may never end <sigh> ... in general, when I find unsourced claims that I'm reasonably sure are accurate and sourcable, should I just pull them, or must I spend the rest of my days seeking Spanish citations? I'm coming across so much of this, with no help from anyone, that I'm really growing weary of the Venezuelan mess we have on our hands. It takes time to find sources, because they're usually in Spanish. (It's slow going because, when I don't know the case, I don't know what Spanish keywords to use in a search, and I've been posting all of these to WP Venezuela but getting ZERO help.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better ... I don't know the "chap" (I use that term loosely), but naming conventions in Venezuela include doble apellido (two last names, paternal and maternal). If "Rodriguez Chacin" is his doble apellido, we shouldn't be referring to him as Chacin-- that would imply that Rodriguez is his middle name, which is unlikely. Lots to sort on all these articles: I can't do it all. Someone needs to tell us what his name is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I located and fixed his full name (Navio Ramon Rodriguez Chacin): his correct last name would be either Rodriguez or the more formal Rodriguez Chacin, and I see the sources did get it correct. I'm posting that here so y'all will know about doble apellido for future cases. We've got lots of BLP messes on Wiki :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this is a timesink: can we use http://www.heritage.org/research/LatinAmerica/bg2243.cfm to source the 1992 involvement? It's well known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stike that (it doesn't): still looking. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, cleaning up Venezuela messes all over the Wiki alone ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited it, that's all I have time for, and Rd232 removed the other tangent that I was working on and didn't know about a Massacre-- didn't belong in this article anyway. It's another crappy Venezuelan BLP, but I think it's BLP compliant now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the LAT report shows the Colombian government's fraudulent use of data from the laptop: "a photo from Reyes' laptop leaked to El Tiempo newspaper that alleged to show Reyes with Ecuadorean Interior Minister Gustavo Larrea did not actually picture Larrea."[62] There is also doubt from computer experts about the Interpol "authentication".[63] Shouldn't these issues by mentioned, for BLP balance? Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to provide "balance," we're here for WP:NPOV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bybee Memo[edit]

An editor keeps insisting that the BLP policy does not apply to this article, though it very clearly makes statements about a living person (and indeed devotes the majority of the article to a list of people criticizing the author of the memo). The article suffers from severe NPOV and SYN and OR problems. Third opinion appreciated. THF (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion is that you need to attempt to engage other editors in the spirit of cooperation, rather than agressively overtagging. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unfair characterization: I "overtagged" at the request of the second editor who asked me to add tags to individual cites in an attempt to cooperate. Feel free to undo that edit if you think his request was unreasonable. THF (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to many articles not just BLP's, any content about a living person or if the comment could be seen to affect a living person then BLP could apply. I think that if someone adds a few templates to an article then its no big deal for a few days, talk about it and try to work through the editors issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly a subsection of Jay Bybee, and WP:BLP most certainly applies to it. On the related, but unasked, question: yes, it should be subject to arbitration enforcement as being a waterboarding-related article.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/Hipo that conversation is better than overtagging, and with Off2 that BLP policy applies even if the statement as to a BLP is in a non BLP article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials[edit]

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Malaysian opposition leader

This article, is about an ongoing event involving a well-known Malaysian politician. It is not the main article about Anwar Ibrahim but it is nearly as long as that one. The subject matter should definitely be of interest to BLP watchers because it involves highly contested, culturally and politically incendiary charges. The article is very active right now because the trial is now happening, mostly being written by two editors I have not interacted with much but seem antagonistic and both highly active on articles about Malaysia. There is an unusual number of subsections in the article, which seems to feature a lot of details from the two trials. Only in a number of cases, the details are incomplete or do not enlighten. Sometimes they appear to be spreading innuendo. Ibrahim is a public figure no question, but with so much unproven and so much speculation it seems to me this should be much more conservatively treated. Can someone with more experience look at this article and provide guidance? --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points that he is a living person, and also that he is a public figure (libel concerns are different for them), and that it is a charged issue. Is there anything in the article as it currently looks that concerns you? The number of subsections does not concern me (it makes navigation easier, and does not raise any BLP concerns that I can see). The same with the level of detail. If you could point to what specifically concerns you, as a BLP concern, perhaps we could better respond. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a look at this article, when an article is by definition controversial like this one and large and cited to here and there and english and foreign cites then as an individual looking it is almost impossible to do much about it unless something shouts out loud as a big issue, I agree that if an editor has a specific issue it can be looked at but if the issue is simply with the article in general, the best thing for them to do could well be to simply start editing the article to improve it and use WP:RFC or Wikipedia:Third opinion to get outside independent comments regarding any disputes.. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sargon Dadesho[edit]

This article is quite a mess. Sources for contentious information are questionable, and a lot of what's cited to the sources is OR and synthesis. It may need to be stubified and rebuilt. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding article Billy Garland (Ex-Black Panther)[edit]

A person claiming to be a researcher is on the Entertainment Ref. Desk querying the source of information in this article, (link above)
Question linked HERE, text below:

"Hello,Im a researcher and i read an article on the wikipedia website about ex black panther/ tupac's father Billy Garland.Im doing a research project on Tupac,now there is something interesting in the article about tupac's biological father Billy Garland that he is a decendant of the african tribe tuareg.Now I don't know the credibility of this information about billy garland's orgins which is stated on the wikipedia website.Please let me know where the information about tupac's father billy garlands heritage was obtained.I cannot find much information about billy garland, if the information about him being of tuareg heritage is credible. Then i can use it for the research paper im writing.

Thank you

Kops —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolani7 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)"

It appears this may in fact be unreferenced. The closest in-line cite in the article is HERE. Thought it might be of interest. Hope this is the right place to report this! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question appears to have been added by AlyciaBellamyMediaInc. See DIFF. See also related AN/I archive
NOTE: the article in question has received some 'fixes' from Charles Matthews —220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infomation update on Daniel Francis footballer[edit]

He played for canver island fc 2007-2008 won promtion to isthmian premier league made 26 appearances 20 starts 6 sub app. 5 goals in this time.

Made 2 apperances for dominica u21 ref

Made two appearences for grays pre season verses west ham utd and east thurrock utd ref http://www.whufc.com/articles/20090712/grays-1-2-west-ham-united-ft_2236884_1720313

ref http://www.etfc.co.uk/pastplayers.htm Youth career. Arsenal under paul Davis earining a 1st year yts and leyton orient from yts in a first year proffesional0 first team appearances. realeased

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/nccamerica/matches/round=250441/match=10000000/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Df9685 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi[edit]

At Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi there was some information, that in my opinion, came from a source of questionable reliability (it is an op-ed written in a mainstream newspaper, but it is very biased). I have asked the other editor to temporarily keep the information in question (which portrays Qadhi very negatively) out, until consensus can be achieved. In turn the editors says my request "reeks of censorship".

More discussion can be found: Talk:Abu_Ammaar_Yasir_Qadhi#Objective_sources. Please comment.VR _talk 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The op-ed in The Boston Globe was written by the former Chairman of the Boston College Political Science Department, and a notable political activist. I don't think that there has been any showing of lack of reliability, and their op-ed views in such a notable publication are IMHO clearly relevant. The only reason that I can see for my fellow editor seeking to delete the sentence reflecting their views is, as he indicates, POV censorship by an editor who dislikes what they say.

It should also be noted how the sentence is presented -- it as not presented as a bald statement, with a footnote. Rather, what is being presented is that the professor and political activist wrote "x" in an op ed article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't present such an extreme claim using an opinionated editorial unless there was clear supporting statements from the subject or clear actions from him that supported that position. Off2riorob (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" In July 2009, Dennis Hale (Associate Professor and former Chairman of the Political Science Department at Boston College) and Charles Jacobs (President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance) wrote in an op-ed column in The Boston Globe that "Yasir Qadhi ... is a Holocaust denier who preaches that Jews want to destroy Muslims and that Christians are theologically 'filthy.'"[11]

It is a very strong claim against a living person from an opinionated editorial from two people that are the leading activists in an attempt to close their local mosque. 03:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this an isolated claim from this pair or are there other claims or charges of Holocaust denial from anyone else? Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Jacobs is not neutral, and should not be cited in this context.

The Boston Globe: "The David Project, a conservative Jewish leadership program, and CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, both have deep ties with Charles Jacobs, a veteran conservative activist who argued this week that Obama is taking steps that endanger Israel’s security." [64]
NYT: "Charles Jacobs, who heads the pro-Israeli group"
The Nation "Charles Jacobs, who is a co-founder of CAMERA, the pro-Israel media watchdog group; the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, which calls itself "America's leading human rights group dedicated to abolishing modern day slavery worldwide"; and, along with Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol, among others, a member of the board of advisers of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies." [65]
The Boston Globe: "Charles Jacobs, a Newton resident, classified Mosaic" this week as hate speech" and compared it with airing a public access channel in Roxbury featuring Southern white supremacist David Duke. Jacobs is the president of the David Project, which defines its goal as promoting a fair and honest" portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian conflict." [66].
"Charles Jacobs, a Brookline resident and supporter of Israel, held a sign that said “Protect Freedom and Democracy by supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.” “We’re out here because we heard people were trying to protest against Israel,” Jacobs said. “They have no shame.”" [67].

Sole Soul (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a source does say that Qadhi denied the Holocaust in 2001, and the same source says that Qadhi retracted his statements. Qadhi on his blog also admitted to that, calling it a "one-time mistake" and in 2008 he said he acknowledged the full validity of the Holocaust. All of this is already in the article. When Epeefleche inserts the above, it makes it look like that Qadhi is denying the Holocaust as of 2009, which is not true. If the source in question is referring to Qadhi's 2001 statement then it is still inaccurate in calling him a "denier" because Qadhi is no longer one (as per Qadhi himself).

I know of no existence of any statement by Qadhi that refer to Christians as theologically "filthy".VR _talk 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extreme accusation against a living person, that appears to me, to be very opinionated accusations from two people with a big axe to grind, I would appreciate additional comments regarding this content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobs need not be "neutral" (though it is not clear why he is not). Wikipedia is replete with indications of the views of people, properly attributed to the people. Otherwise, I expect we would delete nearly every quote in the article about politicians, for example. The POV issue is that the editor's edits be NPOV. Censoring reflection of Jacobs' comments in an RS, properly attributed, is just the POV that we much guard against.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well cited mainstream criticism is welcomed to include but minority opinionated positions should be excluded from the article, no amount of attribution allows these minority critical commentaries a mouthpiece in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm ... no. To reflect a person's criticism, there is not a requirement that the person be "mainstream." Verifiability -- it being reported in an RS -- is the test. Otherwise, you would be introducing your POV that only "mainstream" statements should be reflected (to say nothing of your POV as to what view is minority). Which, mildly put, is not encouraged.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From policy, The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article , as this position appears opinionated and extreme, are there other noted people or other commentators that support these positions, accusations of holocaust denial and such require strong citations not simply opinionated POV from people that strongly oppose the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"John is 7 feet tall" is a factual statement, while "John is one of the best football players" is an opinion. "Yasir Qadhi ... is a Holocaust denier who preaches that Jews want to destroy Muslims and that Christians are theologically 'filthy.'" is a factual statement and if true, should be attributed to impartial source. Sole Soul (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see discussion about these "opinions" have made it here, as I too have had questions about it. I would agree that these very serious claims sourced to an opinion column should be removed. Of additional (though fixeable/fixed) concern is their non-NPOV position in the article and the original incorrect attribution to the Boston Globe itself [68]. Moot, however, since I agree with Off2riorob and others that such opinions have no place in a BLP article. --Slp1 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is a consensus that this content is excessive minority POV and should be removed, are there any editors that support its inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion of this material.

Most muslim preachers are not sympathetic to jihadism and/or holocaut denial. Some are. This is a known phenomenon. Further, at least one muslim preacher -- whose article I worked on a few years ago, made nice with Jewish and Christian preachers, at meetings to do with local charities, while engaging in hate speech, in Arabic, back at the mosque. So the allegations against this particular preacher are not unbelieveable.
If the allegations are from a WP:RS, they should, in my opinion, be covered here. It seems to me that BLP is only supposed to protect individuals from frivolous accusations, not accusations from WP:RS
Contributors who claim suppressing negative information protects the subject of articles do not always act in the best interest of the subjects of those articles. Why, because it is complicated. Sometimes what is in the best interest of the subject is to cover the accusation in a neutral, referenced manner, and cover the refutation in a neutral, referenced manner. For example US President have to be born in the USA. President Barack Obama had the allegation levelled against him that he was not entitled to be a US President, because he wasn't really born in the USA. I don't think there is any possible question that, in that case, neutral, referenced coverage of the accusation, balanced by neutral, referenced coverage of the refutation was in his interest. When examined in detail the accusation wasn't credible. Covering the accusation, and the refutation made that clear. Not covering either the accusation or the refutation would leave people who would normally turn to the wikipedia to reach an informed conclusion can't do so. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points number 1 and 3 are irrelevant, IMO. Sole Soul (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not reliable sources, it is The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article is this a mainstream opinion of this man? Are there other people that claim this controversial position? Or is it their opinion only, a minority strong pov from two people with a strong anti muslim pov? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't carry the opinions of street-corner kooks. But I think we should carry the opinions, properly attributed, of authors published in WP:RS, like the Boston Globe. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Without question.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus here one way or the other. There is until now 2 editors who support the inclusion and 4 who do not. Sole Soul (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As regards minority opinions with extreme claims about a living person that should not be included here no matter where it was cited to. It is Holocaust denial he is being accused of, that is a crime in many countries, if there is nothing additional to support the claims it should be removed, so I will ask again, is this a isolated claim or have other people commented as to him being a denier? Also, are there any quotes from him that support that he is a denier? If the answers are no then the comment is an extreme claim of a tiny minority position and requires removal.Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC
- As user Soul points out, there is not a clear consensus here but four two when one of the supporters for inclusion is the original inserter is not much support so I have removed the disputed content with this edit summary ... removing disputed content, as per discussion at the BLPN, content is controversial and is disputed, there is no consensus to include, please do not replace without additional support. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken it out twice now and the original inserter has twice replaced it, could we have some more editors opinions as regards this content please. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In the middle of this ongoing discussion, Off2 has started deleting the material. My view is that no reasonable argument has been presented to deleted the reference to the view of two notable people, which is reflected not only in The Boston Globe but also as I've just discovered in another RS, the Jerusalem Post. The arguments for deletion have had the smell of "Idon'tlikeit" and censorship.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that:

Reasonable people could disagree in this dispute
Extra caution should be taken on BLPs
Generally, onus is on those seeking to include content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion
No consensus here and 4 against 2 support removal
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

This content should be removed temporary and dispute resolution should be sought. Sole Soul (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the information per this discussion and the fact that the default position for disputed BLP material is its removal, until there is a consensus for its inclusion. I will point out the article already includes information that Qadhi at one point denied the Holocaust, (by his own admission, in fact) but that he had since changed his views. What is being discussed is not the holocaust denial, but whether the utterly unsubstantiated opinions of two activists that he "preaches that Jews want to destroy Muslims and that Christians are theologically 'filthy'" should be included in the article. I don't believe that (a) an opinion column (even if it has been published in two newspapers) is an appropriate source for such serious accusations, as extreme claims require exceptional sources) or (b) it is notable what these activists think of him (undue weight). This is a BLP article and needs to be held to the highest standards. Please do not reinsert this material without getting consensus for its inclusion.--Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your position. I worked hard in the talk section to arrive at compromises in previous edit-warring. However, using the editorials of extremists to point out that someone else is extremist seems ironic at best. On another point, the holocaust issue was raised in the Telegraph article which is still there. Fine, but then the Telegraph quotes some unknown organization to make the claim that Qadhi continued to post anti-holocaust POVs on some "internet forum". No information is provided for this. In fact, this is a classic case of hearsay slander, which could have earned the Telegraph a nice lawsuit had Qadhi so pursued. Does not mean it is accepted per BLP standards.Abureem (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. I recall a day when the issue for putting information in an article was "did an RS publish it" and, if it is an opinion, is it properly sourced as an opinion. Nobody has disputed that here we have two RSs. It is also of note that the RSs are in different countries -- as wikipedia often takes that into consideration in various contexts. All of that would suggest to me that it is proper to reflect the information, sources as an op ed reported in an RS.

There are wholly unsupported statements made by those who would delete the material. One is that the authors of the op ed are "very biased". I see no evidence to support that. The editors are a fellow who was the Chairman of the Political Science Department at a major mainstream university -- hardly the sort of position that attracts a biased, fringe-opinion person. And even if the authors did have a bias, they are notable persons (the other being a notable human rights activist) making statements in notable RSs -- we report that sort of thing on wikipedia. Or at least we used to.
We have articles on Wikipedia from a group called "Electronic Intifida," in which their reporting is reported as fact. Here, certain editors are in converse seeking to delete material reported as an op ed from two notable people in two notable papers. The fact that Jacobs is reported elsewhere as involved with a pro-Israeli group does not bear on his reliability, and in any event I have no problem with the synthesis-like step of reflecting as well that Jacobs formerly founded a pro-Israel media watchdog group, if someone thinks that at all relevant, or that the Boston Globe referred to him as a Conservative activist. But surely that's not reason for deletion here.
To VR's comment, I have no problem as well with clarifying in the text that Qadhi on his blog said what he said, and the op ed conflicts with what Qadhi says or (if it is referring to his old statement) does not reflect his later statements to opposite effect. That would all be accurate, appropriate, and helpful to the reader. I appreciate VR making that point, and think that this change would be an improvement over what we had.
BTW, I believe I've read elsewhere in an article or two about an Egyptian cleric who went to the mosque and heard statements by Qadhi that were of the type complained about here. Also, I believe I read of a reference to tapes of Qadhi's statements that Jacobs had. I could look for those if they would be helpful.
I think the "these are the views of a tiny minority" is a baseless argument. They are the views of two notable people, reflected in op eds in two RSs. As such, they are appropriate to reflect IMHO.
As pointed out, there are other sources (such as a UK RS) that speak of Q having taken Holocaust denial positions earlier, which he himself has admitted to, though he later said he had subsequently changed his views, but I believe it may have been the UK paper that then in indicated that subsequent to his reported change of heart he posted a link to work by a holocaust denier.
I think that some of the above discussion blurs the distinction between the difference between making non-POV edits that fairly reflect what is said in an RS (our goal), and whether the person making the statement is allowed to have a POV (we routinely treat as RSs publications that have POVs--and here, I am happy to reflect the material I discuss above).
There are assertions here that what is being deleted is a "minority opinion". There is no evidence of this. And even if it were the case, we routinely reflect minority positions from notable persons reflected in notable RSs.
As discussed above, much of the argumentation against inclusion is not rooted in policy. The rationale for inclusion is rooted in the policy that it is proper to reflect notable person's views reflected in RSs. Furthermore, as to those counting votes, I would point out that this is not a vote.
As far as him being accused of being a holocaust denier, which it is said is a crime in many countries, well then he would be guilty. As he has already admitted that at one point in time he was a Holocaust denier. The issue here is the finer one of whether the authors intended to say he is as well a current Holocaust denier, as the UK article also seems to wonder about. But we can simply reflect what his statement is as well (as I believe we do).
Calling the authors of the op ed article "extremists" is yet another unsupported comment.
Suggestions that material in an RS is questionable because we do not know its source do not reflect how wp works. We routinely reflect such information. Though editors should feel free to reflect the existence or lack of existence of reflection of the name of the source. Furthermore, suggestions that what is in an RS newspaper could lead to a libel suit is clear conjecture. If you don't know the RS's source, you don't know why they believe they could make such claim without concern for a libel suit overriding their desire to make such a statement. Our approach is, if an RS reports it, it is proper to reflect it, and we don't introduce our imagination -- based on less information than the newspaper has -- to assert that the subject could prevail in a libel suit. Otherwise, we would be striking every contentious statement reported by every RS, and only publishing individuals' homepages.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you read the op-ed, you'll find it is indeed biased. Singling out one sect as the "most intolerant on the planet" is similar Robert Spencer saying The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion. There is a lot criticism of Wahhabism, but calling it the worst on planet Earth goes beyond being unbiased. In fact, its statement might

2. Not much of a comment at the moment. Obviously one wouldn't get information about Rabbis and Judaism from Islamist sources, so why get info about Islamic scholars from pro-Israeli sources. Note we should get information about Israel/Palestine from pro-Israeli sources (and attribute them) because in that case their views are important.

3. We already have that, just like we already have the accusation that at one time (2001 to be precise) Qadhi did deny the Holocaust.

4. If you could find RS reporting those tapes, then sure.

5. Actually, I can send a letter to most reliable newspapers and have it published. Secondly, extremists are able to feature themselves all the time, in op-eds of reliable newspapers. Being published in an RS only means that you said, what it is saying you said, it doesn't mean you don't carry a fringe viewpoint.

6. We already have the UK paper in. The UK paper's allegation is not that Qadhi is currently denying the Holocaust, only that he previously did (which Qadhi himself acknowledges in one form or another).

7. The point is whether the POV is relevant to the article. In an Israel/Palestine article, for example, it'd be a sin not to report the POVs of both parties. And perhaps, we should report the POVs of those who oppose Qadhi's theological teachings. Because Qadhi is known for his theological/religious teachings, he is not known as a Holocaust supporter/denier.

8. Again, minority opinion is important if it deals with an important aspect of the article. Support or denial of the Holocaust is not the hallmark of Qadhi's teachings. If we were to present a minority viewpoint saying Qadhi's views in Islamic studies are controversial, then we'd report that.

9. This is not a vote, this is based on consensus. Until we have that, we shouldn't be including the material.

10. We do reflect his statement, and the UK RS does too. The op-ed from Boston globe (which is another reason we shouldn't include it) slaps a label without justifying it or giving any sources.

11. I don't know about their extremism, but per #1, they are biased.

12. I think you're confusing reporting by RS and showing by RS. The Boston Globe doesn't report the op-ed as fact. And I'm sure there's a "the author does not necessarily represent the views of the newspaper" clause. If the Boston Globe reported Qadhi's statements on the Holocaust as a fact, we'd include it.

Hope this helps. Also, its tiring to write long responses. Let's keep things short and concise please.VR _talk 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support inclusion of the material. Editors have to get away from a way of thinking that goes "If it was published in a RS I get to insert it in the article and there is nothing you can do about it." This is the way to get BLPs that attract a flotsam and jetsam of every negative extreme that has ever been published by a reliable source anywhere. We are trying -- or should be trying -- to write rounded biographies that do justice to a person. We should not be focused on getting our favourite damning bit of commentary in. A two-line throwaway comment in an op-ed is not a serious, weighty, well-researched source on someone's political and religious views. --JN 466 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riduan Isamuddin[edit]

Please take away that horrible image from the box. Riduan Isamuddin 60.49.113.34 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, this image is of such low-quality as to be useless here. Removed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Farik Amin[edit]

Please take away that horrible image from the box. Mohamad Farik Amin 60.49.113.34 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one, however, is borderline. Personally, I don't think it's worth having in the article, but it's debatable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, turns out the original source linked in the image page is here. I dunno about anyone else, but I can't read that clearly enough to say that any of those pictures is who it's claimed in the articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali[edit]

I removed this as it was crossposted both here an ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In future please don't crosspost like that. If it's necessary to raise an issue in multiple boards, choose one as the place for primary discussion and just link to it. However you should only do this when there's a significant wikipedia wide issue which requires significant attention not for a single dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bacanovic[edit]

Resolved

– Article at AFD, editors invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bacanovic

I kindly ask the board to review this page: Peter Bacanovic. He is marginally notable, at best, and does not come close to meeting the notability requirement for Wikipedia. The page was deliberately created as a smear campaign and the relevant info about Peter is already encapsulated within ImClone stock trading case. Per BLP standards, I nominate this page for deletion. Samwestonx (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Martínez Tolentino - subject requesting deletion[edit]

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this articles is requesting deletion, having had a pretty bad experience of Wikipedia. He's marginally notable at best.

The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaime Martínez Tolentino, and I thought people watching this noticeboard might wish to comment.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimema (talk · contribs) More eyes needed to calm down this user who apparently had a bio about him written, and then got very, very mad. The article is at Jaime Martínez Tolentino. I've nominated it for deletion per what appears to be the wishes of the subject. He was quickly bitten hard and templated to hell and back, however. There was an obvious failing somewhere. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closed as "no consensus" and subject has withdrawn request to delete.. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shelby[edit]

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

The article is generally a C-class mess that needs a good scrubbing, but I write regarding an editor edit-warring to include a paragraph about Shelby's legislative maneuvering. For five days, Shelby put a hold on dozens of Obama nominees to protest the administration's decision about the awarding of a tanker contract to a rival of a factory in his state. 'The holds had absolutely no effect, since Congress was out of session, but the paragraph doesn't include that information, or even that Shelby lifted the holds. I would suggest that WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS applies; an ephemeral news item is not encyclopedic just because it happened this week. There's also a WP:SYN violation through the citation of a 2003 CNN article that does not mention the 2010 holds by Shelby. THF (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention needed as editor is using Twinkle to edit-war to add inaccurate information to the article. THF (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked this editor to identify the supposed inaccurate information, but this editor would prefer to use the talk page to argue instead of discussing the article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying. The inaccurate information is identified both on this page and the talk page, but I've added bold text to make it easier for you to find. THF (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already asked you for a source for this information and you have yet to provide it. So I'm supposed to add something to the article that 1) I don't know is true and 2) I don't have a source for simply because you want me to and you are yelling at me? This isn't how we edit BLPs. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had no effect anyway it says so how important is it? in a few months it will be totally forgotten and only remembered by the couple of wikipedia editors that make it to that section of the article. Why not leave it out, it isn't important or very notable looking. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a widely discussed event and such a sweeping use of the hold system is unprecedented. That more than justifies a brief mention of it in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's another BLP violation, since Shelby's use of the hold system is not unprecedented. See also WP:PERSISTENCE: something that makes a brief flare-up in the news isn't necessarily encyclopedic. THF (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty much a messy unreadable hash anyway so no one will ever read it anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Clark (UK politician)[edit]

Please keep an eye on this article - I've cleaned up what I can, but the subject has raised some concerns about it via an OTRS email, so extra eyes would be helpful. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article was edited to a more NPOV situation and a note was left on the talkpage about this thread and the OTRS ticket, an editor [[

User_talk:Shakehandsman returned the article back to the previous version, I have reverted it back to the NPOV position and left a note asking hm to move to discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example here is the version trimmed to NPOV position, detailing the simple facts without the insulting and basically unnessecary comments..

Clark was involved in an incident in 2008 when video footage of her complaining to bar staff about their refusal to serve her husband was posted on YouTube. After Clark threatened legal action over the availability of the video, she was charged with public order offences.[7] Clark was at first found guilty of using threatening words and behavior but was cleared on appeal.[8][9]

and here is the version replaced by Shakehandsman which is basically exactly the same that had been inserted previously.

Clark was involved in an embarrassing incident in 2008 when video footage of her complaining to bar staff about their refusal to serve her husband was posted on YouTube.[12] After Clark threatened legal action over the availability of the video, she was charged with public order offences.[13] The case came to trial in March 2009 when Clark was cleared of being drunk and disorderly but found guilty of using threatening words and behaviour; she was given a conditional discharge.[14] The judge presiding over the case described Clark as having a "preoccupation with self and self-image" and that "Clark was clearly out of control".[15] On appeal, the conviction was overturned, with the Appeal Court judge describing Clark's behavior as shameful but not criminal.[16]

You can clearly see the second version is written in as negative portrayal as possible, and includes embarrassing .. described as.."preoccupation with self and self-image" .."Clark was clearly out of control" and the her actions were shameful all in all an attack, although I have got a citation guv.Off2riorob (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling work Rob! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wring in quoting the judge whatsoever - the only fault in that version is the use of the in the term "embarrassing" (and that's not a term I came up with at all as it isn't' in the source). There's a reluctance to use quotes about MPs by opponents and to a lesser extent journalists, but when a fully independent and totally impartial and respected judge has such a thing to say in summing up the trial of said person it couldn't be more merited. On top of that it's hugely dishonest for you to pretend that I simply reverted the article back to the previous version - I've added plenty of balance to other sections, additional references and I removed the most problematic parts. (all of which you have again undone).--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The judge's comments are actually essential here in particular they've very useful in understanding the case and the previous verdict - - i.e. that the previous judge had perhaps confused shameful and criminal conduct or that it was hard to determine which one was the case here. On top of that the terms used by the judge are not "all an attack" as your rather misleading state. Yes it describes her as shameful, but you've rather conveniently ignored the last part of the phrase - that of "not criminal" (i.e. terminolgoy that's actually defending her). Any attack piece would have omitted that part, whereas to include it is far more honest and balanced. Perhaps we could find something more pleasant the judge had to say about her or more importantly add something about her defence or mitigating circumstances? - that would certainly be far better than just censoring the whole article all the time and removing content until almost nothing is left--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cia Berg[edit]

An IP editor introduced this edit to the above article claiming that the subject of the article "achieved some notoriety for the oral braces she wore" and "flaunted" and, as a reference, provided a link to the music video on YouTube. The video in the reference shows the braces, yes, but proves nothing of "notoriety". Per my prior experience, people like to share with the world their favourite moments of films and music videos and often attempt to assert notability for this trivia by calling it notable or controversial or, in this case, notorious. I consider claims of notoriety in violation of BLP, especially when not cited properly. I removed the info from the article, explaining my reasoning but was reverted by the IP editor without an explanation. I removed the negative claim from the article again and explained myself in detail on Talk:Cia Berg. The editor reverted me again, this time refactoring his claim of "notoriety" and claiming this time that the subject's wearing of braces was "worthy of note". I disagree that it's worthy of note and believe that it doesn't benefit the article as much as it opens the door for other personal opinions to be expressed — all the while disguised as notable encyclopedic material — about her braces in a contentious manner. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim of notoriety, and 'refactored' (a weasel word if ever there was one) at the FIRST time of asking. A quick check of the edit history will show that the claim above is untrue, of course. I do remember that at the time (1993?) the braces caused a bit of a stir but I was uable to cite that so the claim of notoriety stays out, correctly. That the braces are notable is a bit more straightforward as it's a most unusual thing to see in a video, especially in female artists. Furthermore, I cannot see the argument that saying 'she wore braces' is 'contentious'; it's merely a statement, it's true and it's cited. I think that it enhances the article simply because it's additional information about the subject that I consider to be worthy of note. It's not in the least contentious and I don't see how it can be considered inappropriate. What is inappropriate, however, is making untrue claims about the edits of others to attempt to strengthen your own position, and the edit history in this case bears this out. Do have a look.. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied over from the article talk page)

My apologies for stating that this was a reinsertion of the same info. I failed to look at the edit closely enough to see that you refactored your statement on that edit. I saw the link reinserted and the edit summary that stated only that you had reverted my edit. For that I do apologize.

I do still stand by my point that claiming notoriety must be avoided in a BLP unless it can be properly sourced. Moreover, I don't find it an improvement to remove your statement where you claim notoriety and then insert a statement where you claim notability and subsequently explain that notability as a result of bringing "Ms Berg notoriety at the time". It's contentious and unsourced, doesn't belong here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not argue the point that unsourced claims of notoriety should be removed - which is why I did so at he first time of asking, as we have agreed is what happened in this case. Also, I did not contest the point - not a peep. The inclusion of the line about the braces is NOT about notoriety. It's in because it's unusual, it's verifiable and I think it adds to the article and the reader's understanding of Ms Berg. The insertion of a simple fact - that cannot (IMHO) be considered contentious - allows the reader to draw their own conclusions without prejudice. Removal of this fact would not allow the reader that privilege - or that insight, or that information. I'm not much of a fan of the song, but I think the video is quite interesting on an visual level. It's no work of genius though, and I'm not a fanboy, but the braces are conspicuous - deliberately so in my opinion. To point out that they are there gives people the chance to decide if they agree, disagree or couldn't care less. I complied with your original diktat, heavily edited the sentence down to a simple fact and argued that the inclusion of the braces is notable due to how unusual it is a thing to see. Again, it's misleading (at best) to claim that I argued for inclusion of the braces because it 'brought Ms Berg notoriety at the time'. It did do, but as I explain (more than once), I couldn't cite that and so it's the unusual nature of the braces in a music video that is the reason for inclusion. You're being very selctive in your editing (again) and - again - a quick glance at the edit summaries and discussion page supports - twofold - my version of events, not yours. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm having a hard time explaining what I mean when I say that you use the argument of notoriety to keep the info in the article. Even in your immediately preceding response, you say that the braces did bring her notoriety. I know that the claim of notoriety is no longer in the article itself but the expressed argument for keeping the statement in the article is still because of this alleged notoriety. Sorry if I've been unclear about that. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and keep this short. I personally believe that the braces brought her a level of notoriety. I cannot cite this, so it's neither here nor there. My solitary argument for the inclusion of the line about the braces is that it is a highly unusual thing to see in a music video, expecially in female performers, and I think the inclusion of this information adds value to the article. Notoriety is NOT the argument for inclusion - which is why I immediately removed it and left it well alone. You're seemingly telling me why I put this line in when I have stated on what must be half-a-dozen occasions now that it's in because it's unusual. The 'notoriety' angle is redundant and not mentioned in the article, so it's silly of you to continue to bring it up. I moved on after the first edit. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding what else this user considers appropriate and helpful information, he defended this edit by claiming that it's apparently true, even though no citations are available. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, but I couldn't cite it, so it's not in the article. Case closed. Your point, and its relevance to this discussion? do I have to trawl your edit history for similar occurences? Hopefully not, I haven't the time. I get the feeling you feel obliged to bring up an unrelated case as you feel a bit threatened by the fact that you a) made a number of untrue statements and included weasel words about this edit process and, b) continue to assert that it is you, not me, that knows on what basis this information is in the article. I know my own mind, you know! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You state: 'it doesn't benefit the article as much as it opens the door for other personal opinions to be expressed — all the while disguised as notable encyclopedic material — about her braces in a contentious manner'. If that happens, take it/them out. Hypothesising on what might happen to the article in the future has no relevance here. Another spurious argument... --80.192.21.253 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing braces is not notable, and youtube is not a reliable source. I've removed the sentence. Please don't return it to the article again. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing braces in this medium is very unusual, and I think notable on that basis. Can we have someone else look at this please? The video is a primary source and has been commented on on the web - google 'Cia Berg braces'. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. I've Googled it. None of the sources returned qualify as reliable sources. It is simply trivia, not important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, you know, not a fan site. Yworo (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia? Really? I thought it was a Whale fansite. Don't be so condescending, it's not becoming. Can we find some sort of external concensus on this? That you think it's not notable isn't good enough. It's an encyclopedia, not a dictatorship, you know! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to find and present a source which qualifies as reliable under Wikipedia policy. Even then, the fact is trivial, and does not belong in the lead paragraph. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, as you put it. It was in NME back in the day. I'll email them for the appropriate issue. I assume New Musical Express is OK, or, let me guess, that's not RS either? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kotz, Nick (2005-01-12). Judgment days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the laws that changed America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 234. ISBN 9780618088256. Retrieved 2010-01-03.
^ Safer, Morley (1990-03-31). Flashbacks: on returning to Vietnam. Random House. p. 96. ISBN 9780394583747.
^ Greve, Frank (1999-10-09). "Moyers' 3 Roles Raise Questions Journalist, Foundation Head, Campaign-Finance Reform Advocate". The Philadelphia Inquirer.

[Judgment_days-1] Kotz, Nick (2005-01-12). Judgment days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the laws that changed America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 234. ISBN 9780618088256. Retrieved 2010-01-03.

[Flashbacks-2] Safer, Morley (1990-03-31). Flashbacks: on returning to Vietnam. Random House. p. 96. ISBN 9780394583747.

[Moyers3Roles-3] Greve, Frank (1999-10-09). "Moyers' 3 Roles Raise Questions Journalist, Foundation Head, Campaign-Finance Reform Advocate". The Philadelphia Inquirer.

[1]

[2]

[3]