Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive81

Talk:Pan-Arabism

There are some issues with the discussion taking place at the talk page of pan-Arabism, the one most pertinent to this board is that a user (Toothie3) insists on repeatedly writing that Jimmy Carter is paid by the supposedly radical Arab Muslim lobby. The only "source" presented to back up that assertion is an editorial by Alan Dershowitz. Could somebody inform the user on what WP:BLP requires as he refuses to listen to me. nableezy - 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You also dont mention that another user also stated that Daniel Pipes was paid by the radical Zionists for the Zionist lobby? How is that any different? The person was using that as example for a persons objection to using Jimmy Carter as a realiable source and daniel pipes (who btw I do not support) as not one 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If I had a button I would simply ban both of you from editing any Arabic related articles, I assure you none of it will alter the real world and the view out of your window. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat or just a refutal to answer a clear double standard? Ban both of us ? who is both of us? what on earth are you talking about? ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Or why not do some editing on some South American articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

nope like it or not I'm sticking to this reigion =) Why don't you instead attempt to answer a question instead of resorting to Cheap whit to cower from your own double standard? btw its not just toothie who has objection to Jimmy Carters credibility just like Daniel Pipes other ppl also question his credibility ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The view from my window is very nice indeed thank you. This is the wikipedia, perhaps you hold such strong views on arab issues that it would be more enjoyable for you to edit some new areas. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one pushing my view here or attempting to hide & cover up facts. Arab issues? The middle east doesn't exclusively belong to Arabs this is something Pan-Arabists and their apologists like you need to get into your heads and poor attempts to imitate us wont change that♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but all that POV is tiresome to me, I don't have a position about that, we just want a decent neutral reported article and imo that is better achieved by editors who are less involved in the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All of this is missing the point (one of which is the Carter is not even cited in the article). You, or anybody else, cannot say such things about living people on Wikipedia without multiple independent, high quality sources backing it up (and an editorial is not a reliable source for statements of fact, the source brought would be sufficient to say that Dershowitz feels that way, not that it is true). You cannot say these things about Carter or anybody else. This has nothing to do with the actual content of the article. nableezy - 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, time to move to discussion, the article has been fully proteted for editwarring/content dispute Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The violations are occurring on the talk page. nableezy - 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked Daniel Pipes is still alive too, so why is it okay to question his credibility and not Jimmy Carter? where have I stated my person opinion of Cater? Both pipes and Carter dont mean anything to me but the fact you clearly have a double standard here is the point ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say it was ok, nor did I say that you have made any opinion of President Carter known. And deflecting from the issue is not the best way of going about this, the comments made about Carter are in violation of the BLP policy, if you think another violation was made fine, but that does not change the issue here. nableezy - 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I really do think the advice given at WP:ANI also applies here, WP:DR is the location for this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not for a user writing that about Jimmy Carter, that is a BLP issue if it happens on the talk page or in the article. nableezy - 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have removed it haven't you? These sort of issues are commonplace on talkpages, warn the editor and if it continues then report him to ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Yasmina said, the entire issue shows nableezy's double standards of blindly accusing a person then reporting some users for the making accusations against another person (both of whom are alive, by the way). I would suggest that monsieur nableezy stick to the talk page and focus on bettering the article, rather than drag himself into side battles - useless side battles if I may say, since nobody wants to mention Carter in the article itself anyway. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how the two can be compared. On one hand you have a respected former US president who won the Nobel peace prize and on the other hand you have a fraud (Dershowtiz) who employs a high school girl's website as a source and whose work has been proven to be fraudulent by Norman G. Finkelstein.George Al-Shami (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot call Dershowitz a fraud as a statement of fact (you can say that X called him a fraud, with a source), and to do so here of all places is not wise. nableezy - 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So what if he won a Nobel Peace prize? So did Yasser Arafat lol,calling Dershowitz a fraud is POV and proof of the double standards here just like calling Finkelstein Bias would be.Using Norman Finkelstein is not wise either (another controversial figure) who professed his support of Hezbollah (a recognized terrorist organization in the states) during a College protest stating their fight is one for freedom and Democracy (LMAO many people in Lebanon would disagree with that) and said that Lebanese who did not want their country destroyed had no self-respect,in that case neither does the 200million arabs who keep pushing Lebanon to be the battle arena to fight their wars, while they dilly dally in peace. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please take this somewhere else, it has no place here or anywhere else on the wikipedia for that matter. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Edward Walsh

• Lawrence Edward Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the Wikipedia page for Lawrence Edward Walsh, user 66.25.93.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly has edited the page to include inaccurate and biased information. Though a request was made to stop posting the inaccurate info or to provide a reference, there has been no response beyond another effort to repost. // Mklobas (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I second the above - this IP is clearly here with an agenda and is not responding to any attempts to discuss. I'm also submitting this to WP:AN3 since he/she has violated 3RR too. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction - not 3RR (yet) but still submitted there due to edit warring. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong support, I have just reverted him, how many times, disruptive IP unwilling to talk, inserting contentious uncited content into a BLP, pass the banhammer Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's watch the WP:BITE, people. The material is uncited, but it's factually correct. Add the cite and explain the rules, and assume good faith. THF (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

John Gibson (political commentator)

John Gibson (political commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editor Gamaliel is repeatedly reinserting an external link to a left-wing advocacy organization, FAIR, into the BLP of John Gibson. Doing so contradicts BLP policy on reliable sources and the use of external links. Please address this as well as the extensive use in the article of another left-wing advocacy organization, Media Matters for America, not to mention the use of primary source material (Keith Olbermann show material).--Drrll (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed link as disputed content should be better kept out of a BLP during discussion. Here is the external that may violate WP:ELBLP Off2riorob (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• "He's Being as Hateful as He Can: Why can't John Gibson make the big time at Fox?", Peter Hart, Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September/October 2005

There needs to be a consistent Wikipedia decision on the use of partisan media-watchdog organizations. Newsbusters, a project of the Media Research Center, which is run by L. Brent Bozell III, is consistently deleted from articles on the fictional grounds that it is an "extremist" or "far right" organization (in fact, it, like Bozell, is mainstream conservative); it remains in only a handful of articles. However, the same editors that would delete newsbusters.org have little qualms about inserting fair.org into articles, though Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is on the Naderist left. Media Matters for America, which is mainstream liberal, is frequently cited, as well. I can see rejecting all three as sources; I can see accepting MMA and Newsbusters as opinion sources and rejecting FAIR as UNDUE except when it is cited by tertiary sources; what I can't see is the current Wikipedia quasi-consensus of deleting Newsbusters and regularly citing to MMA and FAIR. The effect of the double-standard by the same editors, intentional or unintentional, is POV-pushing throughout the encyclopedia: Newsbusters' POV is considerably closer to the median American voter than MMA or FAIR is. (Disclosure: In reading these articles, I learned that a MRC affiliate asked me to write two op-eds for them a few years back. I didn't realize at the time that it was associated with MRC. Go know.) THF (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly inserted the link because Drrll has been repeatedly removing it without discussing on talk. This is pretty much his normal method of operating, so to actually get him to use the talk page you have to get his attention in this manner. I would have been perfectly willing to discuss this there had he actually shown up there. As I've repeatedly said on talk I don't think this link violates the policy and I don't believe anyone has actually demonstrated this, merely asserted this. I respectfully disagree with THF's views about Newsbusters and MRC, especially his unsupported and irrelevant assertion that they are "closer the median American voter" than other organizations. I also note that THF's discussion is largely about sources, while here we are discussing an external link. We don't have the same standards and policies for both. I'm not currently advocating using FAIR as a source, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to link to a long article discussing his career in its entirety. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your argument distinguishing between "sources" and "external links", unless it's based on 2006 Wikipedia standards. These days, WP:EL is quite clear that if something isn't good enough for a source, it's not good enough for an external link. See WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELNO #1. This is a change of policy from the days of Wikipedia yore when the external links sections were battlegrounds for linkfarms where partisans of each side would try to load up an article with pointers to articles and websites supporting their point of view: now the EL section is supposed to be tight and concise. The most neutrally-written of Pulitzer-prize winning biographies would be inappropriate in the EL section; a partisan critique definitely does not cut it. The place for biographical material is cited within the article. Consider it demonstrated that the FAIR article does not belong in the EL section.

With respect to the respectful disagreement, 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 40% as moderate, and 20% as liberal, give or take a few percentage points in any given poll. MRC is in the conservative mainstream, MMA is in the liberal mainstream, while FAIR is on the left side of liberal, frequently objecting to the lack of (or citing as credible) "Marxist" voices in the mainstream media. E.g., [1] Again, I would agree to using MRC, MMA, and FAIR as sources; I would not prefer, but would agree to banning all three as sources; my personal !vote is to allow MRC and its affiliates, MMA, and to bar FAIR as UNDUE except when noted by more reliable sources. What's clearly not acceptable under NPOV or WEIGHT is barring MRC and allowing MMA and FAIR. THF (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while I am willing to concede that standards and policies have evolved since I started editing many years ago, I had a look at the guidelines you provided links to and I don't see any language that makes it clear that we now have the same standards for sources and links. I also disagree with your contention that the MRC represents the mainstream of anything, while I do concede that FAIR is fairly left, and I try to avoid using it as a source of article citations. I don't see any reason to not link to them purely for opinion though, and we've always had the standard that sources that are not acceptable for citations of fact are acceptable for citations of their own opinions, within the limits of NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that it was not a correct position to link in the external links section to people that were writing very opinionated negative pieces about the subject of the biography? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, should we not extend that policy to all opinion? If we excise only negative pieces we are violating NPOV. Another thing is that I'm wondering if people aren't just looking at the provocative title and freaking out. The piece itself is pretty tame. Maybe if we just change the name of the link to "FAIR article about John Gibson"? Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wel, I read the whole thing and it did read very negative about the subject,do you think we could add an external link to Sarah Palin spouting about Obama on the external link section of the Obama BLP, no . If there was worthwhile notable criticism then we could report it and cite it in the article. I would say that this particular link would perhaps not get past the RS noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone wants to use it as a source. The fact that it is negative shouldn't make a difference, unless we are also willing to excise links for being too positive. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gamaliel are you really saying that we can add whatever negative op eds that we like to the external link section? This article has more issues than this link, the bio is six lines long and then starts the criticism section which is twenty six lines long, basically it is pretty much an attack situation so this negative op ed external is not really needed, saying that he does appear quite a controversial character. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think within reason, the EL section can and should contain critical assessments of the subject of the article. This wouldn't include op eds that denounce one comment or incident or only mention the subject in passing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why we have WP:ELYES #3 's requirement of "neutral" if it remains alright to include partisan attacks in the EL section? I simply don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that WP:EL supports this link. THF (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that as a content guideline that encourages links of a certain type, while you seem to be (and please correct me if I am interpreting your comments incorrectly) looking at it as a policy that directly excludes anything not precisely covered by those three bullet points. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I view ELYES as sufficient, not necessary. ELNO #1 explicitly excludes what you're looking to include. Can you identify where in EL you base your support for inclusion? And would you object to including Bozell's op-ed as an external link in the Nina Totenberg article? If so, why? THF (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That's a pretty broad brush and it's open to a lot of interpretation. You could put up a convincing argument about pretty much anything under that vague statement. I believe it does provide a unique resource that is otherwise lacking, namely a critical overview of Gibson's entire career to the date of writing. Your opinion may differ, of course, so using such a broad guideline to include or exclude particular links is pretty pointless, IMHO. As far as your second question, yes, as long as the op ed (I have not read it) covers a whole career and not one or two transitory controversies. I do not support including it in the article, just as I do not advocate putting the FAIR link in the Gibson article. I believe external links are different from article content and sources and should be treated differently. Gamaliel (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Media Research Center is the leading conservative media criticism organization. It's not a neutral source to be sure, but there is no difference between it and Media Matters for America: they both provide partisan takes on their perception of media bias. They have a notable point of view, and WP:NPOV explicitly states that notable points of view should be included in articles. I'd like to get consensus on treating the two identically, or a sound reason why it continues to be acceptable to include criticism from the MMA blog in articles, but MRC/Bozell/Newsbusters criticism gets scrubbed as a violation of one policy or another. COI disclosure: I'm going to pitch friends at MRC an article about bias in Wikipedia, so I'd make more money if Wikipedia continues to have a double-standard. THF (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have today have a look at them both and I would keep them both out unless there was perhaps dialogue between the subject and the writer of the article, or an exceptional situation, they both are extremely opinionated, verging on activism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I started to scrub Media Matters for America and FAIR from articles? I don't want to do it unless there is consensus, and I'd have other editors backing me up. THF (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with that position regarding BLP articles, but for such a scrubbing there would need to be more support here or at the reliable source noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A discussion between a handful of editors who frequently discuss the same topics is hardly a consensus for a site-wide change like this. Gamaliel (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, media matters is at what looks like hundreds of locations on the wikipedia, clearly not a way to go . Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote User:Mao, consensus starts with a single editor. But I'll start a new thread at WP:RSN. THF (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is another organization that goes by the name of FactCheck. They're non partisan and have a good reputation. --TS 00:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FactCheck focuses on politicians, not media claims. I've also noticed errors by them in my field of specialty, where they unthinkingly took sides on contested empirical issues, proclaiming one side "right" and the other side "wrong." THF (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Armando Pacheco Matos

Armando Pacheco Matos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Armando Pacheco Matos received a BA and MS from City College of the City of NY. He also received an Administration and Supervision Certificate from Fordham University in NYC. He was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico in 1952. In 1967 when he was 14 years old his parents moved to the Bronx, New York. He attended Morris High School.

Armando Pacheco Matos published the poetry book "Padre Nuestro que te escondes en el cielo" in 1990. In 1998 he published the bilingual (Spanish-Emglish) biography "Dr. Ramón Emeterio Betances: Father of the Puerto Rican Motherland". In 2004 he published the novel "Jesús Pedro del Campo Montes: La Conciencia de Puerto Rico Asesinada". In 2010 the second edition of the novel will be published in Spanish and English with the title "The Conscience of Puerto Rico" "La Conciencia de Puerto Rico". comment added by Armando Pacheco Matos (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored for readability.Jarhed (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Added internal link, author, bachelor of arts, no refs? Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Hussain

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

This article devotes way too much weight to the controversy-of-the-week about Rashad's comments on Sami al-Arian. I'm posting here in the hope that someone feels like dealing with it, because I don't.Prezbo (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It was looking a bit excessive, I have boldly trimmed out 5000 bytes to the talkpage and left a note. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mazher Mahmood Undercover Journalist

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

Please remove the picture, it is not of Mazher Mahmood. This image is copyrighted to the Anti Ageing Clinic. It is of a Doctor with a similar name who is completely unrelated to Mazher Mahmood. Please can you remove this image as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrost2010 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have removed the image link at the beginning of the article. The article does however have other BLP issues: various of the "stings" and "exposés" that he has been involved in are completely unreferenced in this article - David Mellor, Gary Pennant and James Nesbitt to name just three. BLP applies equally to the other parties in these stories and the allegations and other similar comments must be sourced. – ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bunning

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

The article about Senator Bunning seems more like an editorial than a biography. The author's tone suggests disapproval to me, which seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William.quay (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick read and it looks quite NPOV and cited. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Kohli

Hardeep Singh Kohli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- This biography appears to contain a disproportionately large amount of subjectively negative material, rather than a fact-based biographical account // 78.145.153.168 (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Controversy section could be better cited, but the rest of the page is actually positive and correctly cited.reiknir (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Threatened removal of photograph for violation of copyright rules

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

The photograph Robot Chemist.jpg was taken by me as CEO of Research Specialties many years ago. It was probably used in company advertising. However, please note: RESEARCH SPECIALTIES HAS NOT EXISTED since 1964 and therfore it is not possible to request any emails regarding permission to use this photograph, except, possibly from me. I hereby grant permission to use this photograph by Wikipedia for any purpose it desires. The photograph now appears as a separate entry and as a link to the article Hans Baruch

Sincerely, Hans Baruch 71.139.2.171 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, you need to email to confirm your identity and discuss this with the OTRS team , here is the mail..email to talk to OTRS is here , thanks. I have also contacted the editor that nominated the picture to comment. I have also saved the picture at my locality in case it should be deleted and you confirm your identity so as to re upload it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Identity will not be enough. Mr Baruch has granted "permission to use this photograph by Wikipedia for any purpose it desires". That isn't enough. Wikipedia's content is released under the GFDL, and thus can be reused by third parties (including commercially). The photograph would need to be released under a suitable Creative Commons licence.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, if Research Specialties owned the original copyright of the image, what happened to it? Did it really pass to Hans Baruch? Or did Hans Baruch always retain the copyright? These details aren't clear from the above to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PERMISSION and follow the instructions outlined there to learn how to obtain and send sufficient permission for the file to be used on Wikipedia. I have deleted the file for now, as at this point it is in clear violation of our image use policies. No worries however, once you have sent the permissions, leave me a note at User talk:Fastily and I'll be more than happy to restore the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Guru (rapper)

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

The subject has recently been left in a coma following cardiac arrest. Editors are haphazardly reporting his alleged death here at Wikipedia, which is both libelous and damaging to Wiki's credibility. Please look into this, perhaps locking the article until further confirmable news develops.

Thanks, I have trimmed it back, it's reported now that he is recovering, I don't think we need to lock it for now as the moment has passed, I will keep my eye on it. It is now semi protected. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Slater

This is a blogger who has allegedly named a former politician accused of indecent assault. Publication of the details is suppressed in New Zealand, and I have been removing links to the google cache of his blog entry. The blog entry itself was encrypted and is now deleted. Also relevant is the sixth entry on my talk page archive for last month, where it is suggested that a reliable source confirms the accuracy of the blog posting. I believe this is synthesis and thus not acceptable. Am I overreacting here, or am I underreacting? The defamatory posts to the article of the former politician have been oversighted. Should we also oversight the posts to the article of the blogger, and similar posts at New Zealand blogosphere.-gadfium 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are overreacting. Courts rule like this for a reason, and I think it is most often a mistake for us to second guess a court in a matter such as this. I would watch these articles for BLP edits and if you need help ask here for semi-protection.--Jarhed (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's synthesis and a clear violation of BLP policy forbidding the use of blogs when they concern 3rd parties Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I did not get a reply to a request for oversight for more than 24 hours, and no oversighter was available on IRC, I used deletion and selective restore to remove the posts.-gadfium 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Simon Ghahary

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

I find it really unusual to find autobiographical material like this on wikipedia, especially since it is written in the third person but from a first person perspective. Most of the material also comes from someone called Orbman12 and his only contribution to the project are the Simon Ghahary page, a link to Simon Ghahary's homepage on the Blueroom Released pagee and a removal of a minor criticism and citation needed tag on that same page, which I find a bit suspicious. As far as I can gather he designed the external look of the original podspeaker and had a hand in running BRR and may have designed some of their album covers but not much since. reiknir (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article has been prodded for notability. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Digby

Kristian Digby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Information about his death has been repeatedly removed despite being supported by definitive references to 4 national papers that make clear statements supporting the nature of death. The matter has been discussed on the talk page.

• diff of most recent removal.

Some independent views would be welcome on whether to include this information or if Wikipedia must wait for a final coroner's report rather than repeating statements from national newspapers.Ash (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All reports are attributed to an unnamed source close to the event, there is no pressure on us to add sensationalist claims without verification, there will be an official report from a named source soon enough. For example, the editor has recently added this citation to the article, wikipedia does not need such citations , in this one the writer is not even named, never mind the name of the source allegedly close to the scene. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe a "named source" will be making an "official report" soon (in the next day or the next month)? Is this based on any real information or just your assumptions? The four reliable sources included to support the statement you deleted were not based on assumptions. Ash (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why have you added this citation I have linked to here? Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement was supported by four sources, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Mirror. I see no reason to exclude the Mirror, the statement it made was identical to the other three national newspapers. You have made no clear argument to justify removal of this information about the cause of Digby's death. Surely I do not need to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? Ash (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:NOTNEWS - there is no verifiable information on his death. Speculation in newspapers on the day following is not in itself encyclopedic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement was not "speculation" it was reporting items found at the scene of death. The fact that the story was based on a statement from anonymous sources is not grounds for ignoring these multiple reliable sources. Consequently the guidance of V and NOTNEWS are met. Ash (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You have added multiple citations and still felt the need to add that mirror citation, sorry but it's clear that me and you are on different planets. Its all unnamed claims, we have no magazines to sell here and are lucky to have the freedom to rise above such reporting, anyone that wants titillating can read the speculation and unnamed reports from people close to the source at one or two of the citations but we have no obligation or need to report like that, wait for at least a named person commenting, someone who will at least put his name to the claims. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous sources may be notable enough for the daily newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. "unexplained" is what the police are saying. We don't need to give a blow-by-blow of press rumours and uncorroborated allegations, we take a long term view. If this ends up being more than a newscycle then it can go in with better sourcing later.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the Mirror as a source if you feel it does not meet RS. There are three other reliable sources that support inclusion. Ash (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You added them, they belong to you, it's better if you own it and take them out yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, as you wish. In my judgement it meets RS so it stays. Ash (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your judgment is blinded by your desires and personal activism in this field because it clearly is not a reliable source and is imo far beneath our standards Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However as I explained, the Mirror is quoting the same information as the other three sources and the inclusion of the information in the article does not rely solely on any information from the Mirror. You are trying to "win" your argument based on your dislike of the Mirror. If you wish to have a policy that Wikipedia bans all use of The Mirror as a source, I suggest you raise that on RSN, it is not the topic of this thread.

Speculating as to my "desires" and making statements about "personal activism" reveal more about the fact that you are prepared to stoop to making ADHOM arguments rather than arguments based on the article and even breach the guidance of OUTING. If you persist in such attempts I shall raise your behavior for further action in accordance with those guides, though I am aware of your previous positive contributions to Wikipedia and so am puzzled by your threatening tone here. Ash (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feel threatened or outed , I assure you that is not my objective or desire and also just muddies the waters, I have made my point clear, I object to the insertion of this content until there is a named source, simple. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

{undent}The article quotes BBC and The Mirror for the death. These are reliable sources and I saw the same news on CNN yesterday. I am unsure why these are not reliable enough for this article? These are reputable news sources, not tabloids, BBC and The Mirror have much greater liability for wrongly reporting a death than does Wikipedia, if they're satisfied with their source why aren't we? I don't see anything in policy that leads me to believe that we must wait for a coroners report. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any BBC source speculating on the cause of death. (Or more accurately speculating on items found near the death scene.) No one is disputing that he died, and there is sufficient sourcing to report he died. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely concur with keeping the speculation out until there is better information. If we get a coroner's report that's picked up by reliable sources that's one thing, but what we have seen so far is rumour that has been picked up by the papers. The fact that a paper may generally have a repuatation for fact checking (and therefore deemed reliable) doesn't mean that we should pretend that anything that they print should be included when the reporting itself makes it clear that the fact checking has not occurred. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I have to agree, even with multiple sources this still seems to be speculation and best left out for now. As the story develops and more information is revealed, we can reconsider. In particular, it would be extremely unfortunate if we add this information, but it turns out that it had nothing to do with his death (in such a case it's rather unlikely there would be any justification to keep the information even if it was widely reported at the time of his death). However I would point out technically this isn't a BLP issue. Although many feel we should take care with the recently deceased, particularly the extremely recently deceased (i.e. people who died a few days ago) like this, BLP still only really covers living people. We do consider other living people involved, but in this case, there's no one directly involved so the only BLP concern would be for the person's family which is no different from most people. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N seemed the most appropriate notice-board for matters pertaining to the facts about a recent death. Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate alternative if you feel this thread should not continue here. Ash (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Anderson

In hoping to avoid a potential edit war, I have reverted the article on Jordan Anderson, a mid-level pro racing driver, to a stub, as the original article was blatant PR advertising and potential copyvio. However, it was recently reverted (by what I assume is a SPA PR firm). While I understand that the stub isn't the perfect state for the article, the reverted version here [2] is much worse than a stub. I was hoping to get some eyes on this to bring it up to WP standards and avoid having an advert on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion as an unsourced BLP.--Jarhed (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Esam S. Omeish

Esam S. Omeish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working to bring this article in line with WP:BLP. I'd like to ask people's opinions about this quote, which is included in the article in full:
"Such explanations are presented after a terrorist act or a radical is exposed. Radicals also have been known to lie, especially to "infidels." Omeish claims his remarks were "taken out of context." The context appears clear to anyone familiar with the language of the Middle East. Most rational people understand "the jihad way," especially when it is associated with Israel, as meaning the violent overthrow of Israel (and other democracies) and the destruction of the Jewish people."

Is it appropriate to include an extended quote of this kind in a WP:BLP? It is attributed to its author, Cal Thomas. Is that sufficient? Or is this something that should be a cause for concern? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I summarized the quotation but there is some edit warring going on and this article might need some more eyes.Jarhed (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested persons should read User talk:EsamOmeish to see that there is a serious BLP dispute with this article. Attention from editors uninvolved in the issue is recommended. Zero^talk 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that Omeish has a serious dispute with the article, but he has been blocked. No BLP issue jumps out at me, so what dispute are you talking about?--Jarhed (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A person who was claiming to be the subject was complaining about the cherry picking of inserted comments and general missrepresentation of certain issues that he disputed were true. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check everything in the article, but it looks pretty well sourced to me. In any case, if changes need to be made to the article, they can be handled incrementally. I don't see any blatant BLP problems and I don't think anything drastic needs to be done.Jarhed (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Capleton

Could we get a few more eyes on this page, please? There are problems with sourcing to youtube and a personal webpage of an activist. The latter is being used to source some vile lyrics attributed to the subject. While I think it is most likely accurate, I'm not sure it passes our standards, and would like some other opinions. LadyofShalott 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm renewing my call for more eyes on this article, please. Oops, I just realized I forgot to sign that, and sinebot didn't come to my rescue. LadyofShalott 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, the charge is a serious one and the cite must be reliable or it should be deleted immediately.--Jarhed (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you commented on the article talk page. Thanks. LadyofShalott 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Erik Schinegger

Resolved

 – Article is now sourced and WP:UNDUE does not appear to be a problem

Firstly, I can't believe this article has been tagged as unsourced for over two years. How is it that BLP articles are allowed to be created with zero sourcing? This is not a case of "x is a skier" stub with no references. This is a case of "x is a skier" with "disqualified", "intersex" and "transgender" as qualifiers - all unreferenced! With that off my chest, could a couple of people review the Erik Schinegger article? The majority of the information appears to be accurate from a brief google search, however I think this is a case of WP:UNDUE. The subject is notable as a result of their downhill championship, but the rest of the article consists solely of information regarding their disqualification from the Olympics and subsequent transgender journey. I was starting to add references, but cancelled my edits in order to garner opinions on the content. I would prefer to have the skiing record (fleshed out if possible) with a sentence or two regarding the chromosone testing and subsequent sex change, which would explain the name change. Thoughts? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look, I don't see any obvious WP:UNDUE problem here. A quick look at Google and Google Books suggests that the gender identity issues are at least as notable in the subject's life story as the skiing results, probably more. He wrote a book about it himself and was the (apparently willing) subject of a documentary, both of which apparently have been mentioned in the article since its creation, so I don't know that it's exactly accurate to say that this article had no sources at all. I don't read much German but it does appear that the article at German Wikipedia has more extensive citation.[3]--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's accurate to say the article had no sources as none were included in the article. "Unsourced" is not the same as "unsourceable"...the article is clearly sourceable, but my concern was that the entire weight of the article was based on Schinegger's Olympic disqualification and transgender status. It doesn't appear to have made any ripples here though, so I will assume that there is no overlying concern with WP:UNDUE and will carry on with sourcing the content. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaun White

Shaun White's article's infobox currently has a picture of him standing next to Richard Branson. Is this a violation of WP:BLP in any way? (I can't find any info.) I feel like that particular image would fit well within the article body, but because the article is about White, and because the infobox is directly related to White, the image should only be of White (cropped or otherwise) and not of Branson and White. Am I wrong in my thinking? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be considered a BLP violation with the photo. That doesn't mean that there might not be a better picture to use, but unless there's something i'm missing I don't know why it would be a BLP concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was merely curious. If it's not in violation of anything, which is doesn't seem to be, I was simply double checking. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

With BLP it is not an issue, regarding pics is that they should not portray the subject negatively here is the guideline/policy your question is more related to MOS and specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images I would also say that the picture has issues, the infobox picture should be of the subject, not the subject and another person that may or may not add weight to their notability, adding a picture to your infobox of you shaking the Queen of England's hand is not correct and if there is any picture of him alone it should be changed, it should be chopped to show him alone.Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Shaun White cropped and centered Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, MOS:IMAGES, I'd never seen that section. Thanks so much, this seems to be a more proper. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:William Connolley

• Talk:William Connolley (edit | [[Talk:Talk:William Connolley|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

Removal of pressmulti: Again some editors editing heavily on the AGW issue (and typically share the same kind of view as William Connolley/William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)) are using every method in the book to get rid of political opponents and their views. Now Hipocrite (talk · contribs) and then Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) both removes the article The Opinionator: Solomon by Lawrence Solomon published in National Post, making unsound arguments about WP:BLP issues and not WP:RS (not true at all: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.") from the talk page header (removes {{pressmulti}}).

Removes the {{press}}-template/Solomon article by stating:

• 2010-02-21T10:13:10 Stephan Schulz (Undid revision 345389507 by Nsaa: Undo, not a reliable source, violates WP:BLP)
• 2010-02-09T13:11:54 Hipocrite (Undid revision 342917649 by Nsaa: - blogs aren't press, see talk.)
• 2010-02-09T12:10:13 Hipocrite (No mention of this article in this nn blog post.)

First the article do not mention WMC article, then it's break of WP:BLP? The logic is fine ...

As I points out at the discussion page Talk:William_Connolley#Press_.E2.80.93_Mention_of_Solomons_article_in_the_top_of_this_talk_page, this removal was just done to get rid of pieces from Lawrence Solomon (a hate object for these guys), just see the other BLPN discussion about the same columnist at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident with comments like "Taking out the trash " etc.

The so called BLP problems with the source above survived this talk page for nearly two years (or 646days to be precise)

• 2008-05-04T02:11:18 (add press reference), added by Samw (talk · contribs)
• 2010-02-09T12:10:13 (No mention of this article in this nn blog post.), removed by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)

, before Hipocrite (talk · contribs) started his mission to get rid of Solomon because he wrote something later ("Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor" / "Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”") that was not tolerated by these guys (see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#Press_coverage).

So is there any BLP problems in the article mentioned above? I don't see any, but will not add it again before it has been discussed here as our policy requires when we talk about claims about BLP. Nsaa (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize, you want to put an inaccurate hit piece that would never pass muster as either an external link or a reliable source in article space on the talk page of a living person for what reason, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please source your claims about inaccurate and Hit piece, and your claim about not passing WP:EL and WP:RS. This is just another attack on Mr. Solomon and his work. Secondly, this is a discussion about WP:BLP, not other issues you have with the source. Nsaa (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am beginning to think that the controversy surrounding the Global warming issues on Wikipedia is perhaps notable and has been reported enough by secondary sources to be worthy of its own article. Claimed bias in Wikipedia reporting of Global warming .. or something along those lines.13:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 2010-02-21T13:05:58

You know, one of the nice things about these noticeboards is their ability to solicit uninvolved editors to weigh in on disputes. I think it might be a good idea for involved editors wait until uninvolved editors can offer their opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon is a blogger with a demonstrated tendency to play fast and loose with facts and numbers where both Wikipedia and William Connolley are concerned. Trying to use William Connelley's article talk page as a platform for giving Solomon's blog posts additional exposure is a violation of WP:BLP — not to mention a none-too-subtle jab at the Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley, within whom Nsaa has had many, many disputes. It is also extremely inappropriate for Nsaa to attempt to use this noticeboard as a soapbox from which to promote Solomon's other factually-challenged blog entries. This request should be closed, and Nsaa should be censured for abusing this process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to point out that Lawrence Solomon is a wikipedia notable person and your description of him as a blogger is unsupported in the article. I really think that all of this controversy surrounding the reports of wikipedia bias in Global warming articles is notable enough for its own article, such controversy has been reported at multiple locations, hasn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is notable in itself, sources abound. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And THAT is a shame. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that there is apparently enough bias in our reporting of this matter that it has been covered in the media... and not just mentioned in passing, but covered to the point where it is notable enough to justify mention in our own articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, it is a shame and I would say, shameful. Other core, high traffic topics on en.Wikipedia are likewise flawed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only places our so called "bias" is mentioned are in pressure pieces by activists. No news source has addressed our... wait, actually, you should probably read the nature articles about the encyclopedia - doi:10.1038/443493a and doi:10.1038/438900a . Hipocrite (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I also support adding the mentioned in the press template to the talkpage of William Connolley as it was added with this supporting citation what the problem with adding it, if you have a strong viewpoint and edit the wikipedia articles on that subject and you have a wikipedia article that your claim of notability is asserted by this issue, so are are highly involved and get commented on then the press template is totally OK, not a BLP violation in any way, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Solomon article in question is an opinion piece. It blatantly fails WP:RS as a source for a BLP. It also mentions the article in question only in a snide side remark - mostly its an attack piece on the editor in question. There is no reason to support this in any way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"It blatantly fails WP:RS as a source for a BLP" That's not what I was told in this discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_Opinion_Pieces_in_a_BLP. In any case, it's not being used as a source for the article and WP:PRESS doesn't mention any requirement about being a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at the article and the previous AFD's, I don't see a strong claim of notability and find myself asking, if the subject was not a wikipedian editor would we even have a article about him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Solomon article url http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx indicates that this is a blog, hence unsuitable for a BLP. Calling it an "opinion piece" appears unjustified. . . . dave souza, talk 07:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  No, it's posted on nationalpost.com, and is under their National Post's full editorial control. I.e. it can be regarded as an "opinion piece". Please re-read Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and what I quoted in my initail post (as pointed out below, it's not required to even be WP:RS to be used on a talk page in the {{press}} template. It's just another argument to try to get rid of this unpleasant information. But anyway. Why is this relevant to the WP:BLP discussion? Please quote me some Wikipedia Policy to enlighten me. Nsaa (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the most productive way of looking at this question is to ask what purpose is served by adding this blog post as an external link. Nsaa hasn't given any explanation of utility. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#What_about_the_BLP_issue "Third point "and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.". Yes it is extremely relevant both for the article and Wikipedia as a project in itself. We have at least one main editor that is extremely closely related (appears in the leaked emails, has been at the blog RealClimate) to the part accused of wrongdoings. [...] Nsaa (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)" [4] and "[...] The problem here is that we have a set of two articles that clearly have huge inpact on the general population (Delingpole has millions of readers just one week in December according to the blog editor at telegraph.co.uk). [...] Nsaa (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC) " [5] ... so "Nsaa hasn't given any explanation of utility."? If you look at other post in the current discussion you will find a lot of "utility". But what do this have to do with WP:BLP? You need to explain it to me. Nsaa (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is no reasonable BLP issue at all here. The reason to collect media references to Wikipedia articles is so that we as editors can document and understand how those articles are perceived. There is a complex interplay between us as article editors, Wikipedia as a project, the sources we use and that sometimes use us, the subject of our articles, our readers, and the world at large. The more we understand these relationships, the more thoughtful we can be in creating an encyclopedia. Going forward with blinders on to hide negative opinions about our project and its editors -- or, worse yet, demanding that we all put blinders on because somebody has objected -- is censorship in the classic sense: removing content because the message is objectionable. I won't speculate as to people's motives in excluding the information, but the effect is censorious however admirable the intentions. In this case we have a prominent activist journalist writing about a very prolific, controversial Wikipedia editor and his article page, in the context of the climate change articles, one of Wikipedia's more difficult areas of dispute, in a moderately important, medium-circulation conservative newspaper. I want to know this stuff when I edit articles, and also when I want to make sense of the climate change disputes. To claim that BLP means this has to be hidden from me because we are not allowed to document negative, erroneous, or malicious swipes at Wikipedia is pure wikilawyering, an extreme interpretation of the peculiar wording of BLP that goes beyond any intended purpose of that policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you favour providing handy links to blogs lying about editors as though they're reputable press reports? It's one thing to discuss them in context, but simply linking them as something nice to look at is a clear BLP violation as well as damaging community spirit. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is posting "handy links to blogs" or saying that we include media mentions because they are "nice to look at"? Surely you know BLP and RS well enough to get the explicit distinction between a newspaper blog and a self-published blog. This is, more properly, an opinion piece. Opinion pieces do matter, they are a major feature of journalism. They are not good for verifying factual statements made in articles, but they are very helpful in understanding why things happen the way they do around here, even when you disagree with them. I said, only a few lines up, that I want to know media opinions about Wikipedia articles and disputes so that I can edit more thoughtfully. The proper context is a neutrally gathered list of such media mentions. Discussing news pieces is fine, but discussion archives are a poor way of organizing lists of citations. If I come to an article and review its history, it is very helpful to know that on a certain day a particular piece was published about the article. My benchmark example is the [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 hit piece worldnetdaily did] that led to mayhem on the Barack Obama article, and indirectly, an Arbcom case. You can't understand the history of the Obama article, or the Arbcom case, without knowing about that piece. Hiding it would give editors a faulty view of what happened. Here, as I said, we have "a prominent activist journalist writing about a very prolific, controversial Wikipedia editor and his article page, in the context of the climate change articles, one of Wikipedia's more difficult areas of dispute, in a moderately important, medium-circulation conservative newspaper". Major media opinion pieces by prominent writers are indeed worth knowing about, and within the scope of the pressmulti template. If a piece needs to be refuted, or a note made about it not being judged reliable, that's easy enough to add to the template. But you can't understand the world, or Wikipedia, very well if you simply erase and refuse to consider everything that's negative or mean. As for community spirit, censorship does far more harm than the existence of negative opinions. Classic free speech stuff, it's only by considering and rejecting dissenting viewpoints that you can have reasonable confidence in the community's consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting third-way ("If a piece needs to be refuted, or a note made about it not being judged reliable, that's easy enough to add to the template.") I'm sorry that no one thought of it earlier. I would be fine with the article in the template with a refutation and explanation attached. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Alas, I can't claim credit for coming up with the idea. Gamaliel first proposed it here in connection with including this on the Climategate (hacking incident) article. I suppose we could create a template or a flag on the pressmulti template that says that we are linking to a non-RS, not for purposes of shedding light on the article subject, but to document the response of outside journalists to our Wikipedia article. We could then link to the meta page where WMC was exonerated over this, and any number of essays, responses, statements, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a red-herring. Per WP:PRESS, there is no requirement that a source qualify as a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a red herring. We should not be promoting BLP-problematic sources without at least highlighting the issue and linking to a detailed response. Incidentally, BLP is policy, whilst WP:PRESS is not even a guideline; where the two conflict, it is clear which has priority. Rd232 ^talk 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I take a very dim view of BLP claims about Mr. Connolley, given the fact that he continues to be a substantial contributor to articles that are about him, and also to other BLPs involved in this controversy such as the Solomon one. This seems to me a huge COI issue, and I can't imagine why the editors on those articles tolerate it. I don't know of any other case where we have BLP issues that arise about an extremely active editor. Usually the living person needs our help, but he is here to defend himself. It seems to me that if Mr. Connolley needs the full protection of BLP, he should stop editing the articles in question.Jarhed (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's problematic with edits like this and this (tries to redefine who he is) in the Lawrence Solomon article. I suppose this is mentioned here to shred some light on why some of our editors are so keen on removing links to what Solomon has written and using WP:BLP as a "excuse"? Nsaa (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the very fact that such a question can be asked is a huge red flag indicating a conflict with WP guidelines and policy.--Jarhed (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to people whom you don't like. It applies to people who edit Wikipedia. It applies to people whom you believe are capable of defending themselves. William should, of course, behave himself, but that is a separate issue. Whether he does or not, BLP still applies to his Wikipedia biography. It saddens me to have to actually state these sorts of things, since they should be self-evident to any serious editor, but such are the times. MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be lecturing me and ignoring what I said. Once again, there is a very serious COI with regard to Connolley, and I have never seen an instance where that was tolerated by the interested editors. It is highly unlikely that he can contribute to articles in which he has a BLP interest in an NPOV manner, and it is almost impossible to AGF in this instance since his actions are harmful to the public reputation of WP accuracy. And you think that the answer is just to shrug your shoulders and claim BLP???--Jarhed (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To add to what MastCell said, the Biographies of living persons policy applies to editors with alleged or even actual conflicts of interest. In fact, it applies to everyone with a pulse. Cardamon (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So does COI.--Jarhed (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A few comments. First, BLP trumps COI. One clue to this is that wp:BLP is a policy, while wp:COI is only a guideline. Second, it is not always forbidden to edit on a subject on which one has a conflict of interest. See for example [[6]]. William M. Connolley is a subject specialist who has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia. Third, neither complaints about WMC's behavior, nor questions about COI, are relevant to whether the pressmulti template we are discussing should be on the talk page of the article about him. Cardamon (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you apparently believe yourself qualified to lecture me about BLP, perhaps you can handle a lecture on COI. The guideline is in place to enable people with COI conflicts to edit where they can make a contribution. Wikipedia has already received substantial negative press due to Connolley's continued editing of COI articles. The only reason I can think of that anybody would allow Connolley to continue to do this is that they are pushing an agenda at the expense of WP credibility.Jarhed (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful. I'm sure you don't want to make any personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I am sure that you don't want to make any threats.--Jarhed (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jarhed, the editor William Connelly has a clear conflict of interest and his continued involvement in editing the biographies of living people is a extremely contentious issue, imo it would be a lot better if he refrained from editing the biographies of living people from the opposing side of his notability. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Shifting to a more inclusionist policy on linking to provably false attacks on people would have a variety of bad consequences. It would make Wikipedia less of an encyclopedia, and more of a stick to hit people with. Wikipedia would become more unpleasant as attempts to place tit-for-tat links to factually challenged hit pieces proliferated. For example, how long would it be before the template some want to put on the talk page of the WMC article was followed by attempts, though not by me, to place another template, possibly also linking to false accusations, on the talk page of the Lawrence Solomon article? And, if we adopt this policy, why limit ourselves to press sources? Perhaps we could also note on the articles or talk pages about numerous prominent politicians that a notable author has accused them of being blood-drinking shape shifting reptilian aliens with predatory sexual habits? After all, " ... If a piece needs to be refuted, or a note made about it not being judged reliable, that's easy enough to add ... ". Finally, adoption of this policy would, in the opinion of this non-lawyer, increase the probability of the Wikimedia Foundation being sued out of existence. (No, this is not a legal threat.) Cardamon (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

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

Apparently there's some speculation on a scandal, and all sorts of BLP vios keep getting added to the article and talk page. I semi-ppd the article, but the talk page is still problematic. A couple of users have removed some unsourced defamatory content, but others keep adding it back. I'd like for some others to monitor this please. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not speculation of a scandal. It's all over the news in India.

For eg, these are from 2 big news sites in India.

http://sify.com/news/godman-s-intimate-moments-with-tamil-actress-telecast-news-national-kddpA5gedhh.html

http://www.ndtv.com/news/cities/bangalore-swami-in-sex-scandal-17142.php

While I'm not sure yet if this info should be in the main article, why is it that any mention of this being repeatedly deleted from the Talk page?

--vvarkey (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The utube video will not be going in the article so there is no excuse to post it on the talkpage, what have we got, a claim that this man is the guru and he kissed a beautiful woman, sounds good to me, the content if it could go anywhere it would be in the reaction of the local people perhaps in an article about sexual morality in Bangalore or some other such article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on the talk page was BLP problematic. Other stuff was not. Please be more selective in your archiving. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

After some back and forth in the talk pages, the following edit has been arrived at. I am neutral about adding this to the article and would like to wait a couple of weeks to see what happens. Comments are welcome whether to add this or not.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Controversy

On March 3, 2010, Nithyananada's ashram on the outskirts of Bangalore was attacked by a mob,[7] and there were protests and attacks in Tamil Nadu as well.[8] These were in response to video footage that was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News the previous day, purportedly showing Nithyananda having sexual relations with Ranjitha, a Tamil film actress. The whereabouts of Nithyananda were not known after the incident.[9]

Amidst police security which was subsequently provided, some huts on the Bangalore property were burnt down, which police suspected to be an attempt to destroy evidence. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour".[10] According to his press coordinator, Nithyananda encouraged the pursuit of both hedonism and spiritualism, because he believed his disciples ought to "live intensely".[11] On March 4, Nithyananda moved a civil court in Chennai, seeking to restrain the telecast of the video footage and prevent newspapers from publishing anything about him.[12].

I'm questioning the necessity of including what I consider superfluous details, we're trying to put together material for a BLP here; not an investigatory newspaper account. In keeping with an expectation in policy that a BLP should be edited 'conservatively', why not something accurate and simple like: "On March 3, 2010, allegations of impropriety regarding Nithyananada appeared in several south Asian media sources. The allegations are based on what is claimed to be his appearance in a video purportedly showing him engaging in sexual activities with a young woman. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". On March 4, Nithyananda made application to a civil court in Chennai, seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material[13]" cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are a few superfluous details, that don't seem to be actually about the subject, I also see other BLP issues here, although Decon's edit is the best I have seen yet, I am actually for waiting to see what settles as the real notable long term content, to me the controversy is actually the illegally acquired claimed video of what is claimed to be him, allegations of impropriety? in who's opinion and why, sex is a normal adult thing. Is he claiming to be celebrate? ...also purportedly is the key word, an illegally obtained video that is claimed to be the subject of the BLP. I suggest leaving it out for now and letting the dust settle. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said sex is impropriety. If the Pope wants to have sex, let him at it. But if he is caught on video, it is notable. --vvarkey (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vvarkey, this is an encyclopaedia biography, and not a news report. So we have to take a long range view here. No harm in waiting a couple of weeks to see how to put this in. Decon's version don't mention the protests/burning at all. It should be included.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a sentence or two about the protests is necessary. Also, part of the official response of the ashram (including the hedonism bit) seems to have been unnecessarily kept out of Decon's version. Besides this, South Asian media seems to be over the top - I doubt this has been reported significantly beyond South India. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is much better to wait, all the publications that have to sell their publications are running the content, so it is available for people that want titillating claims, we have a duty of care to living people to take care, I notice that in the latest citations they are now starting to question the identity of the claimed actress, [14] "what they said was footage of the godman in a compromising position with a Tamil actress whose identity is still in dispute." The protesters also have been reported at first as angry disciples and later as local villagers angry about a land dispute. The fire at the ashram described as the disciples destroying evidence and as an arson attack and the godman as in the video and not the person in the video. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The details about the godmans philosophy like, "Nithyananda encouraged the pursuit of both hedonism and spiritualism , because he believed his disciples ought to "live intensely". Should be cited and clearly be added to the article but in a section about his beliefs and philosophy, not as some tag on to a illegally filmed claimed video of him. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Related to this is Ranjitha. I've semi-protected that one and it needs more eyes. —SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If I was to add a comment about this, it would be something very simple and neutral....

March 2010

A video that claimed to show Nithyananada in a compromising situation with a woman was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News in March 2010. This resulted in protests outside the Ashram during which a fire broke out. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". On March 4, Nithyananda made an application to a civil court in Chennai , seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material. [15]

There has been a general consensus on the talkpage and no objections and this comment has been added. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fraser Doherty

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

Within the biography of Fraser Doherty unsubstantiated claims are made with regard to his product "Super-Jam" and its sugar content which - given the claims that this product has no sugsr -are extremely dangerous to diabetics. Further claims to his products superior status are made by his references to up-market supermarket chain Waitrose.

I have sought to challenge the claims made in this biography for the subject of the biographies products with references to tbe scientific nutrional information provided in the edits I have made. I have done so openly under my user name. There has been a constant reversion of these edits by non memmbers/non-logged in individuals.

Can anyone please advise me on whether I am acting within the spirit and rules of Wikipedia and if so how to go about stopping these reversions.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlechterwolf (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could start by remembering that the article is about Doherty, not the jam he makes. That should have a small mention, not be most of the article. Kevin (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted most of the information about Superjam. It has no place on a BLP article. If you wanted to discuss it more I've started a section on the talk page Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

charles pellegrino

Charles R. Pellegrino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently Charles Pellegrino - author - is experiencing attacks upon his professional integrity related to his most recent book "Last Train from Hiroshima". His page on Wiki is being used to raise old, discredited and disproved attacks on him. I am asking for a temporary block on changes to this site so that libels and slanders not become part of Charlie's site. I have attempted to remove certain words and ancient proven wrong accusations be removed from the site but they are restored daily.

Your help would be appreciated in this case. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.174.82 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about the false PhD statements. Unfortunately, such statements appear to me to be well sourced. Actually, it seems unusual to me that a university would make a public statement about such a thing, so the fact that they did so means that they are really intent on setting the record straight. In light of this, what assistance do you think would be helpful to you?Jarhed (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson

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

Can folks please chime in about the recent back and forth. There is a citation used from MMfA about Carlson's bias and basically links to every article that mentions carlson. An editor says this is a compromise, instead of using individual articles. I know there is a whole thingy going on at reilable sources about partisan sites, ect. Anyways, thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article does not appear to be in compliance with BLP; however the statements about her are pretty tame so I don't think there is a lot of urgency. Right now there is a discussion on the RSN over the suitability of using MMfA references in a BLP. I propose waiting for the outcome of that discussion before doing anything on this.--Jarhed (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to the debate such that it is: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting.2C_Media_Research_Center.2C_Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Newsbusters.--Jarhed (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Peter Woroniecki

Michael Peter Woroniecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is highly biased and defamatory. It has been marked as non-nuetral but has not been subjected to any substantial editing. Reading the discussion page on the article clearly shows the problems therein.

I quote the Wikipedia Guidelines about biographies of living persons. “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is un-sourced or poorly sourced- whether the material is negative, positive, neutral or just questionable- should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.”

Based upon these guidelines I am removing all the contentious and unsourced material on the Wikipedia page about Michael Peter Woroniecki. The administrators of Wikipedia have made a commitment to me to edit this article into an unbiased and neutral state. I see my efforts as assisting them to make this happen. This article incites hatred against living persons in their day to day lives, jobs and relationships. I will add nothing to the article at this time that might seem to promote a favorable image of said ministry. I will simply remove the defamatory and libelous contentious claims.

I would also like to inform whoever edits this page that there is a cyber bully who has been constantly monitoring and editing this page for the past 6 years. This one individual, who is not a relative, lawyer, reporter or in any way, shape or form related to the article, is using the Wikipedia space to vent his own vexation of hatred by exploiting the controversial nature of such a preacher. He is using many IP addresses and user names to do the edits, but if anyone knew who this individual was he would be discounted from making any reliable edits to the article. Vindictive opinions are not substantiated facts. Concerning any notable individual one could gather up all the negative gossip (especially on the internet) on them and write a Wiki article as if it were a tabloid. I do not believe that this is the purpose of Wikipedia.

I am looking for experienced Wiki editors to help rewrite this into a nuetral and unbiased article.

208.64.64.44 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody with the username of JoshuaWoroniecki is editing this article. I have taken a look, and generally speaking, the above criticism is correct. Every negative reference possible has been dredged into that article. On the other hand, there are several high quality sources as well as court testimony that document the negative statements. This article needs to have the negative information streamlined and clarified. That said, I personally will not touch this article so long as Woroniecki is editing it. If he gets himself blocked, let me know.Jarhed (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's not talk about blocking. In his correspondance with me (ticket:2010022110023583) Joshua has said that he realises that his preferred version is biased, hence his plea here for help from experienced editors. His frustration is understandable, as I have not yet been able to give the matter the attention that it desrves. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that anybody should be blocked, certainly not Mr. Woroniecki.Jarhed (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is a bit excessive, could use some trimming back or working on the phrasology a bit, there is one editor there that likes it the way it is and the article is cited a lot to a couple of books making it harder to see the paragraphs in the book to write it from a more neutral point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that too, it makes the article hard to work on and rates a bold edit.--Jarhed (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pyrros Dimas

User:Sulmues is disruptively inserting material [16] sourced from a self-published essay [17] on some guy's website and adding his own OR interpretation on top of that. He is also guaranteed to follow me here and start ranting about how this guy is a great professor and this and that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a self-published essay (in Albanian), and that it doesn't even mention Pyrros Dimas. Athenean (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Memushaj holds a PhD and is a regular professor at the University of Tirana. He has published more than 10 books and you may read the CV here ([18]). He has lectured in the Beijing University, China and in the University of Palermo, Italy. You may see his articles published here [19]. Furthermore he very well argues about the Dhima last name in pages 10-11 (along with others) that is associated to typical Northern Albanian first names and composition of triple names, that is typically done in Northern Albania. He is also asserting that it is historically proven that Skanderbeg's people went to see off John Kastriot II from Kruje when he landed in Himara in 1481, citing an article of catholic Bishop Gjeto Kola. --sulmues (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like I predicted. I don't care how many Ph.D's he has, it still is a self-publication, without ANY editorial oversight, and it STILL doesn't mention the actual Pyrros Dimas by name. Athenean (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The article, as stated in the first paragraph follows and tries to give extracts of a book "Himara (2004)": Himara në dritën e të dhënave historike, gjuhësore dhe ethnologjike By Rami Memushaj, [20] Publisher Botimet Toena, 2004 ISBN 9992717971, or ISBN 9789992717974. The book has been peer reviewed, because Toena is one of the best publishing houses of Albania. Memushaj is editor in chief of the Journal "Studime Albanologjike" since 2004 and "Gjuha Jonë" 1995 - 1998, the two most important linguistic scientific magazines in Albania. I think this article has been published in Studime Albanologjike and is not self-published. Pirro Dhima, who has been redirected, belongs to the Dhima family from Himara as you, Athenean strongly have supported. --sulmues (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove that? The book is not viewable online [21]. Athenean (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use your google translator gadget to translate the first paragraph of the article. --sulmues (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? It says no such thing. I thought this was the English wikipedia anyway. Athenean (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens that Albanian scholars know better Albanian patronyms than English scholars. The first paragraph clearly says that it is the continuation of the monography dedicated to Himara patronyms. Have a good night, dear Athenean! --sulmues (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It also happens that they may be less than impartial on such issues, particularly if they are the self-publishing type. Athenean (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time User:Sulmues claims a personality as ethnically Albanian. He already tried to name Napoleon Bonaparte [[22]] and Evangelis Zappas [[23]] Albanians. Since he is under civility supervision due to aggresive national enthousiasm [[24]], I've informed him [[25]] [[26]] to avoid edits that can be considered wp:trolling.Alexikoua (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that it doesn't really matter how great Prof. Memushaj is nor whether his book is the most reliable source in the world. If the book doesn't mention Pyrros Dimas then what sulmues is doing is WP:Syn Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I had not read WP:Syn. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll reconsider. --sulmues (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A group of IPs These IPs [27], [28], [29] is now tag-teaming on the article. The 92.75 IP is almost certainly User:Keep it Fake (edited the same articles in the past, e.g. Gjin Bua Shpata, uses hostile edit summaries). Can someone semi the page? Thanks, Athenean (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a request has already been made at WP:RFPP which would probably get a better response (while admins to check this page out, it isn't an admin noticeboard and it's generally better to make a specific request for admin intervention in an appropriate place when necessary). However there's nothing wrong with mentioning it here, I'm just noting it so people don't go to RFPP to make a request Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Kissel Trial

Resolved

 – article trimmed and tweaked and cited to independent reliable sources

Nancy Kissel murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with this entry. The subject's conviction for murder was quashed in the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. Yet the entry continues to cite the facts of the case as presented in the original trial even though the interpretation of these is in dispute. I tried to clean up the entry by replacing "murder" with "alleged murder" but a more comprehensive clean-up is really required. A retrial is planned for later in the year. Ironically, keeping the Wikipedia page in its current form makes it more likely that a successful conviction can never be achieved since the defendant will have a strong case that she can never obtain a fair trial due to biased reporting of the case in the media. I suggest that this whole entry be re-written in a much more neutral way that does not presume Nancy Kissel's guilt or removed from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longster22 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there were issues, most of the content was from primary court records and presented as if fact. I have removed the most of it and left a note on the talkpage linking to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

semiprotected article

Hi all, I semiprotected Biological_warfare due to this section which is unreferenced at present. An IP asked me to unprotect but hasn't given a reason nor discussed on the talk page. I am happy for another admin to unprotect if they promise to watch it, and folks want to source it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great catch. I will watchlist it.--Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman MP And The Paedophile Information Exchange

I wish to include certain facts in her bio, the facts are on record but it has been suggested that it is WP:BLPN, here are the facts:

Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.

Thankyou for your time.Twobells (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your desired addition and the supporting citation, would you post it here please. Please also specify exactly how Harmen can be shown to have any involvement or support or personal attachment to this group Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if one has a professional involvement in promoting paedophilia and anal intercourse with a minor that is somehow acceptable?Twobells (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Here is the definition of 'affiliated: A person, organization, or establishment associated with another as a subordinate, subsidiary, or member —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help, but it looks to me like another of Twobells long-standing attempts to disrupt articles about living people, which has previously seen him blocked for vandalism of an article about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If by 'disrupt' you mean laying out the actual facts rather than using wikipedia as a personality platform then yes I am 'guilty' of that. Fenian has been rather remiss in not telling you that it was he himself who had me blocked, not for 'vandalism', rather the uncomfortable truths. As for 'long-standing' that is hilarious as I was only once blocked in all the years I have edited on Wikipedia by a biased editor..who name was fenian Twobells (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twobells#April_2009

This editor is transparently attempting to make the issue about me rather than the facts that Harman and her group were involved with the Paedophile Information Exchange, it is that fact which I wish to have added to the article.Twobells (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That right there says who was blocked, it was you for edit warring to include an unsourced claim that people said "couldn't happen to a nicer guy" about a living person received a death threat. Your block log suguest you have been blocked more than once also. O Fenian (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, twobells, you can forget about adding this content to the Harman bio, its extremely controversial topic with almost an invisible wire connecting harmen to it, so unless there are people that add there agreement to the addition you may as well forget about it.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg Rassmussen

Resolved

 – Wikipedia informed of article error

The article states that Greg went to Falcon College. That may be, but he was definitely at St. Stephens College first. I can verify this as I was in his class.ERICWAR (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which can back your claim up? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your information.Jarhed (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are these talk page attacks acceptable?

See Talk:Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe#Reliable_sources where an IP calls Stafford Poole various names. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that reflects badly on the author in question.--Jarhed (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP describes Poole as "clearly a buffoon" and "an ignoramus". That seems like a negative reflection to me. --GenericBob (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A negative reflection on whom? In any case it is a personal attack, not a BLP issue.--Jarhed (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So extremely negative, unsourced comments about a living person (an academic in this case, so it is a hit on his professional reputation) would therefore also be ok in his biography, is that what you are saying? Surely that's not what WP:BLP says is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A negative reflection on Stafford Poole. Poole is (AFAICT) a living person; the lead sentence of BLP states that "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", and Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space specifically mentions talk pages. So, yeah, looks at least arguably BLP-relevant to me. --GenericBob (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

<==If I call you two buffoons, am I being rude or slandering your reputation? I don't think this is a small point, because I see a lot of instances where individuals try to clobber each other with the BLP sledgehammer in cases where they are really having a personal dispute.Jarhed (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you accuse me of writing a poorly-researched 'rag' in my professional field - which is what the IP appears to be doing to Poole - then yes, I think a lawyer could make a pretty good case for defamation (but it would probably be libel, not slander). --GenericBob (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am *not* a lawyer, but if you are trying to tell me that I can't call the author of a scholarly work a buffoon, you *must* be kidding.Jarhed (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you call them a buffoon in the context of an accusation of professional incompetence, then you are headed into dangerous territory. See e.g. Virginia defamation law: Where an individual is engaged in a profession, such as medicine, the law, or teaching, see 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander §§ 227, 229, and 231, "[w]ords charging professional incompetence are actionable per se." "When particular skill or ability is necessary [in the performance of the plaintiff's vocation], an imputation that attributes a lack of skill or ability [to the plaintiff] tends to harm the other [the plaintiff] in his business or profession." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 572, comment c. "Words charging professional incompetence are actionable per se." 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander § 216.

Or [30]: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation... The final element of slander or libel is that the defamatory statement damaged the plaintiff's reputation, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Certain defamatory messages are slanderous or libelous PER SE, meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the message damaged his or her reputation. Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent.

That may seem absurd and unreasonable to you. It may well be absurd and unreasonable. But it's the law. (There are certain exceptions under US law when discussing e.g. public officials, but probably not relevant here.) --GenericBob (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks for providing so much great detail, but I already said that I am not a lawyer, and in fact, I take a very dim view of people trying to quote the law around here. International law is what you are looking for anyway, and I highly doubt that you nor I nor anyone else around here is qualified to comment on that subject, and if even if they were, that would be POV. So I think we should stick to the BLP policy, and in my reading of the BLP, I don't think is a violation to call someone a buffoon on a talk page. If you do it in an article, it is not a BLP violation, but vandalism. Now, if you were to accuse the writer of plagarism, that would be a professional attack. Buffoon? I don't think so.Jarhed (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused about several things here.

(1) NPOV is a policy concerning the contents of article space. NPOV has no relevance to talk pages.

(2) As I noted repeatedly above, the issue is not merely that the IP calls Poole a 'buffoon'. What brings it into dangerous territory is the repeated attacks on his professional competence. Which is the whole reason I quoted several sources and emphasised the bits pertaining to professional competence; I'm not sure why this concept is causing so much difficulty.

(3) You seem to be under the impression that there's a single 'international law' that's relevant here, and that national laws are irrelevant. That's not how it works. If any nation's law says that you've committed defamation within their jurisdiction, then you're in trouble - and as Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick showed, the 'within their jurisdiction' bit can be unpleasantly flexible where website publication is concerned. AFAIK, the relevant parts of defamation law are pretty consistent in most jurisdictions: attacks on somebody's professional competence are likely to be considered defamatory.

(4) The first two sentences of WP:BLP state: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States..." A talk page is a Wikipedia page. If you don't know anything about defamation law and don't want to hear what the law says, then you are probably not in a position to contribute usefully on this page; it's what drives BLP. --GenericBob (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) My point is that quoting this or that law around here is less than helpful, in that it must be adjudicated in court in order to be proven to be in effect, and that remedy is unavailable to us.

(2) It is causing difficulty because I don't think that making negative comments about an author rise to a BLP issue. If an author doesn't want negative criticisms, then he shouldn't publish a book. See one of about a bazillion examples here: [31]. This is not slander.

(3)And you seem to be giving law advice, which is illegal in the jurisdiction in which I live. Let's stick to the BLP, shall we?

(4) You seem to be saying that editors must become experts on international law in order to contribute here, and I am disputing that assertion. I agree that the original comments were rude, but BLP violations? I don't think so, and you are a buffoon if you think so. :-)

Jarhed (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) - You are correct in thinking that we can't establish here, to a legal standard of proof, whether a statement on WP is defamatory. But that's irrelevant, because BLP doesn't require that level of proof. All we need to know is that there's a risk that it may be defamatory.

(2) - You can think whatever you like, but it doesn't make it true. I'm not sure what the link you offer is supposed to prove; plenty of people do take the risk of posting defamatory material, and a lot of them get away with it because nobody bothered to prosecute. But WP policy is against taking that gamble. (BTW, 'slander' and 'defamation' are not interchangeable words. They have different meanings.)

(3) - Again, you seem to be confused. It's not illegal in any jurisdiction that I know of for a lay person to offer legal advice (and while I don't know where you live, I suspect you're wrong about that jurisdiction too). You might be thinking of laws that make it illegal for unqualified people to pretend to be qualified lawyers, or to be paid for giving legal advice.

(4) - Nope. I am saying that editors should at least have a vague understanding of the basics of defamation law, or be willing to learn them. 'Informed amateur' level, not 'six-year law degree' level. --GenericBob (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• One of the basic tenants of a libel action is that is has to be damaging. Any action has to demonstrate damage. If you can find the person who puts enough stock in what some anonymous editor on Wikipedia thinks that it somehow lowers their opinion of Poole (which means they'd have to know who Poole was and give a crap in the first place), please invite them here to express their concern. Otherwise, this is sounding like a whole lot of really petty wiki-lawyering. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the test here include whether this is Original Research and weight. If you can reliably source the statement that person x called person y a buffoon, and it is a significantly notable part of their public reputation then it may well belong in an article. But an unsourced negative statement about a living individual does not belong on wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't this about something said on a talk page, not something that is being put into the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well weight only applies within articles, so it would be perfectly acceptable to have a talkpage discussion as to whether a particular bit of information from a particular reliable source should be in the article and if so in which section. But per Wikipedia:Attack page unsourced negative statements about living individuals are deletable anywhere, not just in mainspace. For example a lot of the attack pages I've deleted have been in userspace. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Um, yeah, I understand that. But when you started talking about "it may well belong in an article", it didn't sound like you were talking about talk pages anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The original poster was having a pretty heated dispute with another editor on this article and shut the discussion down by claiming a BLP violation. This entire stupid discussion seems like forum shopping to me. My vote is that you editors settle your dispute somewhere else.Jarhed (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you summed it up nicely and I agree, this isn't the forum. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Firstenberg

I have repeatedly attempted to remove unsourced libelous material from this article only to have it repeatedly reinserted by a user who seems to be avoiding the 3-revert rule by using multiple pseudonyms: Vary, Verbal, Pharaoh of the wizards, Uncle Dick, Ninetyone. This has got to stop.Bearguardian (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't WP:SPI, and your edits aren't supported on the talk page. Please explain how the material you are removing is a BLP violation, as I don't see it. This has been discussed on the article talk page. Verbal chat 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is whitewashing. There probably is abuse of multiple accounts, but not by those named above! Bearguardian should be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaearlygreyhot (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

True or not, your accusations about another editor are a violation of AGF, and in any case, this is not the place to make them.Jarhed (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of British supercentenarians‎

There is a dispute here regarding the supposed death of someone on the list, and it also applies to List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 and List of living supercentenarians. According to the GRG (about halfway down the page, or search for "Fish" on your browser) Margaret Fish died on 31 January 2010, while an IP editor claiming to be a family member disputes this. It is verifiable that she was alive last year, and I cannot find a news story that confirms she has died. My belief is that while the GRG may be adept at proving or disproving longevity claims by researching documents, they are not an adequate source for saying a person has died in the absence of confirmation by a reliable secondary source especially when the death is being disputed in this way. I find it quite bizarre that the IP editor is expected to provide a news story about her 111th birthday to prove she is alive, but we are supposed to take the word of the GRG that she is dead without a news story to corroborate their claim. In addition people are claiming this Yahoo group verifies it (I cannot access the message), this whole situation seems to me to be using wholly unacceptable sources to claim people have died. There are now cryptic references to information coming from a British government source, this is downright bizarre now. The admission that a mistake may have been made but that we will have to wait until a reliable source confirms she is alive seems to me to be the exact opposite of what we should be doing. O Fenian (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, many anonymous IP addresses have, in the past, claimed that supercentenarians on Wikipedia lists have died, only to be undone as vandalism. While this particular IP address sounds/seems far more credible, considering that this woman was born on March 7 1899 and today is March 7, it stands to reason that the best resolution to this situation is to have PATIENCE and, rather than make scurrilous accusations, consider the situation appropriately. The GRG has, in the past, been the death date source for many supercentenarians, including hard-to-reach cases from Japan. In this particular instance, the information about a death date came from a source in the British government. Anyone dealing with bureaucracy knows that mistakes are sometimes made...in either direction. For example, Alphaeus Cole died in November 1988 (see http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/26/obituaries/alphaeus-cole-a-portraitist-112.html?pagewanted=1) but is not reported deceased until May 1989 by the Social Security Administration:

Name: Alphaeus P. Cole SSN: 130-05-3991 Last Residence: 10011 New York, New York, New York, United States of America Born: 12 Jul 1876 Died: 2 May 1989 State (Year) SSN issued: New York (Before 1951) up arrow Save This Record Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Number: 130-05-3991;Issue State: New York;Issue Date: Before 1951.

Which is correct? I would assume that the New York Times article is closer to being right.

However, in the absence of news report, reports of deaths of supercentenarians are often not made (for example, Elsepth Wood of the UK died in 2009, sans news report). Are we to assume those people live forever, when a government report is to to the contrary?Ryoung122 12:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What government report? An anonymous "Deep Throat" informant was it not? If that is the case, it is also likely that he gave you the information in breach of the Data Protection Act. The whole point of BLP is about patience, it is about getting it right. There should be no need to rush to declare someone dead unless it is confirmed, from the discussions I have seen there was even doubt about whether GRG got her death right to begin with. When a person claiming to be a family member is disputing the death, I see no benefit to Wikipedia in claiming a person is dead in the absence of confirmation other than the GRG. O Fenian (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reported date of death, January 31, 2010, was some time ago. I don't see this as a "rush to judgment." In fact, it was the edits that prompted a response and a confirmation that she was still alive. By the way, actitivies off-Wiki are not subject to Wikipedia policies.Ryoung122 01:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A false report of a dead person being alive harms nobody. A false report of a live person being dead very easily could. You should probably immediately revert this person to alive, and that probably should be the policy for the article anytime the editors are informed of a dead person being alive. If the information is wrong it will be corrected in due course.--Jarhed (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vasil Bollano

User:Keep it Fake, after unsucessfully trying to insert questionable material in Pyrros Dimas [[32]], a initiative that provoked an edit war and ended up here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pyrros_Dimas, is editing now in a similar fashion in Vasil Bollano (another living Greek-Albanian), this time removing sourced content and replacing it with wp:or [[33]], using hostile edit summaries in his edits [[34]]. Above user is repeatedly warned to avoid this kind of activity [[35]]. It seems also he is tag teaming with ip editors.Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I examined their edits and to me it seems that you are trying to present his criminal activities as"unjust". If you want to do such a thing do it elsewhere maybe in a forum, not here. He has been convicted for his crimes.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested semi protection [[36]], since ip activity [[37]] continues to be disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushtrim123 hasn't opened any discussion in the article's talk page. A personal opinion isn't enough explanation to initiate edit war.Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Things seem that have settled now, thanks to Off2riorob's & Future Perfect at Sunrise's intervention.Alexikoua (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Oaten

Resolved

 – Wintonian (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Oaten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - On the articles talk page is a WikiProject tag for 'LGBT studies.' I relise that this is not what is ment by a category but it does categorise and in that respect I feel that WP:BLP (Categories) could apply here. My objection is to the inclusion of this Wiki progect tag on the basis the there is no evedence that the subjects experiance with homosexual activity would lead to an appropreate classification of LGBT and in fact evidence would seem to point to their hetrosexuality with this being a temporay Parallel transgression. Would it be appropreate for me to remove this tag? ' // Wintonian (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's talk page.--Jarhed (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The tag should stay. The tag is appropriate as the history of the political scandal, press reaction and his subsequent retirement due to his use of male prostitutes is of interest to the LGBT project. Being tagged of interest does not mean the individual is "gay" (or lesbian, bisexual or transgender either). If he were gay then there is a category for LGBT politicians that would be appropriate. Ash (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's talk page.--Jarhed (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edit warring partly over whether a subject has died or not. Latest edit made the article an unmarked BLP. Is it a BLP? Need a ruling/assistance as no RS found regarding death. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Esowteric+Talk 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See this edit diff (and previous history). Esowteric+Talk 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a wikipedia reliable citation for death or he was born beyond what the reasonable term of maximum life expectancy is, the article should be treated as a Biography of a living person. (there is a specific number of years but it slips my mind) Without a clear reliable citation for his death any date should not be included at all. the most we could do if there are reliable citations commenting that he may of died we could add a comment about that but as unconfirmed reports or something like that and until there is a reliable report the article should be treated as if it is a BLP and as such content added to it about controversial issues such as his unconfirmed death would require exceptional quality sources. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Have added living people cat to article and living=yes to talk accordingly. Esowteric+Talk 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bordering on an edit ar judging by today's article history. Uncited death date reintroduced, living people category removed. Is administrative action necessary? Esowteric+Talk 09:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see today's edit history of Messiah Foundation International. Heading for a topic ban? Esowteric+Talk 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The above article is not disputed at all. Its a conspiracy of Omi/Nasiryounus otherwise this article is not disputed at all. The disputed articles are Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar.--Your Message (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there are edit wars and disputes involving several editors and several related articles like MFI and Younus AlGohar. I have raised an RFC about this wider picture: Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Esowteric+Talk 11:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wider context

For weeks now, most of the articles involving Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar have been the subject of a slow edit war with several editors spending most of their time undoing other editors' edits. This has also spread in a minor way to the general article on Sufism.

Articles involved include:

• Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi
• Messiah Foundation International
• Younus AlGohar
• RAGS International
• The Representative of Gohar Shahi
• The Representative of Imam Mehdi
• Sufism

For details, see the articles' histories. Esowteric+Talk 11:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't explain that why you tagged only Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi article & not all relevant articles?--Spiritualism (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Messiah Foundation International now has a factual accuracy tag and already has a refimprove tag; Younus AlGohar already has a refimprove tag ... Though I'm sure that within minutes these will be removed. If you have grievances, then feel free to tag appropriately. Esowteric+Talk 11:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why disputed articles like Messiah Foundation International& Younus AlGohar are tagged now? Why not they were tagged earlier? Are you involved or companion of younus or using wikipedia to promote them?--Spiritualism (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor and my primary allegiance here is to Wikipedia. Which is in stark contrast to editors on both sides of this emotionally-heated conflict. I was hoping that an informal RFC would sort this out, but I can see more formal mechanisms may be required. Esowteric+Talk 12:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are an uninvolved editor, that's why you tag only one article.--Spiritualism (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. Assuming that This at Dawn newspaper is a reliable source for the fact that he died (though not when), have removed the blp dispute tag and replaced it with a factual accuracy tag. This doesn't mean that what you have to say is wrong, only that there is an ongoing dispute over "facts" by various editors. Esowteric+Talk 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Dawn newspaper: "Having read so far, assuming all to be well, I inquired what was the problem and where was Goharshahi. I was told he had left for his heavenly abode whilst travelling abroad and his mortal remains had been transported back, buried at his home in Kotri, but that his soul goes marching on. Another John Brown, I remarked. They were not amused." Esowteric+Talk 12:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Off2riorob: you've put in a lot of work at the article, which is appreciated. Esowteric+Talk 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Brandstatter

Is up for good article review. The reviewer and I have agreed a fresh set of eyes would help address the issues he raised at the review. Please help if you can. Thanks TomCat4680 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BLPs extending to companies?

A novel interpretation of our blp policy has been ventured here.

“ Of course, they all breach wp:blp It is not just companys or think tanks being named, everyone who works in those companys are in the lists. You can`t accuse people of taking money to push an agenda for "big oil" or "big coal" or "big tobacco" without breaking wp:blp ”

Is this inline with your understanding of policy? Unomi (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Might want to take this to the BLP Noticeboard. Arkon (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignore my stupidity, please. I misread the page title. : | Arkon (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's simply a thoroughly confused new editor who is grasping at straws. Hans Adler 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand his point at first, but he seems to be referring to this list of people. One could argue that the following from WP:BLP applies: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy [...]." Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch in this case, since we are apparently linking unrelated pages on the same website and this list isn't so easy to find. Hans Adler 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect hans, the links i removed from articles actually went to the think tank/company page which exxonsecrets.org say are anonymous planet hating foundations and corporations Any group this advocacy crowd decides are "not in their camp" get the hate treatment, each group has it`s own article, on each article is a list of those who work for that company. For instance ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Mountain States Legal Foundation This list is ref`d from this article [38] I had removed this ref per wp:blp and have been reverted. Tell me, is this actually wp:rs? Does it or does it not break wp:blp by using an advocacy group with no history of fact checking as a source at all. never mind in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/boards.cfm Seeing as how they are themselves making this information freely available I don't really see what the issue is. Unomi (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The connections which sites like greenpeace document are clearly pertinent and relevant to the reader, it would be deeply troubling if we could not give information on affiliations or funding for some of these groups. Unomi (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that one of the sources appears to be a publicly editable (login required but anyone can create an account) wiki. This would almost definitely not be acceptable as a RS for any article. It's also not likely suitable as an EL for an actual BLP IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluff, KwaZulu-Natal

Resolved

 – Article rewritten--Jarhed (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please could someone take a look at Bluff, KwaZulu-Natal - lots of worrying-looking material to me on a quick glance, and there's some potential press interest... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of people indicted by the International Criminal Court

Some folks wanna stick this on their watchlists? It is fully referenced which was a reason I gave for unprotecting another page/list of BLPs associated with something controversial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

The Zecharia Sitchin article uses SitchinIsWrong.com, a pesonal site of Dr. Michael S. Heiser as a source. The issue is discussed on the article's talk page here: Talk:Zecharia_Sitchin#Using_SitchinIsWrong.com_as_a_source

Regardless of whether the statements on SitchinIsWrong.com are correct, the site's domain address uses Sitchin's own name to debunk Sitchin, and I feel that this is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. As I quoted in the discussion, I will do so here again for convenince:

“ Mr. Heiser's goal is not to add knowledge and understanding to these issues. His goal, from the beginning, when he came on the web page and speaking scene, was to tear down the work of an established author. He had no name recognition to stand on so he used Sitchin's good name to get attention for himself so he could sell his own book, appear on the radio and get speaking engagements. Mr. Heiser does not think he is a debunker and I will not declare that he is. My purpose is, for the reader, to point out that his tactics and behavioral patterns fit the mold and style of a debunker which includes using personal attacks and ridicule. You can make the decision on your own once you see both sides of the issue. Hopefully, you will reach your own conclusions about his motives.

Debunker trick #1, when having no reputation of your own, attempt to destroy the work of an established individual, in the process creating a name for yourself. In fact, the method involves using the name of the person you are attempting to destroy as the springboard for yourself. His first web page that I read was full of insults and uncalled for statements. You would think that a man who claims he has a respected background and career would not want to use someone else’s name for his own gain. Wouldn't he want to be recognized for his own individual achievements? This maneuver is a “shifter” strategy made famous in the book, “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand. This procedure is used to take away from someone the thing you want the most for yourself, thereby "shifting" it away from them and to you. In this case, Heiser wants to take away Sitchin's fame and respect as an author, researcher and speaker.

”

Now, Sitchin may be wrong in his theories, but other sources/sites should be used, neutral ones. John Hyams (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Some context: Sitchin is, to put it politely, a fringe theorist. The mainstream opinion of him is that his theories are nonsense. However, since mainstream academic publications do not waste space on debunking fringe theorists, one has to go to web sites like the one in question to find sources describing how his theories are received in the mainstream. Hyams' position seems to be that any source that devotes itself to debunking fringe theories is ipso facto biased and unusable. This position would leave us at the mercy of the fringe pushers as the only remaining sources for their fringe articles would be the ones they themselves published saying how wonderful their kooky theories are. But do read the talk page of the Sitchin article where this has been gone over in great detail already. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As is the case with all articles, a self-published site cannot be used as a source. Critical material published by a reliable third-party should of course be included. Yworo (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a gross oversimplification of WP:SPS, which actually states that "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." Since the author in question has published a Ph.D. dissertation on ancient languages, and has published a book debunking a different fringe theory, he seems qualified to me as an expert on whether Sitchin's "translations" make any sense, which is what he was cited for until you removed that part of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The only part of WP:SPS that applies to BLPs is "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." BLP concerns override the exceptions allowed on other articles. It is explicitly stated. Yworo (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A self-published debunker, with or without PhD, is making a living out of debunking (as you mentioned). Wikipedia is not a platform for helping his debunking business. If that person was notable enough, he wouldn't have used Sitchin's own name to promote himself, and his assertations would have been used by third parties. Moreover, I don't understand what's the problem here: if Sitchin is widely refuted by the scientific/historical community, plenty of other sources should exist (ones that are not self-published), and both editor Yworo and myself would welcome such other sources. John Hyams (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

John Hyams has opened a new discussion atWikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Dr. Michael S. Heiser, looks to me like WP:Forum shopping. WP:Fringe clearly covers this article. The idea that has been put forward that only neutral sources should be used in the article is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, my reply to this is on the link you posted (the Notability noticeboard). In addition, I didn't know it's called "forum shopping", I learn new things about Wikipedia all the time, it's good to know there is such a term and code of conduct. I thought that attracting attention to an article during a dispute is good, especially when the article relates to both a biography of a living person and a notability issue regarding a source. Due to the bureaucratic nature of Wikipedia, I turst that you know about the guidelines more than me, and I thank you for the enlightenment. John Hyams (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yworo, so far as I can see we can consider adding this as an external link, right? I also think that if we can't add sources that criticise him due to the fact that no one seems to take him seriously to publish, we need to cut down on the article to meet WP:Undue. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article in the Fortean Times [39] refers to Heiser, any objections to using it? Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sites cannot even be added as external links to biographies of living people. See Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources: "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, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections." One of the main problems with self-published "anti" sites of any type is that they can be changed at will by their author/publisher. Since they could be changed at any time to contain libelous content, we cannot link to them at all. We can link to reliable third-party published sites as it is presumed that the third-party publisher will have a legal interest in vetting the information and not allowing the inclusion of material that might make them legally liable. Yworo (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I'm still unhappy about John Hyams comments above about Heiser, which look like, ironically, unsourced defamatory comments apparently directed towards him, both the comments on his goals and the comments about debunkers. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pallo Jordan

Museum of Military History Controversy: In Your bio sketch of myself, Z.P Jordan, (former Minister of Artsand Culture, South Africa)there is the slanderous allegation that I was involved in the arrest of the Curator of the Museum of Military History in Johannesburg.

(i) I want to enquire: Where did you get this information from? I need the source because this is an outright lie! (ii)Is there any record in the SA Law Courts or the Police Service of such an arrest? If not, theslander is compounded! (iii) Would it not be a common courtesy to still living persons to at lest check information regarding them before posting it on your website? Posting slanders and libels makes you as culpable as the nformant who sent it to you!!

Sincerely,

Z.Pallo Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.105.232 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note, properly formatted above entry).

• I have removed the section complained of above, as I agree that the information was not sourced adequately to meet WP:BLP. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It was added like a year ago, it's unacceptable that some think that just by adding a citation needed would suffice when BLP is concerned. Unsourced information should be removed on sight when BLP is concerned. -RobertMel (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but if we took what you said literally, it would wipe out about half of the BLP data on WP, which could be good or bad depending on how you look at it.Jarhed (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have clarified that, at least attempts should be made to see if it can be sourced by the remover. But having wasted my time reverting newly registered users (wasted because it could have been prevented with semi-protects), it is quite clear that newly registered users who jumps in BLP related articles, have a very questionable behavior. Note that in this case, the user has only made three edits and all on this particular article. It could sound harsh, but BLP articles should be semi-protected. -RobertMel (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people feel as you do, and you may be right. I just want to remind you to AGF and try not to bite newbies.Jarhed (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

exxonsecrets.org

I am finding this has been used as a ref in multipile Blp`s. Given that this is a highly partisan advocacy group with no editorial control and a poor history for fact checking is it allowable for them to be used as a source for blp`s? this is what they are about

• ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem

This is posted on the front page of the site

• ExxonSecrets is hanging here in the Big Apple with DeSmogBlog, as the Heartland Institute, flush with cash from anonymous planet hating foundations and corporations

Which gives you an idea of how they feel about the people they write about.

And this is in their disclaimer

• One should nonetheless verify any information obtained from this website if it is re-purposed

How many editors do you think will actually double check the information they get from this site? I would like to know if using this site is actually allowable under current blp rules Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mark, as usual you are forgetting to present the context in which you are objecting to the usage. You also seem to have cherry-picked stuff from their site to present a rather partisan view of the site. That seems inappropriate. But i'll help you:

Mark is objecting to this usage of Exxonsecrets on James G. Watt (part of a paragraph) - i've selected the pertinent part.:

....In 1976, Watt founded the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that represents clients on a pro bono basis. Its stated mission was to further the cause of individual liberties, especially in the realm of economic and property rights, though Greenpeace has criticized it as "training ground for a number of attorneys most active in the anti-environmental movement."

There is a discussion on the talk-page about it, here: Talk:James G. Watt#Exxon Secrets. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question is asked and answered on the article talk page. The source in question has about the same reliability as a blog, and can be used accordingly. The real issue is whether this criticism belongs on his BLP, and my vote is that it does not. It is a paltry and indirect criticism, and appears to be a straining reach to include criticism, which in my reading of the BLP should not be done.Jarhed (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I note the extensive debate on RSN. I think that for BLP purposes it is a source like any other, which would be to say that for negative information about individuals, it is not very reliable. If I were working on a BLP, I would need backup from an RS to accept anything in it.Jarhed (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that while Marknutley (talk · contribs) has repeated asserted that exxonsecrets/Greenpeace has "no editorial control and a poor history for fact checking" there's no evidence that this is actually is the case, it's purely his opinion. By his description, one might guess that website was a blog, wiki, or something like worldnetdaily. It isn't: it's the work of major international environmental NGO, and it's content is controlled solely by them. Just as it wouldn't be a BLP vio to say "According Exxon, Al Gore is wrong...<ref>www.exxon.com/webpage</ref>", it doesn't violate BLP to use this source they way it's being used in this article. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The source and the way it is cited may be ok, but I don't think including the criticism in the BLP is. If the criticism were a notable one, it would be mentioned in an RS and this entire discussion would be moot.Jarhed (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't agree with your defense of the credibility of this source. Being the work of a "major international" whatever doesn't prove anything about its reliability. It is clearly a hit piece or it wouldn't be named what it is.Jarhed (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to a draw a distinction between fly by night outfits and major players. To return to my hypothetical Al Gore example: if the critique was from the geocities website of Joe's Gas-Mart in Peoria, IL, then it'd be fine to drop a WP:SPS-bomb on it, and rule out using it. But when the critique comes off of Exxon's site, the WP:SPS label rings a little hollow. Greenpeace has been around since 1971; they've got almost 3 million members and revenues in excess of $200 million. Calling a website constructed and maintained by them "self-published" really perverts the meaning of WP:SPS. Yilloslime ^T_C 07:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. However, they themselves would not deny that they are pushing a partisan agenda, and so their reliability is about the same as a blog, by which I mean that their controversial facts must be attributed directly to them. If their controversial facts are also found in a reliable source, in my opinion that changes things and opens up possibilities for using the partisan facts more generally. Anyway, for the purposes of this particular BLP, my vote is that the source is not used, because any negative fact contained in the partisan source that was not picked up by a reliable source is so minor that it does not rise to the standard of being included in a BLP.

Beside James G. Watt which BLP are involved? From what is quoted above, it's uses on James G. Watt is OK, since the source is attributed to Greenpeace. -RobertMel (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Attributing to greenpeace is wrong, exxonsecrets are a different outfit set up by greenpeace. as for which blp`s [40] [41] along with james watt. I have removed it from some other blp`s already. They are an advocacy group who smear people who disagree with them. A group which goes through someones rubbish to look for stuff to smear people with can`t ever be a wp:rs

Horner, whose own garbage has been ransacked by the likes of Greenpeace in its effort to find something with which to smear him

I am not sure who wrote this messy entry, but I have read all of the RS and BLP doco, and I don't think you know what you are talking about. If it were as clear cut as you say, there would be no need for a RSN or a BLPN.--Jarhed (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

This article has a fictional account of AEI studies on global warming and the IPCC, and editors are edit-warring to (1) include the fictional account and (2) exclude the refutation of the fictional account. THF (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fictional account? Can you provide some diffs? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[42] [43] THF (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am dense, I apologize, but what is the BLP issue?--Jarhed (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article cited[44] seems to support the content. What part is fictionalized? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The reporting is fictional, and refuted in reputable publications. The BLP issue is the libelous accusation of academic dishonesty against living people. THF (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove via reliable sources that it is fictional? mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the diffs. THF (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying the Guardian article is wrong? Can you provide one or more reliable sources which contradict the Guardian article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats what i meant as well :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the libel issue, but I think that is for the organization in question to take up with the Guardian, and I don't see that there is anything we can do about it under BLP. On the other hand, the criticism of the Guardian article seems to be that the practice is SOP for everyone, including the IPCC, and if true, that would seem to invalidate the RS. I'm sure that nobody is advocating that invalid data from an RS be included merely because it is from an RS, or are you?--Jarhed (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

This article is currently in the midst of a major edit war. Potentially defamatory material is being regularly added and then removed, only to be replaced again. This article badly needs protection at the moment. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Kanbar

Maurice Kanbar is a San Francisco businessman best known for his inventions (especially SKYY Vodka) and for large real estate holdings including New York's first multiplex cinema as well as a huge chunk of downtown Tulsa. His biography has been subjected over time to edits that have swung the text between a puff-piece and virulent attacks. The article had gotten to a reasonably neutral and well-sourced state, but an appellate ruling this morning in a lawsuit between Kanbar and his former investment adviser has triggered a new wave of IP edits. (The ruling is unpublished, and so far unreported, as far as I know, although the lawsuit has been extensively reported in the past, and it's reasonable to think this new ruling may eventually show up in some newspapers.) Additional eyes on this article would be helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Curtis (murderer)

Resolved

 – All observed BLP problems fixed.

Kenneth Curtis (murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a lot of very clear bias of guilt in this article. Note the lead: "He is notable for initially dodging justice by being found mentally incompetent to stand trial, but years later, as a pre-med student, being found competent and being ordered to stand trial for his crime[1]." The implication seems that in spite of shooting himself in the head and suffering massive brain trauma, he slyly got around the system by faking insanity. I will do a basic clean-up, but as I don't have even basic legal background, it could use some review. 71.23.167.230 (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody cleaned it up and it looks fine to me.Jarhed (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And do you have a legal background? It seems fine to me too. But the poster is asking for a person with some legal knowledge to look at the article to check if there are any BLP implications that an ordinary reader may not pick up on. Meowy 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge of law is not necessary to follow BLP.--Jarhed (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So spotting the difference between murder and manslaughter requires no knowledge of law? Meowy 02:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It has indeed been cleaned up nicely. One problem that remains, however, is that the subject, while guilty of a killing, is not a murderer as he was convicted only of manslaughter. I will note this on the talk page, and move the article to a new title unless there is an objection. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Kenneth L. Curtis. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul W. Lynch

Not a historical figure, not a single line is sourced. Seems to be a made my the person in question, as much is adjusted first person (removed I and put he in it) // RevZendo (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion.Jarhed (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, looks more like an attack piece. Notice that it starts with he "claims" to teach and a large part of the article is a letter stating he isn't authorized to teach etc. Might be able to CSD G10. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't try to speedy because I didn't want to have to deal with any contention from the self-editor.--Jarhed (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to be careful not to offend anybody by saying that a religious individual was not notable when he might be.--Jarhed (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify, the positive material appears to have been posted by a user of a similar name as the subject; there is additional negative material, apparently posted by the same user who originated this thread, and which lacks reference to reliable sources; it appears to me that this material should be removed even while the AfD is pending, per WP:BLP.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a content issue, not a BLP issue. If the subject is non-notable (which he seems to be) then the article should be deleted. But this message board is not where it is done or proposed. Meowy 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs are definitely a BLP issue. It's not a problem for them to be reported here.--Jarhed (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed articles which may be deleted are often discussed here, e.g. to get a second opinion or for further views on whether there's anything to be salvaged. If no one thinks so, often they will be nominated Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles that do not offend BLP norms are neither deleted here or proposed for deletion here. What you want to discuss here is your business. Meowy 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

David Kuo (author)

David Kuo (author) is getting heavily edited by SPAs and could use more eyes. Tassedethe (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagged with multiple issues, just to attract attention, at first glance there is nothing controversial in the article and citations are present, it could do with a check over from an editor more experienced in American political writers and..claimed bass fisherman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kellie Shirley

• Kellie Shirley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this from WP:RFPP. BLP page that could use some eyes, please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Pincus

The article on currently says "by requesting that he not write about Murry Gunty, a self-confessed election fraudster while at Harvard Business School". The article on Murry Gunty mentions the blogging incident, but says "Gunty, or one of his representatives, once requested that a blogger Mark Pincus redact his name from an essay about ethics that claimed Gunty had engaged in unethical behavior at Harvard Business School", and doesn't say anything more on the incident. This isn't surprising since Murry Gunty appears to be somewhat notable but not for the election fraud while he was at university. While the basic facts of the incident appear to be without dispute, e.g. [45], do people feel the current situation is fine? Or does mentioning the election fraud give undue weight to what was a minor thing, and should we just mention the incident without going into any details? Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken a bit of weight out of both articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger Clinton, Jr.

This article is in dire need of reliable sources. I just deleted an entire section on criminal convictions which was sourcely entirely to World Net Daily. Woogee (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK and List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured

List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured

There is a DYK hook proposed for this article, see nomination page Template_talk:Did_you_know#List_of_New_York_Legislature_members_expelled_or_censured:

• Did you know ... that in 1781, New York State Senator Ephraim Paine was expelled from the Senate for neglect of duty?

---

There is a discussion about whether to highlight this particular article through the DYK process. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_hook_about_fact_of_history_from_over_200_years_ago. Editors that contribute here at BLPN are encouraged to contribute there at the thread at WT:DYK. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer it if users expressed their views at this thread rather than at the DYK thread, so it's clear that the matter has been resolved at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Either way is fine. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just having a bit of a look and I was wondering, this hook, it a higher degree of exposure and increases traffic to the article greatly? There are only the two living people with articles Mike Cole and Hiram_Monserrate and it's true the content about them is in that list is completely negative.Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the page itself focuses on individuals that were sanctioned about 100 years ago, or more. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the objective of putting the article as DYK? Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To highlight an interesting fact from a brand-new article, and to highlight the work of Wikipedia contributors for writing or expanding new sourced content on this project. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which puts it on the front page and attracts a high traffic viewing figure, Wikipedia:Did you know there are a lot of experienced editors involved there that I am shy to comment but, I also am a bit hesitant to support as regards the BLP concerns and the aspects of setting a president for such comparable situations in the future, although the hook is not specifically about the living people I was drawn to them when I read the article. One way I would be able to support DYK for the list is if the written content was removed about the living people (only while the DYK was on the front page) and only a link to their complete article was left. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. A reasonable suggestion. I have shortened two entries, and removed another two entirely (two where individuals were investigated but no actual sanction itself was enacted in the end result). Cirt (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hiram Monserrate should be removed. He's not actually been expelled, as there seems to be a judicial appeal pending.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He was actually expelled. This caused the Governor to have to call a special election. The appeal actually upheld the expulsion. See Judge Upholds Expulsion of Convicted NY Senator: Judge won't block expulsion of New York state lawmaker convicted of assault. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but "Attorneys for Monserrate have not yet commented. They are still deciding whether to appeal the judge's decision or to pursue a similar suit in state court." [46]--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The special election is 8 days away. The individual was expelled. The seat is currently vacant. To date, Monserrate has not put forth a 2nd appeal. Unless you have a source to the contrary? Is the State Senate seat not currently vacant? Cirt (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't. I still think this is where we don't do recent stuff very well. Makes me twitchy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well we have multiple sources confirming he was expelled. We also have multiple sources subsequently confirming that said expulsion was upheld on appeal in United States federal court. And the seat is now vacant. So the former Senator was expelled. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At present, it's a clearly true statement that Senator Monserrate was expelled from the State Senate. At most, the article should bear a notation that the expulsion is being disputed in federal court (although an initial motion for a preliminary injunction was denied). No view on DYK'ing the article at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no source confirming that Monserrate is currently disputing the expulsion in federal court. Unless you can suggest a source that does? Cirt (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See e.g. this article. In the words of the story, "on Wednesday afternoon, the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals granted Monserrate an expedited appeal, with briefs due between March 2 and March 9, and oral arguments scheduled for March 12." I've also personally verified that the appeal is pending on the Second Circuit's ECF site (Docket No. 10-604). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Newyorkbrad, for suggesting that source. I have added it to the article, and updated both the list article and the article about Hiram Monserrate. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Hiram Monserrate's appeal claim = rejected, by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See [47] and [48]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on whether this can go on the Main Page via DYK? cmadler (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Seyran Ohanyan (yet again)

The Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is incorporating material that was removed from the Seyran Ohanyan article for its violation of BLP policies. The latter was discussed here [49], and here [50], as well as on Talk:Seyran_Ohanyan.

Basically, the previous issues involved the insertion of Azerbaijani propaganda that stated that the current Defense Minister of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is an "alleged war criminal", making accusations that he was personally involved in a deliberate massacre of civilians. As has been indicated in the talk pages of both articles, there are no sources that say Ohanyan was at Khojali, and there are no sources that say those elements of the 366th CIS regiment that were involved in the attack on Khojali were involved in the subsequent massacre (which took place at a different time and location, some 4 to 5 km from Khojali) of civilians who had fled the town during the attack. Yet there is in the Khojaly Massacre article a sectioning titled "The role of 366th regiment of CIS army", in which Seyran Ohanyan's name is mentioned. The clearly intended implication is that the regiment, with Ohanian, took part in the massacre: i.e., it is a restatement of the unsubstantiated "war criminal" allegation that was removed for BLP reasons. I've tried to remove it, but it has been reinserted. Meowy 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the editor who reinserted the content has confirmed what I assumed was the intended implication [[51]] Meowy 03:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like the last time I tried to work on this BLP issue, you are trying to intimidate me away from this subject. Please do not delete my posts to this noticeboard. Once again, there are several partisan editors on this article, and their actions make it almost impossible to edit on it, at least for me.--Jarhed (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The last time you "worked" on this BLP issue you were warned about your gross incivility [52]. You are on record as saying you "don't even know where Azerbaijani is", and, for this subject, "I can't summon up any reason to care about it". And since you have also stated you "don't give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints", I again ask you why you are frequenting a noticeboard about Wikipedia proceedings? Meowy 03:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that this person was the commander of the 2nd battalion of the 366th regiment, and after the regiment was withdrawn he remained in Karabakh. No one denies this fact, including Ohanyan himself. So I see no problem here. De Waal mentions him a few times in his book:

Around 50 of the 350 or so remaining soldiers of the 366th Regiment were Armenian, including the commander of its 2nd Battalion, Major Seiran Ohanian. For the Karabakh Armenians, the regiment and its large stores of weaponry were a godsend. Even before the August putsch in Moscow, soldiers had been offering their weapons for sale or for hire. The American human rights activist Scott Horton says that in July 1991, an officer named Yury Nikolayevich, mistaking him for a businessman, offered to sell him a tank for three thousand dollars. Others tell how Armenians simply paid the regimental officers in vodka or rubles to open fire or deploy its weapons. [53]

Following the ignominious part it had played in the storming of Khojali, the Soviet 366th Regiment was ordered by Moscow to withdraw from Karabakh. At the beginning of March 1992, a column of troops was sent to Stepanakert to escort the regiment out, but local Armenians blocked the roads to stop its leaving. The soldiers were eventually airlifted out by helicopter, and almost all their equipment stayed behind. Major Ohanian also stayed, as did many of his Armenian comrades and several Slavic officers - including the would-be lank salesman Yury Nikolayevkh, who was later spotted training Karabakhi fighters. On 10 March, the 366th Regiment was disbanded in Georgia. [54]

This has nothing to do with BLP, we just state a fact that after the attack on Khojaly the 366th regiment was evacuated and disbanded, but some of its personnel, including Ohanyan, stayed in Karabakh, and joined the Armenian forces. It is sourced info that one denies. Grandmaster 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Meowy is wrong by saying that "there are no sources that say those elements of the 366th CIS regiment that were involved in the attack on Khojali were involved in the subsequent massacre". Quite the opposite, the sources say that soldiers of 366th regiment took part in killing of civilians. Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation, which is available online in full. It says in particular:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [55] Grandmaster 06:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the editor who reinserted the content has confirmed what I assumed was the intended implication - Meowy, don't be misinterpreting what I write. Ohanian is blamed for taking part in the Khojaly Massacre. What I am telling you is that he's not formally indicted through the war crimes tribunal due to the fact that he's in the office. Azerbaijani side may or may not convict him through the war crimes tribunal but the fact of the matter is that he's currently blamed for participation and the information is sourced. You can't deny that the facts that he commanded the units of 366th regiment. Hope that clarifies Tuscumbia (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It would help if those who are replying actually read what is being reported by Meowy. There is evidence that the 366th did attack Khojali and Grandmaster is providing quotes to support that (as if anyone questioned it). There is on the other hand no evidence that the 366th was implicated in any massacres, which is the point made by Meowy.

The 366th participated in the capture of the city because it was attacked.

The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Feb 25, 1992. pg. A.9

Azerbaijanis attacked the last remaining Soviet military base in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, killing two soldiers and wounded two others, news reports said yesterday. Azerbaijanis also fired rockets at the territory's administrative capital, Stepanakert, and seized several major munitions depots. ITAR-Tass said four civilians were also killed in Azerbaijani attacks, and at least 35 wounded.

Le Soleil Lundi 24 février 1992, p. B6, L'Azerbaïdjan attaque, AP

Un porte-parole du département local des Affaires intérieures cité par ITAR-Tass a déclaré que les militaires de ce régiment avaient commencé à exprimer ouvertement leur mécontentement concernant la neutralité de leurs commandants, alors que les forces de l'Azerbaïdjan tirent non seulement sur la population de cette enclave arménienne mais aussi sur les soldats restés neutres. Translation: A spokesperson of the local department of Interior quoted by ITAR-Tass declared that the soldiers of this regiment [366th] had started to openly express their dissatisfaction concerning the neutrality of their commanders, when Azerbaïdjan's forces were shooting not only on the population of this Armenian enclave but also on the soldiers remaining neutral.

Le Soleil Mardi 25 février 1992, p. A13, Les troupes de la CEI répliqueront dans le Haut-Karabakh

Le commandement régional de la CEI a pris cette décision au lendemain de l'attaque par des forces azéries d'un régiment d'infanterie mécanisée basé à Stepanakert, capitale du Haut-Karabakh.

Translation: The regional command of the CIS took this decision shortly after the attack by Azeri forces of a mechanized infantry regiment based on Stepanakert, capital of Haut-Karabakh.

The battle in which the 366th was implicated made fewer than a hundred of victims, probably most of them combatants.

Toronto Star, Feb. 27, 1992, pg. A. 17, Reuter

Azeri Interior Minister Tofik Kerimov said almost 100 Azeris were killed in the battle, with 250 wounded. Armenian sources put the figures far lower.

There is actually no evidence that the 366th was implicated in what happened 4 to 5 km away from there... in fact Azerbaijan counter-attacked just hours later.

Even on March 1, the information was unclear, in contrast with Goltz’s crew. CanWest News, March 1, 1992. pg. 1

The boys are among refugees from the Azeri village of Khojaly, captured last week by Armenian paramilitary troops, reportedly backed by Russian troops from the former Soviet army.

Accounts by refugees and authorities helping them in Agdam contained many conflicting details on what happened in the latest of what Azerbaijan says is steady success by Armenians capturing Azeri villages in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Some refugees reported seeing people killed, but the eyewitness accounts were on a much smaller scale than the death toll reported by the press service of Azeri president Ayez Mutalibov, quoting Khojaly prefect Elhan.

Now, the Wikipedia article on Khojaly massacre contains a section titled: The role of 366th regiment of CIS army, implicitly suggesting that they were implicated in a massacre and thereby adding the name of Seyran Ohanyan (failing BLP). Besides, the information quoted from the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper is inaccurate, they personally received the order to reply if attacked again, which they did. The fact is that the reported massacre happened kilometres away from the capture area. There is no evidence that Seyran Ohanyan was even in the captured area, let alone kilometres away from where there supposedly was a massacre. - Fedayee (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

366th regiment shelled Shusha, and was shelled in response. Armenian leaders themselves admitted that. A quote from de Waal's book, p. 312:

Ashot Manucharian said that "we often paid the Stepanakert Regiment and they fired at Shusha" (from his interview of 15 October 2000).

So this regiment was really a disgrace for the Soviet military, they shelled Azerbaijani towns for money or vodka. Of course, when they shelled Shusha, they were shelled back, but Khojaly never shelled this regiment. And the 366th regiment had no orders to attack Azerbaijani towns, and the command of Transcaucasian military district said that they did it in violation of their orders. In any case, the 366th regiment took part in the attack on Khojaly, which is why their role needs to be described. And after the role they played in the event the regiment was withdrawn and disbanded, but some of its officers stayed in the area of the conflict. The article just provides this info, and does not say anything about Ohanian's personal role in these events. So there's no BLP violation here. No one denies that the regiment took part in the attack on the town, and no one denies that after their role in the attack became known the regiment was withdrawn and some of its officers refused to leave. So, all the info in the article is verifiable, and accurate. Also, according to HRW, the soldiers of the regiment took part in the massacre as well. I provided this quote above:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [56]

So clearly, this issue has nothing to do with BLP, as no living person is being accused of killings. It should be further discussed at talk of the article. Grandmaster 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew you would come up with De Waal, I mean who else? Can you provide any other sources for that? Newspaper records are abound with the coverage of the nearly daily shelling of Stepanakert, including the destruction of hospitals, schools, and even the Parliament just hours prior to the capture of Khojali. The HRW information comes from testimonies which are not the most accurate of sources and which contradict the few independent observers who were there during and not after the event. On a Memorial report, for instance, we find.

По сообщению телеоператора объединения «Гольфстрим» И.Бурганского, находившегося 26.02 в районе Ходжалы, большая часть мирных жителей погибла от минометного огня, который велся подразделениями обороняющегося гарнизона, однако достоверность данного сообщения вызывает сомнение, так как большинство обстоятельств штурма, описанных Бурганским, не совпадают с информацией, полученной из всех других источников. Translation: According to the cameraman of "Gulfstream" Burgansky, who was in the Khojaly region on Feb, 26 , most of the civilians were killed by mortar fire, which was conducted by divisions of defending garrison, but the authenticity of the message is questionable, since most circumstances of the assault, described by Burgansky, do not coincide with the information received from all other sources.

Igor Burgansky’s version corresponds to the version provided by one side of the conflict, and he was the only photographer (according to him) there during the course of the event. The Memorial dismissed it claiming it does not correspond to that (note that the Memorial is a known critic of the military... not the most credible of sources to describe the 366th actions). That of course is not true; The Role of Media in Reporting Ethnic Conflict, Conflict Management Group, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. January 1994, page 31-32; Dan Sneider, Moscow correspondent, Christian Science Monitor.

Before I left, I had heard of all these reports, I talked to one Western news photographer who had been on the scene. But even he had not actually seen the events himself. His account was based on having been flown up to a mountain side by the Azeris in a helicopter to take photographs of bodies on the hillside, bodies which seemed to indicate that they were of civilians, but also adult men, but seemed to indicate that they had been shot at close range. So I had that information together with all the other conflicting reports. I made my way to Karabakh and spoke to the Armenian authorities there, who gave me their version of events which was of course completely different. They described the battle as they saw it. I interviewed soldiers who had been directly involved in the battle, who had been firing on Azeri forces. I was in Khozhali, I saw the city, the damage that was done, some of the damage fit the description of the battle that I got from the Armenian side, which was that there was a big battle, the Azeris tried to move out of the town under fire, it was in the middle of the night, they fired on everything that they saw…

This description above describes what went on in Khojali, not Nakhichevanik. The HRW and Memorial have gathered all the information and have come up with a story with events from Khojali and Nakhichevanik, basically they've mixed what happened in Khojali and Nakhichevanik. The truth is that there are no independent observations that the 366th was implicated in the supposed massacre of civilians. Besides, as the Memorial reports, those who found shelter in Khojali itself were not harmed while the town fell under total Armenian control, unlike the road of Nakhichevanik.

So again, please provide sources which documents that the 366th was implicated in these events and that Seyran Ohanyan was even there where there was a supposed massacre. BLP rules are very clear, please go and read them. That section is titled in a way that one will believe that they were engaged in massacres and that the name of Seyran Ohanyan is included in it. If you provide no evidence then I will have to report you for failure to respect BLP rules. - Fedayee (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. You may like or dislike them, but HRW is a well known and reputable organization, which conducted its own investigation. Ohanian is not mentioned in connection with the massacre. Only a well known fact that he stayed in NK after the regiment was withdrawn is mentioned in the article. No one denies this fact, even Ohanian himself, otherwise how could he become the leader of the Armenian armed forces? And the 366th regiment needs to be mentioned in the article, because it played a major role in the attack on Khojaly. I really see no point in further discussion here. Ohanian is not accused of anything, and the 366th regiment is not a living person. Even if we assume that the regiment was a person, it is long dead, as it was disbanded back in 1992 for the role it played in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 07:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, the same 366th regiment and its role in Khojaly massacre is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, for instance 8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Their role in this event is well known, and even confirmed by the Russian military command. I see no reason why we should obscure it in any article. Wikipedia is free of political censorship. Grandmaster 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What kind of answer is this? These are the four lines and I bolded whatever is related to Khojali:

According to international observers, soldiers and officers of 366th regiment took part in the attack on Khojaly. Memorial called for an investigation of the facts of participation of CIS soldiers in the military operations in the region and transfer of military equipment to the sides of the conflict. Soon after the massacre, in early March 1992, the regiment was withdrawn from Nagorno-Karabakh. Paratroopers evacuated the personnel of the regiment by helicopter, but over 100 soldiers and officers remained in Stepanakert and joined the Armenian forces, including the commander of the 2nd battalion major Seyran Ohanyan, who currently serves as a Minister of Defense of Armenia. Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper reported that:

Only about one line is about Khojali. Half of the quotation from Krasnya Zvezda is not about Khojali, and the entire section without exception has nothing to do with any massacres. For the umpteenth time the section’s title is: The role of 366th regiment of CIS army and this in an article about a massacre. Meowy’s report and criticism is obviously accurate but you answer without any considerations. The only reason why Seyran Ohanyan is in that section is to implicitly suggest that he was involved in a massacre, since the Azeri government's propaganda tries to involve him on practically all the websites.

Also most of your reply has nothing to do with the claimed massacre. The only claim you make which has anything to do with massacre is the following: Btw, the same 366th regiment and its role in Khojaly massacre is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, for instance 8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Their role in this event is well known, and even confirmed by the Russian military command. I see no reason why we should obscure it in any article. Wikipedia is free of political censorship.

That's simply untrue, the massacre is said to have happened outside of Khojali, and the Memorial report says that those who found shelter in Khojali were unharmed. The 366th was accused of participating in the attack of Khojali itself, on the night where many died (under a hundred according to the official Azeri figures). There is no evidence that the 366th participated in any massacre against civilians. Also, if we were to rely on HRW when it reports refugees’ testimonies, there was tens of thousands of victims in Kosovo, see here how those testimonies can not reflect what exactly happened. - Fedayee (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a single source exists which indicates the 366th regiment's involvement in the massacre (far less one which indicates Ohanyan's). The article is about the massacre which took place many miles from Khojali, it is not about the attack on Khojali. That section is in the article for no other reason than to slander a living person by insinuation. Accusing a person (or insinuating an accusation) of committing war crimes is a serious matter. I'm disapointed that those higher up the Wikipedia pyramid seem unresponsive, and seem content to allow this issue to continue, letting it spread out from the earlier BLP issue with the Seyran Ohanyan entry. Meowy 02:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep on saying that "Not a single source exists which indicates the 366th regiment's involvement in the massacre", while I quoted twice the source that says that 366th was involved. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm quoting it one last time and consider this issue to be closed. Here:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [57]

The article is about the attack on Khojaly, as it resulted in the massacre. It is a very strange argument that the attack on the town is not related to the massacre. Same with evacuation of this regiment, as it was the made as a result of the role of this regiment in the massacre. Sources have been provided just above. If you think that highlighting the same thing in red will make it more convincing, I beg to differ. Sources exist, the section must remain. So let's continue discussion at talk of the article. Grandmaster 07:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Grandmaster's point - I'd like to make a correction to what i said in red. My words "not a single source exists which indicates the 366th regiment's involvement in the massacre" has carelessly overly abbreviated what I had said at the outset: "there are no sources that say those elements of the 366th CIS regiment that were involved in the attack on Khojali were involved in the subsequent massacre". I had hoped that being concise and red would attract some attention from uninvolved editors, but I ended up abbreviating too much. Meowy 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is that his name should be removed since it is there for no clear and defined reason. The above quote I'm afraid is not sufficient, it's one thing to open fire and it is another to be involved in any massacre. I see a revert war going on there, I think that concensus when involving a biography of living person is not required when both side agree that there is no evidence that the person in question was involved in any massacre. -RobertMel (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - More, if the mention of the 366th is to give a context, why is it not rather included in the background section? That would be more logical. Having it there but without having Ohanyan name I guess could satisfy both side, which would also remove the WP:BLP issue. -RobertMel (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to have that - esp since the article needs a brief summary of the background. The trouble is Grandmaster's "the article is about the attack on Khojaly" statement. The article is NOT about that (unless Grandmaster wants to rename the article and reduce the "Khojali massacre" to a subsection of a bigger article about the capture of the town by Nagorno Karabakh forces). The attack on Khojali was a legitimate military action, given that the town was being used by Azerbaijani forces as a position to fire missiles at Armenian-held Stepanakert. The massacre did not actually happen in Khojali, but near a village several miles away, after the capture of the town. Meowy 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the attack on the town and the massacre of civilians that became a result of this attack, both in the town and outside of it. As for Ohanyan, his name is not mentioned in connection with the attack and the massacre. So clearly there's no BLP issue here. The article only mentions a well known fact that after the regiment was withdrawn from the region because of its involvement in the attack some of its personnel, including Ohanyan, stayed. That is an accurate info, and it is not denied by anyone. The British journalist Thomas de Waal describes this in his book about the NK conflict:

Following the ignominious part it had played in the storming of Khojali, the Soviet 366th Regiment was ordered by Moscow to withdraw from Karabakh. At the beginning of March 1992, a column of troops was sent to Stepanakert to escort the regiment out, but local Armenians blocked the roads to stop its leaving. The soldiers were eventually airlifted out by helicopter, and almost all their equipment stayed behind. Major Ohanian also stayed, as did many of his Armenian comrades and several Slavic officers - including the would-be lank salesman Yury Nikolayevkh, who was later spotted training Karabakhi fighters. On 10 March, the 366th Regiment was disbanded in Georgia. [58]

And 366th cannot be described only in the background, in fact, this regiment was one of the main acting figures in the event, and its role is mentioned by all independent investigations, and even admitted by the Russian military authorities. These people were selling arms to the Armenians, and were offering their services for hire, and this is well documented. The attack became possible only because of 366th involvement, and the armored vehicles and the crews of 366th took part in shelling of the town and according to Human Rights Watch in killing of the civilians. I do not think that this important information could be obscured. On the contrary, I think that this section should be further expanded, as there's more information from investigation by the Russian Memorial organization about the role of this regiment. Mentioning 366th in the background would be the same like mentioning al-Qaeda in the background of the article about September 11 attacks. Grandmaster 20:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

More from HRW report:

The number of servicemen in the 366th who participated in the massacre of civilians is still unknown. The Azerbaijani Procuracy's investigative team sent a delegation to Tbilisi, where the 366th was relocated after it was withdrawn from Stepanakert, to inquire how many men from the regiment were killed, wounded, and missing during their service in Nagorno Karabakh. According to Aiden Rasulov, military officials refused to meet with the investigative team, claiming that they were answerable only to Moscow. As of April, the investigative team had not asked for an accounting from Moscow military authorities. [59]

Grandmaster 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, are you proposing a rename of the article to something like "Capture of Khojali"? (as in Capture of Shusha) for which the massacre will be an incident detailed in a subsection of that article? As for the quotes, you seem to be using the content of two sources (de Waal and HRW) to imply something that is said by neither source - that Ohanyan was present at Khojali, and that Ohanyan was involved in committing a massacre. This BLP was not raised about the 366th regiment, it was raised about an individual, Ohanyan, whose name has been weaseled into an article about a war crime. Meowy 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the article says nothing about the role of Ohanyan in the massacre. Please read carefully. Ohanyan is only mentioned in one sentence, which reads:

Paratroopers evacuated the personnel of the regiment by helicopter, but over 100 soldiers and officers remained in Stepanakert and joined the Armenian forces, including the commander of the 2nd battalion major Seyran Ohanyan, who currently serves as a Minister of Defense of Armenia.

This is a factually accurate info, confirmed by Ohanyan himself, and multiple other sources, and mentioned in other articles, like 8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Nowhere does the above line imply that Ohanyan was in Khojaly. He was one of the commanders of the regiment, and stayed behind after the regiment was withdrawn because of its role in the massacre. You can find the same info in the offical biography of Ohanyan, which reads:

1992 After the withdrawal of 366th motorized rifle regiment from Stepanakert continued his military service in the Defense Army of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [60]

So what is the problem here? As for your claim that the article Khojaly massacre is not about the attack on the town, it looks very strange. Do we have 2 articles about Srebrenica massacre, one about the attack on town, and another one about the massacre? Of course not, the massacre was a direct result of the attack, even though people were killed in various locations. So please stop making the same argument over and over, the article must cover all circumstances of the massacre. Grandmaster 07:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In no article is Ohanian accussed. It is simply stated that he was a commander. Role of 366th regiment is indisputable in presence of all the sources and it should not be removed. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)