Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive84

Constant Kusters

A note for review and transparency. Having seen this article at AfD (here, I blanked the article of a substantial amount of largely negative unsourced content (here). The article is now a stub although as I don't speak Dutch I'm not even sure the source properly supports the content of the stub. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Brown

An editor wants to add material to Jerry Brown, the biography of the former governor of California and current candidate for that office. It concerns whether Brown was the inspiration for a character in a 19790 movie. The offered sources are an IMDB reader review and a number of blogs.[1] While it's certainly possible that Brown was the inspiration, I think we'd need the same high quality sources for this as we'd expect for any assertion about a living person. This has been discussed at Talk:Jerry Brown‎#Americathon, but I don't think we're getting closer to consensus. Other views?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're correct however the editor is saying that they have a copy of a 1979 New Yorker magazine as a source. Ask them to scan and upload an image. Or someone needs to go to the library and check for themselves. FWIW, I cannot find any online reliable sources making this claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if the New Yorker says so then that's a great source. But the clip that I saw of it at their website says it's a parody interview, so it's unlikely to be making a critical judgment of a movie.[2] I've asked the other editor to post an excerpt of the relevant text.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Will has placed an unfairly narrow requirement on this particular statement, but I have contacted the writers. I'm going to add that the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb proposal failed to reach consensus and is, in fact, a failed proposal. The addition of multiple other sources AS BACK UP of what is essentially an opinion certainly confirms such a statement. I'm working to find more information.Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, sources must be published in some form. Personal correspondence is not allowed to be used as a source, if I'm not mistaken. But the screenwriters may be aware of some interview or article about the movie that identifies the inspiration.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo, this is easy enough to resolve. Can you scan a copy of the article and upload it so others can verify? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who subscribes to the New Yorker will be able to access the August 27, 1979 issue and read this article if they are willing to click through enough screens. The article is on pages 74 and 75 of that issue. Send me email if you want more info. The article gives no explicit support for the view that the main character (the President) is based on Jerry Brown. The article is a serious review by Veronica Geng of three movies, one of which is Americathon. Here's the relevant section:

The first joke is nearly the last. Over some pictures of dinosaurs, a narrator says then when dinosaurs died, they turned into fossil fuel, and that "Jimmy Carter became President when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of dead dinosaurs." The movie was made at a time when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of Jerry Brown jokes, but it relies on them for fuel.

I wonder if somebody could have been confusing two different New Yorker articles in 1979. There is another one, dated 23 April 1979, page 41, titled "Gov. Beige". It is easy for the reader to assume this is a spoof of Jerry Brown, whose last name is also a color, and the connection is made explicitly in the article's abstract, which is available to anyone online (even nonsubscribers) here. The abstract says 'Parody of the way Gov. Jerry Brown speaks.' This spoof article, by Patti Hagan, makes no mention of the movie Americathon. So we have no written support from the New Yorker in 1979 that the President in Americathon was intended to be Jerry Brown. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that more careful analysis. I'm the guilty one with confusing 1979 articles. Yet, it sounds like the end conclusion may be the same: that neither article supports the assertion. At best, this seems like a bit of pop culture trivia rather than a significant criticism of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Al-Habib

Resolved

 – deleted

I just stumbled on this article while vandalism patrolling. It appears to me that it has serious problems from several perspectives and requires some close attention. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems to meet the criteria of speedy deletion as an attack page, I've taken the liberty of nominating it, and have blanked it as requested in the deletion template message. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully it was deleted swiftly by Excirial. Apparently it began innocuously, and a user maliciously turned it into an attack article. An administrator may want to look into the now disappeared article history and take appropriate steps. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bimbapboo

Resolved

 – blocked Guy (Help!) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bimbapboo (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose attack account. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Nygard

I'm afraid this is turning into an edit war, and thought I'd check in here for some advice on what to do. I don't think it is correct to include the (removed) section on human trafficking given that there's just one primary source. It gets added, I remove it, it gets added again, etc. I made the bold move of removing it (again) until a consensus is reached on Talk:Peter Nygård. There's a couple of reasons this is concerning: it isn't properly sourced material and doesn't match my novice interpretation of WP:BLP, and Nygard has a history of launching libel lawsuits. I'm new to this, help me do the right thing. Alexthepuffin (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, those are some very strong allegations to be backed up only by a single source. The video clip won't stream outside Canada, but I looked up a couple alternate news clips of the allegations, and they were softer in tone. I strongly suggest sourcing that claim with a second source, making sure whatever said is in both refs, and putting Nygard's side of the story in as well (I believe he's chalking all this up to 2 disgruntled employees).

That said, quite obviously no one should be blanking the section, but we do want to be careful about giving the claim undue weight, especially when it includes things like sexual conduct with minors. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the human trafacking part, there is nothing to actually say that the subject had anything to do with it at all, its being coatracked onto him, it belongs at the company talkpage for discussion there it looks awful dramatic and tabloid type content to me. I would trim it right back if I was going to include it on the company article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nyguard still needs some eyes, a new account is adding content to both articles. I am to busy to check. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

David Miller

Possible Conflict Of Interest/ Wikibombing: I nominated this for deletion as the subject seemed laughably below the bar for notability, and the article text had numerous issues.

Initially, the only person who objected was a person who I strongly suspect as being the subject of the article. Then, four days later, the delete notice is suddenly flooded with "keep" votes from IP editors (and two registered users who haven't edited in years). Looks like a clear case of Wikibombing, from this being posted to a Linux forum somewhere.

I don't really have any emotional stake in this, but I wondered if there was policy to cover this sort of situation. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would let it go, you could add — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. to any such accounts or IP's which will discount or diminish their votes , chalk it up to experience and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The AFD already has those along with a Template:Not a ballot message mentioning it was linked to from [3]. In such a case, there's really not much more to do, and the closing admin would presemuably have considered this in closing the discussion, remember this isn't a vote. Ultimately it appears keep won because there are sufficient reliable sources discussion the subject. Edit: Er I see those were added later, I guess from this discussion. Anyway I'll leave my comment for the benefit of other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep; the delete request prompted a couple editors to rework the article entirely, so it wasn't a total waste by any means. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine "wikibombing" sounds a lot cooler than it actually is. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay Park

Jay Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article in question is subject to vandalism and numerous BLP violations. There is some difficulty in addressing this as the majority of the sources are in Korean. -Reconsider! 08:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If no Korean editors are available to assist I suggest removing any especially contensious claims and semi protecting the article for a month or so. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Rifkind

Content issue now being discussed on talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne gangland killings

This article looks to me to be a BLP mess. I've started going through removing parts of the article that associate living people with crimes or criminal enterprises without reliable sources. But other sets of eyes would be warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I am trying to get something sorted out.

I am concerned about biased and potentially inflammatory language being posted in the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords), specifically under the "Gun Rights" and "Outsourcing" headings. The statements under these headings clearly violate Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I have a conflict of interest, so I am hesitant to make edits myself. Rather, an impartial third-party editor should take a look at the page and I am happy to provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.

Thanks,

Stephanie4815162342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie4815162342 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords. I've tweaked the Outsourcing section but I'd like to hear your concerns about the Gun Rights section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gun Rights section is technically accurate, however its incompleteness makes it one-sided. I would like to add the following: "Giffords touts her status as a 'long-time gun owner.'(1) In 2008, she joined in the amicus brief for the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the appellate court ruling that overturned the controversial DC gun ban.(2)

1) http://giffords.house.gov/2008/09/VOTESTOREPEALBANONHANDGUNSINTHENATIONSCAPITAL.shtml

2) http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf

I would also like to expand the "Outsourcing" section to a more complete and accurate "Immigration" section which would include the following edits and additions: "In 2008, Giffords introduced legislation to raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa) from 65,000 per year to their pre-2003 levels of 130,000 per year. Detractors, including programmers' unions, felt the increased cap would put existing workers at a disadvantage. Supporters of the increase, such as Microsoft Founder Bill Gates, said the move was necessary for high tech companies to recruit and retain world-class high-skilled workers.(1)

"Arizona's 8th Congressional District is one of 10 in the country bordering Mexico. Giffords has been an advocate for stronger U.S. – Mexico border enforcement, sponsoring or cosponsoring legislation to increase Border Patrol personnel in the region and provide them with 21st century technology (H.R. 1867).

Giffords supports stronger penalties against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She sponsored the Employee Verification Amendment Act (H.R. 6633)(2) and cosponsored the New Employee Verification Act (H.R. 5551)(3) to improve federal programs to verify citizenship of new employees (4).

1) http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid183_gci1306494,00.html

2) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06633:

3) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05515:

4) http://giffords.house.gov/2009/10/effort-to-extend-improve-employee-verification-program.shtml

Beyond these specific changes, I am still concerned that there are users making edits to this page who are not making them in good faith. I'm not sure what procedures Wikipedia has in place for these situations, but I wanted to be sure and flag it for you. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please copy the above to Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords so editors interested in that article can comment. I (and probably others) am now watching that article so any changes will be scrutinized more closely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved it over to Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords -- thanks for your attention! Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can another editor please scrutinize the edits of User:Parallel process? [4], [5] makes me think some synthesis is being used to subtly twist the subjects' view on outsourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat and other related articles

• Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See user's contribs for other affected articles

• • Lord Lovat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Chiefs of Clan Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scolpaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

May also involve this IP (probably a simple not-logged-in)

• 86.147.59.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Serious POV pushing related to some off-wiki dispute (Lord Lovat's estates and one or more tenants). Although the content added is minor (mostly linking to an off-wiki campaign site as if it were RS), it's widespread and needs action.

The user's talk seems quite up-front about their agenda and intentions towards WP, none of which appears acceptable to the project's aims:

Internet name of tenant of Lovat Highland Estates who has legitimate and established issues with aforementioned Lovat Highland Estates.

If this doesn't concern you keep your beak out of it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now edit-warring too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gave him a uw-npov3 and he seems to have stopped for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Sherrill

Jackie_Sherrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea to leave identical notes on both of the IP's talk pages. Explain what they've done wrong and where they can go to get more information on the issue. You've brought the issue up on the talk page, so I don't think there's anything wrong with you reverting the edits until something is done about it. If it gets into edit-war territory and the IPs won't discuss it in spite of your best efforts you may want to request temporary protection for the page but I don't think you're there yet. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the protection. I did post the message to the 3 most recent IPs. We'll see if between that and the protection it's enough to ward it off. Thanks again Erusdruidum (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the protection wore off, it was re-added verbatim from another very similar IP with nothing on the talk page. How frustrating. Erusdruidum (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And again. What are the options here? Longer term semi-protection? Erusdruidum (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Once more, this time with the user adding information to the article itself (not the talk page) about how he can't find a reference to the article online... No response on the article talk page, or any of the talk pages for the IPs he's posting from. Help? Suggestions? Erusdruidum (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I left a template asking the IP to not do it, the content is not really a big issue or defamatory or anything like that, it is just a bit pro the subject, imo it's not much of a problem and just reverting and requesting discussion for the time being, its on my watchlist, but as I said just revert and ask the ip to discuss and lets see how it progresses, regards. Perhaps ask User:Bearian who semi protected the BLP for a week to semi protect it again for a couple of weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

On first blush, there isn't much of a BLP problem with this article. But digging a little deeper, I'm detecting serious problems related to whether the claims in the article are actually supported by the citations. In many or most cases, the article attributes claims to citations that do not fully support them. My efforts to clean up the content and realign our concrete statements with what citations actually say have met with serious resistance on the article talk page, including personal attacks and a general tendency to spend more energy discussing my motives than discussing article content.

Most grievously, some editors have unambiguously argued that because the subject is an accused terrorist, WP:BLP does not apply to him, and have reverted my efforts to clean up the article without discussion beyond personal attacks and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship on my part. I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant, but without help, I do not see any alternative. More eyes please, before this boils over. --causa sui (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear which of the positions you've taken on that article's talk page you would like us to focus on here. Is it that you still want to reduce size of two pictures to half of what you admit is the Wikipedia guideline size? Despite the fact that the people in the pictures are mentioned with the subject of the article in 130,000 ghits ... because in your POV the pictures are "not entirely encyclopedic"? Or was there another more grievous issue that you would like us to focus on?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• After a brief run at ANI, the article is now fully protected and I invite interested parties to discuss potential BLP concerns at talk:Anwar al-Awlaki. –xeno^talk 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thundera_m117 userboxes

I suspect that there may be problems with two userboxes on Thundera_m117's user page. One (shown on the bottom lefthand-side) carries the text "This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel" and shows a picture of Noam Chomsky; the other (shown in the middle on the lefthand-side) carries the text "This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference". Since the user edits irregularly, I edited the user page to remove what I thought were probably BLP violations, leaving the editor a message to explain what I had done. The user has now reverted my edits.     ←   ZScarpia   15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps this is better at ANI? Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Noam_Chomsky article, he is not described or catagorised as an anti semite there so it may well be an issue to portray his as such in that way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I was working on the principle that this is the place to bring possible BLP violations, not just issues concerning articles on living people. Any suggestions?     ←   ZScarpia   17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While the BLP related userbox problems can be discussed here, I wonder whether it might be better to discuss them someplace else. Specifically some of them even not dealing with LP seem close to a violation of Wikipedia:Userbox requirements for "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." E.g. "This user believes that Hitler and Muhammad were the two most evil men". We tend to be fairly lenient with userboxes and userbox discussions are usually messy e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox & Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist but it may be worthwhile in this case if you don't get anywhere with discussion with the user. In terms of the LP userboxes issues, we've tended to be fairly strict on those in recent years AFAIK, e.g. [6] so they're probably a clearer cut issue although I wouldn't edit war over them. P.S. If any of the userboxes are transcluded subpages then you can of course us the MFD process. P.P.S. Just to re-emphasise a point, it's probably best to enter into more discussion with the user before taking this further, given my history I don't believe I can help so won't bother. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   23:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new incident at the WP:ANI noticeboard: User:Thundera_m117 userboxes.     ←   ZScarpia   01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in women's sports

• Homosexuality in women's sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sectionHomosexuality in women's sports#Notable lesbian.2C gay and bisexual_athletes is a mess. Because we have List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, which is well-cited, do we even need this page? It sounds like something that would much better serve as an overview article rather than a list. NW (Talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as it is one of the articles that has a LGB Template I have left the project page a note about this thread here . Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a problem, only three entries have a source, all to the same site. The others have links to wiki pages on them, and may have some sourcing there. We have pretty clear guidelines on this - we do not report rumours, but reliably sourced reports, such as the individuals' own words. I'd be tempted to get rid of this article, because as it stands, without considerable effort, it violates BLP policy. Anything worth covering should be in the List article - and the names could be copied over to the talk space in case anybody who maintains that page wanted to look at adding these in with appropriate sourcing. Mish (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked a random 4 from the list of 32 and they all had sources, and the claims were not controversial. I don't think it would take considerable effort to add the sources and remove names which are unsourced or controversial, so I don't think it will take considerable effort to make this page BLP compliant as the work has already been done at the relevant individuals pages. Delete the ones that haven't been sourced, copy the sources across from the ones that have, and don't let anyone add any new ones without updating the relevant persons article. Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kazi Zafar Ahmed

Resolved

• Kazi Zafar Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel a little out of my depth with this one as I rarely edit political articles. The article is virtually unsourced with only a single source (not inline cited). POV issues aside for the moment, my main concern lies with the use of words such as "corruption allegations", "misappropriation of funds" and "political vengeance"; all unsourced. There appears to be an older, weakly cited and substantially different version of the article here. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it could be a copy vio, but this http://www.abitabout.com/Kazi+Zafar+Ahmed is legitamate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused - the link you provided is a self proclaimed wiki mirror. Are you saying the information in the Ahmed article is legit? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the mirror and thought it was a copy vio but the content in the article now looks fine Actually looking at both versions it is pretty much ok and he's clearly notable, but it should be either stubbed back or cited. There are a few citations on the old version and I saw a couple more, it just needs a interested editor to buff it up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that he's clearly notable, my concern is that there is a large swath of unsubstantiated claims including corruption allegations and the insinuation that the allegations were mocked up by the government. There are no references included in the article to verify the info, the single link included makes no mention of it. I have to log off for a while; I will likely pull out everything contentious and unsourced when I'm back (unless someone has additional input or edits that article while I'm away). Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There were allegations and charges but they should be cited I agree, feel free to trim it back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled out anything possibly contentious and left a note on the talk page regrading neutrality and sourcing. Given articles such as this and this it appears that the article was certainly only presenting one side to the story. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Delmart Vreeland

I don't even know where to begin. Just look at it. Should be speedied in my opinion, which I'll do if nobody objects by tomorrow. --causa sui (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a mess but the extreme claims do appear to be verifiable. http://cbs4denver.com/local/Delmart.Vreeland.douglas.2.848122.html. Personally I would support clean up and improve but he may not meet WP:GNG I have only had a quick look to see if the content was defamatory. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Badly referenced and not-notable tinfoilhattery. Delete with extreme prejudice.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your right it is very poor. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone to afd, where all 9-11 tinfoilhattery belongs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delmart Vreeland.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Francois Serveniere

• Francois Serveniere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - {{BLP unsourced}} tagged as unsourced and non neutral. Though warned, here and there, Ennerear simply removed 3 times the template, here, here and there. Racconish ^Tk 07:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempted to afd that. It looks like promotion of a non-notable artist.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It does appear to be a promotional fluff piece. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe-job

See the names at the end of [7], the accounts have been renamed but there are several pages of suspected sockpuppet investigations etc. where a copy-paste replacement needs to be done. I have no bot-fu so have to do it the hard way, if anyone can help out by fixing this before tomorrow then please do. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, you are looking for a bot to replace the signatures with the new user name? –xeno^talk 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful but there aren't many pages, I did the first one using Copy & Paste. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay Lyon (musician)

Jay Lyon (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor 66.108.95.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting edits to an article he claims is about him, specifically about his former name (now works under a stage name), but his undo also removed other references. The source for his old name is an interview where he talked about the reasons for his own name change! I would like some other eyes on it to confirm that the article is not unreasonable nor has WP:UNDUE weight, on what is a fairly lightweight minor celebrity.The-Pope (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Busty Heart

Another OTRS ticket, this time from Busty Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is an edit war spanning some tens of edits on the talk page between the subject and various others, reinserting a fatuous comment about the porn industry (this person is not involved with pornography). I don't know how we can go about reinforcing the fact that edit-warring with article subjects - especially over asinine comments on a talk page - is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kirtanananda (poor sources were tagged in August 2009)

• Kirtanananda Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This diff - is a summary of the dispure of the tv documentary, self published book by one of the authors of the article Henry Doctorsky[8] is disputed along with (selfpublished) IUniverse ;-) book After the Absolute: Real Life Adventures with a Backwoods Buddha which is proposed to be used along with self-published periodicals. Issues brought up here in August09[9], but no conclusion reached on this 'swami'. Come on folks just let us get to the bottom of it, Kirtanananda is a known, notorious criminal, well victimised for the crimes and for being gay (not self-confessed at the time), a helping hand from those who know the BLP policy is really welcomed. Thank you for your comments. Wikid^as© 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the editor is convinced that a documentary by a fairly prolific documentarian and distributed by a PBS is unacceptable as a source. I don't think anyone actually disputes that Henry's book is not an appropriate source. Similarly the so-called self-published periodicals were an official publication of the community of which K Swami was the leader. That seems a fair enough source for statements about the community representing the viewpoint of its leaders. Sure it would be great to have better quality sources, but that does not justify gutting an article. It might well be that the documentary is only a collection of interviews and might even be pushing a POV. In that case, the artful editor will be careful to attribute controversial assertions in a way that makes it clear it is the opinion of the speaker being presented and not necessarily the entire unblemished truth. The documentary is at the very least a verifiable record that quite a lot of people who were formerly close associates now have a very different opinion of the swami. older ≠ wiser 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bkonrad, why do you insist on using a documentary if [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] clearly exist and are more than sufficient? Just wondering? Wikid^as© 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to using a documentary? No policy prohibits or even deprecates using published video sources as references. Just wondering. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides what is listed on the RSN and the reasons why it fails. It is a documentary over 3 hours long!! Besides the point that you can not expect others to watch it all, as you yourself confirmed we can not be selective about what parts of it we use. [15] According to the author he did not get to the bottom what actually happened, in the filmmaker's own words, it remains "murky". In the Wikipedia terms murky means 'poor source'. I know you will not agree, so it makes very little sense in arguing with you. That is why the notices were put up in both BLPN and RSN to get a neutral view. Wikid^as© 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being too long is not a disqualification for being a source. That's just ridiculous. You had put the source up on BLPN and RSN and got absolutely zero response, so that hardly provides any support for your interpretation. Because the documentarian does not draw a conclusion about "murky" events does not mean that the documentary itself is murky or unreliable. That is your spin. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Too long is not a disqualification, to be selective from a volume of primary sources joined together is. It is also hard to reference to the video source (not impossible), you just can not ask for an exact referencing that complies with WP:CITE. Just be honest and find one contentious issue anywhere in a good article or feature article of BLP of criminals, where the source is a documentary without a single critic's review? It is either a poor documentary or investigation was not done properly. 3 Hrs documentary broadcasted on a TV and not a single page with a reliable review? Good grief. I am dully impressed by your desire to ignore other sources. In any case, it is the duty of editor who adds it to the article to ensure that this source is good, so far no good response at RSN board. And no, it was not me who put this source on that board. However even if it is a good source in general -- it is hard to imagine it will qualify as a quality source for BLP contentious matters. Lets wait and see if anyone thinks that documentary that got no reviews since 1996 from a single critic is a suitable source. I rest my case. Wikid^as© 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever you might be "dully impressed" by, I have not expressed any resistance whatsoever to other sources. They would be welcome. My only issue here is why you seem so obsessed with deprecating the documentary and the community publication Brijabasi Spirit. older ≠ wiser 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

True, you did not start the current thread on WP:RSN, though it was in response to your edits, and which nonetheless has not seen support for your interpretation. I was thinking of your previous attempt, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Video as RS for BLP, which likewise did not generate any support for your position. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate my opinion here that the documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority) can be used as a legitimate source in the Kirtanananda Swami article because the documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. It also contains numerous direct quotes from Kirtanananda Swami himself, and many of these quotes can be read here: Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. My opinions on this matter can be read on that talk page, and also here on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. I think the evidence that I brought up on the talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). As I've stated previously, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee. The extent which this individual has gone to remove this material and keep it from being used further adds to my view that perhaps someone is trying to censor these things in some way, shape or form, and is perhaps trying to hide behind a warped view and a twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policies in order to manipulate things by throwing out all sorts of pseudo-wiki-legal-speak in a possible attempt to discredit legitimate published sources. In my opinion, it seems to be a possible attempt at undermining legitimate published material, and I do not believe this type of thing is good for Wikipedia. So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate facts instead of my opinion, the documentary did not recieve any awards, nominations for awards, no reviews by critics and excluding it is not a censorship , but following the guideline of the WP:BLP. I have no objection on expanding on it on Jacob Young page obviously. But first you have to get me a reference to a review to take it seriously. Wikid^as© 13:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that a documentary needs to have won or been nominated for awards or been reviewed by a critic to be considered reliable. It does need to have come from a reliable source; the director seems to have made documentaries that aired widely, and won an Emmy, which seems to qualify him. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GRuban, a documentary doesn't need to win awards to be a good source. This is ridiculous criteria. This really has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines now, and seemingly everything to do with removing good information from a page. Check out this sentence from Wikidas, "But first you have to get me a reference to a review to take it seriously". This comment is ridiculous, and it seems that Wikidas will say just about anything to try and stop this good source from being used. In my opinion, this guy is nuts! Well, I don't know if it's won any awards or not, but according to the following web pages it is still being shown at different film festivals: A Basic West Virginia Film Festival: Using Films and Videos in WVLC Collection August 2003 West Virginia Library Commission, and Appalachian Film Festival Huntington, West Virginia April 23-24, 2010 (that is this weekend), and here's a link that indicates the documentary was shown at a film festival in Bavaria, Germany, back in April of 1997. There's an excerpt about the documentary in The Charleston Gazette written by Mary Wade Burnside from 1996 here, and that can also be read on the official page for the film here. So, it's not like this thing is completely unknown. Jacob Young has won an Emmy Award for his documentary filmmaking, and this weekend he's going to be in Huntington, West Virginia, showcasing a collection of his films (including "Holy Cow Swami"). I think the film is a good source, and is acceptable to be included as such in the Kirtanananda Swami article. Geneisner (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing" -- redux

I am sorry if I seem to be bringing a question here that seems repetitive.

Four days ago I asked for third party input on a series of excisions of passages that had been justified, in part, based on a concern those passages were "dehumanizing". It was my impression that no one shared the concern of the excising wikipedian that the passages in question were dehumanizing, although some respondents had other concerns.

Subsequently the wikipedian who had that concern has continued to excise these passages, as they did to the article on Abdul Rahman al-Amri, the fourth Guantanamo captive to have been reported to have committed suicide. On Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri they wrote:

Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions. I have no doubt that the Identity section had "dehumanizing" character and was WP:OR and the section has been removed for at least WP:OR that was the result of the discussion.

I responded, "I am not sure whether you are saying that since you think "Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions", that you are authorized to ignore the opinions offered at BLPN, or whether you think some of the contributors who responded there would share your opinion this edit was authorized on the grounds the section you excised was "dehumanizing"."

Either way I am concerned, because I thought the consensus was clear -- and that none of us is entitled to simply ignore the consensus of a discussion.

I just initiated a discussion over at WP:NORN, over the assertion these passages lapse from WP:OR.

If possible I'd like this discussion to be confined to the question of whether the excision of this passage was authorized by WP:BLP, and have discussion of whether or not the passage was dehumanizing take place at WP:NORN.

If possible I'd like to request that any other concerns with this passage take place elsewhere -- I suggest Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri.

Thanks in advance! Geo Swan (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said four days ago on a near-identical passage, this content has BLP and false light issues, not the least of which court documents are specifically excluded as valid material under BLP policy. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I noticed your false light concern first time around.

First, these documents are't "court documents". The Guantanamo CSR Tribunals and annual status reviews are not legal procedures -- a point the officers who run them repeated over and over again, when the captives asked why they weren't being allowed legal advice.

Second, WRT to the "false light issues", the US Judicial system addressed the question of whether publishing these documents damaged the captives' privacy. The Associated Press had sued for access to these documents under the Freedom of Information Act. And the Department of Defense declined to make the documents available. The DoD did not claim publication of the documents would damage National Security. Rather they claimed they could not publish them because doing so would damage the captives' privacy. The AP sued the DoD. US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff heard the case. FWIW he ruled that the publication of the documents did not damage their privacy. No, I am not suggesting the wikipedia is actually bound by Rakoff's ruling. But I think it is worth noting that he thought the publication of the documents was actually in their interest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Third, the passages that provide references for Abdul Rahman al-Amri's inconsistent identification don't use any transcripts or court records of any kind. They do use memos that list allegations against the captives, but these memos are, I suggest, more accurately described as "intelligence summaries", not transcripts or court records. I would be very interested in discussing your concerns over transcripts, but I would be grateful if the question of whether it could be discussed somewhere other than this section where I hope to have resolved whether this edit, and those like it, represented BLP problems. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few more examples of such sections. [16],[17], [18], [19], [20] we have 600 - 700 hundred of these BLP's and they are often solely based on primary source and in addition these primary sources are often heavily redacted. Just to give some background information.

I continue to believe that these sections are "dehumanizing". These section put the identity of the detainee in question by listing large collections of name variations mostly found in primary sources. This has been done by just one editor who has nearly created the entire Guantanamo section. One could even think that they get paid to spread this propaganda. But this is just IMO.

Sure there are other POV on the "dehumanizing" issue and if this would be a valid reason for removal. I am not a fan of WP:wikilawyering and if other people think we should not remove material that is "dehumanizing" that's fine with me.

But i continue to claim that these sections are mostly WP:OR and i agree on the false light and the concerns that most of it is based on primary sources and from questionable notability. Sure primary sources are valid WP:RS but we have to be careful not to create false ideas by putting them together in a misleading way and not to create ideas that are not there. These sections are unnecessary and un-encyclopedic and there is not doubt for me that it is better to remove these sections and to put the notable alternate names into the field of the info box. IQinn (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The references which Iqinn insists on calling "primary sources" are intelligence summaries. In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the SCOTUS ruled the Guantanamo captives had to be told why they were being held, and had to be given an opportunity to try to refute those allegations. These are not "court documents", and they are not "primary sources". The authors of these memos read, collate, interpret, reconcile ambiguities and contradictions between the info on intelligence reports from the DASD-DA, FBI, CIA, CITF, JTF-GTMO, Southcomm, among others. The collation, interpretation and reconciliation of ambiguities and contradictions of info from other documents makes these secondary sources.

User:Iqinn's contribution history shows they have used hundreds of edit summaries that claimed excisions were authorized because the excised material was "dehumanizing". But they have never cited a passage from one of our policies or guidelines to back up that claim. I have been concerned, for a long time, that these claims of "dehumanizing" were simply instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I request those who want to address whether or not this passage lapsses from WP:OR voice that concern at the corresponding section I opened at WP:NORN. Geo Swan (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with name calling. No there is not policy about dehumanizing and we do not have a policy about dehumanizing and we do not need. I have little doubt that we are all responsible enough to remove material from BLP's that is dehumanizing without a dehumanizing policy but you are welcome to draft such a policy and to present it to the community. STOP WP:Wikilawyering. These sections where dehumanizing and had also other serious problems and needed to be removed. And all these documents are primary sources. You call the OARDEC documents now "court documents"? Court documents are usually primary sources and these documents have much lower standard than "court documents". OARDEC is an US military body and the US military is running Guantanamo and many documents OARDEC is summarizing come from the military and other unclear sources. It is absolute unclear how they do these summaries and what quality they have there work and most of the information is classified. They do not have any reputation as working as a secondary source and they do not have an editorial oversight board. They are not what we consider a secondary source. OARDEC is organizing these Tribunals. Your claim that these documents are secondary sources is absolutely wrong and many other editors in the past have told you that. These documents are primary sources.

Looks more like. You do not like other editors to edit your articles WP:Ownership it does not matter how often you shout out your POV, these changes were necessary and have improve the articles and this topic has been discussed above already. Please listen to the community and stop wasting our time by continuing to filibuster over and over again about the same stuff. If you can not accepted that other editors edit you articles than please do not submit to Wikipedia. There are other place where you can publish your research based on these primary sources. IQinn (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Resolved

 – And lo, consensus formed behind the view that we can do without this. And there was much rejoicing. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57#Eric Ely AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination) for more context. There seems to be a beginning edit war. Hans Adler 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mulla brothers

Resolved

 – speedy G10

The Mulla brothers has reliable sources but is rather contentious. Extra eyes appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

G10'ed. There were a lot of reliable sources about gangland stuff, but only one of the references mentioned one Mulla brother by name, for confessing to a crime that would have itself failed notability guidelines. The rest of the references, while certainly coverage of UK organised crime, didn't mention "Mulla" at all, in any context. Overall, there's nothing here worth keeping, and thus it has been summarily deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Boone Middle Name Is John

This article has Aaron Boone's middle name listed as EFFIN. The corect name, from the MLB website, is John. See http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=111213. I can understand why frustrated Red Sox fans might have made this change, but really. This should be fixed and frozen. This part of the page is not editable by a regular member.Kgilbert78 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done thank you, a few more edits and you will be confirmed and could then correct it yourself. We can't protect the article without repeated vandalism as this would restrict good faith users from improving the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Ballmer

Steve Ballmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vandalism, cute and funny but still vandalism. I have semiprotected for a while. Inevitably given his outspoken opinions on open source he is not popular with a lot of technically savvy folks, so we should be alert on this one. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dan Coats

The article on Dan Coats has been getting quite a number of anonymous edits in the past number of days that have been trying to sway the pov of the article out of balance. A number of these edits have centered on his lobbying, gun law activities and current senate run. I have been working on cleaning up some of these conflicts, but I am fairly new at dealing with these types of conflicts so I was looking for some advice on what to do next. Thanks, TheIguana (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Insist on citations, try to keep it as balanced as possible and try to get them to discuss on the talkpage, report any specific violations here. I don't think individual votes should be cherry picked as that gives them undue weight, it is enough imo about the gun votes to just keep the part that starts, While in office Dan Coats supported numerous gun control measures including the 1991 Crime Bill .. adding the other two votes in this recent edit is giving the issue undue weight imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Cornell

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

Subject now deceased - page needs update

Thank you.  Done Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Herb Schildt: BLP notices are being vandalized and not archived

The article on Herb Schildt is in violation of wikipedia's own policies as regards Biographies of Living Persons since it cites two NNPOV polemics, one of which was a copycat drive by, and a book that was mistakenly based on the first NNPOV source.

Furthermore, these notices to this site are being vandalized by someone who apparently sees they are not archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.153 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous notice is archived at Archive 83. And prior notices at Archive 46 and Archive 37 and Archive 45. The "issues" referred to have been the subject of a long, long revert war. Editor User: Spinoza1111 was blocked indefinitely for his behaviour there and on other pages. He continues to make the same edits from anonymous IPs, the above notice being clearly his work.Barsoomian (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

- Wikipedia "Biographies of Living Persons"

This is the policy, and it is quite independent of my harassment by a bunch of half-educated convenience store clerks and the former options speculator Jimbo Wales, who saw fit to make offensive comments at my blog whilst supporting the harassment I have been subject to on wikipedia.

Neither "C: the Complete Nonsense 3rd Ed", nor "C" the Complete Nonsense 4 ed", nor "The Annotated Annotated" can be considered "high quality sources". As Dr. Malcolm McClean concluded last month on comp.lang.c, these are polemics. They are disorganized lists of genuine errors (of the sort that appear in many computer books), trivial pursuits, and linux-centric shibboleths with a clearly polemical purpose of putting down a Windows-centric author helping primarily Windows programmers get started on C.

A high quality source would be an analysis of Herb's "errors" by a reputable academic computer scientist such as Brian Kernighan with at least Herb's track record of publication (Herb has published several books which the market has judged to be of sufficient quality for multiple editions).

But note that although Brian Kernighan did mention the problem of software listings in books being incorrect in his 1975 "Elements of Programming Style", and that Edsger Dijkstra was equally concerned with the cavalier attitude towards bugs exhibited by his colleagues, neither of them ever targeted any author or computer scientist by name.

Why?

Because until Watson, Crick, Edward Teller and Thomas "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn and to a great extent after the 1950s, there has been, in the interest of real scientific progress, a collective agreement, which used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" and has received unmerited scorn for that term, that the focus be on ideas and not individuals; that no one individual need be singled out and made into a byword as was Schildt. Dijkstra and Kernighan were of this school.

It is true that Edward Teller waged a campaign of personal destruction against Robert Oppenheimer, and that Watson and Crick were pond scum who dealt with colleagues and women in bounderish fashion, and that Thomas Kuhn blessed this blackguard conduct as somehow being progress. But in general, real scientists (as opposed to computer thugs and their hosts of frightened clerks) continue to focus on ideas and not personalities...which is why wikipedia is relatively reliable on mathematics and real science as opposed to computer science as it is practised.

However, once corporations commercialize things like DNA and programming languages, the gentleman's agreement means that the "gentleman" loth to name specific scapegoats is at risk for the consequences of speaking truth to corporate power including, here, the corporate power which has ranged itself behind Open Source in order to protect its expropriation of the theft of intellectual production by postmodern slaves.

To criticize Schildt without naming him is to interrogate the C99 and C98 standards, both of which were highjacked by vendors to preserve their investment in bad C compilers. It is to find (for example) that the "void main" controversy results from language in the C99 standard which inappropriately recognized a Linux practice while continuing to allow "freestanding" programs in which void main() is permitted.

It is easier to spend, as Seebach and Feather have spent, minutes gaily and randomly sniping at code snippets and exhibiting what these two individuals think is a superior insight, while trashing Schildt.

The Schildt article is poorly sourced on the work of an individual (Seebach) who was not invited to join the C99 standard, but who paid his way in as a volunteer. Feather's work is slightly better and was reviewed by some real professionals (one of whom I worked with when he was at Princeton). But like Seebach's Snarky Tirade, Feather's is poorly organized as a laundry list of genuine errors (of the sort which appear in many computer books and are indemnified by disclaimers of warranty as is software), trivia, and shibboleth. Feather's is a drive-by, copy cat shooting. Steve Summit witlessly sourced his C FAQ on Seebach and the result has no more meaning than the echoes of the Malabar caves in Forster's A Passage to India.

Edward G. Nilges Hong Kong 21 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.168.124 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: "Edward G. Nilges" is the blocked User:Spinoza1111, ( [21]). Barsoomian (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed another long text by the banned user. I used to be more careful, but in a previous similar case concerning the same page, it was determined that the user is banned. Presumably these confused and unhelpful messages were part of the reason for the ban. The user's argument that he cannot be banned because we are not enforcing the ban with a block of his entire internet provider in Hong Kong is of course absurd. Hans Adler 12:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Philip Vidal Streich

Philip Vidal Streich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article does not deal with a subject of great enough importance to warrant a Wikipedia entry and appears to be written by the subject himself. // 140.247.44.193 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject looks pretty notable to me, he has won http://www.intel.com/education/isef/2007winners.htm award and numerous others, and is some kind of Nano phyisist, totally passes WP:GNG. The article could use a bit of improvement by an interested editor, its also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

we have normally held that student awards do not make for notability in any field at all--the arts, politics, athletics, science; the question is therefore whether his work is citedin professional journals. The standard WP:PROF applies to all researchers at whatever levels. He has three published papers: citations 25, 5, 0. This would not normally be considered anywhere near enough to show him as an expert. But don;t go my my individual opinion or riobob's--see what the community thinks at afd. That's what it's for. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Subramanian Swamy

Subramanian Swamy

I have removed a 'controversy' section from the article, it was added here.

I have placed the information on the talk page.

I do not believe that the facts are covered appropriately in reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look but the removed edits seem to be well referenced. Andries (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The first citation only mentions Swamy once http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1819/18190100.htm saying..

"The cases had their origin in 1993 when Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy sought permission from Governor M. Channa Reddy to prosecute Jayalalithaa on charges of corruption."

this is being used in the BLP to support

"Subramanian Swamy has a record of making defamatory remarks against prominent leaders like Jayalalithaa , Sonia Gandhi , P.chidambram etc , he has been accused of writting articles with false information and has lost lakhs of money due to defamation suits" Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Zac Goldsmith / SpinWatch

• Articles: Zac Goldsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and SpinWatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor Murray McDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly re-adding poorly sourced POV-pushing (coatrack) controversial material on living persons.

The WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV policies have been repeatedly pointed out to him & material removed per WP:BLP. He refuses to stop, preferring insults, complaining the remover hadn't contacted earlier authors and it's all "true" and, most recently, accusations of silencing the truth.

He continued after a level 4 warning on usertalkpage - see his reply, so I reported it [22] to WP:AIV. MuZemike suggested ANI. It's about a living person so I've brought it here.

It will be clear to participants with experience of BLPs that the additions coatrack, poorly sourced to a community blog site whose About page says anyone can contribute an article (somewhat like Examiner.com).

He repeatedly reinserts. Help is requested both with removal and administrative prevention of the living person content violations.92.30.27.56 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Another person replied on the AIV page suggesting 3O, then tagged the article talkpage with it stating "as written appears to cross the WP:NPOV line" and "run[s] afoul of WP:BLP". Unquestionably a good faith effort on his part, but not of course the process needed for poorly sourced controversial content that runs afoul of living persons policy.

Brittny Gastineau, part the third

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

This has been previously covered twice on this noticeboard, here [23] and here [24], as well as in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Brittny Gastineau (See "Bruno" section).

There is once again a discussion going on as to whether or not to include details on the subject's appearance in the movie "Bruno," where she made comments (which she later said were a joke) about the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and abortion.

The consensus has been that including this information is giving undue weight to a comment made in passing in a comedy that all parties agree was a joke, and that it's disparaging to the pregnant person to include details on a trivial mention. The material has been out of the article for months after the previous discussion, but a new editor Reswobslc has come along to readd the information, and claim there is no consensus. I've reverted in hopes of continuing the discussion on the talk page, but I was in turn reverted by 128.104.truth, who was one of the original editors pushing for inclusion of the material, claiming it was "the truth" [25].

I'm not going to edit war over this, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to that article. I see no consensus for omission as Dayewalker claims. Just a lot of people arguing over whether or not consensus exists: "yes there is, no there isn't" style. I readded a much briefer, more factual version that amounts to one well-sourced line that avoids the concerns previously brought up. The line briefly says she appeared, said something about abortion she later called a joke. There should be nothing wrong wit that. Reswobslc (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please present your desired addition and the supporting citations here for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, both can be found in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brittny_Gastineau&diff=prev&oldid=355478887 Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to add this..Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 she appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen documentary comedy Brüno http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/fullcredits#cast, in a talk show scene she later described as herself "joking around" . She is depicted cheerfully agreeing with suggestions that a pregnant teen actress should abort her baby. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=43723

That is correct. It is substantially shorter than the entry past folks were contending over, and avoids mentioning who's baby she suggested be aborted, something others have been concerned about. It is not clear to me why there is any further concern. Reswobslc (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait and get a couple of opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First off I would like to apologize for my previous edit war over this person's page. But I fully support the recent edits that Reswobslc have added to the page. It presents the material I had tried to include, but in a well-sourced and non-controversial way. It acknowledges that it was a joke, but it does include the necessary information. I had previously tried to present it in a controversial manner, and that was my mistake. My previous mistakes should not be a factor in not including this new edit. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 128.104.truth and (especially) Reswobslc that this should be included. The old version that 128.104.truth was a pest about adding was inappropriate to include based on WP:BLP, but the new version (seen above) presented by Reswobslc is appropriate according to WP:BLP and should be included. Unflattering information should not be removed from Wikipedia articles because it is unflattering. If that were the case there would be some articles that would get so reduced that they would barely be a stub. This information is well-sourced and appropriately worded. INCLUDE --Spidey104^contribs 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is unflattering about the comment? Is it that even though the expression is lifted from a comedy show and not real life it could be wrongly interpreted that she is a real life supporter of abortion? Also, who wrote the San fran article? Why does the http address have blog in the title? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When I said it was unflattering I was referring to the scene in general; she looks stupid and ridiculous in the movie. The reference is for how Brittny communicated to the world that she was "in on the joke." Nowadays it is normal for celebrities to communicate this type of information through a blog, twitter, facebook post, etc. That part of the new edit is the least important (in my opinion), but it is the part that softens the impact of the scene and why I feel people would be willing to include it in the article now. --Spidey104^contribs 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that this is a scene from a comedy program where she had a walk on walk of part where adding it to her BLP would give WP:Undue weight and could well easily be misunderstood and the comedy comment be mistakenly assumed to be her personally held opinion, easlily leading to the mistaken understanding that she said this baby should be aborted and that she supports abortion, which as far as I know is a very controversial issue in America. It is a bit like wanting to add to an actors article that he once played a gay actor and wanting to add, in the movie lala John Harrison said he wanted to have gay sex with (add the name of your choice here) it's misleading and risks attributing and asserting the opinions and comments from a comedy movie to the real person. I see it is already added to the bruno/movie article where it has less weight than if it was added to this living persons BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

She wasn't playing a character in this movie. She was herself. She claimed she was "in on the joke" after the movie came out to try and save herself some embarrassment over being duped, but it's probably not what is the truth. It's not undue weight because it is only two sentences in a much longer article. Leaving the comment about the movie as only a statement that she was in it is not putting enough weight to it. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would take even the comment out that she was in the comedy she wasn't named in the credits and is one of the most minor things she has been involved in. She was playing herself, so it is her personal position as regards abortion then? Have we got any reliable citations that also comment on her supporting abortion? Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, don't change the subject of the debate. Until now no one was debating whether or not to include the information about her being in the movie, because that is verifiable (especially if you've ever seen the movie). She is uncredited in the movie because of the way she was duped. The quote is verifiable as part of the film, and the secondary citation is where she claims it is a comment made in jest. As a celebrity I doubt she has made any separate claims on her views about abortion because of its controversial nature. But the absence of additional evidence is not the evidence of absence. This should be included. The new version put forth by Reswobslc portrays it in a proper weight (not undue) and in a reasonable manner. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would never support inclusion of this content as presented, we are encouraged through BLP policy to take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity. In this case it also seems IMO to be a case of Guilt by association to her own comedy comments. I also note your comments here in the thread titled return to the fight seeking support from Spidey104 to add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm certainly glad for the discussion on the matter this time around. 128.104.truth, you were adamant about including this information in the previous discussion because it's your personal opinion this shows "the truth" about her, your above comment about "saving her some embarrasment" seem to indicate that's still how you see it. Whatever your personal opinions are, that's no reason for inclusion.

As for the new suggested version of the incident, I will agree it's better, but I still see no reason for inclusion. It was a comment made in a comedy that no one says was meant seriously. Including it gives undue weight to an off-the-cuff remark, which should be avoided on a BLP.

I'll obviously abide by whatever consensus develops here but my main question is, what exactly does this section add to the BLP? Dayewalker (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daywalker's comments. What exactly is this adding to the article? How did this event affect the subject's notability? If her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including, but it being written up a few times in some blogs doesn't really cut it. It appears that the same reason for not including it to begin with (WP:UNDUE) is still very much an issue. As I understand it, the fact that the content didn't have a source was never really an issue. As I said on the article talk page, just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in the context of Wikipedia. As an aside, all of this talk of "truth" and "fight" is bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND, and is quite off putting. Comments about other editors being "voracious" for following policy and having the gall to establish a consensus is not collegial. Pinkadelica^♣ 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What does it add? It explains what her part in the movie was. For any other actor in a movie you say what the role was. Since she didn't have a role in this movie it is necessary to say what she did in the movie. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:128.104.truth is claiming that there is a consensus to insert this disputed content here with the edit summary 3 for inclusion. 2 against inclusion. 1 neutral. Consensus reached. Thank you for your time. Content is currently back in the article. I dispute that there is any consensus to include the content here and perhaps a few more editors would comment either way to create a clear consensus. If not perhaps an uninvolved Administrator would comment as to the consensus either way, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Should every comment this person makes be included in the article? What makes this comment special? Oh, that's right, some people think it makes her look bad so they want it included. It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm> --Onorem♠Dil 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm>"

I could use the same argument to support deleting her entire page, so what's wrong with including this small bit of information? 128.104.truth (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If gossip pages, tabloids, and blogs were all that were being used as sources, I'd have to say deletion should be considered. It appears that there are a few good sources there though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

128.104.truth, you've seen this article as a battleground since you came to it as an IP. If you think it should be deleted, then AfD it. That doesn't give you a right to assume consensus and edit war on a BLP.

With all due respect, your comment about it being "necessary to say what she did in the movie" makes no sense at all. You've said before it was necessary to show "the truth." It was an off-the-cuff line in a comedy, it's not a political position she's taken. Dayewalker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the omission of this comment based on the fact that it caused no significant public uproar other than the publication of a few gossip column articles (despite their appearance in the SF Chronicle and New York Post) and based on Wikipedia's intentional bias toward sensitivity toward living people. While I think including the statement in the article is fair game and would feel no shame in leaving it there, my pressure has principally been behind excluding it only for good cause, not necessarily inclusion at all costs. I find User:Pinkadelica's argument that "if her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including" to be persuasive. On the other hand, Bruno is a fairly well known film and her appearance there, like it or not, is relevant to her notability to a meaningful extent. Is it fair to suggest that the reference to abortion constitutes the majority of the negativity? I think it would be reasonable perhaps to add (instead of simply saying that she appeared in Bruno, but short of referring to that she sold herself out), that she appeared unwittingly as part of a prank - along with a link to SFGate or NYPost - and leaving it at that. Example: "In 2009, she unwittingly appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen comedy Bruno as a participant on a fake talk show[ref]." Reswobslc (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the content is back in the article and sourced to Page Six no less. Page Six is notorious gossip rag and, as far as I know, isn't considered a reliable source for a BLP. I'm still not seeing consensus to include it, but whatever. It's quite obvious there's an agenda here. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Page Six. How is it notoriously a gossip rag? Can you provide a citation for that? 128.104.truth (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Content that was discussed here and rejected for insertion has been again reinserted today (diff) by User:128.104.truth , I have removed it yet again. What part of no consensus to include is hard to understand? Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You also removed productive edits to the page. Be more careful in the future. And in response to Dayewalker, I do not see it as a battleground, but you must if you're assuming others do. And you obviously misunderstood my point: I do not think that the article should be deleted; but the argument Onorem Dil made could also be made as an argument for deleting the entire article. Which illustrates how useless of an argument it is. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

By battleground mentality, I'm talking not only about you reverting against consensus (now and in the past, leading to the page being locked), but also recent edits like these [26] [27] where you refer to things like your "side" of the "fight." There's no need to personalize this difference of opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recently I have seen users that repeatedly insert BLP violating content with a single purpose restricted from editing the article. I for one strongly support such editing restrictions, such editing not only disrupts the biography of a living person but also totally wastes the time of constructive editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker, to all arguments there are "sides" to the fight, otherwise there is no argument. By the way, notice how I use "argument" and "fight" interchangeably? They are synonyms. For example, I could say I had a "fight with my girlfriend," or an argument with my girlfriend." Stop making accusations of battleground mentality with no real evidence. And may I remind everyone that what I am arguing to include was the original consensus for the article. I know consensus changes, but stop accusing me of adding stuff when all I have done is include information you have decided to censor with little to support your reasoning for unnecessary censorship. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When all else fails, scream censorship! Seriously....why is that the go-to battleground cry? The argument actually might work in this instance if the information were not in the article at all, but since the content clearly states she was in the film (which is, after all, what you want the content to convey, correct?), nothing is being censored. As for you needing a citation supporting my assertion that Page Six is a gossip rag, that's not needed as the website itself states that it provides "Celebrity Gossip". That would make it a gossip rag (albeit an electronic one so forgive my antiquated terminology). If you weren't aware of the page's reputation, now you know. All that being said, I believe this issue either can be wrapped up or some blocks need to be handed out because this same issue being rehashed every few weeks/months is becoming disruptive to the project. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We've gotten completely off the topic. This discussion is now not even dealing with the merits of the addition to the article, and we've fallen back into 128.104.truth edit warring again against consensus, and backing it up with the same old arguments. I agree with the comments above, the next step is blocks being handed out for edit warring against consensus, and possibly topic bans. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinkadelica, do I need to remind you that Wikipedia stays away from the libel you're throwing around? And yes, we have gotten off topic. The information should be included because it is the equivalent of stating what role she had in the film. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How about you actually look up what libel means before you claim I'm "throwing" it around. I didn't mention a particular person and I can't very well make slanderous statements about a website. A website or newspaper column is not a living person. If you want to claim I'm libeling you, spare me. Commenting on your actions on a website under which you don't even use your real name is not libel. You can't cry about being censored and then complain in the same breathe about being libeled when people make observations about your very public actions regarding this article. That's really beside the point because as Daywalker pointed out, this conversation has degraded into off-topic nonsense. There's enough eyes on the situation now so reinsertion of this and any other unneeded content will be dealt with rather swiftly. If you and your buddy Spidey want to keep playing games with the article every couple of weeks, have at it. There's better things to do round here than keep playing these reindeer games. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe thinking before responding to my comments in the future would help. Obviously I was referring to your derogatory comments about Page Six and not your comments about me. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

More eyes are needed at Dell Schanze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Information is being repeatedly by several users added regarding legal arrests and convictions despite poor sourcing. Brad 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't change much - most of the article has piss-poor sourcing. Looks like one of those "let's all laugh at the village idiot" repeating stories.--Scott Mac 23:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at J. Gordon Melton

Thorwald (talk · contribs) insist on inserting material Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) considers libelous OR against J. Gordon Melton Disscussion here Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul_Sheehan_(journalist)

Resolved

The article Paul Sheehan (Journalist) has him labelled as a "conservative commentator" on the basis of these references;

• "Don't silence conservative dissent". The Australian. www.theaustralian.com.au. Retrieved 2010-04-01.
• "Australian Options". www.australian-options.org.au. Retrieved 2010-04-01.
• "Australia: Beach suburbs "locked down" in weekend police blitz". www.wsws.org. Retrieved 2010-04-01.

The first of these doesn't really support the claim. The next two come from Australian Options Magazine, which appears to be a very small publication published as "an open discussion journal of the left". The other source is the World Socialist Web Site. I would have expected that neither would be appropriate for sourcing a BLP claim?

I've posted a message on the article talkpage, but it's not a very active page, so I'm posting here as well. Thepm (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note that this editor has been harassing me in the last few days at my Talk page, after an editing dispute between us at Talk:Ian Plimer. Now he's searched my edit history to find an edit he can dispute. This is it. I inserted the "conservative" tag. Sheehan's a well known conservative who has written numerous articles from the Right perspective. This sort of frivolous and POINTy complaint should not be rewarded or encouraged. ► RATEL ◄ 07:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way, although I do feel that your allegations of harassment are unfounded. I've made some additional comments at the talk page for the article.

I'll note here (as I did there) that I had misread the first article and apologise for my error. My concern with this BLP remains however. Thepm (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have introduced two items to the Bill Moyers article. These items were objected to on the basis of not meeting BLP requirements. Please look over and give your opinion, quoting specifics of BLP policy:

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

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

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

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

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

--Drrll (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried the "according to source XYZ..." formulation? The one online ref looks reasonable, but I would hesitate to use any one source for a controversial statement without such qualification.

That could be done, although it's not required for non-opinion sources like these.--Drrll (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

from reading the source about bill moyers talking to the FBI about King it would be far more accurate to say Moyers only conveyed The President he worked for message to Hoover. clearly any wording to make it seem like it was Moyer's wording or action is jaded and faulty and attempting to make moyers look bad as the orinator of the president's feelings. the source doesn't say that at all.Geopilotwiki

Chris Cohan

Chris Cohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came across this articles and see that there are several controversial statements that could violate BLP. I just want someone who is more knowledgeable to see whether the statements are ok. Thanks—Chris!_c/t 05:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, both the statements I see in the article now (worst owner, owes IRS) are reasonable and have good sources, so the issue isn't one of BLP so much as it is one of balance: why spend half of a stub article trashing the guy? Surely someone must like him and/or his other achievements. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the edit history, this seems to have been tipped the other way. I just looked at the article, and see only positive statements ... not the ones that JClemens says are reasonable and have good sources. Seems like the old "everyone on wiki is a perfect person w/a stellar rep and not one bad thing has ever been said about them" magic trick.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The two sourced negative statements have indeed been edited out.

Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there are private interests astroturfing the Chris Cohan page and censoring it to look better. I find this wildly irresponsible, and not in the spirit of wikipedia at all. -jcreager

I think I will go ask at the NPOV noticeboard. While they are sourced, only adding negative stuff make the article not neutral, violating Wikipedia policy.—Chris!_c/t 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Only adding positive material (or restricting content to positive material) when the sale of the team partially depends on his public image certainly isn't neutral. In fact it constitutes a clear conflict of interest.

Actually I made those posts to make the article neutral, but whatever. I'm done burning the plantlife. If wikipedia wants to act complicitly in misdirecting the public for the monetary benefit of another entity that is not my personal problem, and will only compromise the integrity of wikipedia in the long run. -Nuck

I've replied here. Zagalejo^^^ 01:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As have I. 67.180.72.59 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking at Colleen LaRose

Colleen LaRose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two sections which are causing me concern at the above. I am meeting resistance to having it removed. Please go to talk:Colleen LaRose#COATRACKS Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Vallance

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

An SPA,[28] who appears to be a fan of Stevie Vallance, or possibly even the actress herself is editing disruptively at the page. We had some discussions about the accuracy of the actress' birthdate on the article's talk page, as the birthdate in the article and at IMDB did not match the bio at the actress' website or her appearance in the programs in which she has had roles. For example, in The Ropers she appeared in an adult role while the article and IMDB would have you believe she was only 13. During the discussion, the pages on the website changed to support User:FilmFan123's stance that she was a child actress aged 13 when she appeared as an adult in The Ropers and Knots Landing.[29] The Google cache version of the same page says that she was at least 20 at the time.[30] Shortly after I pointed out that one page on the website still showed that she was 20,[31] the page in question was removed from the website.[32] Fortunately I thought to store a copy via WebCite in case that occurred. That the actress' website was being manipulated as we were discussing it, made me suspicious that at best the actress was watching the discussion and at worst was actually FilmFan123. There have previously been concerns raised at the article that there may have been some COI edits. While this was back in 2007, I assume that it was because it had been edited by User:StevieVallance and was essentially lifted from a previous version of her website.

Today an IP removed two {{Citation needed}} templates from the page.[33] Shortly after I restored them,[34] FilmFan123 added citations from the actress' website.[35] While this resolve the issue identified by the {{UnreferencedBLP}} template on the page, it raised other issues so I added {{Multiple issues}} with three parameters:

• |primarysources= because nine of the ten references used were the actress' own websites (one page was used six times),
• |refimproveBLP= because of the obvious problem that the page lacked references from reliable, secondary sources, and
• |onesource= because most of what is in the article appears to have been sourced from the actress' website.

FilmFan123's response was to remove the entire template. In the edit war that followed (yes, I've already slapped myself on the wrists!) I explained the various issues on FilmFan123's talk page,[36] but FilmFan123's response was to pepper the page with an additional 38 citations and remove the template again.[37] Ten citations from reliable secondary sources would have been sufficient for the claims that had been challenged but I assume the purpose of adding all of these extra cites was to add enough citations so that, in her mind at least, this satisfied the wording of the template. Unfortunately, 38 of the citations are the same page on IMDB. This is in addition to the six identical citations from http://stevievallance.com. I've consolidated the references but I have concerns about the validity of using these references, given that nine of the references are from a primary source and all of the others are IMDB. There's also the issue that most of the IMDB references aren't necessary. Could somebody please have a look at the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill_Frist

Bill_Frist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation // Geopilotwiki (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is mostly a puff piece that is completely misleading by exclusion of hugely relvent factors inhis life. It sufffers edits by some to delete multiple sourced content relating to Frist's HCA source of his huge family wealth and family business as the largest medicare fraud settlement by the history of the US justice department. also Frist father's starting that organization is being deleted while someone insists on keeping him in as a "doctor", Frist's brother running that HCA organization particulary during times when activities occured and Bill Frist was in the Senate working on bills that affected that organization's potential profitability. The exclusion of Frist's FEC violations during the 2000 election. The fact that Frist himself had huge holdings in the hospitable corporation when he was working in the senate to slow down helathcare reforms which would have lessened that company's profits and that it later turned out his "blind trust" for those holdings wasn't very "blind".

on and on

this article needs to be closely watched.

First is considering running for governor of Tennessee and as recently as 2009 appeared on TV lobbying agaisnt Obama's health care reform so this is very relevant and important to a figure still prominent. There is no doubt many supporter or PR companies are trying to make this article a puff piece for his campaign in violation of wiki guidelines about deleting sourced material.

There is so much mentioned about Frist's charity and no mention of the largest healthcare company in the world which made Frist rich and which plead guilty to fraud charges while paying the largest settlement to the US Justice department EVER.

It ridiculous.

I found the above editor's contributions to the article to be poorly written and sourced (there were citations, but tangential to what was synthesized from them and stated in the article), and violations of the BLP policy. I would welcome some other editor's opinions on the recent additions to the article -- Foetusized (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

John Hemming (politician)

John Hemming (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated use of article by numerous IP addresses, two of which have been traced to John Hemming himself and to the main Liberal Democrats office, as a personal advertisement for John Hemming rather than as an encyclopedia article as it should be. POV and unsourced claims have been removed repeatedly, only to be restored by anonymous editors from these IP addresses on numerous occasions. Attempts to have the article blocked have also failed because the disrtuptive edits are not numerous enough to justify an edit block. // Crablogger (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lots of WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES there. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• A fair few yes, but Crablogger is not the person to be editing it either, as he is openly opposed to this man and has a vested interest in putting a negative spin on the article. I'll see what I can do, I'm registered in Coventry NW at the moment and I'm not intending to vote this election, so I can be a bit less biased! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Madhuri Gupta

Madhuri Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came across Madhuri Gupta while doing new pages patrol and tagged it as an unreferenced BLP PROD. It's been somewhat improved since then and the prod tag removed but I am concerned about the article because of its newness and the passions this sort of thing can inflame (this woman has been arrested on suspicion of spying on India for Pakistan). I've already removed some drive-by attacks, and removed her from the categories "Spies" and "Pakistani spies" (after all, she's not been convicted). I'm posting here hoping that a couple other neutral parties will add the article to their watchlists and help me clean it up a bit and ensure that it doesn't devolve into an attack page. Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

G10'ed it as an attack page. Even if sourced, we don't do entirely negative articles on people. She's not a notable criminal, and hasn't been convicted of a crime. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Brons

Andrew Brons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mr. Brons is an MEP for the BNP, and a candidate for the UK General Election on May 6. He was a member of a Neo-Nazi movement as a teenager, and is quoted in the article as saying "People do silly things when they are 17. Peter Mandelson was once a member of the Young Communist League but we don't continue to call him a communist."

Various users have attempted to add Brons to the category Category:British neo-Nazis. I believe that as a living person, it is inappopriate to have the highly pejorative label 'neo-Nazi' at the bottom of the page, given that the subject of the article has repudiated it, and it is clearly a damaging accusation, even among many sympathisers with Mr. Brons' current brand of politics.

The claim for inclusion of the tag is that the tag actually means 'current and former' Neo-Nazis, and that this is explained, not on Mr. Brons' page, not on the Category British Neo-Nazis, but no less than three clicks away on Category:Neo-Nazis.

I do not see that it is sufficient to justify defamatory labels on the basis that 'the category actually means something else' from what it says. Here the plain and simple reading is that Mr. Brons IS a Neo-Nazi, and there is nothing to justify this claim. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As you have been told, more than once, on the article talk page, if you want the wording of the category changed, the proper venue is WP:CFD. There is no BLP violation here. The man is an admitted "former Neo-Nazi." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, I'm not interested in the category, I'm interested in the article, which as you woud have it clearly lists Mr. Brons as Neo-Nazi.

You cannot go around sticking highly defamatory labels on people, and then say 'the category actually means something different from what it says'. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--we have held that pejorative categories need to be supported by BLP quality sources. Putting him into a "neo Nazi" category requires as much secondary RS support as saying "Mr. X is currently a member of the neo Nazi movement". If the sources are there, the category can be. If not, then a mention of his "youthful indiscretion" with appropriate support in the text is appropriate. You could create or find a category for ex-neo Nazis and include him in that, it sounds like... Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Still being warred over, unfortunately. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Category removed, article fully protected. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What Mr. Buddi has conveniently failed to mention is that there are multiple reliable sources for Brons having been a Neo-Nazi, a fact that Brons does not deny. And, as the category says explicitly that it is for "current and former" Neo-Nazis, the category is accurate and appropriate. There is, to repeat myself, no BLP violation. The editor who wants the category removed can claim, as he does above, that he is "not interested in the category," but that is where his problem lies. And he should take up the issue at WP:CFD, as he has been told multiple times. This is not the proper forum for this discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're simply not correct. We don't call former Neo-Nazis current Neo-Nazis, nor require a nuanced reading of the categorization details for a reader to understand that no one is claiming that he is currently a Neo-Nazi. In other words, your assertion of the facts are being taken at face value, but your interpretation of policy is entirely rejected. Create a category for ex-Neo-Nazis if you want and throw him in that if you want. Local consensus does not and cannot override BLP. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, where on Category:British neo-Nazis or Category talk:British neo-Nazis does it even mention that the category includes former adherents? Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The top-level catefory, Category:Neo-Nazis, states "This category is for persons who are, or who have been Neo-Nazis". This presumably applies to all the sub-categories of this category. RolandR (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So let's think this through: a reader has to go from the article, to the category, to the PARENT category to see that a current living politician doesn't have to be a current member of a neo-Nazi party to be included in the "British neo-Nazi" category? On WHAT planet was THAT OK? Y'all who thought this wasn't a problem better be glad blocks aren't punitive, because if they were, that level of boneheadedness would certainly earn one. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The category also includes Ray Hill, who became an informant, and eventually an active anti-Nazi. He is certainly no longer a Nazi, but no concerns have been raised about his inclusion. RolandR (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So remove him also Roland. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the 'have been' part is not intended for those who are dead? It may not be the best wording but it may be the intention. Clearly someone who is dead is no longer a neo-Nazi but it probably still makes sense to categorise them Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't analyse 'have been' too closely; the parent category has had about 20 edits in 5 years - it was added in by a user who longer edits and that was it, no discussion preceded or followed this.

IP edits to Thomas Friedman

Resolved

Thomas Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a number of IP edits like this one trying to claim he is a Scientologist. The reference provided do not back up the claim and Im not sure I would view 'adherents.org' as a reliable source anyway. Can we semi-protect this page for a week or two and see if these people either go away or bring a better source to the talk page? Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. The sourcing is potentially mischievous.--Scott Mac 23:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Levi Leipheimer

Resolved

I'm not sure what's happening at http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6813&page=10, but it sounds like they're trying to put false information into the Levi Leipheimer article, then getting it protected so they can use the protection as a source somewhere else. Woogee (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The same thing is happening at List of doping cases in cycling. Woogee (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been protected. Job done.--Scott Mac 08:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Acharya S and Dorothy M. Murdock

There's an ongoing discussion on this talk page which could use more eyes. Questions boil down to:

• What are the standards for including her legal name?
  • Are either or both of the sources which mention the name reliable?
  • Given that no source uses and explicit other first name besides "Dorothy" (with D. M. being the most common), is that a "contentious" bit of information per WP:BLP?
  • Do the subject's alleged privacy concerns allow for the exclusion of reliably sourced name information?

Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talkpage discussion here. User:Jclemens interpretation of what constitutes "contentious material with no sources or poor sources" is here. How material without any source could cause contention among secondary sources I don't know. I'm baffled at this interpretation.

My argument is that if Wikipedia publishes information about a living person that they have chosen to keep private, it better have a good source for it. This is not the case.

• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.
• Be wary of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

The source in question is a Holy Blood, Holy Grail style book. As such, it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts..." It is also reasonable to suspect a feedback loop, as the name appeared on Wikipedia without an RS for many months. The book mentions the subjects name only in passing and does not specify a source. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that your assertion that an RS isn't in fact reliable might be better placed in WP:RSN, but the "is an X style book" is singularly uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the authors have a good reputation for checking facts? How about the book where they claim space aliens built the pyramids? Seriously. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The first name doesn't seem to be well known or widely reported and for that reason appears to be weakly cited, if the subject has alleged privacy concerns why not remove it its not like much information is lost. Is it widely reported to be her name? Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia and we're in the business of sharing information? 100% of the sources which give a first name for Murdock use Dorothy. It's neither unsourced nor contentious, although it is certainly less used than D.M. Murdock. My argument has never been that local consensus couldn't be developed which would remove the name, just that BLP isn't a lever to force its removal against consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the name is not widely reported in reliable sources. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No we couldn't force the name out with BLP policy but it is worth a little discussion and perhaps a straw poll would sort it out? Sharing information yes, but not to be the primary vehicle of this name that she wants to keep private.The first name appears not to be well known or widely reported and is only in a couple of hard to find book comments, reminding me of outing. Is there a citation containing the subject's alleged privacy concerns? Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, nobody is talking about forcing anything. Jclemens insists on portraying it that way for whatever reason. WP:BLP is a core policy and governs biographies of living persons, and it is perfectly appropriate to reference this policy on the talk page.

I think everybody working on the article concedes that the subject has expressed privacy concerns regarding her name. Jclemens says "alleged" because he does not consider her privacy concerns valid. But that is beside the point. Whether or not we believe her concerns are valid is irrelevant. The point is that she is concerned about her privacy. It's not for us to judge beyond that. From here we should apply the policies outlined in WP:V and WP:BLP strictly and conservatively to insure that any sources used are high quality, that the material in question is given reasonable attention and weight in these secondary sources, and to insure there is no circular referencing going on. If not, the name should be removed.

As it stands, Wikipedia appears to be the primary vehicle for this information, and both sources cited appear to have gotten their information from Wikipedia in the first place. Yes, it does look like an outing. Scouring Google books looking for a quote that will make the name stick is not what Wikipedia is about. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I say "alleged" because no one has shown me evidence that Ms. Murdock has, in fact, requested privacy. She has my email address. Leaving that aside, I'm all for legitimate privacy concerns--but trying to hide your first name is not a legitimate privacy concern, doubly so when the name has already been RS'ed. While it is not for us to judge the merits of privacy concerns, it is our responsibility to judge the efficacy and reasonableness of such concerns. If Ms. Murdock is a notable figure, then her name is not just "fair game", but expected information. Think of a celebrity who is known by a pseudonym: we cover their names if they've been RS'ed. No attempt has been made to add any information to the Acharya S article that would allow any unwanted person to contact Ms. Murdock in any way other than her website. It doesn't include her country of residence, year of birth, or anything of the sort. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am with this also, where is this claimed desire for privacy? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

She has never publicly released her name, so it is only "expected" on Wikipedia if it is covered by high quality reliable sources. The fact that USER:Jclemens considers her privacy concerns "illegitimate" is irrelevant. Her name is NOT reliably sourced. That's the basis of this discussion. To reiterate, the source used is low quality and likely got the name from Wikipedia in the first place.

On Tuesday she wrote the following on Facebook: Just an FYI - I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY FULL NAME IN PUBLIC. If you see a site claiming to know my "real name," do not believe it - and do not send me familiar "howdy, yada, yada" messages using it. The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical religious disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family.

Further down she says: I am also the victim of violent crime, including the abduction of my small son out of my arms by three hired thugs, which triggered a nationwide Amber Alert. I had to go into hiding, and I have good reasons to do so.

Apparently this concern is not considered "legitimate" by some editors because the kidnapper already knows her full name. But publicizing her full name on Wikipedia is not going to help her keep a low profile. And it's really not for us to judge; we simply don't know all the details. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So we have an instance where a self-published source conflicts with a reliable source (again: RSN is the place to impeach an RS. Until impeached, both RS that use the name are presumed RS by WP:V). The self-published source that purports to be Murdock still doesn't say what her name is. While assuming good faith that Murdock's security concerns are legitimate, neither this post nor any of those who've taken it at face value have explained how the suppression of a reliably sourced (or even unreliably sourced, for that matter) first name aids her personal privacy and security. If one is serious about hiding from adversaries, one keeps no part of one's identity, including the name. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Google, there appear to be over 90 unique web sites that connect "Acharya S" and "Dorothy M Murdock". Even if Wikipedia were to suppress the name, and even if every Wikipedia mirror followed suit, there are still hundreds of blogs and other postings which use the name--Only two of the top 5 Google results are versions of the Wikipedia article. Thus, an argument in favor of safety and privacy will have an extremely difficult time that such removal would have any material impact of Murdock's security or privacy--the name is out there, it's been picked up by RS'es as well as everyone else, and an argument that Wikipedia self-censoring it would help her security and/or privacy strains credulity. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppression? Censorship? Where did this type of inflammatory language come into play? We're talking about enforcing policy and respecting a living persons privacy. You argue that nobody here has the right to question whether a source is reliable? Give me a break. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm simply noting that the subject has privacy concerns and as such we should enforce wiki policies strictly and conservatively. I am not arguing as Jclemens continues to suggest that we bypass Wikipedia policy or circumvent it in any way. I'm not arguing to "suppress" or "censor" anything. I wish User:Jclemens would stick to the facts rather than engage in senseless hyperbole. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is the removable of undesirable material deemed harmful. Is that not what is being requested? I note that you have entirely failed to refute my argument that such an action would be pointless, and further that you have not advanced an argument to support your assertion that one or both of the sources that use Dorothy as Murdock's first name is unreliable. If you want to win points, argue points. Don't try and make unsupported statements, and then argue how those unsupported statements mesh with particular policies. Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So if we decide to remove her name based on policy, according to you Wikipedia is engaging in censorship. Please. Stop with the ridiculous hyperbole. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There may be all these millions of hits for her names but why have we got the name so weakly cited? Off2riorob (talk)

Because most of those hits got their information from wikipedia. The information was originally released via Christian apologist forums and an attack page was soon created here disseminating the information in 2005. [38] The sources Jclemens cites apparently got the info from wikipedia as well, the second obviously so. No high quality source has independently researched and verified the name, and Murdock has not released the name herself. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

She primarily uses her pen name, or initials. How many more times do we see Sting than Gordon Sumner? There are 90+ cites for the name on the Internet, but only a couple that are clearly RS. The assertion that either or both of the RS that use the name got it from Wikipedia is plausible, but unproven--rather, no attempt beyond bare assertion has been made to actually demonstrate the RS are sourced to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a bold edit, nothing of any real value has been lost and the citations remain. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)\

Censorship is a technical term. Nothing hyperbole about it. You're free to think that my usage is pejorative, but you'd be better served by addressing the points than attacking me for using a technical term. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User JC has replaced it citing repression of cited content , perhaps to close this down the citations could be presented here and we can start a straw poll to see what consensus arises. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize why I reverted it: 1) Multiple RS use Dorothy, 2) None use anything else, 3) Arguments for personal safety are without merit, 4) Wikipedia exists to provide information, such as a subject's name, 5) BURDEN has been met (1,2) 6) Nothing in BLP allows or supports the removal of RS'ed information, even if contentious, 7) The information is not contentious, within the meaning of WP:BLP, to begin with, and 8) Several other editors have opined on the article talk page that the name be kept, but have not followed the discussion to here as those arguing for its censorship have. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note also that a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:BLP#WP:BLP.23Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material has failed to support BLP arguments for removal--the pursuit of multiple simultaneous conversation venues, hoping for a favorable response, does smack slightly of WP:FORUMSHOPping. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I went to the BLP talk page to ask for clarification on what "contentious" means within the scope of the policy. Period. On the one hand you say I have to go to WP:RSN to question a source, but when I ask for a small policy clarification I'm "forum shopping"? The threats, cries of "censorship" and accusations are getting tiresome. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you argue without substance. You refute ZERO of the 8 points I just posted. Calling the attempted removal of disliked information censorship is not incivil and is technically accurate. If you want it removed, argue grounds for removal, not what such removal should be called. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking more at this google result it does look like the name is widely out there and we have citations that support inclusion. I think any harm that could be done has been already done, looks like a case of trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case. Much damage has already been done. Still, having Wikipedia continue to corroborate without strong sources is not good. The point I have been making all along is that

• the material is poorly sourced. The authors do not have a good reputation for checking facts. It's a Holy Blood, Holy Grail style book. They argue that space aliens built the pyramids for example. See WP:BLP#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged.
• It is likely that the material is a feedback loop. The book authors have not clearly researched the fact independently. The most prominent source for this information has been Wikipedia. "Also be wary of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit."

With these concerns in mind, I think the name should be removed. At the very least it should be removed unless there is strong consensus to keep. User:Charles Matthews, myself and now User:JzG have all expressed concerns on the articles talk page. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your interpretation is that is at odds with WP:IRS: "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." Thus, your impugning the authors' reputation doesn't change the fact that Touchstone, a Simon & Schuster imprint, published the name. Dislike it all you want, malign it all you want, but The Masks of Christ is an RS--not a disputed RS, a self-published source, or a low-quality source. It's an RS. Likewise, the Umar article in Illume is also an RS. Note that the two sources are entirely independent of each other and discussing Murdock in completely separate contexts. Hypothetical suppositions that they MAY have drawn from Wikipedia simply aren't compelling--there are plenty of non-Wikipedia, non-reliable sources which use Dorothy as her first name. The burden is therefore on the editor who wants to impeach these reliable sources, and no argument, save that of guilt by association has been advanced to impeach them. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Again you seem to misunderstand basic wiki policy. "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability." (emphasis mine) Your notion that a book need only be published by a major publisher to be considered an RS by wikipedia, no matter the author, no matter the content, is ridiculous. Please tell me that you are not interpreting WP:RS this way. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more thoughts regarding notability and undue weight.

• There is no evidence the sources in question researched and fact-checked the name independently.
• The name has nothing to do with the subjects notability. See WP:NPF
• Nothing of value is lost by removing the name.
• The name is not given any weight by secondary sources - even the sources in question mention the name in passing.

^^James^^ (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Answered conclusively in turn:

• A Simon & Schuster book is an RS, per WP:IRS, until proven otherwise. You may attempt to impeach such a source, but since it is published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial independence, the burden is on those who want to prove it's NOT an RS.
• Wikipedia includes names of every pseudonymous, notable person for whom a name has been reliably sourced. Consensus says "names are included".
• A name is valuable information; losing the name absolutely reduces the information available in the article.
• Of course the name isn't given weight by secondary sources--names are simply facts mentioned in passing.

Thanks for stating substantial arguments, even ones I disagree with. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't publish the every pseudonym of people that have expressed a problem with it and if the name is not widely known. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Even granting that that's the case, 1) she hasn't asked, and 2) it already IS widely known. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, What a load of bullocks. You check one box of criteria that can affect reliability, and suddenly it is an iron-clad source and the burden is on me to prove otherwise. Your continued contortion of basic wiki policy is remarkable. But here you go - more time wasted to jump through arbitrary hoops to point out what should be obvious.

• The authors write "pseudohistories".
• Their works are described as "forays into nonsense".
• Their books are described as "ridiculous sources".

^^James^^ (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Really ^^James^^, pseudohistory? Isn't that a bit harsh? ;) Eugene (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• • So you use a partisan SPS to try and debunk a published reliable source? Sorry, but that's simply not plausible. Even if that were a valid debunk, though, you haven't even addressed the Illume source. Multiple RS, from multiple perspectives, use the name. Multiple non-RS use the name. Neither you nor anyone else has claimed that her name is, in fact, anything other than Dorothy. I'm not the one hanging on to tenuous interpretations of things. Her name meets V through the use of multiple, independent, RS: exactly what policy expects. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

She is notable and well known by her pseudonym (correcting mistaken comment)dorothy. Acharya S. I thought we only had two tiny comments in a google book search? This google search list that you provided google hasn't got any links that look reliable to me? bloga and book reviews written by people that likely found the name Dorothy here. 22:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Try a Google News search. Bingo: an RS mention within the past month. This is in addition to the book references. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There's one book reference and one article reference. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The magazine has over 500 hits on Wikipedia. This is ridiculous. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Rational Skeptic has its own article, which admits it's not peer reviewed and that it has a particular editorial goal. Including its comments on the authors in an article on their book would be entirely appropriate... but that's not the question on the table. Does an opinion published in the magazine about the authors of a reliably sourced book impeach that book's use as a reliable source? I don't see why it would. People are allowed to dislike anything they want--doesn't mean we remove a source from consideration just because another source disputes it--and unless I missed it, the denigration was not targeted at the specific book, was it? Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Skeptical Inquirer. The point is to establish that the authors have "a poor reputation for checking the facts". [39] WP:RS clearly states that authors can affect reliability. Their work was used as a major source in "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. From Wikipedia: "Picknett and Prince likely took [Holy Blood, Holy Grail] at face value and fully accepted their claims that the Priory of Sion was a real, medieval, secret society, while there is substantial evidence that the Priory of Sion is a late-20th-century hoax." [40] Perhaps you can counter with peer reviewed sources that illustrate these authors have good reputations for checking the facts. You have done nothing to establish that this source is high quality. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to establish that it's high quality. You have to impeach this source, as well as the other one, conclusively. You've done nothing of the sort. In academic circles, people with strong opinions call each others' ideas nasty names all the time, yet we don't throw them out. Why is that? Because it takes a preponderance of evidence to delete a piece of writing from the discussion, even if its ideas are roundly rejected. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have quite serious concerns about the quality of the sources used for the forename; and the discussion has migrated here because the Talk page discussion has become deadlocked over interpretations of what BLP policy actually says. Now the authors Picknett and Prince publish in the field of fringe and conspiracy theories: to be scrupulous about the matter, it is not the subject area that is at issue, but the quality of their research on Acharya S, who is an author on topics that most people would regard as related. In other words we are not assessing what the authors Picknett and Prince say about the "Turin Shroud", say, but about a particular biographical matter. If there is attention paid to WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops, I think there are serious issues about possible contamination of the information by (a) gossip from people who are not natural fact-checkers but rumour-mongers, and/or (b) extraction of information, quite unreferenced, from earlier versions of Acharya S. We know more than usual about the main author involved in the article in 2005, because of the arbitration case about the article. Does this raise "reasonable doubt" about the sourcing of the book in question? I think the answer is "yes". Does it support the idea that personal information that can be researched about D. M. Murdock is likely to be there because of malicious "outing"? Undoubtedly - but you may or may not think this is the point at issue here. The source cited from a Muslim news site, I think, should really be set aside: Acharya S is a strong critic of Islam as well as Christianity, the "information" cited is on search engines prominently, and the "feedback" and "malice" arguments seem quite good enough to undermine it (we don't accept random information on the Web as reliable sources anyway).

Which leaves the Picknett and Prince reference, in my view. Some of what they publish is with mainstream publishers (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this at all). I found that their book Stargate Conspiracy from 2000 is (a) with the Sphere imprint, of what was then Little, Brown, (b) apparently not principally researched by them anyway, but by another conspiracy-oriented author called Philip Coppens[41]. That particular book being what it is, I conclude that a serious doubt exists. It really tips the balance for me, to see that in this genre, the "mainstream publisher" brand falls down on quality of editorial scrutiny and assurance; and Picknett and Prince do not necessarily do their own research. If they are collators, rather than researchers from primary sources, then that undermines the credibility of the reference.

One man's view, but on going into this area deeply I ended up with serious worries about the reliability. Other concerns of mine have been mentioned on Talk:Acharya S, and I think is fair to say that I think WP:NPF applies here also, while User:Jclemens rules out that section as irrelevant. I'm also concerned about that as too narrow a view. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

100% of RS and 100% of non-RS suggest that Murdock's first name is Dorothy. If you don't propose that it is, in fact, something other than Dorothy, then you have no reliability concerns. What is D. M. Murdock's real first name? If you say I don't know then you cede my point. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That is four editors here that feel there are reasons to exclude this name and two editors supporting its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And zero of those four have articulated any defensible policy basis: Two have been Murdock partisans appear to have had preexisting desires to remove the material, been searching for a policy basis to justify such a desired outcome, and have alleged much and proved little, and two have been editors who've essentially said "gee, that looks bad" without articulating a policy reason for the removal. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you don't dig yourself any deeper here. Ad hominem is not an argument, and if you are including me as a "Murdock partisan", I would suggest you have no idea what you are talking about. You could look up User:^^James^^'s block log, if you like. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Amended. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As per User:Jclemens suggestion, I have brought the specific issue of whether Masks of Christ is a reliable source over to RS/N here. Hopefully we will get more community input on what appears to be a sticking point. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

It was suggested we start a straw poll. Should the disputed material be removed from the article?

Sorry, but if you want to do this, I want it in an RfC format, preferably back on the article talk page. We're not voting here, and we'll have a forum where a neutral, uninvolved administrator judges consensus, or nothing at all. BURDEN is not subject to consensus. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A reminder: YOU were the one who brought the issue here. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support removal. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reject in favor of a separate RfC. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support removal, subject is not notable or well known as Dorothy and only notable under her pen name, the adding of the weakly cited first name that has mirror issues and outing issues is of such little informative or educational benefit as to be meaningless, so under the circumstsances nothing is lost by removal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Notability does not govern article content, per WP:NNC
• "Weakly sourced" is a subjective statement that fails to address why either or both RS's are inadequate. Did you mean to say "only has two separate reliable sources" or did you mean to impeach either RS? If the latter, please expound upon your reasoning.
• The thought that a person's real name is of little or no value runs counter to overall Wikipedia consensus. Please show me one other en.wiki article on a notable individual who 1) primarily uses a pseudonym or nom de plume in their public releases, 2) is notable under WP:CREATIVE, 3) has at least one RS for their real name, and 4) does not have that name listed in their wikipedia article.

Again, this would be done much better in an RfC format. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support removal, for the moment, on the basis that the sources brought forward to support the inclusion don't hold up to scrutiny. I think it is unfortunate that User:Jclemens should backtrack on the decision to get input here, based on the way the input has turned out. Diff, ending I will accept the input of larger community consensus if my view is not upheld, which I would read against yet more forum discussion: this should be enough. The further opinions gathered here are on the other side of the question. There is no real reason to think that another forum will generate very different discussions; the ones we have had are not that satisfactory, but part of that is that User:Jclemens has so many opinions on where the onus of proof lies in this matter, poses false dichotomies, and lays down the law about how it should all go. The topic has been aired here, which is one appropriate place to get outside views. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand consensus. I will accede to a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, but the current consensus is still very clear: two editors supporting inclusion, zero editors articulating a policy-based basis for removal. Again, you impugn the sources, calling them inadequate, but fail to explain any policy based reason why they might be inadequate. The "straw poll" judges sentiment, not policy; if you want to have only a straw poll, fine--straw polls don't change policy. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Either you meant what you said, and having chosen to come here for input you really intended to be guided by it. Or your real intention is to produce an example of wikilawyering, namely that whatever input you get, you reserve the right to exclude any opinions, based on arguments that you hold in reserve until you see how it all goes. I'm not in the slightest impressed. If you are judge and jury in what consists of policy, then we might as well not bother discussing with you, that's how I feel right now. You have invoked your blocking power on Talk:Acharya S to try to close down the discussion; and now you have produced ad hominem arguments as well as dickering on about what you think policy is. You are neither collegiate nor uninvolved, it seems to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When all is said and done, the bottom line is this: Removing the name "Dorothy" from the BLP does not help Ms. Murdock's privacy in any way. Whether malefactors are really out to get her or not, the name in Wikipedia makes no difference, given everywhere else it's already known and repeated. Since that's the case, there's no reason to take it out. Everything else is just policy underpinning for WP:NOTCENSORED, because the right outcome is that correct and relevant information be available to all readers. I wasn't the one who started Wikilawyering, but I know Wikipedia policies better than those who would misuse them to harm the encyclopedia in the interest of an incorrect assessment of a subject's best interest. Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that Mrs Murdoch would disagree with you, I wonder if you would insist so strongly on its inclusion under such circumstances if it was your wife or your daughter or your mother, or for that matter if she objected and she was a different kind of person with online supporters that vocally objected. User Erik took the easy road in that situation. User Eriks resignation Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care whether or not she disagrees with me: objective reality dictates that if her name is already in Google, relevant blogs, books, news magazine articles, and Wikipedia mirrors, there is no way to get that genie back in the bottle. A "partially" disclosed secret is logically equivalent to "sorta" pregnant. And that is the bottom line: Wikipedia BLP is about doing no harm. It's not about feel goodishness, or projecting, or empathizing, but a cold, hard calculation: Can Wikipedia reduce the harm to a living person by suppressing information? All of the BLP intricacies center around this, and I would love to hear you or anyone else describe a specific, reasonable scenario where not having this information in Wikipedia actually helps Ms. Murdock's privacy. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you don't care about the subject. As a senario, it would eliminate many of the mirrors it would not aid and assist the publication of this weakly claimed name under which she is not even notable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening: Whether I care about the subject or not is irrelevant. If there are people who are out to "get" her or her family, even one instance of the offending data left on the Internet will be found. Since we can't remove all of them, there's no use locking the barn door behind a horse that's already gone. There's a big difference between random crime and targeted crime: random crime can be avoided just by looking like "not an easy and profitable target" because most criminals are lazy. Targeted crime, where one or more bad actors is out to cause harm to one specific person, is a million times harder to defend against. The United States Secret Service has the hardest job in the world, because they have to deal with targeted, equipped, dedicated threats to a very public figure. Ms. Murdock is almost certainly not in that same boat, despite her personal beliefs or past experiences, but even if she were, the only solution to leaked information once it's hit the Internet is to change it. If she doesn't like the fact that "Dorothy M. Murdock" is associated with Acharya S, then she needs to change her name. Not because we're jerks here at Wikipedia, but because that's the only measure which might recapture for her the privacy and security which appears to have been lost. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been listening to your position plenty. Your reasons on insisting on inserting this valueless content when the subject has problems with its publication are your buisness, I don't personally understand them and I don't understand them in relation to BLP policy, you must have your reasons and you have in your hand like a sword, a citation discovered with a google book search, super and it is on wikipedia and it is mirrored around, so that is alright then. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia: the subject's wishes are, if not irrelevant, at the very least subordinated to what reliable sources already mention. The only reason the subject's wishes actually are taken into account, where we might be doing real harm, have been eviscerated. Our job is not to publish sourced info to the extent that people don't not like it, it's to publish sourced info unless actual harm can reasonably be expected to result from their publication. Stop trying to make this about me or the subject. It's about WP:5P: Is it RS'ed? Yes. Will it possibly hurt anyone? No. That should be the end of it, yet people keep trying to insert non-policy-based arguments to justify a desired outcome. Why on earth is that? Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ask yourself, why on earth is that, do you see a strong support here for your position? As you wave your weakly cited content around that the subject basically objects to the propagation of and the substance of which has absolutally no educational value at all, yes, ask yourself that as you wave your Google search engine mirrored claim to fame around. Imagine if your name was discovered on the web and you were being attacked and people said , so what, its out there now, its just your bad luck . if people are harassing you deal with it, I have found a citation in a reliable book and I care less if you are being harassed, this is fantastic educational detail and we must propagate it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing substantial here which demands a response. All you've put together are unsupported assumptions ("subject basically objects", "weakly sourced", "absolutally [sic] no educational value") and emotional pleas not based on policy, or even the actual reduction of harm. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As stated here: The point is simple: for living persons we increase our level of care about proper sourcing and neutrality, and immediately remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. What to an editor may seem harmless, could still end up harming the subject. So we take no chances, and this is the essence of BLP. The subject has expressed concern, so we take no chances and insure the sources used are impeccable. But the sources you have provided are questionable. Unless there is consensus to keep, the material should be removed. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll refute these yet again, each and every time you keep asserting them.

1) The subject has not expressed concern over the inclusion in Wikipedia, or else someone has failed to process that OTRS ticket correctly.

2) The material is not unsourced or poorly sourced.

3) The sources provided for the ref are not questionable in any sense of the word other than "an editor has challenged them".

(of course, these are only the refutations relevant to your post--there are plenty of others) Thus, there are still no BLP or V grounds for their removal. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• oppose as long as her position that no one knows her name is also included (one of the few things a self-published source is definitely good for). Should satisfy everyone equally. Note that I do not consider the name to be contentious in nature. Collect (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That make sense--I can live with it as a compromise. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • We had a discussion of what "contentious" means here. I and others are contending it; it is contentious. ^^James^^ (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That thread is a little hard to summarise, but there seem to be certain points where the interpretation by User:Jclemens is disputed by others. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• I support removal of the disputed text, it is far too much like an archaeological expedition trying to find reliable sources for it ever having been used, still less currently. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support We don't seem to have the quality of sources that I think are required in a case like this. As for Picknett and Prince, they are simply not a reliable source no matter who publishes them. Quite a few fringe writers have major publishers, that doesn't make their books reliable sources. As this is contentious (from my reading of the above), we should err on the side of caution and I think common sense and leave it out. And if Jclemens is claiming that Picknett and Prince are not questionable, all I can say is that it's a fringe book by writers whose books are not to be taken seriously and are poorly researched. That's questionable in my book. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• You're actually the first non-participant who's come in and actually spoken to an RS. Your opinion is certainly welcome, but the fact remains that it's a Simon & Schuster book: presumed RS until proven otherwise. Likewise Illume appears to be an RS, so even if the one source isn't reliable, the second source hasn't been impeached. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. (What a pathetic person.) Since she only uses the form "D.M. Murdock" on her website and her first name is not used in full in reliable sources it's out of the question for us to publish it here. That's without considering whether she was explicitly against it on Facebook, and that's without considering the potential feedback loop. We don't have to decide this question because a book full of ridiculous conjectures presented as fact, written by two regular pseudohistory/conspiracy theory authors [42] [43], is not a reliable source on anything other than what the book says and perhaps biographical details about the authors. Jclemens' arguments here are absolutely amazing. What's next? Using the output of these authors as sources for history articles? Hans Adler 12:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note, per the above, that you've ignored at least one RS. I realize this thread is quite TL;DR, but I'd prefer you actually read the arguments before dismissing them. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note, that there is nothing in WP:RS that suggests that the name of the publisher trumps the authors. "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors" is what it says. Fringe writers are often money-spinners for publishers, and although we should look at the publisher we need to look more carefully at the authors when deciding if a book is a reliable source. There is nothing I have seen by these authors that gives me any reason to consider they are a reliable source for this, or a reliable source in general. I realise I'm repeating myself here, but I think that there is clearly enough evidence to show that these two authors by default are not reliable sources. Sometimes fringe writers manage to write in newspapers that we would normally consider reliable sources, but in those cases we would look at the author, not the newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that they're not writing about fringe topics when they mention the name of another author in the field, are they? That's precisely the sort of factual information that is presumed per WP:IRS to be handled by a reliable publisher's editorial oversight process. I have no reason to doubt that the authors publish silly theories, just like Ms. Murdock, but that doesn't particularly bear on their reliability as a source for her first name, does it? Per WP:IRS, reliability is a logical OR operation, not a logical AND. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Schenectady City School District and use of contract documents

In Schenectady City School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and several other articles about school districts, contracts between the school districts and supervisors are being used as sources. Some editors at the reliable sources noticeboard expressed concern about the privacy of individuals in a discussion about the sourcing of these documents. Accordingly, I have started this thread, although it is not why I raised the matter at WP:RSN. There is already a discussion at Talk:Schenectady City School District related to this issue, but it appears to be mired in personal conflict and is unlikely to be productive.

(Note that this is vaguely related to the recent discussions about Schenectady School District supervisor Eric Ely. See here, here, & here.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are not questioning the accuracy or questioning whether or not the source is reliable, but I have to ask just in case that is an issue as well, because at RS/N that seemed to be your issue and they said from that standpoint it was ok and reliable. Can you cite specific policy regarding BLPs that this case may violate? A NY school, like anything owned by the government, must abide by NY and Federal laws regarding openness of records, etc (in some states this is referred to as a "sunshine law" though not in all). These are public documents available to anyone who asks for them from the school district and I assume since he has had previous experience in the public sector this superintendent was aware from hire-date that these would be public record and therefor I cant see a case being made for an "expectation of privacy". Superintendent pay is often published in newspapers along with other contract information.Camelbinky (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Camel hit it on the nose. I would add that, even if he had an expectation of privacy, that expectation would be deemed unreasonable by any New York court, and therefore immaterial. Plus, See this for some thoughts on using primary evidence. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that I started the thread due to concerns raised at WP:RSN, so perhaps I'm not the person who ought to be responding, but I believe the relevant section of the BLP policy would be the one entitled "Misuse of primary sources", which reads in part "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". New York law is irrelevant to this discussion and I'm not sure why it was even raised. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can almost understand home address (like I said, this is an oddity in this contract), but business address? The business address is in the infobox in the article.

That said, we're not talking so much about using it as a source in Schenectady anymore, so much as including it as an external link (thanks to that letter that was found), due to its importance to the school district; it offers one distinct way in which districts are different. But the home address was their choice, knowing full well that these are publicly accessible documents that will be relatively easy to find on the Internet. upstateNYer 03:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NY law was raised because YOU, Delicious, mentioned that privacy was a concern about whether or not to use the source! If it isnt by legal definition a privacy concern then it isnt a privacy concern for Wikipedia. You keep mentioning the VERY SHORT discussion at RS/N yet I see nothing there specifically that is a BLP issue and I'd let the person who actually has an issue bring it here so they know what they are complaining about... I still dont know what your issue is because it seems to have changed between what you brought up at RS/N and then originally here as privacy, and now as "no primary sources". And the section you mention of BLP, at least at the RS/N is almost always ignored as court documents have always been found to be reliable and acceptable to use in articles though I cant say if they are ever blocked from being used based on BLP articles due to BLP policy being applied; as far as RS is concerned its not an issue and we are talking about Schenectady City School District which is NOT a BLP article and this policy (and noticeboard) does not apply.Camelbinky (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I'll leave it for someone else to set you straight on the rest, but BLP applies throughout Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well lets see, I was right about everything and no your BLP issue does not apply here and YES RS/N has routinely stated court documents etc are reliable and indeed usable for articles despite your allegations they are not. I've worked on that noticeboard for years. I'll wait right here for someone to "set me straight" though this is Wikipedia and there is no right way or looking at our policies so dont see how even 100 people's opinions that are different than mine would end up being more legitimate than mine. We are all equal here. Please dont use such language with me, I'm not a child who has to be "set straight" and you dont know policy better than me.Camelbinky (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Camel: Of course you are correct (see the link in my above post). But Delicious isn't the only one who is not familiar with this (hence the need for my above post).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't analysed the dispute so I have no idea if there is a genuine BLP issue here or the merits of either side. But as DC said, BLP applies thorough the encylopaedia and it is important you understand that. You cannot dismiss BLP concerns because the article is not a biography, in fact plenty of non biographies have an appropriate BLP template and people have been blocked for violationg BLP on non biographies. And this board regularly deals with BLP issues arising on non biographies and it is entirely within the purview of this board. If you have any doubt on this matter, please reread the BLP policy carefully and as questions if you have any further confusion. In terms of court documents, they can be used sometimes, but are generally used sparingly if at all when it comes to BLPs if unsupported by reliable secondary sources. In non biographies, there may be greater merit to use them even if the information directly concerns living persons however again, I would question their use if unsupport by reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Katherine Doherty

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

I'm afraid I'm not sure of the proper way to do this; I came across this page when searching for relevant information - a completely un-sourced and poorly written article on someone who does not appear to have a legitimate reason to even be on Wikipedia.

She has been in some plays and suchlike could well be notable, I have added a couple of citations. If anyone is from Boston area USA they may be able to find some local citations. Child actress, BLP does need to be improved. Off2riorob (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Child actor, minor roles, little coverage. Would someone else opine as regards notability Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Boston Herald article impresses me. Certainly would not survive a prod, and I think there is a good chance it would survive AfD. I would view it as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. I am pretty sure you meant clearly would survive a prod. At least it has a couple of supporting citations now, any attempts to improve appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gary_L._Stewart

Resolved

 – deleted G10

Gary_L._Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has anyone got any idea about this person? Fat wedge of legal issues being added to a two line stub, IP claims it is by request of the organisation the subject was involved with. A couple of similar awarded people have articles so may be notable but right now it is pretty much uncited and unwatched with a load of legal claims? Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious bias in Wikipedia article on Sen Bond of Missouri

Resolved

The existing entire biography is written in such a lop-sided way, it is the obvious the work of a committed pro-abortionist. a cheap propaganda piece and, in the interest of Wikipedia reliability, should be taken off and completely rewritten. Senator Bond has a long admirable record of opposing the murdering of unborn children, a record of achievement completely ignored by the author of the present Wikipedia bio.

Dan Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.150.21 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) [44]

I can only assume you are referring to the article on Kit Bond, in which article the word "abortion" does not appear once. A check of recent edits does not indicate that anything has been added or removed that pertains to abortion, either. So, I haven't any idea what you are talking about. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP thinks the article should properly reflect his "long admirable record of opposing the murdering of unborn children, a record of achievement" which as you say, the article doesn't discuss or as the OP said is "completely ignored by the author of the present Wikipedia bio". However I'm not sure why Dan Sullivan felt a "committed pro-abortionist" who wanted to use wikipedia for "cheap propaganda" would "completely ignore" this record. It seems likely such a person would want to let the whole world know how 'evil' Kit Bond has been in this regard. I guess DS just doesn't understand propagandist committed pro-abortionists as well as he thinks Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This should be marked resolved, as there is no issue here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the absence of any further comment from the OP, I've done so Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Priya Ahuja

1. Priya Ahuja
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Ahuja

Poorly sourced BLP article, not sure about notability so sent it to AFD to assess that. Bringing here as well, due to the BLP issues. Could use some extra eyes and cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this ....All she ever wanted to be was a nurse. It was a selfless career where Shilpa knew she’d be very happy just being of some help to other human beings. All Shilpa wanted to do was care. But things changed dramatically as she assisted Matron Singh and soon became aware of the horrific side of hospital life. She also became Anjali’s only hope of uncovering a shocking truth that could shake the very foundations on which SBMI stood!

is copy and paste from here at the bottom it says, copyright Jelright enterprises, it looks like it was written by the moderator there? Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This aggregator http://www.molinu.org/wikipedia_new_pages seems to collect any new articles and publish them as soon as they are posted? Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have tidied it up a bit and left a note at WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FAIR; highly contentious statements in BLPs

I've raised this issue at the RS/N. But it involves issues covered by BLP/N as well. This updates/replaces a prior post on the issue. There is also a related AN/I here.

The BLP issue has now expanded. I deleted from some BLPs highly contentious material, supported only by refs to FAIR. Annoy reverted my deletions. This is being discussed at the RS/N here.

Probably best, if you have comments, to leave them there, so they are all in one place. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry H. Bauer

Henry H. Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have become rather acrimonious lately in a dispute over the inclusion of a quote from a book by Kalichman about pseudo-science, denialism and the like which describes Bauer in very unflattering terms. One party to the dispute uses blog-sourced statements attributed to Bauer in which he rebuts a claim adjacent to the disputed quoted phrase, which to my mind does throw legitimate doubt on the quality of Kalichman's research on Bauer: to wit, in the book Kalichman says Bauer has done no scientific research at all, whereas Bauer apparently has a fairly long published career in a field of scientific research (albeit unrelated to medicine).

There has also been some problematic editing on the talk page, with blog-based counter-accusations of professional misconduct against Kalichman. The worst of these have been removed. I think some more attention to this dispute is merited. Please take a look. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the issue is whether or not it is permissible to quote a defamatory accusation against a person that in its original context is an illogical non sequitur and absolutely false. One editor insists there is nothing wrong quoting Seth Kalichman from Denying AIDS to the effect that Henry Bauer is "a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist". Here is Kalichman's context: "Bauer has never done AIDS research. In fact, he has never done any scientific research. Henry Bauer is a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist!" (p. 71). Kalichman ignores the over 80 publications in Bauer's C.V. pertaining to his published research, mainly in electrochemistry. Thus, the second sentence in the passage is a false premise. In logic, the conclusion in the third sentence, based on this false premise, cannot be valid. I would also point out that one need not have personal experience in AIDS research to be qualified to judge the validity of the experimental design of AIDS research reported in the medical literature. Finally, having an interest in such subjects as UFOs and Loch Ness monster does not automatically make one a "pseudoscientist". Bauer's interest in such fringe topics, whose results have been the subject of books published by a university press, has been to examine how science deals with extraordinary claims. Labelling Bauer a "pseudoscientist" on the basis of Kalichman's illogical and erroneous accusation is unethical, at the least, and surely there must be some policy in Wikipedia that would forbid such a practice. It would be unreasonable to allow such a defamatory and patently false accusation to be quoted until it was refuted in a future "reliable source". There is no good reason to quote such defamatory material in the first place, unless an editor has some ulterior motive. My interest in this matter has nothing to do with any COI, as has been alleged by one editor. My interest is based on basic fairness and equity. Finally, how can a source, such as Kalichman, containing such illogical and patently erroneous information be considered "reliable", as one editor steadfastly maintains? Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist" has been removed from the article and replaced with a more detailed description of Kalichman's critique. However, the user with a strong personal interest in this biography is mistaken: Bauer was never described in the article as a pseudoscientist. Instead, the article reported that Kalichman, a critic of Bauer, called Bauer a pseudoscientist...which he verifiably did.

Kalichman was clearly wrong to write that Bauer had never conducted any scientific research. Bauer published extensively on electrochemistry in the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps Kalichman meant that Bauer had never conducted any biological research, or any research with relevance to HIV/AIDS. Whatever Kalichman meant with this particular sentence, his use of the pseudoscientist appellation for AIDS denialists is based on the methodology he says they use ("pseudovirology", "pseudopharmacology", "pseudoimmunology"): methods that may appear sound to the layperson but are in fact unsound. One may agree or disagree with Kalichman's use of the term "pseudoscientist", but Kalichman is certainly a notable critic of AIDS denialism in general and Bauer in particular. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

I'd appreciate some review of my actions in the history of this BLP. A number of editors have moved in on the article (no doubt following an ARS tag) adding all kinds of weblinks to justify the retention of the article and the removal of the BLPunsourced tag. In my view, a BLPunsourced tag should only be removed if the article has reliable sources. If this right? --Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No. If a BLP has sources but they're not reliable, a {{refimproveBLP}} is the appropriate tag. Anything cited to non-reliable sources may be removed if contentious, although the definition of "contentious" is, itself, contentious. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism templates

I have an issue with some of the above templates on BLP grounds, and have initiated discussion on two of them. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Worth

Someone professionally connected with Sandra Worth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) complained that text they had added regarding her "Rose of York" series had been vandalised. I reviewed our coverage of this series with the aid of the good Dr. Google and found several blatantly promotional passages about the book, in many cases being the sole book discussed in a new "in fiction" section in articles on notable historical figures. Terms like "multi award winning" were much in evidence. I have no evidence that Sandra Worth requested this promotional editing, but I would suggest that a thorough review of the article on Worth, and any links to it form other articles, is in order. Also, any subject linked from that article (e.g. Perkin Warbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be subject to the same abuse. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Darren Day

Resolved

This entire article essntially reads like tabloid fodder, especially the "relationships" section. I'm not very savvy in recognizing reliable UK news sources from the more gossipy fare, so could someone with this knowledge possibly edit it down to retain only what can be verified by reliable sources? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The "relationships" section has been removed by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; as it was my main concern it appears this can be marked as resolved. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Grant_Shapps

Grant_Shapps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Politically motivated additions which attempt to represent this living person in a negative light being repeatedly added to wiki entry. See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_Shapps&action=historysubmit&diff=358802551&oldid=358618483 // 77.68.47.88 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) — 77.68.47.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Referenced content has been removed from this article for two years, leading to an NPOV problem. I have re-added, and repeatedly asked the above editor to create an account and discuss these controvercial edits on Talk:Grant Shapps first. Widefox (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If the editor continues to refuse to create an account, and use different IP addresses for each edit, I suggest Semi-protection for the article. Widefox (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It does look as if there is a bit of an attempt to portray him in a bad light, why cant editors format citations better. I have seen often when citations are formated badly it hides the fact that they are either primary citations or not reliable or opinionated editorials or so on and so on. If you read the article you get the impression that he is a massive crook, which I am sure he is not. Perhaps an editor could have a good look at it and perhaps format the citations to see exactly what is going on and remove some of the weaseling. Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob - are you assuming good faith there? I can understand that it may appear that way if all non-complimentary views have been removed and then suddenly returned to the article. The talk page details the problem. Widefox (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am saying what I see in a good faith way. I have read the talkpage. If you are interested in the article would you please format the citations so it is easier to see what is going on. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope that when Grant is back from tonight's Newsnight he'll engage in dialogue on the talk page as requested so we can improve the article. Widefox (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw him on newsnight, is an account confirmed to be him? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. He seems talented enough to realise it's better to create an account going forward. Widefox (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite web|url=web address here|title=title here|publisher=add the publisher here|date=date the article was written here|accessdate=date you accessed the article here}}</ref>

You have also accused the IP of vandalism when they have been removing this citation that appears to be a forum http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1029.html. Seems to be a decent thing for the IP to do, I removed it when I found it and yet you haven't accused me of vandalism? Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

content

For example...we have this comment in the article

He stepped down as a Director in the same week in 2009 when MP's expenses were made public during the expenses scandal, and it became clear that he had utilised PrintHouse for numerous transactions ..

supported by this PDF? http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/grant-shapps/grant_shapps_0708_CA.pdf which appears to be original research and a bit of synth and what looks very much like a primary document to me? Where is an actual report of this happening in this time frame? As wikipedia editors we report other published reliable sources reports.Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

synth / OR fixed . Off2riorob - when did you remove the ref? It is still there, but agree it is weak and only there as the other ref had previously been removed. Widefox (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed it, I have removed it now. The small issues that were there read a lot better now. As there are only really some small cite and content issues the talkpage of the article would be a better place to discuss this, yes? Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've joined this discussion late but see there's a fair amount of traffic above. Today I tried to improve the article - as now described on the discussion page - only to find that WideFox later reverted it without explanation. True I hadn't at the time referenced on the discussion page the changes I made, but they were all fairly uncontroverial, for example removing a reference page which doesn't appear to refer to the individual at all and another from a gossip column which is not a reliable source for the bio of a living person. Could an editor have a further look at this article. Hackneymarsh (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — Hackneymarsh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Hackneymarsh edits have been reverted by me [45] and another editor [46] with edit summaries. I do not appreciate accusations of political motivation or lack of explanations, and ask them to stop. See the talk page for discussion on improving. Widefox (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please can someone check this accusation in the edit summary [[47]] that I added [48] freemasony to this article. This is unacceptable, and will say so on the users page. Widefox (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)