Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive90

Eido Tai Shimano

Eido Tai Shimano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please look into the fact that Tao2911 reinserted again a section in Allegation of Misconduct which was excluded long ago. Now it is again with links to Tricycle blog. One link is to a letter of Aitken Roshi and this source was decided at ANI as not acceptable. Second link is to ZSS answer, which only one editor says it is OK at ANI. I do not think this is acceptable, but perhaps more senior editors can look into this matter. It is frustrating to see the same person inserting again and again the same stuff, sometimes re-published in different location on the internet and supported by the same group of people. Sorry, I cannot add internal links to lead you there. I do not know yet how to do it.Spt51 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard in question is actually RSN rather than ANI, [1], and some discussion has also happened here [2] in the past.

Tao2911 has again reinserted inappropriately sourced material about Robert Aitken, contrary to the unanimous opinion on RSN. The second sentence and source in this edit has support from an editor on RSN, and I find it fine too. I have removed the first but not the second, and I ask other editors to keep an eye on this article. --Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spl1 for adding the links to my poor notice here. Your effort and effort of others is to no effect. As of the moment Tao already reversed your edit.Spt51 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I "reverted" what was added & left a comment r.e. this dscussion; it does seem badly sourced & POV (though a little borderline). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I had the support and clearance at RSN of GRuban for my version - there was no unanimous decision against it whatsoever. this is an absolute lie, and a total manipulation of wikipedia process for a what is appearing more a more to be some sort of personal vendetta. Here is how my version read: "In May, 2010, Robert Aitken wrote an open letter to Shimano requesting he respond to allegations of sexual misconduct spanning "more than 40 years." Tricycle Magazine reported on the letter, and contacted Zen Studies Society for a statement.[15] The president of the Society responded that due to unspecified "allegations of clergy misconduct", on July 4, 2010, both Eido Shimano and his wife had resigned from the ZSS board of directors after 42 years.[16]" This is perfectly accurate to sources and compltely NPOV. I had the support of another editor. There is a major "ownership" issue developing on this page with Slp1 and Stp51.Tao2911 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Over there it was recommended taking the problem here to BLP/N. You only had one reply to the RSN proposal which you then added 19 minutes later; for a BLP issue that includes a pretty wide allegation that is probably not reasonable consensus. Reading into the ongoing issue the particular source seems entirely inappropriate - I might support inclusion of the letter's existence with a better, solid and neutral source. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you will allow the response to the letter written to the same source that reported on the letter, in response to that report, but not the report of the letter itself? Hmmmmmm. What interesting logic...Tao2911 (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. There is no bad logic involved; the first source repeats allegations, the second is a reasonable reference for the ZSS statement (which is factual) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm, please. (Isn't Zen supposed to encourage that? :-) ) We all have the same goals here, to make the best encyclopedia we can. No need for accusations against other editors.

I was against including the note about the accusation, because it was so vague and indirect. But it's not just an accusation any more, it's a statement that the person in question has resigned his leadership of a rather important position, from Zen Studies Society, the organization in question, specifically saying that these accusations were why he resigned, printed in a reliable source, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. It's an important couple of sentences. --GRuban (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To Tao: Tricycle blog, as it says in its own words contacted ZSS when they discovered that paragraph from original statement about Shimano resignation was deleted from ZSS site. If you can read, Tao, than you can see what they say. Of course this was a part of comment in Aitken letter post, but this is the main reason they contacted ZSS. They did not ask for response to the letter. They could not do it legally, as I was informed. So stick to the facts, please, same as we editors try here. Please, do not accuse anyone and call names, which you are so quick to do. This is a discussion and we try to get consensus here.Spt51 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify; are you supporting the inclusion of the first source which reproduces the open letter as a source of allegations? That seems to violate WP:BLP policy because of the nature of the statement and where/how it was reported. I can see an argument for reporting the open letter, actually, but I think there needs to be clarification on a) whether the ZSS was referring to that particular allegation (it is not explicitly noted) and b) it would be better to have independent sourcing of the open letter (preferably with solid links to the resignation too). Bear in mind I know little about Zen :) but it looks pretty simply BLP policy --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I do not support the first part. I am strongly against it. I was not sure about the second part either, but I trust Spl1 decision.

I am responding here to Tao's "rationale" that we have the statement of resignation because of the Aitken letter thus the letter must be included. Please, read his response to me at the discussion page for Eido Tai Shimano and my response to him. Spt51 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. If I understand your comment there, you think the ZSS weren't directly influenced by Aitken's letter specifically, just by the many allegations. They may well have read lots of letters about these, not just Aitken's. Makes sense. Tao, any objection to taking out the part about the Aitken letter, as long as we keep the part sourced to the ZSS statement on Tricycle? After all, the important part is that Shimano resigned from the ZSS due to the allegations, not specifically that Aitken brought them up. Right? --GRuban (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think GRuban and Spt51 have identified the problem. There is no documented connection between the Aitken's open letter and the resignation. The proposed text implies that Tricycle asked for a response to this letter, which is not correct. The Tricycle Post says that they "contacted the Zen Studies Society (ZSS) regarding Eido Shimano Roshi’s status at the organization" [3], a very different matter. In addition, the Aitken letter is, as GRuban said on RSN, a request for comment about possible allegations. The Tricycle blog is by no means the best source and it makes serious accusations about allegations which no reliable source has published, apparently for legal reasons: if you read the responses to the tricycle blog from James Shaheen you will see that both Tricycle and another more mainstream publication (probably Village Voice, based on this) have declined to publish due to sourcing problems. Perhaps they will in the future. In which case the problem is solved. In the meantime, the Aitken stuff needs to stay out due to problems with poor sourcing, failed verifiability and original research.--Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to GRuban, not yourself (I never even saw your message as I replied) sorry. (also no idea why my text is streaming off the page.... uh... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'm going to lose this one, but just to be perfectly clear: the Aitken letter is not some inconsequential blog rant by a disgruntled former student (of which there are many and sundry, across the web.) Slp1 says: "the Aitken stuff needs to stay out due to problems with poor sourcing, failed verifiability and original research." What? We should be reporting on the FACT of the letter, not disallowing it because of our personal opinion on its content. Aitken is not the source here: Tricycle is. That source is accepted. So why not what they are reporting on?

The fact of the letter is, I argue, in itself worthy of mention in entry - that is the only reason why I want it included, and the standard I used in phrasing the inclusion. Tricycle reported on it because of who wrote it, and the reaction it is causing in the Zen world. Aitken is (around) 90 years old, the most senior figure in American Rinzai Zen, in particular, but in "Western" Zen generally. This is something like if the Bishop of Canterbury wrote a letter to the Bishop of Boston that he also circulated publicly, saying "There are persistent reports you have slept with parishioners for 40 years, and we can no longer ignore them. Please make take some kind of action." Of course, this is predicated on there being evidence of this persistence - as we have in a section in the Shimano entry called "Allegations of Misconduct." I doubt it, but perhaps this analogy gives you some indication of weight of this exchange. Believe me, if it wasn't little ol' American Zen, but Catholics or Baptists, we would have CNN as source, not just Tricycle. But Zen? Who cares? Oh, I know, people involved in Buddhism. But who cares here about someone who is knowledgeable about that? He must just have some axe to grind, in collusion with a small cadre of evil stalking Zen web pirates (which Spt51 has accused me of over, and over, and over).

I would argue that the passage could be adjusted to make clearer that the Tricycle story included more than the letter from Aitken. But the way you have it now, it makes no sense. Why if its been since 1982 that there was any controversy is he suddenly retiring? The Aitken letter gives us some indication, saying that there are recent allegations, though the passage in the entry does not make any specific causal link to just Aitken's letter whatsoever. They are separate significant but clearly related events (as shown but them being reported as part of the same (very short) story). Also, the statement was not just a public statement, just issued without coercion (as is implied now). Tricycle had to request it.

Again, this is just cherry picking info from the source, with very little respect being given to the material as it was reported.

And Spt51: please ease up on the self-righteousness.Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

the Aitken letter is not some inconsequential blog rant by a disgruntled former student it has little impact who wrote the letter, it is the content and allegations in the letter that are the issue. As it stands they make vague reference to allegations they can "no longer ignore", fair enough. To report on that in WP risks giving credence to the allegations - for which we have little or no evidence/backing. Currently no one reputable has openly drawn a solid link between this letter and his retirement; it is not appropriate, surely, for us to draw that association (as the previous wording insinuated). If there are more modern allegations from reputable sources then the letter is not appropriate - they are.

if it wasn't little ol' American Zen, but Catholics or Baptists, we would have CNN as source, not just Tricycle - you're probably right. And I do lament that with you. But it isn't a reasonable argument to include the content just because no reputable source will report this. Possibly in other articles it might stand - but in a BLP we simply have to take additional care.

The issue with the letter, as it stands, is that the allegations are not substantiated or dealt with. And there is no citeable source which reputably links the letter to his resignation. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"just because no reputable source will report this." So you are saying Tricycle is not reputable? Why then are you allowing is as a source?

"it has little impact who wrote the letter" So you are saying that there is no difference if the President of the US writes an open letter to the Prime Minister of England that is posted on his official website, and then is reported on, versus you writing the same letter and publishing it on your blog? No difference? Really? Hmmm.

"for which we have little or no evidence/backing" Uh, we have the statement from the ZSS ITSELF saying that Shimano is resigning because of "allegations of sexual misconduct". Aitken only says that there are "allegations of sexual misconduct" and that Shimano should address them. there is no implication that one causes the other. Again, absolutely fallacious logic.

"it is not appropriate, surely, for us to draw that association (as the previous wording insinuated)" Then let's fix the wording, not toss out sourced facts.

"reputably links the letter to his resignation". who says they should be linked? They are separate facts, both equally significant, and both are only known through the same story and source.Tao2911 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course sources can be treated differently. The resignation is factual and it seems fine to use the Tricycle reference for that. But the letter mentions vague allegations; if it had no bearing on his resignation it seems non-notable to include it. Certainly if a well respected person makes allegations that carries more weight than, as you say, me making the same allegations. But their notability within the field does not mean that their allegations are immediately reportable; the fact that the letter is so vague and reproduced on that article with additional commentary quite firmly links the letter to the resignation - something we can't substantiate (along with the allegations). It has no place in the article. Or put more simply: if we can comprehensively link the letter to the resignation and substantiate what allegations are being discussed and both are adequately reported then there may be a case for it's inclusion. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I have to reiterate this: I am not arguing for inclusion of the Aitken letter mention as the reason Shimano resigned - but simply because the letter itself is significant. Because it is - as demonstrated by Tricycle printing it in full (along with the other ZSS website issue), subsequently forcing ZSS to make a statement.Tao2911 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You say "But their notability within the field does not mean that their allegations are immediately reportable": This is exactly the issue. Again, Aitken is NOT making allegations. He is saying allegations exist, as ZSS itself acknowledges, and (quite respectfully I should add) asking that Shimano please address them. Again, Aitken's stature is everything here. He couldn't be more significant.Tao2911 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ZSS itself proves that allegations do indeed exist. Aitken only says as much.Tao2911 (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The ZSS reference is fine because it explains, from the horses mouth, reasons for the resignation - there is no suggestion either way of the allegations being true or false. The letter on the other hand makes a direct allegations: There are many reports of your abuse of women published on the web which indicate that you have been involved in breaking the precepts over a period of more than 40 years.. The non-neutral language is problematic as well as the vagueness as to which reports are referenced. reports of your abuse of women is strong wording. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tao2911, I appreciate that you seem to accept that you don't have support for your position; I prefer this formulation, as WP isn't a battleground, and isn't about winning and losing. I hope and expect that some more reliable sources about this matter will appear in the next weeks and months, and then we can of course include it. But I will try to clarify a few things; very few sources are considered good sources for everything. The BBC, for example, is usually a highly reliable source, but for medical and science articles (for example) the BBC isn't generally considered a reliable source.[4]. It is the same with the Tricycle blog. I (and others, it appears) believe that it is an adequate reliable source for a statement from the ZSS, especially as it is informally confirmed by the list of board members on the ZSS website. On the other hand it is not a reliable source for controversial allegations about living people made in a blog and then quoted in the Tricycle blog, such as the claim that these allegations have been ongoing for 40 years. This is clear as determined by multiple editors here, on RSN and on the talkpage of the article. We know that allegations exist from much more reliable sources. Slp1 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"...is strong wording." Yes, exactly. For one highly reputable Buddhist elder and Zen master, who essentially developed the entire concept of "engaged Buddhism" and founded the Zen Peacemakers Order, to use such emphatic language exactly made the letter newsworthy. Again - LETTER. TO SHIMANO. Not "blog post" or aspersion cast to the wind. He also used the respectful and affectionate form of address "Dear Tai-san." The part you didn't include: "I would like to urge you to come forth and make a statement in response to these accusations. Sincerely yours". Your personal analysis and evaluation of the letter continues (to me) to be completely besides the point - it was reported by a specialized news source, who recognized its import. Again, the fact of the letter is the issue - one religious leader to another. However, I read that lawsuits are pending, and Shimano has yet failed to make a statement, so news will surely follow.Tao2911 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

However, I read that lawsuits are pending, and Shimano has yet failed to make a statement; good, that may make it notable.

to use such emphatic language exactly made the letter newsworthy; but it does not add substantiation to the allegations. So fails WP:BLP

Not "blog post" or aspersion cast to the wind it was exactly both of those things. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

no it wasn't. "yes it was!" no. "yes". blah blah. It was a letter, posted online, from the guy with a university archive of his papers documenting 40 years of allegations of misconduct as well as his other myriad calls (public and private) for Shimano to be held accountable. The time will come when we will have a source that can't be absurdly quibbled over like this. I emphatically disagree, as is clear, with your assessment.Tao2911 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal involvment makes it difficult for you to independantly judge the reliability and neutrality of the supporting citations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911, you are perfectly correct in your interpretation of Wp:Policy. Unfortunately this area of the site is stalked by editors with a veritable obsession for keeping BLPs "whitewashed" of any and all material they deem to be negative. They have quibbling over sources down to a fine art, Tmorton166 and Off2riorob are two prime examples. 90.207.76.207 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for personal attacks --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is false, and Tao2911's statements about policy above are incorrect. A way to illustrate the matter is to consider that for almost any person with some prominence in a field, you could find negative statements about the person on some website. Wikipedia absolutely does not report that a website has an open letter asking Joe Citizen whether he will resign because of his misconduct. We don't even do it when we "know" that Joe is guilty of misconduct, because there is no procedure to verify that knowledge. Instead, we do what the policies actually say (in particular, see WP:REDFLAG). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about Joe Public - we're talking about Eido's longest term colleague, onetime friend, and close peer, if not senior. Letter is newsworthy - hence, a news story about it. So, again, you completely miss the point. But you are happy there. Enjoy.Tao2911 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to not grasp the rules of a BLP on Wikipedia IP person. Any negative unsourced unverifiable false information must be removed. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point - whoops, too late for that - we are not actually talking about "negative unsourced unverifiable false information". We are talking about a letter, reprinted in full by a news source that is being accepted for another piece of information from the same story, that is from one esteemed Zen master to another. The fact of this letter is newsworthy and significant. That's why it was reported as news. The letter exists - it is neither unverified or false, or negative in itself. It calls for subject Shimano to respond to allegations of abuse. That's all. At some point, someone will write either the complete news story contextualizing the significance of this letter, or the the book, and we will have the source to posit this letter in context. It is different in kind from other accusations or discussions on the inet. This is what few seem to understand - but Tricycle did. Hence, their reprinting it in full in their story. Done. Ciao.Tao2911 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If and when it is reprinted in other books etc. you will find yourself back here, being confronted by the same stalwarts, who will be arguing that no source can ever be good enough... 90.207.76.207 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can of tend to agree - I think it can become an editor's pet project to keep articles from becoming subject to unwarranted slanderous material. I understand that threat, and have acted against it. I think however that this can lead to an inability to evaluate each case in its own particulars, losing sight of the whole picture. I think we are seeing much evidence of this here. Some real zealotry, masked by "anti-zealotry". Ironic.Tao2911 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I will say this only once (more). :) the letter makes direct allegations - unless those are substantiated then it is unusable. end of. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I will say this only once (more). No it doesn't. It says allegations exist - as confirmed by ZSS response to Tricycle report - and that Shimano should address them. Thus, saying that "allegations exist" "for 40 years" is more than demonstrable - the section itself at this very point says as much. Whatevs. "I said good day, sir!"Tao2911 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911: Allegations exist == someone made an accusation. Why does the reader care? According to you these allegations have been extant for 40 years now, and they have yet to be proven. An accusation is not the same thing as proof—if it were, the jails would be even more full than they are. Until these allegations are reported by a reliable source as having been proven, reporting on them leads the reader to a conclusion not supported by the source. The reader doesn't care about unsubstantiated allegations: by presenting them, you imply that they have been substantiated. This violates WP:OR—forget about WP:BLP! This is unfortunate for you if you want to present this conclusion—Buddhists are notoriously loath to formally censure each other, and chances are that you will never have a source that reports more than accusations. But it's not Wikipedia's job to fix that. It's inappropriate to try someone in the court of public opinion using a Wikipedia page. That's the whole point of the extreme care that the Wikipedia guidelines urge us to exercise when editing biographies of living persons. Abhayakara (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Edits on Football articles

A week or so ago I (and others) ran into a dispute over edits to Football (predominantly scottish football) related articles. The IP 90.207.76.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back making the edits but I am too close to the subject now to make a sufficient call. this edit concerned me, I reworded that section from the original here and this new edit feels like putting the content back in a different way. Particularly I take issue with with an unconscious racism which is quoted out of the source (seems a little flowery for a bio) and the later content is verging close to the same issues previously. He/she has also been adding content back to Brian McGinlay that was rejected in the past. I could do with some more thoughts on this - esp as prior history suggest the IP may add back more disputed content. (point being - I don't want to cross over into making bad judgements) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I didn't add the 'unconcious racism' quote in the first place but I don't agree with amending direct quotations to suit POV on the grounds that they are "too flowery." Your other edit to the Walters article was nonsense because he did indeed mention (racist) abuse but said that it was made worse by the object-throwing. I'd welcome more eyes on the McGinlay article because it is a BLP that is being whitewashed/censored on the most ridiculous of pretexts. Thanks, 90.207.76.207 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern with the wording was with an unconscious racism is wordy, an opinion and not really needed to report about the issue. There seems no need to dramatize the event. I'd have to dig the article out again to remember my exact concern over the last sentence - but I think it was because it was cherry picked. As to McGinlay, you want to add tabloid allegations that he quit over a "late night incident"... vague stuff about "charges over gay sex"... and about a fraud investigation. This was already well cleared at BLP/N as being not applicable to a biography because nothing was convicted (which for a start surely means it was untrue) :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your issues with the wording are nothing to do with me, but please don't breach WP:MOSQUOTE in altering direct quotations. I suggest that readers of this, your latest BLP/N, would be assisted if you could "remember your exact concerns" before posting.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. McGinlay resigned from the refereeing lists, on the eve of going to the World Cup, in relation to this matter. This received widespread coverage in, amongst others, The Times (which is not a tabloid). See WP:WELLKNOWN. Thanks 90.207.76.207 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wang Hui

I'm concerned about the recent edits over Wang Hui (intellectual) by a new user, which seems to me might contain non-neutral opinions based on original research. I tried to remove the edits but realized that my reversions violated 3RR, so I decide to keep the redaction unchanged. I have already informed the editor User:Turk tab. I hope it can be reverted to an version where I tried to incorporate the contributions of the Turk tab. --Mondain (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Language barriers make the references extremely hard to check. Is there a Chinese speaker about to discuss them? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, everything not about Wang Hui needs to go. That's most of the Problems in the Chinese Intellectual World section. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I scrubbed most of that - I'm not expert in the subject to comment on whether the dispute that seems ot be going on it notable in the academic community there; but it does need a more neutral rewrite. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Goran Bregović

• Goran Bregović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accusations of theft in article and Talk page. Not my field, not marked as a BLP at all (but it is), unsure how to deal, would appreciate experienced help, thanks. DBaK (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Specifically - in the article, under the section head "Musical Style", the third sentence which begins "although" mentions accusations but provides no reference. Then on the Talk page the last section header beginning "Discuss: Bregovic as an arranger" is itself potentially defamatory as is much of the content of the paragraph under this header. Someone clearly has an axe to grind: whether truly or not I wouldn't know but on its own and unreferenced it looks highly dubious in the light of my (extremely limited) understanding of policy. Hence my request for help from a grown-up! thanks DBaK (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I scrubbed that particular sentence due to the lack of references and NoIndexed the talk page (I am cautious of removing talk page comments that are misguided but made in Good Faith). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for stepping in to help. What does NoIndex do, please? Presumably it's to do with leaving IN the allegations - which are I guess therefore *not* cause for serious alarm?? thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The BLP policy covers articles and talk pages. You're quite right to be concerned about assertions that a person is a thief on a talk page, even if those assertions are made as part of a request for sources for the same. Notice that I've refactored the heading and altered what User:Frankieparley wrote to preserve the substance of the request without repeating the unsourced allegation in the indicative mood. Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, many thanks. Much less alarming in this version. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Wilson

Why does this article continue to have this note in the heading:

"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (October 2007)"?

There are several reliable sources listed in the references section, yet the unsightly exclamation point and note still remain.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Marie Payne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electromagnolia (talk • contribs) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of her biography is unsourced still. There are sources there for some sections but Musical beginnings and Musical association with M-Base are unsourced and Solo career/Personal Life are only lightly sourced. The tag is simply to highlight the fact that adequate sourcing is still needed for the content :) this is my brothers expertise area so I will try and get him to take a look later --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tales Schutz

It is about the name of the football player.

User:Hoiwa852 is keep changing the name of Tales Schutz to Tales Schütz (u to ü) without any source. There is a list in the article Schutz, with the name using 'u' instead of 'ü'. So which name should be used for Tales Schutz?--FootballHK (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• What name is used in sources? You're looking in the wrong place. Don't look elsewhere in Wikipedia. Look to sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be supported by nothing but itself. It's supposed to be supported by what is recorded and published in the world at large. So put the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy into actual action. How does The Standard spell this person's name, for example? Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Accroding the sources, Schutz is used. But another user Hoiwa852 keep changing the name to Schütz, so what should I do? Thanks and sorry for my English.--FootballHK (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ask that editor what sources xe is using. Point to the verifiability policy for why you are asking. When you've got the two (sets of) conflicting sources side by side, look to see which ones are more likely to have checked the facts properly. Take into account how the world may differ on the subject of "ü"/"ue"/"u".

      If the other editor fails to provide sources, and of course you don't turn up any such sources yourself (You, also, should look.), ask for help from other editors in keeping the article in its verifiable state at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. But look outside of Wikipedia for sources and ask for sources. These are two of the most important activities here at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Header change

I've added a new report into the header: Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. It is pretty much what it says it is,and though I've made a couple of stabs at it I'm afraid its much too big for me. Currently we have over 400 BLPs which are interwiki linked to other language wikipedias where the person is dead. In some cases the interwiki link will be wrong, and in many cases our article has been corrected but the tags and categories are no longer correct. Any volunteers to fix a few would be appreciated, most of these are somewhat problematic articles. ϢereSpielChequers 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Asher Milgrom

Resolved

 – article deleted Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody have a look into the article of Asher Milgrom?--Stone (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. It may be referenced, but it was clearly written to disparage.--Scott Mac 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Elchin Khalilov

See Frams description Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination) for the concerns related to a self promotional walled garden. Someone has recently been aggressively and promotionally editing Elchin Khalilov one of the related articles. Active Banana (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

• Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a former star of Gilligan's Island is under dispute regarding the inclusion/exclusion of an October 2007 arrest.

The arrest was widely reported in March 2008, e.g. [5]. Wells was initially arrested for reckless driving and possession of marijuana. The arresting officer says she failed a sobriety test. She was sentenced to six months probation and a small fine in February 2008. Wells disputes that the marijuana belonged to her and says that a friend admitted it was theirs and served time for this. She says she was swerving as she was adjusting the heater controls on her car, and admits reckless driving. She and her lawyer said in March 2008 in an interview with Entertainment Tonight that the arresting officer was suspended and under investigation for issues connected with another arrest.[6]

There is a long-running dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of the material: a vote in February resulted in support to exclude it on grounds of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The dispute is ongoing and the article is now under pending changes; I was invited to comment by one of the participants and I believe that further outside views are needed to resolve this. Fences&Windows 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this has been hashed out many times before...but the issue in question is NOT note-worth unless the person has a well establsihed (i.e. "reported on" by reliable media sources- NOT tabloids) history with the issues in question that in some way relates to the reason she is noteable in the first place: her acting career. In short, the info in question should not be included the article. Or the talk page for that matter. The Eskimo 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It has only been discussed among a small number of editors, which is why it needs outside views. There are reports outside tabloids. What is the basis in policy for the events needing to be related to what people are best known for? I am not aware of this convention. WP:WELLKNOWN states that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It is relevant as it led to the withdrawal of a speaking engagement, indicating the potential impact on her career of the incident. Fences&Windows 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• My researches suggest that there are plenty of reliable sources about this from clearly non-tabloid newspapers and media including CBS [7] USA today, [8] and the Australian Daily Telegraph [9], that it should be included in the article. I don't think the level of detail needs to be that great, per WP:UNDUE, given that the article currently is pretty short on details about other matters. Slp1 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with Slp1. Given the length of the overall article 1-2 sentences should cover it. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• This content has been discussed to death and rejected with quite a strong consensus of involved and uninvolved experienced users on the article talkpage. If someone wants to add something about this will they please present it and the supporting citations here for discussion, the prevous discussions revolved around rejection through undue and the fact that she was charged with this and that and not found guilty and someone else was found guilty and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor incident resulted in six months unsupervised probation for reckless driving. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the above editor is one of the four editors working to prevent the information from being in the article, and presenting the usual argument ("This has been discussed before!"). —Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is close to a WP:NPA. Please do not accuse me of such issues, I am a single editor working to improve the quality of the content in the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeh, I don't think the drugs are notable to be mentioned - as you say the charges were dropped etc. CBS seems the most neutral (least drugs focused) source so I propose something like....

On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party. She later pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving and was sentenced on Feb 29th 2009 to 6 months probation.[10]

Thoughts? @Prhartcom - Off2riorob has a very legitimate view point :) no need to lay into him --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about something like this- I think we can mention the marijuana in part because Wells felt the need to explain it herself. In February 2008, Wells pleaded guilty to reckless driving and was fined, sentenced to five days in jail, and placed on probation for six months as part of a plea agreement in which other drug and alcohol-related charges were dropped.[11] Wells and her attorney stated that marijuana found in her car belonged to others.[12][13]--Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is undue commentary regarding issues that turned out to have nothing to do with her. The fact the she posted such a denial on her webspace doesn't make it notable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, I'm afraid. A conviction obviously has something to do with her; and her explanations came in media sources, not her website.--Slp1 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she was convicted of reckless driving and received the minor punishment of six months unsupervised probation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the addition of the drug allegations in our article as she was innocent of those allegations, someone else was convicted of that. IMO Tmortons write is a very neurtal uninvolved addition, and he has added one cite and you can add another so that interested readers that want all the gory details can click on a link and read all about the allegations and suchlike.

• - On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party. She later pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and was sentenced on Feb 29th 2009 to 6 months unsupervised probation.[14] [15] Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• How about putting this suggestion on the talk page and see what editors there think? I think that should cover everyone's concerns. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully we are seeing reason over at Talk:Dawn Wells and it looks like we will no longer be censoring Wikipedia. But should we mention the marijuana or not? Please head over there and state your opinion. (Note: This is the only other place in Wikipedia I am writing this.) —Prhartcom (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Prhartcom, your comment of censorship does not assume any good faith. Disagree with the opinions expressed, and challenge the arguments presented, but don't dismiss what's been said by putting an incorrect label on it, just because you happen to disagree. It's good that this has been brought to a wider discussion. It's the most balanced discussion that has so far taken place on this subject. Tmorton's suggestion seems like a reasonable option to me, and I'll also say that at Talk:Dawn Wells. Rossrs (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just posted on the article talk page, nodding at Slp1's approach. It is appropriate that this get a small, neutral mention that hews to the facts in the better sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is wrong to mention marijuana at all. No conviction, no trial, just dropped charges. To mention this minor incident - the sort of thing that could happen to anyone - gives entirely the wrong impression. That tabloids went bonkers over it and she felt compelled to respond on her website is no excuse. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Editorial judgment is important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course it's a minor incident; the irresponsible media ran with it because she's "Mary Ann". That's the significance; *they* damaged her. Thanks for highlighting that. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we've got the proposed new paragraph almost decided; I think it is down to two possible submissions. If you are interested, take a look and let us know which one you like better. (Note: This is the only other place in Wikipedia I am writing this.) Thanks. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of nontheists - a list of people identifying as atheists but we call them nontheists

Some time ago, Lists of atheists was renamed Lists of nontheists. In the current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism this has been discussed, and the basic argument for keeping the article is the distinction between nontheism and atheism. In any case, in the entire list I could only find one subject who called themselves a nontheist, all the others identify themselves as atheists. I consider it a BLP violation to call them atheists (and also a WP:VERIFY issue). Mainly because of the AfD discussion I moved most of the relevant articles back to say 'atheists', which has now been reverted by the person who did the original move. I'd like comments as to whether there is a BLP problem in calling self-professed atheists 'nontheists'. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a slight BLP problem in my mind. Anyone claiming to be atheist needs to be on Lists of atheists anyone claiming not to be atheist and those for whom it is uncertain should be on Lists of nontheists. There seems no need to generalise in the case where we know a specific. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "nontheists" is improper for that article for several reasons: (1) the word "nontheist" does not exist an any reliable dictionary; (2) most readers of this encyclopedia have no idea what "nontheist" means; and (3) most people in the list (all?) did not identify themselves as "nontheists". Note that the article was named "List of atheists" for a long time, and was only recently changed to "list of nontheists", and that not many editors participated in the re-name discussion. In the spirit of compromise, how about "List of atheists and nontheists"? --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The only reason I raised the split idea is because I know some, uh, non-theists ;), don't consider themselves atheist because of the connotation or for other reasons (disclaimer: I come under the latter :)). Most probably don't care but it seems worth thinking about in terms of BLP policy. As it is I'd support a full move back to the atheism title with a note that it is being used as a general term. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, Jimmy Wales is on the list. Now, I think I remember reading that Jimmy is an atheist. However, the cited source is Jimmy saying (in response to a question of faith and religion) "I'm a complete non-believer". That's not exactly the same thing - or is it?--Scott Mac 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That comment would just put him in the people who have said they are complete non believer category. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Said Bourarach

Can someone take a look at Murder of Said Bourarach? It asserts in its title that a man was murdered (by certain living persons discussed in the article). But there appears to not have been either a confession (just the opposite) or conviction of the accused people. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• There was a dead body, though. Multiple sources (giving the correct date of the event, for starters) are already given in the AFD discussion. Feel free to take them in hand and write without mercy, rather that relying upon "someone". Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a dead body. The title says there was a murder, however (by living persons, as amplified in the article). There is a small but important distinction between saying a living person was arrested on suspicion of murder (or even charged with murder), and saying that a murder was in fact committed (when the suspects say that no murder was committed). It would appear to me that the title is a BLP issue, but as I've edited the article I would think it best for someone else to address that. "Death of...." would be more accurate, and avoid the BLP issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed it to "Death of ...". Crum375 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Many thanks, Crum.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Said Bourarach - see this too.--Scott Mac 10:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramiro Helmeyer

Ramiro Helmeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is currently mostly blanked, but for BLP reasons I'm hesitant to restore it. The article as it was before the near-blanking is pretty savage to the guy. It *is* sourced, though most of the sources are in Spanish, and thus I'm unable to confirm what they say. Of the ones in English, two make no mention of the guy, and the third makes passing references that do confirm that some of the article may be correct, but it, by itself, is far from sourcing for everything in the article. So could I please get someone with the ability to read Spanish to assist in validating whether the sources so support the pre-blanking article? If so, then it likely can be restored. If not, then it may need a major BLP pruning. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like it was created as an attack type article. Perhaps it is better prodded. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • PROD has been placed on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It has already been PRODed in the past and therefore needs to go to AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can anyone that perhaps understands spanish have a look at this article and see if he is notable for an article and see if it is possible to write a decent BLP from the citations that were in the article. Previous content, recently stubbed (see edit history for details) seems attack like and the citations weak. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• It's a bit of a coatrack. Helmeyer was reportedly involved in the bombings of Caracas in the summer of 1993. But all of the sources that I can find and understand report as fact little more than his arrest, conviction, incarceration, and apparent release in connection with that one event, as well as the allegations he made against Thor Halvorssen Hellum and later retracted. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I speak Spanish and went back to the revision of 31 May. All but one of the Spanish sources are in my opinion unacceptable for some of the claims made. One of them is a campaign website autentico.org fighting for a "Cuban Cuba." Reading through it, they seem to have a major beef against Venezuela and therefore it can't be trusted for objective information. The second, this one, is a blog/personal webpage and thus fails WP:RS. The third source returns a 404 and with no access dates can't be verified. The last source El Universal is one of the leading newspapers in Venezuela and mentions that Helmeyer was sentenced to 30 years in prison for murder, bombing and financing terrorism. Other mentions do occur in El Universal. Valenciano (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding a bit more as requested by Off2riorob, el universal doesn't really have anything about him unconnected with the bombs. This seems to be a case of WP:oneevent so the article is best deleted or else redirected to Thor Halvorssen Hellum. Valenciano (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• - As per this discussion I have sent it here to AFD for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

it:Alejandro Peña Esclusa

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

• During 48 hours I have tried to make the Italian editors firsts correct the article that contains clearly libelous and unsourced claims, later had material translated from English and edited the page myself, but in every step of the way been met by opposition, reverts, and finally being blocked completely. They have no understanding of the rules for pages on living persons. This is a serious problem for the foundation that needs to be addressed from outside Italy, it appears. (At this very moment, somebody else has reverted the Undo of the last change, but we will see if it is allowed to stand this time.) Lindorm (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You were blocked for accusing other editors of being political mouthpieces, not for anything to do with that actual article. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not about me, this is about the veracity of the information and the libelous claims on the page on Alejandro Peña Esclusa! What is wrong with you? Can't you read??? The man is a political prisoner who risks torture and death in prison, and the libelous claims on Italian Wikipedia protects those who hold him, and you think that this is about ME? Are you for real? (BTW, his excuse for blocking me is a lie, but since he blocked me, I can't say it to his face. I was trying to prevent the character assassination of a political prisoner, but every effort to remove the patently libelous claims in the article was undone. To make the point I made it clear that he acted as a mouthpiece of Hugo Chavez, but I never said that he was one. I just said that he acted as if he was one, and that remains true no matter how much he puts his fingers in his ears. The article was libelous and it needed to be edited, and since nobody was doing it (the rules here are immediately, but I waited 48 hours) I had the text translated and edited. And what happens? Complete UNDO. Someone is really, really acting as an agent for Pena Esclusa's political enemy, which we all know is Hugo Chavez. A man's life is in the balance, and that guy let his ego get in the way. May God forgive him.) Lindorm (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You need to raise these issues on it.wiki - we have no sway there (as was pointed out). As it stands the en.wiki article is pretty biased so I've dropped it in my tag list to work on - thanks for the heads up on that.(comment added by User:Tmorton166) Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Which I cannot, since Vituzzu blocked me, conveniently, and that is the reason for bringing it up here. Every hour counts!!!!! That is why the rules say IMMEDIATELY. This is literally about life and death.Lindorm (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I highly doubt what was written on it.wiki will affect what the Venezuelan govt./courts decide to do (whether legally or not). It makes more sense to calmly approach the issue and work out what is accurate or not. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I think you are seriously underestimating the power of the word. I didn't make that statement out of the blue but from knowledge of what impact this has. I tried to talk to them to no avail, and finally they blocked me from even making the case. I am trying to protect Wikipedia and them from a lawsuit, but they are their own worst enemies it seems. -And now a revert to the libelous text was made again today, plus they decided to block me permanently. Somebody else must help them now, I can't.Lindorm (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
              • I didn't make that statement out of the blue but from knowledge of what impact this has - if you have legitimate, authoritative and provable concerns there is a venue for you to raise them directly with Wikimedia people: WP:OTRS. Though, note, you have to have a legitimate concern and to demonstrate that the article on it.wiki is endangering his life. You probably need to represent the guy directly (I have no idea what their actual criteria is). I am trying to protect Wikipedia and them from a lawsuit - so are you worried about the content affecting him or us? Make your mind up :) Vaguely threatening lawsuits (or the potential for lawsuits) against WP in general or users is a no-no though. As I said; if there is a genuine concern this probably needs to go to OTRS. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Thank you, FINALLY someone who contributes something useful. Look, I don't care about him but I do care about Human Rights, and Wikipedia, and when Wikipedia writes things that violate his Human Rights, the two coincide. Let me give you an example of how this works. A person (in the US) mentioned in a forum a statement on Italian Wikipedia, and the next one commented, "I saw that in this other site and thought it a lie for being so crazy, but if it says so on wikipedia I suppose it is true". The statement has no source and is the article is flagged as lacking sources and being unbiased. That is why those things have to be removed immediately. The rule was not created out of the blue. And as for courts in Venezuela, they have nothing to do with his release. This is an entirely political imprisonment, and the only thing that can set him free is if a global public opinion demands it. Which is why Wikipedia matters, and why Chavez supporters have a reason to try to smear him on Wikipedia. You have to understand that you are in the middle of a political PR battle here.Lindorm (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What is wrong with you? Can't you read??? ...and lay off the personal attacks, please. TFOWR 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Whatever it takes to save a man's life.Lindorm (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • That's the reason why I've blocked Lindorm for 36h on it.wiki. Anyway it.wiki has not a BLP policy but at least two trusytworthy users are dealing with the issue (if there's one). --Vituzzu (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I note that the translation from English was been reinserted by another user, and I hope that some Italian user will asap get on it fixing the grammatical errors, which surely are many, but I can't point that out since I was blocked. Unless there is another vandalic deletion leading to the reintroduction of the problem, and that is prevented from being removed, I will now consider this issue resolved.Lindorm (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • • As I can see your scope is not wiki's improvement but adpting wiki to your ideas and POV, furthermore you're ignoring en.wiki's policies or discussions (such as this one) have no effects on other wikis, finally personal attacks "never takes" and you **must** be polite, for all these reason I'm not so sure you'll ever be able to edit it.wiki. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • A brand new user, with his first edit. Seems unusual behavior... if it is a direct translation of the en.wiki copy then it needs serious work. The en.wiki is an weasely, badly sourced mess :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
              • • Vituzzu, you are so out of line. I have tried for 3 days to get patently illegal and libelous claims out of Wikipedia TO PROTECT WIKIPEDIA and all I have got for that is reverts and abuse. The one who does not belong is you.24.127.208.87 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Final word is that the reinserted text got removed again by Vituzzu. Since I was banned from even raising the issue at Italian Wikipedia, I have turned to the legal counsel of the Wikipedia Foundation. Over and out.Lindorm (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • To protect wikipedia putting a text full of mistakes? That's great! I think that's the main issue: you cannot understand Italian at all (the way you tried to write on it.wiki is quite clear from this point of view) and so you go on figuring "strange things" about page's content: content is quite similar to english page, just without the long section about the NGO but with italian politics reactions. The unreferenced part has just been hidden. Since you go on claiming that it.wiki's page is endangering his life I'm considering you has a troll and finally, take a look to your crosswiki edits (I've just seen you added on wikiquote a pov sentence about the supposed "constitutionality" of Honduras' troubles, which are considered by EU as a golpe), a pov-pusher. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Lindorm: You created your account 4 days ago, and in 4 days you violated the WP:SPA, WP:POV, WP:EW and WP:NPA policies. And you're doing theese things all over the wikis. Your indefinite block on itwiki is sacrosanct, and you should be blocked (IMO) in all wikis. On itwiki 5 admins out of 5 agreed with your block, so it seems to be right, isn't it? If you do not follow the rules we can not even begin to discuss Jalo 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And you should not discuss here about itwiki, since we have different policies (as we told you several times...) Jalo 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Take a piece of advice from someone with more experience: Don't embarrass yourselves by defending the indefensible. Jalo, if you don't want me to take it up here, and I can't take it up on Italian Wikipedia, then you are welcome to make your case in comments on blog.erlingsson.com Lindorm (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to add; I would probably have temp-banned you for your remarks/attacks and over concerns of SPA/POV editing on that wiki. As I suggested earlier if there are demonstrably libelous claims in the article I advise contacting OTRS because they can deal with it better in such situations. If you have evidence that this individuals life is in danger because of the wiki article (which seems quite dubious) stop typing here and go to OTRS - that, again, is the correct article. it.wiki is a separate entity to en.wiki and if they don't have the same policy as us, well, they don't have that policy. I advise calm and constructive contribution --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tmorton116, I'm one of the two or three guys which manage the most of these kind of issues via OTRS, so I'm used to be right dealing with similar stuffs ;p --Vituzzu (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald's article appears to be the target of some particularly bilious BLP violations recently: [16], [17], and [18] all occurred within the past month. Currently the article is not under any sort of protection or probation; does anyone think it should be? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I watch listed it for another set of eyes. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it for a long time for exactly this reason. The article is a vandalism magnet, unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Inge

Brandon Inge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – The text in this edit: [19] continues to be added to the article. The text is WP:SYN because insinuates the baseball team he plays for was worse because he was playing. The text illustrates the team's record, but there is no source that makes the connection — X96lee15 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I left the other user a note asking him to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source that reports a direct connection between Inge's trade and the team's record, that text should not be in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski

Wow, User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski is a HUGE BLP violation. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you would point out what parts you feel are BLP violations. I've copied a section of the existing article to my user space sandbox to see if I can improve it. I haven't made many changes yet and the ones I have are cited with WP:RS -- but if you have a particular objection I'd love to hear what you object to and why. Right now this draft article fragment is in a messy sandboxy state ... but if you want to be helpful you'll need to be more specific on how and where you feel it violates BLP. Hoping To Help (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The very first section, which just starts off with his arrest record, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • As Errant points out below and I stated above this is a SECTION of an existing article that I made a copy of to work on to see if I could improve it in private before showing it to the world for feedback. The first sentence that you object to is unchanged from the article that I borrowed it from. Of course this would violate WP:WEIGHT if it was a published stand alone article. But this is a small *segment* of an existing article in *draft* form. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You have the wrong idea of a wiki. Nothing that you do here on the wiki, even on a userspace page, is "in private". Everything that you do here is public, and visible to the population of the planet. This is an important principle to remember. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Last night the content contained large swathes of what looked like copy and paste content from locations some of which that are not wikipedia reliable sources, the content has been trimmed to a third of its size since then, when I looked it was a whole POV write up that will never ever be useful to insert or improve in any way the actual wikipedia article. I see Doug has noindexed it now, which is good. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The content appears to come from this article; it all looks fine to me in that context. My knowledge of this case is actually quite extensive (I work in LE and this was one of my theory revision cases) and it all looks factual. I'd suggest NoIndex is a good idea and when Hoping To Help is done with improvements he gets a friendly admin to delete it - just in case --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist anyways. Here it was at its violating worst at 4am last night. Off2riorob (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, never noticed that :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I asked him about it late yesterday afternoon what he was doing there, and mentioned it to an Administrator. When I asked him it was at 8000 and after I spoke to him he increased the content with a lot of swathes of copyrighted and policy (BLP) violating text to 30000 from some reliable and some unreliable sources and then this thread was opened and he has since cut it back again. Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sources section was *never* meant to be published. It was just a place for me to collect information that some small part of which might *possibly* be integrated into the article. Yes, it was links and some direct cut and paste so at a glance I could see what those links were about. I moved them off of Wikipedia mainly because I realized it would be more convenient for me to store them elsewhere -- and b/c some of my longer clippings might have been copvio. But I guess my mistake was treating the sandbox like it was a private place to work on an article. My understanding is that the user spaces are not indexed and so that no one lands there from doing a search ... but maybe I'm wrong. ... Off2riorob(talk), I'm still curious why you're spending more energy trying to police my draft user-space sandbox article than you are the published main space article? You objected to a citation I had in the sandbox article that was only there because I copied it over from the main space article. Why didn't you object to the citation when it was used twice in a *published* article by some other editor? Hoping To Help (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I stopped looking at that awful article long ago, I stumbled on your article, it was visible to search engines and I saw no need for you to be creating it there, I still don't and your policy and BLP violations to the content after I spoke to you yesterday strengthen my feelings. Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, as we discussed here you pointed out two links you thought were WP:RS questionable -- which I actually appreciate the effort to help. I then explained that I was never intending to use those sources in the final article and one (http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html ) was just there because it was part of the original article that I copied from the main space (that some other editor had inserted). What I'm still curious about is that you are so worried about about it's inclusion in a *draft* sandbox user-space scratch pad -- yet you've allowed it to remain in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case even -- even after I pointed out to you that it exists twice in that main space published article? I guess I'm confused. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I was unable to help improve that article and it was being defended by multiple users and I came to think of it as a place to keep the policy violations and took it off my watchlist as it was awful to watch the additions and talkpage commentry. I concentrated my energy on attempting to keep the similar violations out of the main Polanski article, which I think was managed pretty well. As I said I stumbled on your article and it was easy to deal with so...you know the rest.Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious but why are you trying to rewrite a current article? Why don't you go to the talk page and make suggestions there or even be bold and edit the article? It doesn't make sense to be doing a rewrite since there are active editors there who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion. My suggestion would be to join the editors at the article and request a speedy deletion of the article you have in your sandbox since there are problems with it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why am I doing this? Because I think that the article could possibly be improved ... And I think improving it might involve rearranging/changing a number of sentences that I would have a hard time doing on a live article without messing things up. I've copied part of the article to a non-mainspace area so I can try out different ideas before I propose something. I may want to propose a new layout/structure -- but it is hard for me to do that without being able to tryout different versions and see how they read.

Your comment: "since there are active editors who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion." Seems like you might be unconsciously in violation of: WP:OWN Hoping To Help (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now the second time you accuse me of ownership issues. I will tell you again, I have not edited this article. There is no ownership issues and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying this, please strike it out. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Stopping a rewrite of an article from happening because of concerns that "there are active editors there who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion" -- is a violation of the intent behind WP:OWN. I never said that you were an editor of this article -- but that the reason you gave went against the intent of WP policy.Hoping To Help (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to reread the WP:OWN policy since I see nothing there about an editor commenting like I did who has never touched the article. I take this as a personal attack. Please stop this accusation and now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Massively rewriting an article, particularly this sort of article, in user space and then copying it into article space will be contentious - major rewrites of established articles can lead to much discussion and reverions/editing. It is much better to improve the article piece by piece so others can contribute to the effort. Accusing Crohnie of WP:OWN when she is trying to give you helpful advice to stop you running into controversy later seems a bit unfair. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList membership list

The sourcing for the purported list of members of this now defunct list-serv seems to be touch on the dodgy side for my tastes. Does this merit further review? Ronnotel (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure does. This is a powderkeg, to be sure. The more eyes on this the better. It's pretty obvious that the publication of the list of members was probably untoward. Compare to, for example, our Climatic Research Unit documents article where content is only sourced to secondary source commentators rather than the actual e-mail and document contents. This seems to be the best way to handle these things. If a third-party reliable source identifies someone, then use it. If it was done through an unauthorized personal information release, then do not. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NYT identifies some of the people. RS in spades. Collect (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the NYT identifies them, or they identify themselves, I'm all for it. I would avoid using partisan articles or lists as sources. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't need the New York Times as a source. We need reliable sources. We have them. New York Times reporters and editors may have been on the list -- in fact, we know that Paul Krugman was. What's dodgy are statements unmoored to policy that claim we need an even higher standard than policy. The naming of a person who was a member of that discussion board is an elemental fact that a reliable source is unlikely to get wrong. Nearly all of the names come from articles in The Daily Caller. Those articles were news reports. No one beyond Wikipedia (and no one here) has disputed that The Daily Caller is inaccurate about the names. If you have a problem with The Daily Caller as a reliable source, make your case. Otherwise, you people two don't have a case, you have a dislike. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"You people" is probably mis-aimed - any attempt to draw a rhetorical boundary line that somehow includes SA and yours truly strikes me as a fool's errand. My only point is that we're messing with people's professions here - being labeled as a "JournoLister" can have a life-long impact for someone who styles themselves as a disinterested journalist. Dropping an accusation here or there can be an exceedingly easy way to settle whatever score someone needs settled. All I'm saying is we need to be exceedingly careful here.Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not messing with a single thing. We're using reliable sourcing to cover an encyclopedic topic. You don't think their bosses haven't already been clued in about this? You say: being labeled as a "JournoLister" can have a life-long impact -- oh, please. They participated in the group. Our coverage makes clear that to participate on some level is not to participate in every discussion or to have some kind of responsibility for every post made by all other participants. The journalistic ethics of this have been mentioned on the NPR website and at the L.A. Times website. [20] [21] and it doesn't look like there's a knee-jerk reaction to this. We aren't responsible for the potential idiocy of some employer now or in the future, as long as we're careful. But you're not talking about carefulness here. Dropping an accusation here -- no, no, no -- the list means only what it says it means: That person was a member, as reliable sources have already told the public. No accusation involved. If the journalists associated with a sketchy operation (meaning one in which there's reason for an employer to be concerned -- and since some members of the 400-member group were seeking to have journalists exploit their employers for partisan gain, why not? Seriously, why wouldn't an employer be concerned about it? Should we avoid covering an arrest or any scandal reported in the press? The same concerns would apply), then they may well in fact have something to explain to somebody now or in the future -- that doesn't make our coverage unfair in the least. It is not a scandal simply to belong to the group, but it is simply a fact that some behavior taking place in the group has been regarded widely as scandalous. We have no reason to be more concerned about the members of the group than we have to be concerned for their employers or readers/audience. "You people" means you two who made the same point, no more, no less. I didn't think you'd find it offensive (and I don't understand how it is offensive), but I'm crossing it out because I'm not here to make you uncomfortable (except uncomfortable with your statements!). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

" It is not a scandal simply to belong to the group..." - in which case, why is a list of names (of members of a discussion group) encyclopedic? If membership is not in itself notable or significant, why note it? Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding! There are reasons for having lists in articles other than that the members are engaged in scandalous behavior! The list was private but dealt with journalists covering and/or commenting on important topics in public affairs. The journalists used the list (in proper or improper ways, or both, depending on the individuals involved) in writing about public affairs for the public. A reader who wishes to understand the subject of the article will have an interest in exactly who was involved in the group, just as a reader interested in the geography of California will have an interest in List of mountain ranges of California. The list assists with a reader's further understanding of the subject in just exactly the same way. The idea that there is no proper encyclopedic role for such a list is without any foundation whatever. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the entire list from the current public article for BLP reasons - there are far too many redlink names, and a number of sources are not explicitly linking names to JournoList. The old version of the article can be found here, if it is later agreed that the list should be republished in whole or in part. Until then, it should not be republished. If someone wants to work on it in their userspace (with a {{userspace draft}} tag), they can do that, and post a link to it (it may make more sense as a standalone List anyway).

Now, as to whether this list, qua list, has encyclopedic merit, I would say unequivocally no. A membership list of a private discussion forum is not in itself a valid encyclopedic topic; and collecting employment affiliations to add to the list looks like a witchhunt. Given that many of the names are currently redlinks, there are also clear privacy issues. What is encyclopedic is the JournoList article, using reliable sources to note particular members for particular reasons. Those who want to maintain the list should be prepared to defend the list as a standalone page, since the list really does not belong inside the JournoList article, but as List of JournoList members. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your move is without any foundation in BLP and without consensus. I'd revert it, but that was already done immediately. Please don't make brash deletions on the basis of unfounded claims that are nowhere close to getting consensus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it has foundation: WP:BLPNAME, and the fact that many of the names are redlinks. Some (perhaps even most) of these names may be independently notable and merit articles, but BLP caution clearly demands not disseminating names if we're not sure. Beyond that, I also maintain that it is simply unencyclopedic to list the names. A summary description of the membership is everything that's required, along with naming (in prose, with explanation/reason) individuals who have been specifically highlighted in reliable sources. Anything else is a nasty combination of voyeurism and witch-hunting, for participation in what was a private discussion: that some of them were public figures does not automatically make full documentation in the public interest. Without support from anyone else, I'm not going to repeat the action; and I don't have time or energy to make a fuss. But I absolutely stand by it, and argue that the list should be temporarily removed from the public article, and perhaps moved somewhere NOINDEXed (hence the {{userspace draft}} point) for those keen to work on it pending outcome of discussion about the list. Rd232 ^talk 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME: Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. Consider: Journolist is made up of discussions among 400 members of the group. How are any of the members not "directly involved"? How? "Voyeurism"? You're grasping. BLP caution clearly demands not disseminating names if we're not sure. Uh, where is that stated or implied? a nasty combination of voyeurism and witch-hunting It's automatically bad to be known as a member of this group? Our article doesn't imply that. Critics of the group don't necessarily believe that. Ezra Klein and others say they don't believe that. A subject notable enough for an article deserves to be covered comprehensively. No terrible burden is laid on people on WP's list because a group they belonged to has received bad publicity resulting from the acts or statements of certain members. The list does no more than follow what reliable sources have already published. They were not acting as "private" individuals in the group. The purpose of the group was to discuss privately public business. Listing who was doing that in this group is no invasion of anybody's privacy. The list (and the article) is not even a criticism of the people in the group. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This bit I will respond to, because it's a key issue, and your remarks on this are nonsense: " They were not acting as "private" individuals in the group. The purpose of the group was to discuss privately public business. " The privacy of private discussions is not a function of the subject matter, it is a function of the purpose of the discussions and the status of the participants. As you correctly state (but somehow draw the opposite conclusion), "The purpose of the group was to discuss privately public business.". Unless they were public officials discussing matters within their official purview or the participants were acting illegally (such that the public interest can override their right to privacy), that is all we need to know. PS If it happens that this is true of any individual members of the group, this does not negate the privacy rights of the rest. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Journolist cont. (Jeffrey Toobin and Spencer Ackerman)

Editors are repeatedly inserting into these articles large paragraphs containing either one or both of:

• Out of context, dramatized quotes from Journolist emails which have no relevance to anything in else in the bio or career.
• Allegations stated as fact that the subject of the articles engaged in a conspiracy to alter news coverage, sourced only to partisan tabloid websites.

The articles involved are short, so this stuff doesn't belong on just WP:UNDUE grounds alone, much less other BLP/NPOV considerations. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When the NYT publishes it, it is certainly usable. Try [22] [23] inter alia. As fpr the belief that if one has a sufficiently short BLP that therefore it can contain no controversy - that would require rewriting WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those two Times articles mentions either Toobin or Ackerman. Are you suggesting we use them to support negative material in those BLPs anyway? MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am one of those editors involved in putting the material into the articles. Personally, the sources I've used/reinserted have not been "partisan tabloid." They've included Politico, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and The Daily Caller (it was also discussed in the Wall Street Journal). I believe all pass muster as reliable sources. Much of what's been quoted is available in context at the Daily Caller links. They very much have relevance to these BLPs, since they go to the profession of these individuals--journalism. I have not personally made or reinserted "allegations stated as fact that the subject of the articles engaged in a conspiracy to alter news coverage." Drrll (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, those sources have discussed Journolist in general and the Weigel firing in particular. They have nothing to do with this quotes you've singled out, which have zero journalistic or encyclopedic value. Random private email quotes do not "go to the profession of these individuals" (did you mean professionalism?) and tell us nothing about their career or work. You also have yet to address the WP:UNDUE implications of having random private email quotes take about 25-33 percent of the article of a professional journalist. This is clearly absurd and you wouldn't stand for it if these were right wingers. Gamaliel (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Every source concerning JournoList used in the Toobin and Ackerman articles discusses these individuals in relation to JournoList. All of the sources used but Politico discuss specific quotes by Toobin/Ackerman (and its use makes no claims about their specific quotes). As far as the journalism profession goes, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." Regarding this material taking such a large proportion of the articles, I think the problem is that the articles are too short in general--the JournoList material only takes a few paragraphs. The JournoList controversies are noteworthy enough to have been noted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Politico. As far as BLPs of conservatives go, plenty of them have many paragraphs of criticism about their words and actions. I don't see you having problems there. Drrll (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning their participation. But these journalists are not at the center of the Journolist controversies and these lurid pull quotes serve no encyclopedic purpose. If their professional integrity is in question, then quote a source saying that. If you are using the quotes to say that, then you are pushing an agenda in clear violation of WP policies. The fact that the articles are too short is immaterial. If they are too short, work on expanding the non-controversial parts. Their length does not give you a free pass to violate WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Spencer Ackerman suggesting to other journalists that Fred Barnes and others be accused of racism for no other reason than to gain some political advantage is a deep violation of journalistic ethics, even for a commentator. That's why there are sources out there criticizing Ackerman. That is an extremely important fact about Ackerman that belongs -- prominently -- in the article about him because it is a journalistic scandal. Why would you think this incident is not important? Why would you think it is not extremely important in even a short article about Ackerman on Wikipedia? It's a lurid quote because Ackerman's words are lurid. It isn't pushing an agenda when multiple sources have condemned Ackerman. It's information important to the subject. And Ackerman is very much at the center of the Journolist controversy. He's mentioned in more than one incident, and the racism incident is one of the most important of the increasing number of Journolist incidents. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scandal? A random pull quote is not a scandal. And if it is supposedly a scandal, find some mainstream, non-partisan sources to justify that, don't simply throw the quote out on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, and I've already said in this discussion that I'd be very careful about treating such a quote. Please read what's been written before objecting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is the encylopaedic value of this list? What does it do, beyond seeking to embarrass the people listed?
• What are the criteria for inclusion in the list? The article mentions 400 members, but the list only includes a few dozen.
• Lists are meant to serve as navigational aids that bring together existing or potential articles. Several of these people do not appear to meet WP:N- Lindsay Beyerstein, for example, is simply listed a "blogger", and a quick google search turns up nothing to suggest that she would meet our criteria for a stand-alone biography.
• What's the rationale for including their employer? That seems like unwarranted inclusion of personal information. More to the point, the information about "employer" seems to be WP:OR In the case of Ed Kilgore, the listed source for the information is "Web page titled "Ed Kilgore/Senior Fellow" at the Progressive Policy Institute website, retrieved July 20, 2010". It's not like this is trivial information - Dave Weigel lost his job after his membership in the list was made public. Associating people's names with their employers is problematic. When that connection is not made by the original source, that's especially bad. Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weigel did not lose his job for being on Journolist. He lost it because of some of the things that he wrote on Journalist that his employer -- Washington Post -- found objectionable. Merely being a member of Journolist, and identified as so, is just a fact. It doesn't carry any judgment of moral turpitude.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Weigel lost his job because of his associations with the list. That's the only verifiable fact. In case you didn't realise, the reasons given by a company for terminating an employee are not simply accepted as fact. They're designed for ass-covering, not careful and nuanced communications of facts. As for the idea that there are no negative associations with being a member of JournaList - if that's the case, then why is the conservative media raising such a shit-storm about it, and 'naming and shaming' people like Farrell? No, that's simply false. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true that he lost his job "because of his associations with the list." That is not a verifiable fact if you are implying a simple cause-effect relationship. Read the story in his own words here and here. I am not blaming Weigel or defending the WaPo's terrible response to the pressure to fire him after some of his writings on JournoList were published. But it was what he wrote and what was leaked from what he wrote that got him into trouble with his employer, not the fact that he was on JournoList.~Mack2~ (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, the full list has not been made public by reliable sources. What names have been reliably sourced are on the list. WP:LIST#Purposes of lists shows quite clearly that there are other purposes to lists than just "navigational aids". See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. This list is "embedded" in the article at present, but may be a stand-alone list later if it gets much bigger. All items do not need their own article -- policy is clear on that, and it's common sense. The rationale for including the employer (we probably need to change that to "affiliation" to cover blogs and group blogs more accurately) is that for most of these people, the reason that they are at all influential is that they are affiliated with a larger organization that is itself influential. The sortability feature allows readers to group all the "Politico" or "Nation" journalists together, for example, or find out quickly who that "Daily Caller" journalist was who belonged to the list. And Mack2 is right: Weigel lost his job for what he said, not for being on the list. There have been no mass firings. The value of the list is closely linked to the value of the article subject, of course. This subject is considered important in terms of journalism ethics, which is why it will continue to receive coverage and be commented on by prominent publications. It will be covered extensively in industry publications and, later, academic publications about journalism. It doesn't require a crystal ball to see that. If the list gets much longer, it will be worth it's own article page for space reasons or WP:UNDUE reasons. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (added to comment) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the full list has not been made public by reliable sources - so your criterion for inclusion is "Names that have been made public"? That's your only criterion? People are being added to a List of Shame, regardless of notability, simply because someone has included them? And you don't see that as a huge problem?

All items do not need their own article -- policy is clear on that, and it's common sense - not true. There are no policies specific to list content, but the existing guidelines are clear: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future) It goes on to say Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity - but then you'd need to make the case that these people are "of particular importance".

The rationale for including the employer ... is that for most of these people, the reason that they are at all influential is that they are affiliated with a larger organization that is itself influential - again, you're adding people's employers to a List of Shame, employers that are, in many cases, not even mentioned by the sources...and this isn't a BLP violation?

Weigel lost his job for what he said, not for being on the list. There have been no mass firings - so a few firings is OK, as long as it isn't mass firings? People don't get fired because their employers discover they are liberals. People get fired because someone decides to make a stink about it and embarrass their employers. And how does that happen? Because people put together lists like this one.

Again you are vastly oversimplifying this. As I wrote above, it's simply not true that Weigel lost his job "because of his associations with the list." And your comment here about "a few firings is OK" also implies that others were fired for being associated with JournoList. Nobody has been fired simply for being associated with JournoList. You can read Weigel's account in his own words here and here. And Ezra Klein, who is the creator and manager of JournoList also worked for and still works for WaPo. If anybody was "associated" with JournoList it was Klein. And WaPo had no problem with that. It did have problems with what Weigel said about some conservatives, given that Weigel's "beat" dealt with some of the people he was critical of on JournoList. I think WaPo's craven caving to political pressure was a terrible decision. But again it was what Weigel wrote on JournoList, not his membership in that listserv, that got him into trouble with his bosses.~Mack2~ (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It will be covered extensively in industry publications - then wait for it. Don't make prediction about the future. Especially not when it comes to adding a List of Shame to the page, a list meant simply to embarrass the subject. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread that you have pointed to a policy (well, guideline) that says the exact opposite of what you say it says: Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people: Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity. Wikipedia is not covering this as a "List of Shame" and frankly, how dare you characterize my work here that way. Tone down your rhetoric or this will lead nowhere. I'm more than willing to listen to you or anybody with an open mind, but if you're going to make a battle out of this you are damn well not going to get consensus for anything, anywhere, so cool your jets. I very well understand the sensitivity of the subject. I also understand it's importance, and you would help the discussion -- and it would help keep your reaction cooler -- if you acknowledge that importance and acknowledge that David Weigel losing his job, Ezra Klein shutting the list down, 400 journalists, many from very influential publications, are all part of an important subject. The article has quite a lot in defense of the Journolist members because of a commitment among the editors who have edited the article so far to keep it as NPOV as possible. Please respect that. Help avoid turning this article into a battleground. You made a good point about Ed Kilgore earlier. When I get a chance I'll re-edit the article, or someone else may want to make the change. Gotta go for now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think generally (unless the quotes have been repeated by multiple, very reliable sources) we should be wary of using quotes from Journolist since some may have been taken out of context. That's been a problem with coverage of similar situations. I trust The Daily Caller with names of people who belonged to the list -- and no one has disputed whether or not someone was on the list -- but I'm more reluctant to use quotes unless it's very likely that the context doesn't matter. It helps if a particular statement has been widely reported and commented on by a good number of sources. Spencer Ackerman saying that someone like Fred Barnes should be accused of racism, apparently without any reason other than to gain some political advantage, is a statement that has been widely commented on, and Ackerman has now shut up about the matter. It may be worth quoting him. In another case, a Journolist member discussed whether the FCC could pull the broadcast license for Fox News. The Journolist member later objected to that comment being represented as advocating pulling the license. I included that objection in the article as soon as I saw it. That's the kind of accusation based on possible misreadings or out-of-context comments that we need to watch out for. In general, the people mentioned are WP:WELLKNOWN, except for the list, where they're essentially just listed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been pointed out by many in the press that The Daily Caller is yanking these quotes out of context and basically practicing yellow journalism. I'd be very hesitant about using a tabloid website like the Caller in a BLP for any reason. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See [24] which is undoubtedly RS by WP:BLP standards, whish lists specific members of the list - including quite specifically Toobin and Ackerman. And which specifies the positions which were least acceptable. Collect (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If the editors advocating for inclusion were to limit themselves to material from an RS like the Post and not pushing the Daily Caller's conspiracy nonsense, then we might get closer to a mutually acceptable version that conforms to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post seems to advance the same "theories" you dislike. Collect (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, and if they really do say that, why the need to quote the Daily Caller at all? Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Gamaliel has gone ahead and yanked the Journolist material in its entirety from the Toobin article and all but the favorable material from the Ackerman article. Drrll (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Gamaliel. Even though JournoList is notable and an article has been written on it, including a list of known members, the fact that an individual was a member of the Journolist listserv is not necessarily notable in the biography of that person, and therefore needn't be mentioned in every biography. For some individuals it may be a very notable biographical fact (for Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel, for example). But in any case biographies are not just chasing the news of the moment. Nor are they diaries, gossip columns, or curriculum vitae. That a scandal-mongering blog chose to quote a couple of lines that a person wrote in a notable listserv does not make those lines notable in the life of that person, and thus they may not belong in the WP bio.~Mack2~ (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a blog. Many of the quotes that were in the BLPs have been reported by such sources as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post (by someone who covers journalists and journalism as a full-time job), and The Christian Science Monitor. Drrll (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. My point stands: the fact that something is published in a reputable source about a notable event does not make it notable in the biography of every person who is mentioned or quoted. In the case of the lines attributed to Toobin, for example, they just don't matter to Toobin's life, and what it would take to contextualize them in Toobin's bio is far out of proportion to their meaning in his life (his "biography"). When I die, even though I've been quoted several times in major newspapers including the WaPo and WSJ, nobody is going to put "He was quoted in the Washington Post" in my epitaph.~Mack2~ (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point does not stand. The Daily Caller's articles are about a list in which 400 people with access to the media, either through ties to reporters or because they are reporters or opinion journalists. What are the chances that any -- repeat, ANY -- information that is incorrect in The Daily Caller's coverage is not going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb by journalists who will point out any major errors? None. Absolutely none. It's like trying to mug someone in the middle of a police convention. The Daily Caller's coverage has been criticized in minute detail by people who are professional at doing just that. When Spenceer Ackerman calls on someone to be called a racist -- suggesting that numerous journalists do just that -- the quote of that is going to be correct or The Daily Caller is going to hear about it within hours. The name attached to the quote is going to be correct. (Tucker Carlson said he edited the first four stories himself.) When the Daily Caller got the affiliation and position of one person wrong, the correction was made within hours. Even the context of one Journolist comment (about the FCC pulling the license of Fox News) was disputed. Context can be difficult to get right, it can be difficult to be neutral when judging context, and disputes naturally arise about it, so we should be very careful about characterizations of the comments of particular people. Interesting that Ackerman hasn't yet denied saying it. Nor anyone else who have access to Journolist discussions. And that comment has been one of the most prominent revelations. I think it's the most prominent thing Ackerman has ever written. Ever. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not seem to be aware of the many media figures who are pointing out those errors in the DC's coverage. You also aren't addressing issues of UNDUE and RECENT: who is going to care in a year that Ackerman was a meaniepants on some email list? Is this really an important encyclopedic and biographical event? And even if it is, why should it take up 25-33 percent of his article? Also the version pushed by Drrll states as a fact that he engaged in a conspiracy using the DC's widely criticized coverage as a "source", without even attempting to be evenhanded about the manner. Surely this is the kind of "fact" that BLP was designed to prevent from being added to biographical articles. If the proponents are serious about the encyclopedia, as opposed to agenda pushing, then they will produce a version of this material that is 1) evenhanded and neutral 2) abandons questionable sources like the DC and 3) is of appropriate length as per WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. That JournoList was a place where conspiracies were being hatched by liberal journalists and bloggers is far from a proven fact. As far as I can tell, most of the participants were there just to share information, compare notes, and get a better understanding of newsy events. A few appear to have tried out strategies for responding to events. But this wasn't an army, there were no generals and no grunts. There were no marching orders. There was no founding document, no operational anything. It was just a forum for information and idea sharing.~Mack2~ (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That JournoList was a place where conspiracies were being hatched by liberal journalists and bloggers is far from a proven fact. I completely agree with you on that. I would not rely on The Daily Caller for that because something like that exttraordinary charge needs to be extremely well sourced. It does appear that Ackerman was proposing that in at least one case, but I wouldn't do more in his article than say he is reported to have suggested that other journalists on the list call Barnes and Rove racists while purportedlly not caring whether the charge is true or not. It should be an important consideration for us that no one has disputed this allegation. Howard Kurtz has reported that The Daily Caller has alleged it. Feel free to ask me to restate this on the Ackerman talk page if you need more support there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where in the press has been pointed out that these quotes are "out of context", or are these simply your own unsubstantiated claims? And how does a partisan source automatically get disqualified as a reliable source? NPOV does not mean the elimination of viewpoints. Truthsort (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. A partisan source does not "automatically get disqualified", a lurid partisan tabloid whose truthfulness is widely disputed does. Of course "NPOV does not mean the elimination of viewpoints", but neither does it require us to act as stenographer for a partisan tabloid. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Truthfulness is widely disputed"--by what reliable sources? Drrll (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The release of these emails have been covered by independent reliable secondary sources. Quite honestly it does not matter that the emails are coming from a conservative source. However, I have still not seen any evidence of disputing the truth on this or that the emails are taken out of context. Truthsort (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

The a way I understand it the essence of BLP policy is that Wikipedia should not be used as a weapon to try to hurt people. It's obvious to me, and I think any reasonable honest person, that something is wrong with posting this list on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that posting the list is not using Wikipedia as a weapon to try to hurt people. Certain people with influence on media coverage associated in a group to discuss public affairs. The list tells you who they are to the extent that we know. It does no more. Why would this necessarily hurt people? The article does not allege that the group was set up for a nefarious purpose (in fact we have ample coverage of the stated reasons). The group is controversial. Would quoting former members who comment on the group also be using Wikipedia as a weapon against them? When we describe the actions or words of various people is that also weaponizing Wikipedia? The assertion that simply listing them is hurtful to them has not been demonstrated. Not even Ackerman is losing his job over his comments. Nor is the woman who said she'd laugh if she watched Limbaugh dying. Did we weaponize Wikipedia in mentioning that statement in the article? We're not saying that everyone who was a member said that, and obviously no one rational would think that. The reason for the list is to better understand the subject of the article and to help readers who want to learn more about the subject. You want to stifle that regular kind of coverage ... for what reason? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Because I respect Wikipedia and am proud to be a contributor, even if in a small way. The whole concept of an encyclopedia is to give basic information of important topics, not to list names of people who are involved in some controversy. We are not lawyers or detectives. And if you would like to know, I am a social and political conservative with a strong dislike for the "mainstream media" (as some reading this probably already know.}Steve Dufour (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

At first I expected this would be an article about the Fox News controversy, and my feeling was that the members shouldn't be listed except for those that were notable in the Fox thread. But this is an article about the discussion group, just a general-purpose place for journalists to speak freely and there's nothing embarrassing about being a member of the forum. I would say keep the list of participants. Encyclopedic value is in showing the connections. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have worked some more on linking bios to the "red people" on the JournoList table. It takes time but it's fairly easy to do since almost all individuals have been active in some aspect of communications, public policy, or academic work and have institutional affiliations and bios of some kind available. I've even run across a couple of individuals who, on their own websites, shout out "Why not me? Am I too boring or insignificant to be called out by Tucker Carlson?" But as I worked on finding bios I've become convinced that digging out that information and putting it all in a table isn't doing anybody any favors except those who want to find an easy way to harass or persecute people for being a member of this discussion group called JournoList. And I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to that -- even if it's just a potential. Anybody who is hellbent on getting the information will be able to get it. But don't let WP be a witting agent in that process.

The story of JournoList should be told. It doesn't need a table. I recommend that the Table be deleted.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone knows of any other of the same type of list mention them here and I will support their removal too.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What article does the list appear on? TLDR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList Steve Dufour (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I argued strongly above and on the JournoList talk page, "it is simply unencyclopedic to list the names. A summary description of the membership is everything that's required, along with naming (in prose, with explanation/reason) individuals who have been specifically highlighted in reliable sources." This was a private discussion group, and the fact that it is feasible to list quite a lot of the names does not make it encyclopedic. Nor does the privacy invasion, as some have implied, depend on the private activity being reprehensible (besides which, there is clearly some bad publicity associated with the group, so that by extension being associated with the group is somewhat negative). The list should go, and it should go immediately (perhaps to someone's NOINDEXed userspace page), with the possibility of merger back if discussion concludes the list is worth having. In sum, if those who want the list can't see it surviving an AFD as a standalone page (which it should be, really, not part of the JournoList article), maybe they should reconsider its supposed value. Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you put in in your NOINDEXed userspace? I literally have to run out of town for two days.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article as yet. My initial reaction was mixed, as I was unclear about the significance of JournoList and struck by the dominance of the large number of names. I'm now clear on the significance but remin to be convinced of the need for a large number of names, especially if it cannot be proven that they said anything of significance on the list. The danger is that you besmirch innocent people by innuendo. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This seems even worse to me this morning than it did last night. As I said, it is no news to me that the "main stream" newspeople are mostly liberal (if not on the far left). Nor is it a surprise that they talk to each other about it. Besides the list of names taken out, the article should be much shorter related to its real importance -- which is not really all that much. "See also" links can direct people to sources that give more details, if they are interested.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I've moved the list to User:Rd232/JList. It can still be worked on there, and it can be merged back if there is agreement to do so. In the mean time, anyone that wants can edit it there. Rd232 ^talk 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The list is now taken off and the article trimmed down a little. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

Could any non involved administrator please look into [[25]] and temporally remove the 3rd paragraph “litigations" case until clarified? Could please look into [[26]] where more information is added also?Symbio04 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The ex-wife of Malcolm Sinclair, 20th Earl of Caithness

Information is being added, reasonably well-sourced to a Providence, RI newspaper, about the ex-wife of Sinclair. The two edits are here and here. Since they were divorced in 2004, it is unclear how much relevance to his biography this information has. I am leaving a note on the talk page, but I'm not sure either editor will see it, so I just bring it here for wider attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I removed it. It would only be of tangental interest if she was still married to him, but since she wasn't at the time of these events, it's completely irrelevant. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

COI/BLP issue could use some eyes

A discussion at the COI board has me worried about some potentially serious BLP issues. At first glance it looks like a mess. It might require someone with Lexus access, the admin bit, and some significant spare time to sort out the sourcing and COI issues. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Check BLP compliance of an article at this AfD

I can't get a response to my analysis from the page-watchers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (7th nomination). Please comment on whether you think the article may violate BLP. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally clear on how the above results in an actionable suggestion. CRYBLP is an essay, and not a very good one at that, although SOFIXIT is often (but not always) good advice in general. Are you suggesting that SA delete the redirect from Gene Ray to the article? Or some other fix? I would say that "which includes some racist ideology" needs excising, as I don't think a "style and culture" column from a university newspaper is a sufficiently reliable source. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and removed it, but it was replaced by User:GDallimore, I have opened a discussion on the talkpage claims of racism and attributed it in the article Time_Cube to the actual person that opined the claim, which imo exposes it for the opinionated valueless comment it is. It was previouely presented as if a fact without attribution but personally imo it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For Lar's benefit:

1) If there's a problem, go fix it yourself. Nothing about being at AfD prevents remedy of any BLP issue via normal editing.

2) Claiming there's a BLP issue in an article you're seeking to have deleted (the OP in this thread is the AfD nom) in an attempt to increase leverage to delete the article in question is itself disruptive. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In 2004 Mark Hartwell wrote an opinionated editorial in The Maine Campus student newspaper, in which he said he thought the website contained subtle little racist ideologie.http://mainecampus.com/2004/09/24/timecubecom-where-reality-as-we-know-it-is-a-lie

I have asked User GDallimore if there are other more mainstream publications that also assert racist ideologies or it the site is well known to have racist ideologies, as yet nothing. IMO this opinionated student editorial in a university paper is not a noteworthy article to publish and attribute racist ideologue to a online site that is attributed to a single living person. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion at AfD, please? This discussion here strikes me as forum shopping. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Susskind

Am concerned about the level of detail in the Personal Life section (including birthdates of subject's children, facial birthmark of subject, spouse's school volunteering), that no citations are in the Academic Career section and that the Tools for Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution is somewhat unsourced and reads like a very detailed salesman's product-list.

Shearonink (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I scrubbed some of it, mostly about the kids. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP

Gilad Atzmon (talk)

An editor has entered and, after I deleted it, reverted at this diff a report carried by the International Socialist Organization in its Socialist Worker-USA publication. The report said that it had deleted an interview with Gilad Atzmon because of allegations against him made in letters to the editor. As I explained to the editor at at this diff] this edit violates both Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources and especially Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 which reads: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Additionally, this edit ads no new information but is just part of the piling on of allegations against him, turning his BLP into a WP:Attack page.

Socialist Worker USA is not used as a reliable source in any other wikipedia article, so I considered it just an advocacy group outlet and haven’t bother to go to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But if that seems the more appropriate place, I will bring it there. (Frankly, it's not clear in this situation which board to approach first.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol has misconstrued the situation.

• (a) Does Socialist Worker -- a newspaper for more than 40 years -- even count as "self-published"? By that standard, are all newspapers are "self-published" in the same sense? Is every masthead editorial ever printed now disallowed on Wikipedia?
• (b) Even if we accept, as I do not, that "self-published" is the proper category for SocialistWorker, self-published articles can be used to establish that the self-publisher has indeed said something; they just can't be used to assert the truth of what that self-publisher has said. If X self-publishes, "I think Y is Z", then the site can't be used to substantiate the claim "Y is Z", but it can be used to substantiate the claim that X said Y is Z.
• (c) The BLP article in question has several articles from the subject's own self-published website. If Carol really believes that self-published articles are verboten, why doesn't she complain about those, which have been there for years?

The particular case here is a newspaper that retracted an interview with the subject of a BLP article, citing letters that they'd received that the subject was a racist and bigot. The newspaper published two of those letters the next day. The citation was not to substantiate the absolute claim that the subject was a racist and a bigot, but the sourced claim that Socialist Worker had retracted their interview because they'd received letters calling him a racist and a bigot, and decided they agreed. To cite their editorial statement to this effect as WP:RS for the claim "Socialist Worker retracted the interview and gave their reasons" is not a violation of WP:RS. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced, but does it deserve mention in a biography? Without independent sources, I'd say it probably doesn't, but certainly not in such detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So your saying that socialistworker.org (which still is not working btw) did an interview with a guy, some people wrote in saying he is a racist and a bigot, socialistworker.org agree and retract the interview with that as the excuse. And you think it is ok to call a BLP a racist and bigot using a third party partisan site why exactly? mark nutley (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you're asking, but I'm saying that while the information is verified, it probably doesn't belong in the article, and certainly doesn't deserve such a lengthy presentation in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Mark, try to understand what I'm saying. I did not use the Socialist Worker citation "to call a BLP a racist and bigot." Let me repeat that: I did not use the Socialist Worker citation "to call a BLP a racist and bigot." That wouldn't be WP:RS. I and most others who have spoken up agree that the citation can be used to support the claim that Socialist Worker has called the BLP a racist and bigot. Whether or not it's a true claim that the guy is a bigot, it's certainly a true claim that Socialist Worker has called him a bigot, and the latter is what I seek to document, and there is agreement that the source is WP:RS for that claim. This in an important distinction and you would do well to note it. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That site is still down, and has been since i got involved here. Until such a time as they sort their server out i request you do not reinsert the content until it can be checked. mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it via google cache. The article you are using as a source is i think this one? [27] If so then it can`t be used, those are letters to the editor being printed and calling a BLP all manner of things. mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone to the site. The editorial statement I'm looking at is called "An article retracted." [28] I have just loaded the page three or four times in a row so I can't explain your inability to reach the page. Try this Google cache: [29] RT-LAMP (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The cache copy worked, i still am of the opinon that this magazine is not a suitable source to claim in a blp that the subject is a holocaust denier. How much press coverage has this received? I suspect it also falls under wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The text removed from the article does not declare the subject a Holocaust denier and does not use the SW source to undergird that claim. -- it goes no farther than repeating with attribution Socialist Worker 's claim to have received letters stating the subject associates with Holocaust deniers, and repeating with attribution Socialist Worker 's decision, upon deciding the evidence was "damning," to withdraw their previously published interview. In light of this you may wish to reread the section you retracted from the entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is less how the source is being used but rather, should it be included at all? Unless the fact that Social Worker removed the interview received coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it's a rather insignificant fact and not worth inclusion. Shell ^babelfish 06:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a self published primary report and clearly is not suitable for inclusion. It is so accusatory and biased it is an awful thing to add. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy stating that only sources positive or neutral toward the subject can be used in BPL. Is there one? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has published this and wikipedia isn't going to either. It like talking to yourself and then rushing off to add it to wikipedia, its rubbish, total POV rubbish.WP:TOTALPOVRUBBISH After publishing an in depth interview with ..... the socialistworker said that although the interview had no anti semitic comments or opinions, some unnamed people had written to them suggesting the interviewee is anti semetic so we have decided to retract the interview we published previously which as we said contained no anti semitic views or comments. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the editorial statement? It does not say "we got letters calling him an antisemite so we pulled the interview." It says, they got letters calling him an antisemite, and upon looking into it decided "The evidence for these serious charges is damning." That is quire a different matter than what you describe. It would be helpful if you could describe what you think separates this case from the case of quoting any other editorial statement. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the comments here? Multiple editors are saying that without an independent source, it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could describe what you think separates this case from the case of quoting any other editorial statement Simple. It is a character attack. Particularly as it was added to the article; which quite conclusively indicated that they believe he is a holocaust denier. It doesn't matter that it is just repeating what the socialist worker editor concluded; it is still, by indication, calling him a holocaust denier. I would say there needs to be a much wider body of evidence for a start - and from intensely reputable sources (i.e. not letters to the editor :)) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none, but to post disparaging information it needs to be rock solid sourcing. The source presented here is not that. It is also giving undue weight to the story as it seems to have only been printed in this one magazine mark nutley (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Side comment: that whole section (on anti-Semitism) needs a pretty deep clean/rewrite. It's quite heavily written from the point of someone who agree he is an anti-Semite. That might be true but still needs to be dealt with neutrally. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong. If the subject is an anti-semite, his views will have drawn comment in more mainstream sources with a somewhat wider circulation, which should be cited in preference over the Socialist Worker. And if they haven't, that marks the view of the Socialist Worker as a fringe view. --JN466 01:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

They are, and they have, he has been noted to be an antisemite in, among others, The Guardian and The Times, which are the two largest Newspapers in England. These sources are also included in the article. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The source should not be used to label the subject a holocaust denier. It could be used to note that Socialist Worker retracted an article on him on the grounds of his alleged anti-semitism, but only then if SW's actions are noteworthy (test: what other sources have commented about the action taken by SW?). --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather unsurprisingly, no one does seem to have commented on it. [30] --JN466 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Thanks to all those who noted that mentioning this incident is not notable. Re: Errant Tmorton166's Side comment: that whole section (on anti-Semitism) needs a pretty deep clean/rewrite. It's quite heavily written from the point of someone who agree he is an anti-Semite. That might be true but still needs to be dealt with neutrally. Even worse, neutral info about him from highly WP:RS has been routinely removed by the same editors as WP:POV or WP:Coatrack, even as they keep piling on that section. (See this diff and same info after clarification at this diff.) I've been procrastinating on organizing and putting in new WP:RS info lately because of such reverts, but the common sense I've seen in this thread makes me more optimistic and I'll be sure to bring such examples of POV reverts here in the future. While it is true that Atzmon can be loose with his words, making it easy for enemies to cherry pick and use them out of context, it also is true that there are organized campaigns by left and right to shut up this high profile musician (and former Israeli IDF member) and to destroy his career. We can't let wikipedia be used for such purposes. (I bet the SWP people looked first at the WIKI article for information about him and read that section full of vitriolic opinion rants.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is of course by no means Wikipedia's job to protect Atzmon from what Atzmon himself has said, even when it's less than pretty. It is your stance that these quotes are "cherry picked." It is my stance they are part and parcel of his usual rhetoric. Both positions are POV. Wikipedia should support neither over the other. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter

There are news reports of a 4chan attack going on against an 11 year old Florida girl who calls herself Jessi Slaughter online. The RL attacks have gotten so bad that the police have had to take her into protective custody. We've already gotten Jessi "Slaughter" Leonhardt and edits to the Cyber police article. Any sightings should be removed on sight. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an edit filter be set up? Fences&Windows 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note the existence of Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned at Viral video#Cyberbullying. Is this OK? Fences&Windows 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heroin#Musicians who have used heroin, or written about heroin use

The section has been tagged as poorly reffed since last year. There are a number of living people mentioned in there. While it is common knowledge that the likes of Pete Doherty have long standing heroin problems, it would be better to ref all the claims in the section. Anyone interested in providing a fix?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (Apologies for the pun.)

Should this not be done away with per WP:NOTDIR? --FormerIP (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved all the uncited to Talk:Heroin/Archive 3 and left a note on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I too decided there were more names than I cared to research.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right about that. Certain types of music are of course associated with drugs (and sex) in the popular imagination but an article on the link is better than a list in or out of this or any other article.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, IMO it is extremely tangential and actually detrimental to information the people come to that article to investigate, which is Heroin itself, not which musicians have tried it or not. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner of conscience

• Prisoner of conscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — This article contains a "See also" section which amounts to a de facto list of prisoners of conscience. I have just removed all of the names on that list that were uncited, which had been marked "citation needed" for about 10 months. Really, though, I am uncomfortable with this list, which does not actually say what it is a list of. I'd like to gather some thoughts on whether there should be a list in that article, and if so, what it should be headed, and what kinds of people (properly cited of course) might be on it. I think there are several reasons to be more rigorous about this--obviously it's a BLP violation to say someone is a prisoner of conscience if that can't be verified, but in addition, we have a larger obligation to be very careful about such a politically and diplomatically important term. Thoughts? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a great article, considering the importance of the subject matter. Maybe it should be merged somewhere (eg Political prisoner, although that also does not look like a model WP article). The section is not good. We shouldn't really have anything in bullet-point and I agree with deleting the stuff that is unsourced. But rather than eliminate worthwhile content, maybe you should leave a tag on the section for now and come back in a month or so. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)

The article on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley cites a statement by the British House of Lords that the subject of the article "is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." The cited source unfortunately appears to have disappeared into the archives but you can still see it here for the moment in the Google cache.

An individual using the name of "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" has posted a response in comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/ , a blog run by a third party, arguing that the House of Lords is wrong and that Monckton is in fact a member. A Wikipedian argues here that it is "libelous" to include the House of Lords' statement that Monckton is not a member without including a citation to this blog post arguing that he is.

I see two problems with this: first, there is an absolute prohibition on using readers' posts as sources (WP:NEWSBLOG). As in all such cases, there's no guarantee that this is in fact written by the individual in question. Second, the blog in question would not meet the criteria of WP:BLPSPS, as it is not written or published by the subject. I also very much doubt whether we could use the subject as a reliable source on the membership rules of the House of Lords - as a self-governing body, the House is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. I'd appreciate some feedback from other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the blog post is bollocks anyway. "general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent" - rubbish, has he never heard of the doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament?--Scott Mac 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple of sources [31],[32], which are Guardian newspaper blogs; not sure how they would rate in the reliability stakes, but the latter links to Monckton's explanation, giving it something of a nod, to my mind.--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is a pretty weak claim of an authoritative comment from the house of lords, possible so weak as to be unusable. Surly there must be better claims somewhere? written by Judy Fahys of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Barry Bickmore (someone Monkton was in a row with) has posted on Real Climate blog that he says Monckton is no member of the United Kingdom's House of Lords as he sometimes claims.. Monkton replied: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise." and then according to Bickmore he contacted the information office House of lords asking them if Monkton was a house of lords member and says he got the reply "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." ... all a bit weak to accuse someone of falsely claiming such a thing in my opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Monkton's explanation Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic link - includes statements insinuating a living person engaged in all kinds of malfeasance, and is selfpublished. If a reputable news agency picks it up, perhaps we can link to the reputable news agency. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also noted in [33]. I take no position on inclusion/exclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob that the Salt Lake Tribune citation has a bit too much hearsay to make me feel comfortable. Here's another source a Chicago Tribune article which says that "He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by a member's death." (see page 2)--Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the article cited to the SLT article we have this comment which is written as if we have an official announcement from the house of lords, we clearly don't have that at all.

the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."http://www.sltrib.com/ ..presently cited to the front page of the SLT, supporting a very poor and misleading unattributed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually appeared in the Tribune on April 9, 2010. You can find a copy at your local library, or you can read the cached web content by googling for "http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14856887?source=rss" and clicking on the first link's "cached" copy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I have seen it and read it, that is one of the reasons I am joining in the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found Monckton's comment also at SPPI here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The Salt Lake Tribune article states that SPPI sponsored Monckton so it is credible that he actually wrote it. I dispute that the House of Lords is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. The dispute between Monckton and the (other?) Lords is a political and legal dispute. Wikipedia can trust neither side of such a dispute as definitive. If suggestions of dishonesty by Monckton are to be included, minimum decency requires at least one sentence for Monckton's defense of himself. If Monckton's defense is not included then no source of any level of reliability is sufficient to back Wikipedia including the libelous suggestion, and certainly not an obviously hostile Salt Lake Tribune article. In the guardian source above it is interesting to note that the House of Lords appears to call Monckton a Lord. So I guess the dispute is only about whether he is a member of the House of Lords, not whether he is a Lord. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well said. There has also been a related discussion on the article talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another page that goes into some more detail of this dispute http://worldreports.org/news/282_all_uk_legislation_passed_since_2000_is_null_and_void The page has very doubtful credibility but it includes some interesting letters such as this one about 40% down the page:

29 September 2008 : Column WA398:

House of Lords: Letters Patent
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what means Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed;
and in what legislation that has occurred. [HL5196]:

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):

The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.

Thus, the Peerage Act 1963 allowed Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords regardless of the terms of any Letters Patent creating the peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions. Conversely, the House of Lords decided in 1922 in the case of Viscountess Rhondda that the terms of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 were not sufficiently specific to allow her to take her seat in the Lords when her Letters Patent allowed her to inherit the peerage, but not the seat in the Lords. I am aware of only one case in which the effect of individual Letters Patent has been changed by Act of Parliament, which is that of the Duke of Marlborough in 1706.

Mindbuilder (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)In short, Moncton is a "Lord" and has "Letters Patent" which state he can sit in the House of Lords, however in 1999 the House of Lords was substantially altered by legislation which (effectively) annuled such Letters Patent, though without specifically addressing each such. In a sense, the "Upper House" and the "House of Lords" are not necessarily congruent? Is that the gist of this entire teapot? Seems to me that the entire bit has only arcane relevance to anything at all. Collect (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not correct. Letters Patent are what give someone the right to a peerage. They do not give the right of membership in the House of Lords. That comes from writs of summons, which are basically royal commands to attend the House. The House of Lords Act 1999 did not annul any Letters Patent - everyone who had a title kept it. Instead, it eliminated all but 92 hereditary peers from the pool of those eligible to receive writs of summons. Monckton only gained his peerage after the passage of the HoLA 1999 and therefore was never a member. The relevance of this is that his relationship with the Lords is of high importance - if he's a member that's highly notable, and he has repeatedly claimed or insinuated that he is one. Others, including the House of Lords itself, say that he is not a member. It's thus of intrinsic significance, as well as being covered in a number of reliable sources as a topic of controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well -- read the blank form for Letters Patent for Viscounts at [34] which, as far as I can tell, is an authoritative source for. "

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts

Which, om its face, specifies "seat place and voice in the Parliaments". Your mileage apparently varies as to what this means. Collect (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This dates to 1992. The Forms of Letters Patent were amended in 2000 so that they now read:

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts And also that he and his heirs male aforesaid successively may enjoy and use all the rights privileges pre-eminences immunities and advantages to the degree of a Viscount duly and of right belonging which Viscounts of Our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy

(I've used the 1992 text, striking according to the 2000 amendment. This is arguably my own WP:OR, but the 2000 amendment only indicates what to strike - it doesn't provide the full text). TFOWR 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But does that 2000 amendment change pre-existing letters patent or just new ones? Mindbuilder (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting - since he's the 3rd Viscount Letters Patent would have been issued to his grandfather using the pre-2000 Form (pre-1992 as well, but for our purposes here that's not really relevant) and it'll be that Form that the subject believes applies. Let me dig further... TFOWR 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article seems to be full of problematic BLP issues. For instance In 2004 Monckton advised a London-based employment firm which was investigated by the National Crime Squad probing an alleged immigration racket involving hundreds of eastern European migrants who were brought to Britain on bogus visas. Monckton was their immigration adviser.[14][35], now I might be wrong but that looks like something we would cut? On the actual issues we seem to be at one of those impasses; where interesting information about the individual exists and may deserve a mention, but we can only source it through bad means. The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him. We cannot, either, reliably verify his defence/counter claim. For that reason I think we should wait for a more official/neutral discussion of both issues. (Mindbuilder; yes, you are right, he is definitely a Lord - that is his hereditary title and can't really be disputed :)) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

TM - I have to admit I'm a bit confused. You say "The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him." You believe the STrib is discussing the issue with the movtive of discrediting him? You believe the house of lords said he wasn't a member of the house of lords with the motive of discrediting him? What, exactly, is more offifical/neutral than the deliberative body and a reasonably major newspaper? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the Tribune and the Guardian are good sources for this. The only caveat is that there is no evidence that Monckton has lied, only that he has a diagreement with the House of Lords. A little bit of an eccentric disagreement, maybe, but that is not exactly breaking new BLP ground with regards to the subject of the article. It also seems obvious to me that Monckton is wrong and the House of Lords is right, but there is no reason for us to say that and it doesn't mean he is lying in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The original source (STrib) is awful; lots of mud slinging - the bit about the lords is used before a direct quote trying to undermine his credibility from one of his opponents. The insinuation is that the HoL response was to Bickmore and not the STrib - which is even more problematic. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, it does not make the source unreliable, as long as the SLT has a reputation for fact-checking. --FormerIP (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It does. It's a major, long established newspaper, which has won at least one Pulitzer prize for its reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask a seperate question? Why is Monckton excluded from Members of the House of Lords if he claims that he is a nonvoting, nonsitting member? Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose because his own statements would not be considered an RS in this matter (they are an RS only for the fact that he has claimed to be a member). --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a BLP violation by exclusion? Either it is a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords, or it is not a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords. How could it be a BLP violation in article A, but not in article B? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I presume that list is built from the list of members published by the House. I doubt his exclusion is based on claims in these articles --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The list dosen't say that. Shouldn't you edit the list to make it clear why Monckton, and the other HOLA99 exclusions, while still possibly members of the house of lords, are not on the list? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, isn't List of excepted hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999, wrong, in that it states "The House of Lords Act 1999 excluded all peers sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage?" And isn't House of Lords Act 1999, in that it states "The Act prevents even hereditary peers who are the first to hold their titles from sitting automatically in the House of Lords." These statements of fact are all disputed by Monckton, and thus shouldn't this dispute be made clear in all the relevent articles? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be a BLP violation to say that he was a member of the HoL, because there is insufficient sourcing for that. However, the sourcing appears to me to be strong enough to say that he has claimed to be a member of the HoL (but that this is denied by the HoL). AFAIK, there is not wider controversy about this. If it were the case that there was a significant body of legal opinion that agreed with Monckton, then that make make a difference (ie shaping the MOHOL article according to Monckton's SELFPUB comments would be UNDUE, but including them in his own aritcle may not be). --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are ya all still going on about it with the debating skills honed over lengthy periods of warring and climate change disputes, At least we can look forward to the forthcoming Arbcom result to this infernal dispute. The content, if no one has touched it needs at least attribution, the reply from the house of lords is from that guy he has a dispute with and we have no way official statement from the house of lords at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Salt Late Tribune it was an "official response." Are you saying the SLT is not a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The information was given to them by the person Mopnkton was in dispute with, all the newspaper did was report what the person told them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What, other than your own personal opinion, leads you to believe that? Can I apply my personal opinion to sources that say things I don't like? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It not my personal opinion it is what I understand from the loose way the article is written. It matters not anyway, Monkton is a Lord as collect states and others, in 1999 or there abouts they changed the door posts, and Monkton is absolutely correct in what he says about it, the content is rubbish, utter rubbish and is only being supported as it portrays him badly, yawn at least all this rubbish will soon be over. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No one doubts he was a lord. There is a difference between being a lord, and being a member of the house of lords. Monckton was not a peer in 1999 - he inherited his title in 2006. Shouldn't we be "getting it right" regarding his peerage? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, the article states, with full context

Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."

The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

I don't see how this is unclear. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This official response was told to the reporter by the person in a dispute with Mongton Bickmore, Bickmore said he wrote to the HOL information and Bickmore said he got this reply. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. The source makes it clear that the official response was X, not that "Bickmore said the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So where do you think the response came from ? Bilmore said he wrote to them, so if he wrote to them then they replied to him didn't they? and he told the newspaper interviewer about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I report on what sources say, not what I personally think happened. For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? If you can't verify something, you can't assume it - in this case, I can verify that a reliable source has said "the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Such low grade opinionated editorials are very often written so loosely as to deceive and misrepresent and sensationalize, we are required to use our editorial intelligence. I disagree with this POV and I am sick to the back teeth of BLP articles being disrupted and warred over and attacked and I really look forward to the result of the arbcom case, and I am sure many other editors are sick of the disruption as well. I like to imagine Mr Monkton and the other living people that have had their articles attacked and disrupted will be laughing their socks off when the big ban hammer is waved around. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it appeared on the news papges of the online publication (/news/, as opposed to /opinion/), what leads you to believe it's an editorial? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, it's clearly not an editorial. It's straight reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? - woah hold on, you are as in the dark over that as Off2riorob. The ambiguity is enough, surely, to cast doubt on the argument. Anyway - the whole argument is an Ad-Hominem attack on Monckton (look, he's lied about being in the HoL - do you think he is telling the truth about XYZ). I think that source is way way off the table. The Guardian source is much stronger and if it has to be reported that is the one to use. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What ambiguity? We have a straight piece of factual reporting, directly quoting correspondence from the HoL. There's no reason to suppose that it is anything other than a reliable source. It appears that you don't like what it says, but that has no bearing on whether it meets the reliable sourcing criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't like what it says can we get over this constant nonsense. I'm really bored with people using this as an argument all the time - it is bad rhetoric. Anyway; my issue is that the article is an Ad Hominem - that undermines it's suitability as a RS. It quotes a piece of correspondance without explicitly attributing it's source (which is via Bickmore). The Guardian article has none of those issues and is actually accessible online :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content of an article is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source. Please refresh your memory about what WP:V actually says. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't come here asserting, I have a reliable source and if you don't like it read this policy or that policy and I can add it if I want and if you can't find it go to the libary and this is indisputable as the fabulous not notable reporter is such a good fact checker and then the same people argue the exact opposite when it is against their POV, and another one comes and its like rotating discussion with different users I realize this is never ending, at least for a few more days so forget about it, it will soon be over anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant questions here are: What is the reputation of the newspapers editorial policy? Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and getting things right? Does this "jive" with what other reliable sources say? Does it raise a red-flag? etc.

Your assumption, that we can judge it on whether it is critical or not, is not a part of the process - in fact: what we think about the article is irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

iIts some kind of a local Mormon paper doing an interview with a Mormon apologist global warming supporter about a skeptic, lets not sing its fantastic praises of ace NPOV reporting, Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Salt Lake City's main newspaper. I've never been there, but I doubt your characterisation is fair. At least we know the reporter is relatively unlikely to have been drinking whilst researching the piece, which, reliability-wise is a big bonus compared to most newspapers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune is a major metro daily with a circulation of around 300,000 which makes it the largest newspaper in Utah. Its parent company is based in Denver. Your comment is really off the mark. — e. ripley\^talk 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And if you knew anything about the SLT, Off2riorob, you'd know it was actually an anti-Mormon newspaper for many years. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V has no relation to the content of the source, it is about the content of the article and attributing it to a RS. We say the HoL has said this (and they certainly did say it - not that it matters) - but the source currently used to verify it is not suitable (to my mind). Reliability of the entire website is important - and I wouldn't really dispute that in this case. But we do need to consider individual sources (articles) on their own merit. In this case I think Ad-Hominem pieces fall easily under Questionable Sources. All of which is moot when you consider the questionable source is, uh, dead and that the Guardian article (live) is a much better alternative :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken. See WP:V#Questionable sources. None of those criteria apply to a news report by a major, long-established metropolitan daily newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chris, but, if it would make this discussion shorter, what would be the problem with using the Guardian instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I'm very happy with the Guardian source (well done to whoever found it). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: We have considerable expertise over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and they should be consulted about the precise wording here. My own understanding, which is limited although I take an interest in these matters, is that Lord Monckton is a peer of the realm, but not a sitting member of the House of Lords. He is among those eligible to be elected by other conservative hereditary peers to sit the House. (Or at least, he was, in one election, listed as someone who got zero votes. He is now a member of UKIP, and I don't know if that means he isn't any long a Tory peer - beyond the scope of my limited expertise) I personally do not know whether it would be appropriate for those who either formally sat in the House of Lords by right, but who do no longer, or those who have inherited a peerage and yet never been elected, to call themselves a "member" of the House of Lords.

A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation.

I would be interested to see a reliable source for the House of Lords officially saying he isn't a member - the source cited seems to no longer work. In order to be notable, though, we'd need more than just a list of members, of which he is not a part. We'd need to see some definitive statement that the House of Lords proper doesn't want him calling himself a member, or something similar to that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. A lot of this is demonization of Monckton. "You lied about X, Y, and Z, therefore you must be lying about climate change, too." The House of Lords issue isn't the only issue on which Monckton's assertions have been challenged in this fashion. Unfortunately, the people making these charges mostly haven't seen fit to document them properly, putting their names to them, researching and checking their facts, and publishing them in full detail in some reliable permanent form. One can turn up people writing on the subject. But people with credentials in U.K. constitutional law, or other identifiable expertise, or even real names, are much harder to come by. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement supposedly made by the house of lords is not very well verified by the SLT article. It's not well verified enough for a controversial issue. But I don't think it is controversial that the HoL made that statement. Monckton hasn't disputed that the Lords made that claim. In fact Monckton himself states that the Lords revoked his pass, asked for the return of his letters patent, and instructed the information office to deny his membership. The only controversial fact here is whether the 1999 act lawfully removed his claim to be a member. The political HoL can't be trusted to make an unbiased evaluation of that fact, so Monckton's defense should be included. It would be legitimate to simply remove the accusation of false statement, but it is such a major issue on the internet when he is mentioned, that I think it should be dealt with here. We're not hurting him by mentioning the accusation one more time, and it is only fair to mention his self defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't agree with you but my disagreement is somewhat subtle. The claim that the 1999 act did not lawfully remove his right to sit in the Lords is so fringe that I'm unaware of any serious authority who would accept it or even put it forward with a straight face. The act passed the Commons (340-142), passed the Lords (221-81), and was given royal assent by the Queen. It doesn't get any more lawful than that. It is therefore not necessary to say, on this one point, that it's "he said, they said". (What is lacking, as far as I am aware, is a reliable source that shows that Lord Monckton holds any such belief.)

  There is a separate question, much milder, where I believe Lord Monckton is also wrong, but it's much less dramatic a claim, and therefore much less bizarre, that he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote. That's different from claiming that the 1999 law is invalid, although it is a claim about nomenclature that is at odds with that law's own language.

  My concern is whether any of this back and forth is actually noteworthy enough to include in the article. I do not know for sure.

  I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction. I say this mainly because I happened to glance at this article the other day (it is on my watch list for some reason) and read a bit about him, and totally failed to realize that he's never actually been in the House of Lords.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The best source I've found that Monckton actually believes that the act didn't nullify his claim to be a member of the house of lords is here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The SPPI is referenced in the SLT article as sponsoring Monckton. The post he made at Wattsupwiththat is less reliable, but Wasttsupwiththat is the leading climate skeptic blog, and therefore has some credibility. It seems unlikey though possible that an impostor there would go unnoticed or uncorrected by either Monckton or Anthony Watts. I think Moncton's claim that the act may be invalid may actually be technically correct. It appears that there actually was some sort of preceding rule or law that an act of parliament couldn't revoke the priveleges of a Lord unless the act did so specifically. It appears the paliament blundered in passing the wrong kind of law. But it's a mere technicality, and Monckton's lack of a claim to be able to vote demonstrates he's not challenging the practical effect of the law. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the parliament couldn't have passed specific laws just as easily if it had realized that it needed to. And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal. An example in the US is when Congress passes laws that the courts declare unconstitutional. It doesn't matter that Congress and the president have passed it.

    When I first heard the accusation against Monckton, my impression was that he had claimed to be a Lord but really wasn't. It made him sound kind of crazy. It all looks much different now that I know that he actually is an official British Lord and that his claim wasn't just made up but is rather a dispute over a technical legal issue. It still seems misleading though for him to insist that he is a member and make that claim without explanation. There is little doubt that he has claimed membership, there is little doubt that they have disclaimed his membership, and the technical legal issue is a little bit interesting. This info is usefully informative in the context of the climate change debate. Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process of those of us who can't take the time to research the issue in depth. So I'd say it should be in. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Don't apply U.S. constitutional theory to the U.K.. You'll go wildly astray, as you've done here. The U.K. doesn't have a written constitution, and constitutional law is a wholly different ballgame, with complex, subtle, and uncodified rules. House of Lords reform, for example, is complicated by issues of entrenchment — something that our article on entrenched clauses fails to even relate to the U.K. at all — and how one changes the structure of a Popular monarchy (AfD discussion) without knocking out the foundations. (There's a lot written in constitutional law texts challenging Dicey's view of entrenchment and the sovereignty of Parliament for being an adducement that is not in a de facto sense true at all. Our articles on this whole subject are far from complete, so don't treat them as Gospel, either. As you can see, we don't yet even have a complete description of what a popular monarchy is.) Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew I should have put an explanation of my analogy. I didn't mean to suggest that the British courts could overrule Parliament. I don't know what it is but there seems to be something in British law that prevents Parliament from changing letters patent with a general law rather than a specific law. This isn't just Monckton's claim, I've quoted the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) below. I don't know if this constraint on Parliament is binding or just tradition or if it's the courts or the queen or who would enforce such a constraint, but the constraint on Parliament appears to exist. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process; I fail to see how Moncktons credibility over climate science is affected by his statements about the HoL - because someone is wrong/misguided/lying on one thing does not automatically extend to another (for example; if a respected climate scientist is having an affair and denies it does that undermine his credibility? I've seen that used before.....). It is simply an Ad-Hominem attack by his opponent. On the other hand if this grows outside the climate debate arguments and becomes a standalone issue (i.e. he publicly disputes the law as a separate issue) then it would become very interesting.

If a person is caught trying to trick people, it casts doubt about everything they say. A different amount of doubt is cast depending on what the deception was. Denying an affair would not reduce one's credibility as much as a completely fabricated claim to be an official Lord. In a strictly logical argument an ad-hominem attack is not valid, but in the real world it is often impossible to make a decision in a strictly logical way. Few of us have the expertise or time to analyze the climate evidence in a rigorous way. Therefore we have to take into consideration the opinions of people more knowledgeable about the subject than ourselves. The credibility of those people is important if we can't rigorously evaluate their arguments. I have tremendous respect for science and scientists, but especially with the revelations since climategate, I don't think we can automatically assume the climate science community is being completely honest, let alone completely unbiased. So I am saying that ad-hominem attacks should be minimized, but are appropriate and even necessary in the climate change debate. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal - as already pointed out law works very different over here. The fact of him being a Lord and his seat in parliament are entirely separate issues; it is indisputable that he is a hereditary peer! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've found the official source of the statement by the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) at the bottom of this page http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80929w0021.htm In which she states "The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application." Mindbuilder (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've also found this governement site that shows the generic wording of letters patent https://opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19881082_en_2.htm which in part say this "...he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils..." Mindbuilder (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lord Mereworth and other lords are apparently threatening a lawsuit on the theory shared by Monckton http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html Mindbuilder (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion here - Mindbuilder in particular is getting the details wrong. The facts are simple enough:

• Monckton is a peer, which means he can use the title of Lord. This fact is undisputed by anyone.
• Not all peers can sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right to sit in Parliament from all but 92 hereditary peers. This fact is undisputed.

That is not undisputed. Lord Mereworth claims his letters patent give him the right to sit in the House of Lords. Both Monckton and Mereworth claim that the HOLA1999 didn't remove some of their rights because it was a general rather than a specific law. I'm not the one confused here. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Monckton's father was among one of those removed. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton gained his peerage in 2006 on the death of his father, seven years after the passage of the House of Lords Act. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton has described himself as "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote" and "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" [36]. This fact is undisputed.
• The House of Lords itself does not list Monckton as a member [37] and has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." This fact is undisputed.
• Peers are summoned to sit in the House of Lords through a writ of summons, not Letters Patent. The House of Lords Act means that all but 92 of the hereditary peers no longer receive writs of summons. It didn't repeal Letters Patent, which are instruments that grant titles. This fact is undisputed, as far as I know.

Mindbuilder, I'm afraid you are clearly approaching this from a US perspective which is misleading you. Unlike the US, the UK has a doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. It doesn't have the same constitutional setup as the US. The courts do not have the power to rule a law "unconstitutional" - they couldn't, since the UK doesn't have a constitution. Parliament legislates in the name of the Queen, and the courts apply the laws that Parliament passes, again acting in the name of the Queen. Jimbo, the claim that "he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote" is a dramatic and bizarre claim from a UK perspective. As a self-governing body, the House of Lords the only authority for stating who is and is not one of its members. It has said very clearly that Monckton is not and never has been a member, and that the status he claims for himself does not exist. The claim is equivalent to a US citizen saying "I'm a Senator but without a right to sit or vote". Would you not consider that a dramatic and bizarre claim? From a UK perspective Monckton's claim is equally extraordinary. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of getting into too much OR in terms of establishing the correct interpretation of the law here (I'm not accusing anyone of that, just raising a flag). I would agree with you, Chris, that Mockton's legal claim is probably without merit, but unless we can get an RS opinion about this, we don't need to worry too much about whether it is or it isn't.

In terms of what we need to say in the article: (1) It is obviously important that Monckton is a peer; (2) Per Jimbo (and I don't see any reason to object) it is important to clarify that he is not a legislator.

The remaining question is whether and how to report his claim to be a member of the UK legislature (which he appears to maintain - he does not retract it in the PDF cited by Mindbuilder). This seems to me to be primarily about WP:N, and there may be a case for excluding it. But there would not be, IMO, a case for excluding it under WP:BLP (because the essential facts are all well-sourced - including, handily, in a SELPUB), although we should obviously avoid implying that Mockton lied or misled. It does not mean we should avoid the subject area altogether in case a reader reaches the conclusion that he lied or misled, as long as our wording doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should avoid OR or interpretating the law. This isn't the place for it, and please note that I haven't said that Monckton's legal claim is without merit (IANAL). I believe the article did in the past say in the lead that Monckton was not a legislator, but this seems to have been lost at some stage for some reason. Unfortunately I don't think we can get around the dispute over Monckton's claim to be a member of the House of Lords. We have to say that he is not - this is pretty much essential, as many peers are legislators and it is important to note whether a particular peer is or is not a legislator. But NPOV dictates that if we say Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, we need to present Monckton's counter-claim for balance. The key question is what wording should be used. I suggest remanding that question to the article talk page, as this discussion has already taken up too much space here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the UK system is quite different, but the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) seems to think there is something limiting Parliament in how it can change letters patent. It appears Parliament has the power to change and probably even revoke the letters, but there appears to be at least procedural constraints on how that can be done.

The House of Lords isn't a self-governing body because the House of Commons is superior and can change or even abolish the House of Lords if it follows the correct procedure. Furthermore, one subgroup, even a majority subgroup, of the House of Lords, is not an authority on who is a member, and cannot remove another subgroup of Lords from the House, at least not without following proper procedure. And such a claim in America to be a non-sitting member of the Senate would be much less bizarre if the claimant had possession of an official US government document legally granting the holder to special Senate privileges.

I agree totally that Wikipedia shouldn't try to decide the validity of the general/specific law issue. But Jimbo has questioned if the general/specific law issue is even credible enough to even mention. Wikipedia does have to evaluate if fringe arguments are credible enough to mention. Except in this case I don't think Wikipedia should even make that determination. I think that no matter how absurd Monckton's self-defense is, it is only fair that we include one short sentence mentioning it. In order for that sentence to be meaningful, it must be more than a plain denial. It should alert the reader that there is a technical legal issue in dispute. I'm only arguing for a couple of words in a short sentence. It's not that big of a deal. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-- It would be helpful to have more uninvolved editors look at this because most of those commenting have been involved in the controversy in one way or another. I am adding a section below for uninvolved editors, so please don't comment in that section if you've edited the article or the talk page or been involved in the probation enforcement or ArbComm case. The issue as presented is only one BLP concern among others in this article -- any objection if I relist this BLP and ask for comment on all the the ongoing BLP concerns on this article? I also edited the heading of this section so that the BLP name is included. Minor4th 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the heading - you'll break the incoming links from other pages. This is not the right place to have general BLP discussions about articles. If there are specific issues with a particular article, please raise it first on the article talk page. If the issue cannot be resolved there, then please bring it here. This noticeboard is not meant to be a substitute for article talk pages. The vast majority of BLP issues can be resolved on article talk pages without ever coming here (which is just as well, otherwise this noticeboard would be unmanageable). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Technote, headings can easily be changed using the {{anchor}} template to leave an anchor element that inbound links will be able to connect correctly to even after the change.... in this case, place

{{anchor|Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)}}

just below the changed heading and Bob's your uncle. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the anchor to drop the parenthetical; it was duplicative of the current heading. I also moved it above the section heading so that readers arriving via the original link actually see the section they're in. It's possible this could be a problem if the archiving is to different pages... Anyway, cavalierly messing with section headings muddies things. It would be best if they're well chosen in the first place ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chris I'm aware, and as I stated on my talk page, the issues have been raised on the talk pages, and they are not being adequately addressed here by uninvolved editors who are not part of the dispute. I had no intention of having a general BLP discussion -- I want to list the specific BLP issues that have arisen on Monckton and which remain unresolved because there's not sufficient uninvolved editor input. Surely you're aware of that, it is not as if you and I have not been part of the same discussions for the last several days. Do you want the BLP issues resolved or do you want to win a POV war? Why did you remove the section for uninvolved editors? Incidentally, I agree with Jimbo that the issue of his House of Lords "membership" is not sufficiently notable as part of his biography and hasn't been adequately and fully addressed in reliable sources so it should be left out of the biography. There are other issues that have been raised on the talk page -- Abraham's "rebuttal" and sourced through a non-notable blog as an attack piece and Monckton's response to the rebuttal, which is only sourced through self published material (but is being excluded for that reason). I can raise that issue separately since you seem rather possessive of this discussion -- now that I think of it, that is a better way to handle that issue in any event. Thanks. Minor4th 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, Chris, I noticed that the heading has already been changed once today and you did not revert that. Off2riorob edited the heading to clarify that this BLP is in the global warming subject. Why would you not want the name of the BLP included in the heading. Your reversion of my edit to the heading and the reason stated as breaking incoming links simply makes no sense considering the prior edit of the heading less than an hour ago (with no expressed concern). Minor4th 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. The full name of Monckton's bio is long, as was the initial section heading, and the current one with the parenthetical, so this all results in a huge entry in the TOC, and thrashes thing about. The various inbound links can, of course, all be fixed, including by adding ones re your section names that seem to now be gone. This stuff, however, takes the discussion off-track, which is nominally about the bio, here, but is really about too many editors editing fast and furiously out there on the climate stuff. The AC's proposed decision is due, and they've made it pretty clear they're unimpressed with all these edit wars cropping up. I'm hoping for a robust PD that will properly sort the broader issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change of heading earlier. However, Lar has explained that there's a way around the problem it created (thanks Lar) so that's resolved now.

As for your other points: my point is simply that you haven't raised any of the issues you refer to on the article talk page. You raised an issue with the intro which has been discussed at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Overhaul. I and another editor have responded to that and the three of us seem to have resolved that satisfactorily. In fact, you said that you were "going to make more proposals, but given the state of the ArbCom case, I think I"ll just wait a bit in the spirit of harmony". We're still waiting for your proposals. Nobody's stopping you from making them, and people are happy to work with you to resolve any issues you raise. There's no problem yet that requires referral back to this noticeboard. If one comes up then by all means let's refer back here. However, we should use the talk page first. If you want to leave a pointer here to invite uninvolved editors to the discussion on the talk page then please do so, but this noticeboard isn't a substitute for the talk page, as I said.

Regarding Jimbo's reference to Monckton's House of Lords "membership", I think you might be misreading what he said, which was: "I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction." That seems quite reasonable and in fact that info was formerly in the intro but seems to have disappeared at some point. We should discuss on the article talk page how it can be reintroduced. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the additional discussion of sources above means that there is now no live BLP issue and the issue should be taken back to the talkpage to discuss weight and wording. Doe anyone else not think that? --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll start a new thread on the talk page to address the weight and wording issue. In the meantime I suggest closing this particular discussion, since the original issue I raised was resolved a long time ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur, lets close this here and take it back to the talk page. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not so fast. Jimbo later said this, which gets closer to the heart of the matter: A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation

For those of you who want to include this information that is far from settled, examine your motives. You cannot source the information impeccably without leaving out part of the story -- Monckton's reply and explanation. What Jimbo observes is likely what is taking place in this BLP discussion ... a group of editors who dislike Monckton's views intensely and have an interest in portraying him as deceptive when he may not have been. There certainly is no room to draw a conclusion that there is a consensus to include the negative material as you wish. If you're going back to the talk page, I will relist this and call for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Minor4th 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Minor4th has a point that uninvolved editors (meaning those not part of the GW/CC world) should evaluate this. It should remain open. GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means leave an invitation here for uninvolved editors, but there's no point adding still further to this already enormous discussion. It's already too long. Let's revert to the talk page and get this issue resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to invite uninvolved editors earlier today and you reverted me. At this point, because of the length of the discussion and the omission of the BLP's name in the heading, and the lack of participation from uninvolved editors -- do you have any objection to me relisting the BLP with a link back to this discussion? Minor4th 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You created a separate section, which wasn't necessary. Do you think you could possibly do what I asked earlier - raise the issues you want to discuss on the article talk page and then post a link here to that discussion, to invite uninvolved editors? We're all still waiting for you to post the list of issues you said you were going to raise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can not find any reliable source which supports Mockton's contention that he is a member of the House of Lords; he does not qualify for membership under their own definition but has sought to be included in the list of members by their definition and has not been elected. More relevant is that he has claimed to be a member of the UK legislature for which there is no ghost of an argument or reliable source. The latter bears heavily on his credibility and I believe there is no BLP case for excluding them. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's claim to be a member of parliament is partly supported by the Lord President of the Council's statement that letters patent cannot be changed by a general law and by examples of letters patent that declare the right to sit in the HoL. Those sources are from offical government pages. That still doesn't solidify Monckton's case, but it's enough for Wikipedia to recocnize his self-defense from the accusation of making a false statement about his membership. If we leave out the accuasion of false statement of membership then we don't have to include his defense. But if Wikipedia includes the accusation then it is only fair to make a short mention of his self-defense. He doesn't qualify for membership under their definition, but he claims their definition which is derived from the HOLA1999, is not legal under UK law. His claim to be a member of the HoL and therefore the UK legislature is based on the general/specific issue with the HOLA1999, which is not only a ghost of an argument, it appears to me to be technically correct. Though I doubt his argument will win out in the end because of powerful practical considerations. In any case Wikipedia certainly cannot decide if Monckton's argument is correct, we can only decide if it is too frivilous to include. But when Wikipedia includes an accusation of dishonestly, the bar for a frivilous defense should be brought very low. The usual requirement for reliable sources shouldn't apply as strictly. I think his defense easily clears such a very low bar. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought at first that the legal argument might be (barely) facially credible, but if you read Lord President Ashton's remarks in Hansard, she specifically refers to the HOLA1999 as "legislation which has that specific effect [changing issued Letters Patent]". That is, the reference to "specific" law is not, as Monckton seems to think, to a law that explicitly changes *individual* letters patent, but to a law which explicitly refers to peers and their rights. So either Ashton's argument is incoherent (and hence of no value to Monckton's case), or Monckton has misunderstood it. He may genuinely believe himself to be a member of the HoL, but there's no substantial reasoning behind it. (And the House of Lords has historically been allowed to define its own membership, even when its decisions have been legally dubious, e.g., the Mar Peerage Case.) As for the text in the letters patent, that's not necessarily definitive; Lord Wensleydale was issued letters patent with the same text as a life peer, but the Wensleydale Peerage Case upheld the decision of the House of Lords not to seat him. Choess (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning about Monckton's claim diminishes greatly my estimation of the merit of Monckton's claim. But it's not that there is no reasoning behind his claim, it's just that your (or our) evaluation of his argument is that his argument is very weak. But it's clear that there are some limits to how Parliament can go about changing membership in the HoL, and Wikipedia doesn't know well at all what those limits are. Monckton's claim is weak, but not totally without basis. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to make a judgement on the merits of Monckton's claim unless the issue is clear. And we're not talking about multiple paragraphs describing Monckton's defense. One sentence and a link to his own defense is only fair if Wikipedia is to perpetuate a potentially slanderous accusation. Consider if it was an article about you. Wouldn't you want at least one sentence to mention your defense? Actually I think that if Wikipedia perpetuates a potentially slanderous accusation that it should print one sentence of the person's defense no matter how absurd the defense is. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• When discussing a very different issue with a legal academic, he introduced me to a piece of specialist legal terminology used to describe claims such as Monckton's: "crap".
  See Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999: "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  It could not be clearer; unless and until the Act is overturned, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have simply stated what was not in dispute by anyone, not even Monckton. The HOLA1999 says that. But that doesn't settle the question of whether the act is legally effective. If you were accused of something bad on Wikipedia I think you would think at least one sentence with your defense was minimally fair. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, I think that you are over-complicating a simple situation, by conflating de jure and de facto positions.

The de facto situation is simple: the House of Lords does not admit Monckton as a member. Despite Mockton's assertions that he is a "Member of the House of Lords", neither he nor anyone else has any evidence in a reliable source that this is the case in practice. Wish and fact are different beasts: I may claim to be the rightful Queen of Ruritania, but until I'm installed on the throne, it is patently false to assert that I am the Queen, regardless of whether my claim to the throne is undisputably well-founded or demonstrably insane.

Remember, he did not claim that he should be be a member. He claims that he is a member.

The de jure situation is slightly less straightforward, but still fairly simple.

1. Monckton claims he is a "Member of the House of Lords", albeit a non-sitting and non-voting member. That directly contradicts the law, which unambiguously says that he is not a member unless he is one the 92 hereditaries who have been been elected to it ... and he makes no claim that he has been.
2. Monckton claims to be a non-sitting and non-voting member of the HoL, but we have no evidence from a reliable source that such a status exists. If such a status did exist, there would be a mountain of reliable sources which attest to that. None have been presented.
3. Mockton clearly believes that the way the law is being applied is unjust. He is quite entitled to his belief, but unless and until there is a challenge to this law through legal process, that remains simply the belief of one man.His claim which may or may not have theoretical merit, but which has neither practical effect nor support from any authority.

However, I do not think we need to go into any of the de jure stuff, because Mockton's statements assert an alleged fact, rather than a claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Monckton were claiming to be a voting member or have a position of real power like a queen, then the de jure and de facto distinction would be meaningful. But what Moncton is claiming is basically just the title of member. He does in fact use the title of member. The government does in fact deny he is a member. Whether he is in fact entitled to the title is the only question. I do not agree that if there were such a position of non-voting member, that there would be a mountain of reliable sources which attest to that. In fact it seems to me that because it is a matter of interpretation and opinion that it would be unlikely that there could be any reliable source on the issue. It's just two sides, each with their claims, and no real authority that could be trusted to reliably settle the issue. Even if a high court heard the issue, the judgement would just be their opinion, and very possibly a political one. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of news coverage or debate on the issue because his concession of voting rights means the issue has little practical effect. It's just a matter of what he calls himself. In fact I have only seen one reliable source claim that he is not a member, the government. I haven't seen the opinions of multiple legal experts that Monckton's claim is frivolous.

Furthermore, even if Monckton's claim is frivilous, if he genuinely believes it then it is not just a lie, and therefore it is relevant to the question of whether he lied about being a member of the HoL. If Wikipedia merely states that he claimed to be a member and that the HoL denies he is a member, it leaves the unstated impression that he was lying.

Finally again, if Wikipedia was implying you did something unethical, I think you would consider it only fair that one sentence was allowed for your defense. Wikipedia should refrain from a judgement on this membership issue unless it is very clear and should allow his defense if there is even a slight possibilty that it has merit. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, t really doesn't help in resolving this that you repeated make the false assertion that the govt has made a statement on this: it has not. The govt is not the House of Lords, and the House of Lords is not the government.

This being discussed in detail on the article's talk page, where a solution is in sight: report the fact that he made a claim, report the response of the House of Lords. Even if it was appropriate to go into the details, we do not have reliable sources on either side to allow such expansion with using an unreliable source for Monckton's rationale, and a synthesis of unrelated legal opinion.

You insist that your concerns are about fair reporting of a BLP, but that stance is not consistent with your continued demands for the inclusion of a synthesis built off the premise of an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to present this information in a way that would avoid BLP violation would require a great deal of SYNTH and OR because it is not possible to discern the meaning or intent or accuracy of Monckton's comments in context without doing legal research and reading between lines and drawing conclusions that are not explicitly expressed in any sources. This should not be included in Monckton's biography. Include what is known -- he is a hereditary peer -- and leave out what is ambiguous and poorly sourced. Minor4th 03:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will propose a form of words on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I suggest that this discussion should be closed and editors should go to the article talk page to discuss this issue further. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not in the habit of closing discussions here to suit our personal position, the threads here die their own death and get archived after ten days of inactivity. Off2riorob (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No SYNTH or OR is necessary. Monckton states himself in his response to Congress here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/answers_to_committee.html states "I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley..., a member of the Upper House ..." and "The then Government ... told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members..." Thus we know that Monckton claimed to be a member of the HoL and he himself states that the government has denied his being a member. His defense is stated there as well. No reading between the lines is necessary. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is prima facie evidence that Monckton talks nonsense which has long been evident. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a really inappropriate comment in a BLP discussion. Have some respect. Minor4th 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is prima facie evidence that Monckton talks nonsense? Mindbuilder (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text - discussion invited

I've posted a revised text for Monckton's political career, including the issue of his involvement with Parliament, at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎#Monckton and Parliament. Input from editors would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of wasted bandwidth there, caused by people continuing to apply U.S. constitutional principles to the U.K., and going (as I said before) completely astray. I've tried to stay out of this. But given the amount of verbiage devoted to completely wrongheaded understandings of U.K. constitutional law being propounded by Wikipedia editors, I give you one source that couldn't be clearer:

“ The House of Lords Act 1999 broke the link between the hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords: until then all hereditary peers were entitled to a seat in the Lords. There continue to be four categories of members of the House of Lords […]. The four categories of membership are as follows:
(a) […]
(b) […]
(c) […]
(d) Hereditary peers, of whom there are 92. ” — Anthony Wilfred Bradley and Keith D. Ewing (2007). Constitutional and administrative law (14th ed.). Pearson Education. p. 180. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

“ It was previously the case that a hereditary peerage carried with it the right to a seat in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 now provides that hereditary peers are no longer entitled to membership of the Lords. ” — ibid. pp. 183

Professors Bradley and Ewing are credentialed authorities writing in their fields of expertise. If you want to challenge this, you need to find authorities that are at least as reliable as the erstwhile Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Edinburgh for 21 years (now Professor Emeritus of the same) is on the subject. I hope that this puts an end to the nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)