Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive92

Jason Leopold

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

This article is biased, defamatory, libelous, material has been taken entirely out of context in order to portray a one-sided narrative Biased story. Plain and simple.

There is no basis to support that I am closely aligned with or associated with the subject of this article or I am the author. The issues discussed in the entry for Salon are wrong and this article from the Village Voice contains commentary from Paul Krugman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner as well as Salon, that balances out and makes it more neutral. The editors of the Jason Leopold article simply refuse to include anything about Leopold that would add neutrality to the story. This needs to be included to replace the what is there:

In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article from its website authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had not been adequately credited from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that an email had been "misquoted" according to a report in the Village Voice. As the Voice notes "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." Salon never used the word "plagiarism," according to a report in the Village Voice and Leopold, as the Voice report notes, said the story was credited twice http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/ [10][11] Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q".[10] The Voice reported and quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who picked up the article: "Obviously, Leopold made mistakes, but it's not at all clear they justify a full repudiation of the story or a revocation of his journalistic license. As Paul Krugman told the Voice, "Everything else in that story checked out. The substance of his reporting was entirely correct." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the IP has both made claims to being Mr. Leopolds attorney [1] and to having no connection to Mr. Leopold [2]. Active Banana (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP had a clear COI (note, claiming to be someones attorney is usually a bad idea on wikipedia) and perhaps it is better to discuss his issues here. As I see it there are cites that refer to plagiarism and there were issues, I don't see any problem? Its all op eds and this opinionated editorial is nothing to write home about so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point something out, and I'm sure all will agree, so I'm only saying this for emphasis. Particularly for the purposes of the BLP Noticeboard, the conflict of interest that may or may not be exhibited by the ip number is of no concern. We are only interested in seeking the truth and a thoughtful, carefully written biography that does not give undue weight to negative claims. The ip may or may not be misbehaving in some way; I propose that we let others worry about that. Our task is to get the article right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely not an oped! It's a report from the Village Voice and includes a quote from Paul Krugman about the substance of the story in question that is included. If nothing to write home about then why not include it? Where does it say that this is an oped? As the Voice story notes, Salon said the story is still available on Lexis, does not state the story is plagiarized, shows evidence that the Financial Times was credited and states that the email in question was "misquoted." It's absolutely relevant. Why are you so determined to be biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/1.. the village voice.....Our Leopold article has a few issues, COI being no one of the least and too much detail supported by primary reports including many from the subject himself. We currently have this, if someone could have a good look at it to see if it is all correct...you will notice the message from the editors and an apology to its readers.. "this sort of plagiarism is a serious breach of journalistic trust"....Personally, a retraction of the article and an apology, which included a mention of plaglarism is quite substantial imo. Perhaps we could add a rebuttal from the village voice article but the comments should not be given authoritative weight and should be attributed correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• - In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had been plagiarized from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that key portions of the story could not be corroborated. Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q". Leopold's article shows that he cited the Financial Times 3 times in his report, although he used 7 paragraphs verbatim from the story in question. Leopold initially said he believed that the FT had used one of his wire articles and that "I had written the story first and that the FT stole it from me". In his reply to Salon, Leopold admits that his quoting of the Financial Times was a careless mistake and insisted that Salon had all the relevant documents, including the email, before the story was published.

• - http://www.salon.com/letters/editor/2002/10/01/note/index.html

• - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

• - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00063.htm

• Whatever. Despite this rhetoric overflow above, it's pretty clear to me and apparently to many others that there is a COI here--if you'll look at their reversals of a simple copy edit of mine it's obvious that rhetoric is the goal. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that there is much more to this story, based on the Village Voice report, and Salon's letter to Romenesko. You rely entirely on one or two sources and fail to give this any balance. The editors have extrapolated. Salon had changed its story several times based on links that can be found on Google. First they did not use the word plagiarism, then they said the email was misquoted. Leopold's assertion that Salon was under pressure from the Bush White House should be considered. This is not black and white. And Paul Krugman plays an important role since he picked up that story and quoted it and that is what sparked this backlash. So what he says at the end of that Village Voice story is important and as the Voice notes it is not clear what exactly happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The editors and other contributors to this article have absolutely failed to take the time to search for other relevant stories and articles that can be used to balance this out. In doing so, they have shown how biased they are. I challenge the neutrality of this article. I have done a search of numerous other wikipedia articles on journalists and have seen examples of how these individuals have the same cites that are being objected to here. Wikipedia must apply the same standard across the board. At this stage, Leopold is being singled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unsigned person, what are you talking about? I'm not relying on anything at all--I am just noticing that you have too much passion for this article and treat Wikipedia as a resume (maybe not your own, but I don't care about that). Your rhetorical flourishes, the name dropping, the "look who else mentioned this guy," it's got nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Many of your edits show a blatant disregard for whatever common sense and Wikipedia guidelines suggest for objective writing, and remarks like "just do a Google search" are evidence of your misapprehension of that Wikipedia is. Why don't you just start a Facebook group for the subject? Drmies (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely does as based on the dozens of other entries of journalists that I reviewed. Why are you not applying the same standard? Again, this is a biased article and lacks neutrality and the powers that be must immediately do something to address it. Instead of attacking me why don't you point to specific examples of where my contributions show "a blatant disregard for whatever common sense..." And I will show you examples of other similar entries that contain identical contributions. So which is it?

And this is an entry that should be included and I'd like to know why it continuously is being pulled?

Bush Administration's Torture Program

Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been discussed and cited by Countdown with Keith Olbermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, The Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/search-results?cx=002266174228027960838%3Azfnctxmj5lc&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=jason+leopold&sa=Search&siteurl=washingtonindependent.com%2F#581 Harper's Magazine http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004094, http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004387.

And one of Leopold's exclusive reports on the first high-value prisoner's, Abu Zubaydah http://www.truth-out.org/government-quietly-recants-bush-era-claims-about-%22high-value%22-detainee-zubdaydah58151, may have helped the case of a Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be innocent, in what the Ottawa Citizen described as a "bombshell report," citing Leopold's work http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Harkat+gets+bombshell+help+from+declassified+documents/2749092/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Declassified+documents+present+bombshell+revelations+case+against+accused+terrorist+Harkat/2750542/story.html [edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• We're headed into Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read territory. You could try to address the issue. For instance, what is the point of adding Krugman's Nobel prize? Why not add his date of birth or his astrological sign? Or is the answer, because Krugman has a Nobel prize our subject is a good guy? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Well just look at it, its a load of rubbish, detrimental to the article. Also, it is promotional fluff with hardly a mention of yourself. This is a biography not an advert or a resume Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You and I know that, but I was hoping to turn this into a teachable moment and prevent blocks and protection and all that... Drmies (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Attn Wikipedia moderators: The contributors here are including defamatory material by extrapolating from multiple sources to build a biased AND UNTRUE narrative. They consistently misrepresent and make absolutely untrue claims about this article and refuse to include contributions highlighting the author's work even though similar contributions appear for other articles. Please address this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The material in the new section "allegations of plagiarism" is wrong and relies almost entirely on Salon, whose story was called into question as can be seen by the Village Voice. The editors here continue to claim this is a biography but fail to even make the slightest attempt to provide balance to this article and when someone else attempts to the material is wiped clean. This must be addressed as they are now entering into libelous and defamatory territory as can be seen by the legal letter on the talk page

The entire section is wholly out of context. According to the Village Voice, "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 In a correction published by Salon, the news magazine, according to the Village Voice "does not use the term 'plagiarism.' "The correction also states that White's alleged e-mail was misquoted. It should have read, "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." Salon decided to respond after Leopold went public with his story being removed from the website.

• I finally read through this, and the section was indeed biased in my view. Using the word 'plagiarism' is too strong for this case, especially in the section title. I don't see why editors have been so insistent on writing this to slant it against Leopold, it's like people want it to be a hit piece. I've edited the section to make it more neutral (and to copyedit it, which it badly needed). Fences&Windows 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is still a biased article and as long as bonewah is around making edits it will continue to be. Each attempt to add factual material to balance it out is met with an immediate edit. This is wrong and something must be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No one must do anything. I'd drop that attitude straight away. Please take a moment to calm down, back out of the personal dispute with Bonewah (which appears to be no longer focused on the content), review the Wikipedia policies on biographies and try to make constructive edits to the article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When I first wrote the section concerning Salon and Leopold it didnt have the word plagiarism in the title [3], and I used the phrase "Following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had been plagiarized from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject." because the source (Salon) says "On Sept. 17, an editor at the Financial Times contacted Salon and expressed concern that some material in Leopold's story might have been plagiarized from an article that ran in his newspaper on Feb. 4, 2002. " and "In the absence of any corroborating evidence to support Leopold's version of events, we decided to post a correction noting what we reluctantly had to conclude was an instance of plagiarism." which sounds exactly like they were concerned about plagiarism. I disagree that the word plagiarism is too strong for the title, given what the sources say, but I never challenged your edits that changed it. Furthermore, I have added a number of citations for claims that previously were tagged with a citation needed, and, where I couldnt verify the claims, I removed them. If the net result of that is an article that is unflattering to Leopold, so be it, in my view, balance does not mean add something good for everything bad.

However, I will admit that tmorton166 is right, of late, my discussions have been mostly unproductive, and, if people think it would help, id be happy to refrain from editing this article for an extended period of time. I only ask, that the article be page protected again, if the IP wants to change the article he can gain consensus on the talk page. Bonewah (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must add my two cents bonewah. The fact is that there are several sides to that story regarding Salon and they are not the final word on what happened. You have various explanations. You have the Village Voice, you have Romenesko's media news, you have Leopold's explanation who also wrote about it in his book and publicly and you have Krugman. To state that Salon is the only authority on this is absolutely unfair and what you have done is given them more weight and have skewed the article in such a way so as to make Leopold look worse. That's a fact. Did you bother including the part where Leopold said that Salon was under pressure from the White House? And Lauerman and others told him that?

You did the same type of editing with the Karl Rove section and even the book section too. The fact is the book section relies upon a description of Leopold's book that wasn't even published! Yet when I and others have tried to edit it and include a description from the actual published version you reversed it. And yet, for someone who has spent so much time editing this article, you have failed to update it and include anything new. Not one thing. It is clear that you do not like the subject of the article and as I said previously your own commentary about Leopold is evidence about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold 2

The claim that Leopold copied seven paragraphs verbatim from Salon without attribution is totally false and anyone who accesses the article via Lexis Nexis will see that. That's getting into areas of defamation. There were three attributions to the FT in that article and Leopold made a point of saying, "Why would I attribute the FT only to pass elements of the same article off as my own." I'd like to see where the user Yworo who is making these edits can back up that seven paragraphs were used without attribution. Moreover, Leopold worked at the Los Angeles Times as a reporter and a city editor for 14 months before helping the Times start its Our Times supplement where he was editor. His bio on The Public Record does not say what you claim it says. And moreover, if Wikipedia going to rely so heavily on Salon then you might as well flesh out the entire story and include the claims from leopold that Kerry Lauerman told him he was under pressure from the White House and that Paul Krguman told Leopold he was a "lightning rod" and had to take a "hit" for the Times. That would only make this fair and balanced and neutral.

This is getting out of hand and accusing me of a conflict of interest because I am weighing in is a red herring and frankly BS. This article continues to be biased and doesn't even come close to meeting wikipedia's standards of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clan Sinclair Trust

This article appears to be a bit of a BLP nightmare. Almost no reliable sources and serious allegations. The one source is here, reporting almost exclusively on the Trust's denials of any problem. I should say that unless we can find followup stories indicating that there was an actual investigation which went badly for them, the entire incident should be removed.

I'm about to take a very quick chainsaw to the article, but it's 1:21AM and I should sleep really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've cleaned it up further, removing claims about it being related to an "International Order of Gnostic Templars" sourced only to that organizations self-published website. There was also a link in external links to a forum post repeating the allegations which I also removed. Yworo (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ugh, I knew that International Order of Gnostic Templars stuff seemed familiar. Seems it's inspired by The Da Vinci Code and that Clan Sinclair is associated with Rosslyn Chapel. We'll need to keep an eye on this article to keep the fictional and fringe out of it. Yworo (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that trust is wiki notable for its own article, its all sourced to its own publications and at most imo it is worth a single line in one of the related articles. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A source called the John O'Groat Journal and an editor called John O'Groat (talk · contribs) citing it? Alarm bells are ringing, especially after looking at Leila C. Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is also Sinclair-related. Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that looks a bit dodgy, edit summary says created with content deleted from another article> so why was that then? Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes thanks, it all seems to be mostly ok then apart from the excessive primary sourcing at the trust article.Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Shirley Sherrod

There are not many editors actively participating on the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod page, so here are some cross postings of a handful of questions to here. 1. This article's name is "Resignation of ----" rather than "Shirley Sherrod," per wp:PSEUDO. (See a talk page discussion of this issue just begun here.) Is this correct?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2. The article carries a Obama articles probation tag (see talkpage discussion here.) Is that correct?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Note: A local weekly newspaper is used as a source in one instance; a discussion of this matter is at the RS noticeboard here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies

This article is a BLP nightmare, thus far i have removed, blog posts, twitter sources, SPS sources. Any chance of some extra eyes on this? mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give an opinion on these sources as use in a blp please commondreams.org source and truthorfiction.com both are used here [4] mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither one are reliable sources for controversial criticism in a BLP. I agree with you that the article is a BLP mess. I think the best solution would be to pare it down to legitimate controversies that appear in reliable sources.--Jarhed (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we even have such a subarticle? The summary in the main article seems fine to me. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to have such a long and detailed article on these issues. Yworo (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Troy Davis

A silly and very untimely warning on my talk page has made me aware that a lot of material was added to this article recently. I have a vague suspicion that this might be part of a POV pushing attack coordinated offline. Perhaps an experienced admin, preferably one familiar with the case and how it is currently being discussed in the US, can have a look? Hans Adler 19:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Troy Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - is not the article in question, I think. It is Troy Davis case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's what I meant. (I'm a bit handicapped by a tiny screen while on holiday.) Hans Adler 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, what an article. It looks like it needs a massive clean up and prune. The whole table of evidence is original research, and there way too many quotes too. I don't have time at present, but if nobody else gets to it, I will have a go sometime soon. --Slp1 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimly, that needs some serious work, as a first step, I'll try and consolidate some of the references when I get a moment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I hacked down one of the massive quotes (a total copyvio), which enraged an IP editor, who called my edit "totally unacceptable". Looks like there's some real POV warriors around. As I said to Hans, the article on Mumia Abu-Jamal might be a good reference point on how to write Troy Davis case, as his case shares many similarities to that of Troy Davis. Fences&Windows 19:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm about to make a start. If people can watchlist the page and help moderate a bit if/when the POV warriors show up, that would be great.--Slp1 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The table of witness statements is not OR. Every statement in it is documented and sourced to newspaper coverage at the time of the trial and the 2010 hearing. Newspaper coverage is considered a secondary source. The article is still heavily POV in favour of Davis being innocent. The proponents of Davis getting a new trial have long maintained that seven of nine eyewitnesses have recanted. The article says so. The table compiles what the witnesses said originally, what their supposed recantations consist of, and what courts have said in evaluating the recantations. All of these sources are readily available on the Internet. The coverage from the Savannah newspapers about the case is all available in PDF format on their web site. The table does not colour the article one way or another and merely lays out for the reader the degree of change in the witness statements between the trial and the present.24.78.6.42 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the table again. The information is indeed sourced, but it has been put together, as you note to "lay out for the reader the degree of change in the witness statements between the trial and the present." This is the precisely what we are not allowed to do per original research and synthesis, which states that we must not combine sources together to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Please don't reinsert it again without getting consensus that it is okay to do so.

I'm also curious that you state that the article is biased in favour of the innocence of Davis. The first section, which I have just checked and, as well as being full of copy and paste copyright violations of the newspaper articles, was also very biased against Davis; instead of fairly representing the sources, whoever wrote the article had just picked out the negative quotes they contained. Maybe the "bias" will shift as I move down the article, however. --Slp1 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The table is back in. This should be discussed on the talk page for the article, not BLPN. I have started a discussion on the talk page. Persons who feel that the table is POV should add information to it, not delete the whole table.24.78.6.42 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I did not add the statement from the district attorney to the article that user Fences & Windows gutted, but I still feel that her edit was excessive and that User Cameron Scott should not have deleted 15,000 bytes (3000 words?) from the article without discussing it on the talk page.24.78.6.42 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks bloated and although I tried to read it I was unable to figure much out, so as it is it has little value, sometimes less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Louis Logic (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

If people could add this page to their watchlist... a user seems to be at least a bit intent on vandalizing it with slanderous material, which was up for nearly 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

John Clark (actor/director)

• John Clark (actor/director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-

I stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago and immediately felt its tone was not neutral. From examining the history it became obvious it was mostly the work of User:JohnClarknew who also happens to be the subject of the article. I therefore posted a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest template, which was promptly deleted by User:JohnClarknew. Since then I have removed a lot of P.O.V. and added some well referenced and neutral toned content. User:JohnClarknew has now reverted all of my changes.

User:JohnClarknew displays ownership of this article and seems unable to understand or is willing to ignore Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. Memphisto (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User Memphisto displays all of the attributes of a "fan" of a celebrity, specifically my recently passed ex-wife, Lynn Redgrave. He edits "her" page and "my" (as in the I.D. of the page, obviously, not suggesting ownership) page by only allowing reference sources that enhance her legacy, and deleting sources that don't. He also deletes content from the discussion page, which I believe according to WP guidelines, is a no-no. He uses POV editing using reference sources as his tool, rather than editorial content, which is easier to identify. A study of the history of the John Clark article page and John Clark discussion page in the last few days will reveal how he is now trying to cover his tracks by putting some things back. I'm in my eighth decade, and I care about MY legacy! As for the cautions against autobiographical entries and editing in WP, these are cautions, not law, and in obvious cases of vanity writing, should be carefully edited. This is not one of those cases. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Hurd

I'm just wondering if you could look at this article, especially this section. Personally, I would think that Wikipedia ought to take a less aggressive tone, especially with the heading. And I'm not sure that bloomberg.com is a reliable source. On a brief perusal of the site, I didn't see anything about their editorial process [5]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit may have fixed it. But the article bears watching what with the current anger [6][7]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are you really suggesting that Bloomberg is not a reliable source for business news? Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm suggesting that I don't know all sources... I know the Economist, but never read Bloomberg. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I hope that you are more familiar with it, now. ☺ When it comes to Bloomberg reporting the resignation of the CEO of a major corporation, quite a few people around the world do bet their bottom dollars that the news is accurate. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

When an article is in the news and gets edits like that from unconfirmed users the article should be semi protected as its earliest convienience for two or three days. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that you are happy for this to be in the article's introduction. Surely in context, and in chronological order, is the better place? That's surely the structure that an encyclopaedia article should take, ne? Uncle G (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I already made that change, with a note saying that if this is the main thing he is known for then he shouldn't have an article at all. For sure the positive contributions he made at HP are much more important to more people. (I'm not excusing or defending what he did.)Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not the main thing he is known for, see the thousands of articles mentioning him as CEO of HP:[8] Fences&Windows 17:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Moon Rising needs some third opinions, and second opinions come to that, at the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohamed Nasheed

This article has been the subject of vandalism for months. I've marked it as needing revisions to be reviewed to cut down on this in the future, but it desperately needs someone to go through it thoroughly and get rid of anything unsourced or poorly sourced. Rebecca (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

John Bramston School

Long-standing vandalism (added in March; see end of third paragraph); a local journalist has just phoned up WMUK interested in this. Please could someone take a look asap? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's the worst I've seen in a while. I've redacted some history (I think there's probably more to do) and redirected the title to the article about its successor. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And I've incorporated some of the article into the successor article, and generally tidied it up (the claim about the OfSted rating was a bit naughty - "making good progress towards raising standards" does definitely not mean "good overall"!!) Black Kite (t) (c) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps pending protection is a good idea? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Hammell

Regarding this edit here, i am not too sure if it should be included or not. The ref that has been given says The fact Sylla - then a St Johnstone player - had previously accused a Motherwell player of racially abusing him on the park only made it worse, and dont know if this has any bearing or importance to the persons BLP. Thanks for any help.Monkeymanman (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This look like a familiar IP ? and modus operandi Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person, fact. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have left a note for him on his talkpage, users edit pattern of adding poorly cited controversial content about living people and some of which is not in the citation when checked has multiple issues and requires attention. His contributions under this latest IP 90.200.240.178 are here Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it not in the citation when checked? The source explicitly says that Motherwell supporters' racist abuse of Sylla was made worse by the Hammell incident. Please stop misrepresentaing a) my motivations and edits b) the sources. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the writer's (Stuart Cosgrove) opinion, not fact. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He is reporting the fact of the racial abuse. He is also reporting the fact that it was even worse than usual. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a message on this IPs talk page because I am concerned that his edits do not meet with WP:NPOV. He appears to be pushing a POV that various players or groups of fans within Scottish football (other than Celtic players or fans, curiously) are bad people basically, for whatever reason it can source. This particular edit on Hammell's page is original research. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from the source, so uninvolved editors can make up their own mind about "original research": The match provided more evidence that Scottish football has some way to go before racism is eliminated.

A witless mob of Well fans screaming abuse at Bobo Balde and Mohammed Sylla did nothing to enhance their club's reputation.

The fact Sylla - then a St Johnstone player - had previously accused a Motherwell player of racially abusing him on the park only made it worse. The allegation that Celtic are the only club my edits do not encompass is both false and in breach of WP:AGF 90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That is clearly a synthesis of two events and therefore consitutes original research by the writer. If your edit stated something like "Stuart Cosgrove claimed that Hammell's alleged abuse of Sylla made subsequent racist abuse of Balde and Sylla by Motherwell fans worse" then it would be supported the cite, but you didn't write that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support that wording, although "claimed" is a term to aviod.90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is where your just not getting it and listening to the concerns of experienced editors, you are repeatedly adding weakly cited controversial content to BLP articles, bots are repeatedly flagging your additions. We require high quality citations to support such content and we are not a tabloid attack site. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to content, rather than (unevidenced) personal ad-hominems. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mirko Beljanski

Before I go further, an editor is removing cited (but critical of the subject) text and adding unsourced statements claiming ", he developed natural products that inhibit the growth of cancer cells, results since confirmed at the Columbia University Medical Center. He also developed a unique preparation of RNA fragments that promotes the production of a healthy level of white blood cells and platelets."[9]. I reverted him once, but I'd like a second opinion on this. It makes the article sound as though we are endorsing his claims. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He is almost not notable as in he has not been discussed in independent reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He is notable (plenty in French), but he's also long dead. Looks like a foundation is trading on his name these days to promote "natural health products", so they want to big up his work. Fences&Windows 00:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded it using some French sources. The advocates of his work won't like it. BLP comes into play if we want to mention that his wife and other defendants were given suspended sentences and fines for selling his 'therapies' in 2001.[10] Fences&Windows 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the ECHR criticised the French courts for taking so long about it.[11] Fences&Windows 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

The family tree in this article has bothered me for a while, and I asked on the talk page but no one responded. WP:BLP says that we should "consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."

The sources are not in question. I'm just wondering if it is really necessary for everyone descended from Lee to be included in the tree, since the youngest of these is a minor. I doubt that knowing the exact names of all the grandchildren is going to enhance a reader's knowledge. Can I have opinions from a few more experienced editors? sonia♫ 12:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Moly! That family tree is impressive - I didn't know we had a {{familytree}} template. However here it takes up a lot of space and provides unnecessary detail, and I would recommend removal on those grounds alone, replacing it with text description (though existing text probably suffices). In addition, the BLP argument for me is also there - names of non-notable people shouldn't be mentioned if there isn't any specific encyclopedic value to that. Saying that a person had X kids, of which Y went on to fame and fortune (notable name, notable name) - sure, yes. Listing all names for the sake of it is really not that far from listing the kids' favourite colours - just unnecessary. Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree its unnecessary listing of non notable relatives and have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...and now there's an edit war. sonia♫ 07:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the IP and the user to comment in the talkpage discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Katherine Ross (actor)

I attended Santa Rosa Jr. College in Santa Rosa, CA, in 1959-60, where she was Homecoming Queen. I have no idea of when she started her acting career, but she played Anna in "Anna and theKing of Siam" (I was an amazon). I believe you have the year of her birth wrong - it should be 1942, not 1940 as I know for a fact that she is younger than I. Also, her first marriage was to character actor Joel Fabiani with whom she appeared in San Francisco's ACT. In the early or mid 60's she also appeared on an episode of Perry Mason. While in Santa Rosa she lived in a boarding house in the next block, and she was well-liked by everyone who knew her in this small community college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.32.101 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• How can you prove all of this to us? Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This source gives 1942.Curses, self-published. Fences&Windows 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC) The bio is basically unreferenced, btw. Fences&Windows 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Life also gives her y.o.b. as 1942 (25 in March 1968):[12] Fences&Windows 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That Life article also confirmed that she was in The King and I at Santa Rosa - this anonymous editor is probably the real deal, though I found no mention of a relationship with a Joel Fabiani or a Perry Mason appearance. Fences&Windows 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

She's right about Joel Fabiani too [13]--Slp1 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a good find. The full quote is "Katharine Ross has most recently appeared on television's The Colby's, while Joel Fabiani (who was Ross's husband when they were with the Workshop) played Joan Collins' friend King Gaylen on Dynasty." But I'm not sure this snippet is enough to support including it. Thoughts? I also found that she didn't marry Conrad Hall in '69, but in June 1970, in Taihiti.[14] Fences&Windows 00:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I found an LA Times article from 1975 (and shelled out a few dollars to read it) that confirmed her marriage to Fabiani, it lasted six months.[15] Can anyone find sources for her work as a children's author? Fences&Windows 00:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Louis Zorich

• Louis Zorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Someone keeps trying to change Louis Zorich's ethnicity from Croatian American to Serbian American. I opened a discussion, providing links to show that he is in fact Croatian.

I left the IP 109.92.222.189 a note on his talkpage asking him to stop reverting and move to discussion and present a WP:RS for his claim. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

The article has long referenced Clinton's (now current) father-in-law. It mentioned that he is a former Democratic Congressman. He was also convicted of 31 counts of fraud and served a lengthy federal prison sentence - a reference I added. References to the conviction have repeatedly been stricken, while the congressional service and party affiliation reference remain. I believe "former Democratic congressman and convicted felon" would be an appropriate reference. Otherwise... Just mention his name and let people follow the link to learn more. It isn't fair to list one historical credential and not the other. ... and the conviction is probably more historically interesting.

John2510 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about Chelsea Clinton first of all, we should not publish any negative details for other persons named in the article, unless that is their only reason for notability. The conviction of Edward Mezvinsky is explained in his article and that's where it belongs. There's nothing unfair about that but it's about good measure and about concentrating on the main topic of an article. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should just link to his name, with no further reference? ... or is there an actual policy of not publishing negatives unless that is their only notability? That would seem IMHO to be a poor policy. There needs to be fairness and balance. John2510 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you. The guys page's lead is also weighted towards the fraud disproportionately. Can some people here watchlist Edward_Mezvinsky as well as Chelsea's page? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict..Adding the criminal convictions of her father in law is clear coat-racking and unless the subject of the articles notability is related to the crimes they should clearly not be added, those crime details belong on his article alone. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Things will probably die down in a few days. Chelsea isn't that big of a celeb any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I made it a straight reference to the father-in-law's name (which is linked). I think that restores balance and neutrality. I don't think we're in the business of "only saying the good things" about a reference. John2510 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No we're not John but the fact that the person is or was involved in politics is a related notability and could happily stay in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Any "related notability" is insignficiant. It's certainly more historically signficant that the daughter of a President has married the son of a convicted felon. Still... balance and neutrality are maintained by leaving out both positive and negative references. John2510 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well consensus is against your POV John and it has been replaced, please do not edit war over the article and use discussion to seek support for your claims, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The negative info is in the guys article. People can read it there. Whether it's a COATRACK or not is an editorial decision, and the two uninvolved editors here feel that it is. Maybe someone will have another opinion here, but I doubt it. We err on the side of caution with BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on WP:Coatrack suggests seeking a balance of what a reader would consider notable about the person. Mentioning his congressional service, without mentioning his prison time is itself coatracking. Mainstream media articles see his felony conviction as having significance on par this his legislative office (e.g.: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/meet-marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clintons-fiance/). I'm only seeking balance and fairness here in what's notable about him. Two (or ten) other editors who want to avoid "negative info" about the in-laws, while including the positive, doesn't make it right. John2510 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, including some references because they're positive and omitting others because they're negative clearly violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. For clarification... are you telling me NOT to engage in further discussion on this? If so... Wow. John2510 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We are asking you to not restore your version of the article and we furthermore DO ask you to continue this discussion. Please see WP:Edit war for the term Off2riob was referring to. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me for not making that clear and thanks to you De728631 for the clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510 does have a point: NPOV demands we include both or neither, and if BLP requires that we avoid mentioning sourced negative material in an article that he's only tangentially involved in, then that means the positive stuff goes as well. As I read it, the bare link is the best way to meet both BLP and NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have no objections to this position, its a bit pointy though. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"NPOV demands we include both or neither" No it does not. See WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." from WP:NPOV. As cited, mainstream media seem to consider the fraud conviction as relevent as the congressional history. Further, the congressional reference appears to be an inappropriate attempt at aggrandizement through choice of spouse/breeding. John2510 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

←As I pointed out on the article talk page, "Democratic congressman" is merely an identifier, and many would say not necessarily a positive one - and the reason he has his own bluelinked biography here which is the appropriate place for details of his life. This article is about Chelsea Clinton - it's not the place for going into her father-in-law's past history (or accusations against her own parents, or her uncle's conviction, by the way), but to leave off the main reason for Ed Mezvinsky's own notability - the clear lead of his own article - is a POV decision, in my view. And someone's characterization of Mezvinsky in a recent edit of Chelsea's biography as a "fraudster" I believe illustrates that this is not neutral editing.Tvoz/talk 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Think this logic is correct. If her father-in-law is notable, we give the reason for his notability, not other pointy biographical details unless they are also directly relevant to the biography of the subject of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this is an NPOV issueat all. Aside from the fact that, to many Americans, being identified as a member of Congress is not exactly positive, we're talking about relatively neutral, identifying information relating to the subject's main basis for notability. We haven't required, and shouldn't require, that the articles on David Eisenhower and Edward F. Cox mention that their father-in-law resigned the presidency in disgrace, or that he in effect admitted criminal behavior by accepting a presidential pardon. The article on Rand Paul similarly identifies his father as a congressman, but mentions no criticisms of him. This line of argument leads to absurd results; must the article on Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky include references to Bill Clinton's impeachment or the suspension of his law license simply because it identifies her son's father-in-law as a former President? Including references to the negative information about certain members in the Bush clan in articles on other members would be a full-time job. Must the article on Patrick J. Kennedy mention Chappaquiddick because it refers to his father's political career? Does the fact that the article on Prince William of Wales mentions his mother's charitable activities also require that it be balanced by Tina Brown's characterization of her as a ""spiteful, manipulative, media-savvy neurotic"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "merely an identifier." His name is merely an identifier. Mentioning his status as a former congressman has judgmental implications. If you reject that... then "convicted felon" is merely an identifier as well. As I said, I'm okay with dropping both and letting his name identify him. John2510 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Take a look at WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE sometime if you want to understand why. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read them. What do you think they say that makes my statement "nonsense?" John2510 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You've making a false equivalency, and ignoring both BLP and UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's asking you to explain your view of why they apply. Telling him he's ignoring them in light of such a request isn't a helpful addition to the dialogue. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe he's doing so from reading each and every comment he's made on this issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What he said I'm doing... is what I'm doing. Citing acronyms and being dismissive isn't engaging in discussiona and dialog on the topic. John2510 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, the editors above have taken the time to explain things to you, an editor with very little apparent experience at editing Wikipedia. Could you please spend some time and try to understand what they are saying, rather than repeatedly advancing the same arguments. Otherwise, you'll start to look like a disruptive, single-purpose account, and those situations usually don't end very well. Best regards, and I hope you hang around and do a lot to improve the encyclopedia, Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, In my experience, condescension only tends to inflame conflicts. If you'd care to participate in the substance of the discussion, that would be great. Regards. John2510 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You quoted on my talk page (which I appreciate), "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My post on the conviction appears to me to be at least reasonably weighted with his congressional service. News reports on the wedding (as cited above) seem to support that. Do people have an argument to the contrary? Similarly, my post seems to meet the three elements of BLP you cite: 1) neutrality; 2) verifiability; and 3) not original research.

The answer to the "Undue Weight" and "Coatracking" alleagations is found in an honest answer to the following: Which is more noteworthy to the average reader? - "President's daughter marries son of former congressman" or "President's daughter marries son of convicted felon, just out of federal prison." The former appears to be purely an attempt at aggrandizing the subject through her choice of mate, while the latter is ironic and unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The question might instead be which appears more noteworthy to reliable sources writing on the topic of C Clinton's wedding? --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if we were writing an article about the wedding, but even then BLP would trump NPOV. Of course, we're not writing an article about the wedding, so we're not going to pretend otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage, then. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Same answer. The article is about Clinton. It doesn't even have a sub-section about her wedding or marriage. It has one sentence about her marriage. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so our source for that one sentence should be reliable sources writing about her marriage. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/sunday/main6733650.shtml. Wait... crap - it mentions the fraud conviction. Maybe we should keep looking until we find one that fits our biases better? John2510 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources. Plural. And its also not about what the sources mention, it's about how they describe the father in law. If "congressman and fraudster" is a common formulation, then I concede. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the article: "The groom is the son of two former Members of Congress, one of whom, Ed Mezvinsky, served time for fraud." That's the first one that came up when I Googled "Chelsea fraud." There are many others. John2510 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the fact that John2510's only current editing interest seems to be arguing about this point to be deeply unimpressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the redaction of FormerIP's comments on this page is necessary. Although there is disagreement as to whether Mr. Mezvinski's conviction should be prominently mentioned in discussing Chelsea Clinton's marriage, the fact of such conviction is undisputed, it is reported in his own article here on Wikipedia, and I don't see how we can discuss whether or not to include it in the Clinton article without at least mentioning it in passing here. In other words, while the letter and spirit of the BLP policy apply in all namespaces, this is not the type of unsourced, negative speculation or libel that it would be inappropriate to mention on a discussion page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The term was already identified as an inappropriate characterization (1 August 2010 (UTC)), and no source has been provided demonstrating otherwise. The discussion has moved well into WP:POINT. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the allegation of WP:POINT, I think it's notworthy that I created the discussion here to avoid an edit and disruption in the page itself - which currently contains the edit I dispute. I'm hoping for a fair resolution. The "inappropriate characterization" allegations are not valid, for the reasons stated. John2510 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Identified by what authority? Go away. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to Ronz) I agree with you that including this characterization in Chelsea Clinton is probably not desirable. My point is just that given all the discussion above, I don't see redacting the term as necessary or helpful on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove the BLP violation again, despite BLP requiring us to do so. I will request the editor be blocked if he makes another such violation. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please identify how you believe my edits (adding the reference to the conviction or achieving neutrality by simply linking to the name) constitute a BLP violation. John2510 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, as you observed, you initated the discussion here to seek input on this issue. The consensus seems to be strongly against your view. I suggest that you drop the matter, as your interest in it is clearly disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I tell my friends that Wikipedia isn't just a vote of what people want to see. I'd like to think I'm right... but maybe not. John2510 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No general conclusions should be drawn from the fact that consensus is against you in one instance. I've been editing here for a long time, and I certainly wouldn't have lasted or been very happy here if I'd taken it personally every time people disagreed with one of my edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John, regardless of the rightness of your arguments, admins here are quick to intervene (or trigger happy if you must) when it comes to BLP issues (or even just perceived BLP issues). At this point, enough editors have disagreed with your interpretation of our "rules", that you are risking being sanctioned. Almost everything we decide on is a grey area, and there is no supreme court (other than the one that Newyorkbrad actually is a part of, since you may not know), so being right when a bunch of other editors disagree is the same thing as being wrong. So, decide if being right is worth being blocked, in which case perform more reverts. Or, continue this discussion, and you may convince some people, although I doubt it. I have no grudge against you, so I just want to tell you what I've seen, and a likely outcome. I say this, because a bad experience early in ones career frequently causes editors to leave and never come back, and I want you to stay. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I initiated discussion on this at an early stage, and haven't reverted since the contentiousness of this subject became apparent. My edits to seek neutrality have been removed. If I risk sanction by even discussing the subject, then so be it. Several of you seem to be attempting to make the point with me that I should defer to your experience in the absence of reason. I've been here long enough to know that sort of elitism isn't appropriate here. John2510 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What other accounts, if any, were you using during that lengthy time? (Your current account has fewer than 100 edits.) You risk being sanctioned because you have carried on the discussion way beyond it's useful end. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a truly pathetic debate. More than any other Wikipedia policy or principle, one might hope that editorial discretion and at least a minimal measure of sensitivity or compassion might prevail. Apparently not so. This article is about Chelsea Clinton, not the skeletons in the family tree of the man she married. Good Lord. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Though she may become President some day, she really hasn't done anything noteworthy in her own right yet, so the article naturally focuses on her familial associations. Maybe the interest in her generally is where the true pathos lies. Nobody suggested making it more than a passing reference. I don't think burying someone in family skeletons is appropriate, but it's simply not wp:npov to reference the father-in-law's accomplishments but not his equally-defining felony conviction (as other cited media do). Also, I don't think sensitivity and compassion require avoiding all that is negative (at the risk of wp:npov), as long as it's treated with sensitivity and given appropriate weight (take a look at wp:WELLKNOWN#Public figures). The reason I added it in the first place was that I followed the link here to his bio and was shocked that a Wikipedia article would mention his congressional service but not his conviction. It jumped out as me as being seriously evasive and slanted. John2510 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Giving Pledge

67.101.5.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding information that people have agreed to The Giving Pledge, but sourcing it only to http://givingpledge.org . That pledge seems controversial, so requires a reliable source. I've pointed him to a reliable source for some of the names, but he refuses to use it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The active discussion about this issue is at Talk:Bill Gates#Edit request As Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) encouraged earlier, we should have this discussion in a single place, though I understand why he/she felt obligated to post something here. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a clearly inappropriate place for the discussion. It's possible it should be on WP:RSN, but not in the Bill Gates article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• This IP is spamming this PDF link to multiple BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now reported at WP:ANI#The Giving Pledge, although the primary discussion should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. From my obviously biased perspective, what happened was:

1. Find out a bunch of billionaires have joined The Giving Pledge, which has its own website where they document which billionaires have taken the pledge, documentation that includes facsimiles of the letters each of the billionaires wrote when they took the pledge.
2. Create a {{cite web}} that I can use to add it to appropriate places in each of the relevant BLP articles, tailoring as I go along (and sometimes bundling in minor other changes while I'm there).
3. In the middle of this, Arthur Rubin posts on my user talk page, and at that point I notice that he had also reverted _every one_ of my BLP article changes. This appears (to me) to be a harsh response. The horrible BLP-risky thing I'm doing is saying, based on an organization's official website, that this or that billionaire has taken a pledge to give away lots of their money.
4. Arthur Rubin then routes me to various process-related talk pages/incident pages/etc. (asking along the way that I try to confine the discussion to a single talk page.
5. Meanwhile, she/he re-reverts my edits since I have failed to convince him personally of the reliability of The Giving Pledge website.

I guess I need to look around and find out where else I need to defend myself. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the signing of the pledge is a notable part of each of those individual biographies- if no independent sources have written about that person's signing of the pledge, then I'm not convinced that discussion of it belongs in an article. I'd be more inclined to wait until each of them gives away the money (at which point, it seems likely that more reliable sources will become available, and also that the pledge will be a more important part of that individual's life). I wouldn't have a problem with using the list to create a category for signers of the pledge, though. My opinion, freely offered and free for ignoring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment is scope creep. ARubin's issue is whether The Giving Pledge website can be cited as a reliable source. Do you think its an unreliable source? 67.101.5.165 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The website itself is what we call a "primary source" - we need reliable secondary sources such as quality newspapers and news organisations who have reported on the pledge and the pledgers. If the BBC for example has an article on it's news website about the pledge and giving a list of pledgers we could use that. Exxolon (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether the "Giving Pledge" is of sufficient encyclopedic notability to add to lots of individual BLP articles. So far, it doesn't appear to be, in that these people's pledges have apparently not attracted discussion by multiple reliable sources. The pledge site itself is not sufficient notability, as it is a Primary source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: To 67.101.5.16, it is absolutely not about "defending yourself", because nobody is attacking you. Wikipedia is not a fight - it is a collaborative project where we work together, in accordance with policies decided by consensus, to build a high-quality encyclopedia. So I'd suggest you take a step or two back and not see this as a battle to be won or lost, because I don't think that approach will really help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• The giving pledge is not strictly a primary source. It isn't a secondary source, per se. But it isn't a journal or a logbook record or a personal document of some kind. It is a notable charity organization. We should treat its public statements like we would treat the public statements of any private organization which isn't in the business of producing secondary sources--sanely. Just like we would be comfortable sourcing the Ford foundation to say that Billionaire Bob is on the board, we should be comfortable sourcing this site in saying that Billionaire Jill has pledged to give some significant fraction of her wealth away. Obviously these comments should be given their due weight in the text of the biography and in some bios that due weight may be nothing. But all this talk above about the website being a primary source or adding the info being a BLP violation is a bit overwrought. Protonk (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, but WP:RS requires that we have multiple reliable sources, and I think we could really do with at least one independent source. The question also remains as to whether it is of sufficient notability on an individual case-by-case basis to add to each BLP article, and I think that has to be weighted according to how notable it is in each specific case. For example, as he is high profile and it has been in the news, in the case of Bill Gates it might be fine, but for another person who's pledge hasn't been talked about anywhere, it might not be approriate. Someone suggested in one of the other discussions that perhaps a category of Giving Pledge donors might be a good idea, and I think that's worth considering - all pledgers could then be added to the category, but talk of their individual pledges only added if their individual pledge itself has attracted attention. Any thoughts on that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing a few concepts here. Notability requires that we have multiple reliable sources (and some level of detail), but notability is an article inclusion concept, it doesn't speak to article content. If we wanted to start articles on Billionaire Jill's philanthropic work and all we had were the giving pledge's website, we would not be in a position to start such an article. As for the comment that the pledge needs to have attracted some attention, perhaps. I said above UNDUE should guide how we treat this, but note that the pledge itself is only going to be a newsworthy moment for a small subset of the pledgers. Some of those will be newsworthy because they are so rich (Gates, Buffet), others because they were available to be interviewed about it, and others because it comes up in a profile. The arbitrariness of press coverage is not new, but we should keep it in mind when suggesting that only those whose pledge has attracted press coverage should have the pledge mentioned. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Imo a special category would only raise questions if it is added to a biography without the pledge explicitly being mentioned in the article. But I agree that we should only mention individual pledges if secondary sources have reported about Billionaire Tom sharing his wealth. Adding a notice to each BLP on the pledge list by default would be trivial. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Giving Pledge is already plenty notable.[16] Additional sources are not hard to find that copy the charity's list in other reliable sources. For example, I woke up this morning to find a mini-edit war going on at the usually quiescent article for George Kaiser, but it was no problem to find coverage of Kaiser's pledge in traditional reliable sources[17] and at least one article about Kaiser and T. Boone Pickens also includes the complete list of pledgers.[18] The complete pledge list has been picked up and copied in other sources.[19][20] Reuters ran a story on August 4 with excerpts of the letters from about 17 of the 40.[21] While there's always room for case-by-case WP:WEIGHT analysis, I agree with Protonk's comment above comparing this to the Ford Foundation and I don't really see any reason why the charity's list should be viewed as unreliable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying that the charity's list is unreliable, just that it's a primary source (albeit with some caveats, as mentioned above), and that Wikipedia requires independent secondary sources - and copies of the primary source don't count. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am starting to think that a pledge is not notable at all, donations are notable as in the case of Gates, very notable the others unless they do anything I don't think its notable, its more promo that noteworthy. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like it has plenty of secondary sources which can be used.[22].--Civilizededucation^talk 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment on the above discussion, please read WP:NNC. Notability doesn't factor in to content decisions within articles. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Answering the key question

If I were editing as a credentialed editor, I wouldn't need to ask this question, but since almost all of my contributions are made without logging in, I seek assurance. If I were to resume citing one page or another of the official website of The Giving Pledge as a source (e.g. http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/AugustPledgeLetters.pdf, the PDF containing facsimiles of the often detailed letters each pledger wrote), is it appropriate for Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) or other editors to challenge (or even revert) my contribution on the basis that the website is unreliable? Arthur Rubin seems pretty firm in his/her insistence that at least for BLP articles, it is unreliable. Thanks 67.100.125.34 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

I don't see any evidence that the web site is reliable for anything except the organization's press releases. I admit it's unlikely that they would say anything libelous about their donors (even though, being supported by Bill Gates, they may have an impressive legal force at their command), but we are more restricted in making unsupported statements than the law allows. My take is, until a consensus is established here, we should only list pledgers if that pledge is reported by news media, or clearly by the pledgers themselves. For many of the ones you've added, reliable sources for the pledge are available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We use cites like this all the time for uncontroversial claims like "so and so serves on the board of XYZ foundation" or "so and so is an associate editor of a journal". Even when another source is available, that doesn't prevent us from using the source. We can just cite both, helping the reader along to the charity org (especially if the newspaper doesn't include a hyperlink). This isn't and shouldn't be a controversial subject, we don't need to read WP:RS parsimoniously. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you didn't bother to engage with the following editors:

• Boing! said Zebedee: "Nobody is saying that the charity's list is unreliable".
• Protonk: "Just like we would be comfortable sourcing the Ford foundation to say that Billionaire Bob is on the board, we should be comfortable sourcing this site in saying that Billionaire Jill has pledged to give some significant fraction of her wealth away."
• Arxiloxos: "I don't really see any reason why the charity's list should be viewed as unreliable."

There's also Protonk's WP:NNC point. I don't understand why you aren't engaging with the people on the noticeboard, since you brought this issue here. 67.100.125.34 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

My suggestion to 67.100.125.34 is to be sure and include an additional source or two from other reliable sources. along with the link to the Giving Pledge website. I do think that the website link is not only reliable but also valuable, because it provides a link to the philanthropist's own words explaining their decision to join the pledge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In spite of several editors (Boing! said Zebedee, Protonk, Arxiloxos) disagreeing with Arthur Rubin's claims that The Giving Pledge's website is unreliable, he/she is reverting BLPs, citing unreliability instead of engaging in a discussion of the issue here. 67.101.6.203 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've clearly established that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth's web site is not a reliable source for their "members" associations with the organization; I don't see a significant difference here. Both charities are run by honest people with controversial motives.

I don't see any of the editors here other than Protonk saying the web site is reliable, but even if it were, it would still be a BLP violation, unless we have a third party source for the pledge, even if that third party source is copying givingpledge.org . Contrary to Protonk's assertion, it is a controversial subject, or the organization wouldn't need to exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. For one, the IP editor is making the same assertion. For another, you are stretching the meaning of "BLP violation" to its very limits. This whole discussion has been an exercise in shifting goalposts. The original complaint was that the inclusion of the links violated BLP. That claim being thoroughly dispensed with, the opposition became "the information isn't notable", but notability has nothing to do with a line in an article. Finally we arrive at "now it is controversial, so even if it were reliable, it wouldn't be enough". No. I'm glad you mentioned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because it saves me the trouble of finding a perfect example of a controversial organization. I challenge any reasonable observer to tell me that the aim and nature of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is anywhere near as controversial as The Giving Pledge. Don't worry, I'll wait. As for your last sentence, it is totally non-sensical. Habitat for Humanity exists absent any controversy about whether or not people should be allowed to build houses for the homeless on their own time. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) to comment here since I claimed they agreed that The Giving Pledge's website was reliable, and Arthur Rubin disagrees. Thanks. 67.101.7.100 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am very surprised that this discussion is still ongoing. For the record, I am another editor, "other than Protonk", who has also stated, repeatedly, that the website is reliable for the proposed purpose. Again: It's reliable for the proposed purpose. Using it is not a BLP violation. Moreover, the entire list has been reported and reproduced by other reliable sources. The Giving Pledge itself has gotten wide coverage and it's clearly a notable fact about each of the philanthropists at this point. (At this point, for some of the less famous billionaires who have joined to pledge, this fact might be one of the more notable facts about them.) The website is useful because it includes links to the various philanthropists' own words explaining their reasons for making the pledge. I am hoping that Arthur Rubin will voluntarily delete all those {{vc}} tags he's stuck on the citations in various articles; I see no basis for retaining those tags. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, reliability in the BLP context is not the same as general reliability. To give further examples of situations in which we cannot use an organization's web site to source that a person signed its petition or pledge:

1. We cannot use AE911T, although a perfectly respectable charity (regardless of its views), to source that scientist X signed their petition, without an external source that it really was scientist X. We could use their site to support scientist X is on the board of AE911T....
2. we cannot use 350.org's statement that "X is a "350 messenger" without evidence that X agrees (and some assertion that it's important to X's article.) 350.org is a "perfectly respectable charity" (to use the anon's words in another thread.)
3. You may recall a petition hosted at University of Oregon (against) anthropogenic global warming. I signed the petition; but others who have "signed" the petition now claim they signed something completely different, and/or want to revoke their signature. (My current stand, although not exactly relevant: I think the AGW was unproved at the time I signed the petition; I now think that it's uncertain, although much of the evidence against it is unavailable in peer-reviewed journals for political reasons.) Nonetheless, it's not in the article about me, for good reasons.

I further question whether the pledge is of interest, especially for billionaires who have reneged on some previous pledges, but that's not a BLP question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) First off, saying "reliability in the BLP context is not the same as general reliability" on this noticeboard comes across as condescending...editors participating on the BLPN (well non-IP editors anyway) should be given the good-faith benefit of the doubt that they are familiar with BLP guidelines and policies.

After searching the BLPN's archives, I found only one of the three examples you cite, 350.org, is mentioned (and mentioned repeatedly). Since neither AE911T nor the University of Oregon's anthropogenic global warming poll have been raised as BLPN issues here, that suggests only your 350.org example may be relevant.

The implication you're making is

1. both 350.org and The Giving Pledge are websites that documents petition signers/pledgers,
2. 350.org has repeatedly provoked BLPN activity,
3. therefore any website that documents petition signers/pledgers, including The Giving Pledge, should be treated as unreliable in BLP articles

Can BLP guidelines really be interpreted to say that?

Also, why isn't http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/AugustPledgeLetters.pdf the "evidence that X agrees" they made the pledge? Do you sincerely believe The Giving Pledge would create a packet of forged pledge letters? 67.100.125.21 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Suttle

• 174.71.89.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A poster has repeatedly posted negative information in a biased manner. This apperaed in two sections. First, there is "Snow Removal" in which he sourced an internet comment board as his source. The second one is "movement to impeach" which is sourced by a Facebook page with only 100 people in it.

Those are not wiki reliable for that content, I have removed them , again, and left the IP 174.71.89.43 a note on his talkpage to discuss the edits here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

News organizations aren't RS? amazing.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative information updated With 11 references from local news. Still said to be "facebook attack".--174.71.89.43 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You did add 11 news articles, but most of those were about the effort to remove snow. None contained any direct criticism of the mayor himself and some were not even on the same issues, such as the potholes articles. Others, were links to message boards for user comments. Hardly "grossly inadequate." Again this is not a partisan attack board. --Go2102 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes about the effort to remove snow and his mishandling of it and the budget problems start started the mess.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cindy Guyer - disputed d.o.b.

There is a dispute about date of birth at Cindy Guyer. The article showed 1961 until May 2009 when an IP changed it to 1969, and that is what the article currently shows, cited to her Facebook page. Two days ago an SPA started trying obsessively (50 edits in two days) to change it back to 1961, citing IMDb. I have blocked the SPA for three days for edit warring, but I am sure s/he will be back. We must have had this kind of thing before, but I don't know the precedents. Questions:

• do we gallantly allow a lady to specify her own age?
• If not, given that neither Facebook nor IMDb are reliable sources, is there some source that could settle the issue - eg, are US birth certificates online?

The SPA offers to fax a copy driving license, but given Photoshop and the passions that have clearly been aroused here I don't know that that would be convincing (I recall the story of Zsa Zsa Gabor, in court for slapping a policeman, being sentenced by the judge to have her correct d.o.b. recorded in her driving license). JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We do allow SPS for such dates, but if they are disputed and eight years apart it is clearly an issue and imo better removed until a stronger citation arrives. Google results suggest May 14, 1961 http://www.celebs101.com/biography-2967-Cindy+Guyer+Complete+Biography.html Cindy Guyer date of birth - Google search. Is the facebook official site? Or a fansite? If it is clearly official then we could add it and attribute it to her, as in..Za za posted on her facebook account that she was born on ..... this really is only an issue if it is disputed as this clearly is.. I have used this self published twitter cite to date Tinsel Koreys birth-date and as it was only one year not bothered to attribute although it is clear in the citation that it is from her twitter. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Her "official site" is http://cindyguyer.net/ but is all images, no information; the Facebook entry looks like hers, rather than a fan-site, but I don't know how to be sure of that - it's not linked from cindyguyer.net, for instance. 14 May 1961 is what the article said from when it was created in 2005 until an IP changed it on 31 May 09. If I had to bet, I'd bet on 1961, but since it is contentious (the SPA has admitted in a now-deleted unblock request to being engaged in a legal dispute with her), I agree best to leave it out altogether. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I saw the official site and there is no bio there...I looked at the facebook site and it had nothing there that asserted official to me, like perhaps private detail and personal pictures etc, so yes, lets keep it out for the time being without a stronger citation, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noted on the talk page that the d.o.b. has been removed as contentious BLP, and asked that no one put it back without a RS. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Aged 25 in Nov 1993:[23]. 28 in April 1996:[24]. 47 in Feb 2009:[25]. Hmm, that doesn't add up.... That last source has some more biographical information, which could be useful: the birthdate is not the only problem with that article. Fences&Windows 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maxine Waters

I really don't do US politics, but this looks like a hatchet job at places to me. Stuff is sourced, but how much the sources are being spun for partisan reasons I'm not sure. Once user is doing a lot of editing here. I've removed some statements as misleading, but it really needs a read over by an informed neutral person.--Scott Mac 22:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see you've met Freakshownerd (talk · contribs). Good luck. Given his involvement, I don't really feel like touching the article with a ten-foot pole, but I agree that some sort of additional scrutiny and oversight would be useful. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Li

Pedia2007z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - persistent addition of controversial materials to the page of Andrew Li. Andrew Li is currently the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, and is accused by the user of lying and covering up the wrongdoing of fellow judges. No reliable sources are provided. His edits have been reverted a number of times, and despite multiple warnings, the user has persisted in adding the defamatory material. The user has done the same thing to the Chinese version of the page: [26].Craddocktm (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Pedia2007z was blocked 48hrs for violations of the WP:BLP policy by Administrator Materialscientist - Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharik Currimbhoy

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

This biography is either a hyperbolic hagiography written by the subject's underlings--or, more likely, indicative of an attempt at self-glorication by a non-notable individual writing about himself using multiple editor ids. More seriously, the author(s) provide a source whose title seems relevant but whose content disproves the assertion that the subject is an incumbent baronet. According to the source, the incumbent is "Sir Mahomed (Fazalbhoy[3]) Currimbhoy Ebrahim, 4th baronet"/"Born on the 24th of June, 1935. Succeeded to the title on the 4th of March, 1952."..."resident in Pakistan (Baitullah 33, Bait-ul-Amen Mirza, Kalig Beg Rd, Jameshed Quarters, Karachi, Sind, Pakistan[20])". I recommend that the article be removed forthwith for the aforementioned reasons and for the use of misleading mechanisms employed by the subject-author to keep is article on Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphic333 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proded for deletion. Suspect puffery and bogus, or overblown, claims.--Scott Mac 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up in an attempt to see if a real article is there somewhere. I don't think it is and agree with the Prod. Most of the mentions are trival and he's only the subject of a single article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

This revision of the WP:Sandbox needs to be deleted from history. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to report this, please read Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for details. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Colfer2 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Danielle Staub and maybe Victoria Sellers

Two non-notable (in my opinion) persons who nevertheless recently survived AfD's. In the case of Ms. Staub, I removed material tending to besmirch her reputation (notwithstanding that it was referenced) on the grounds that she is a very small fish and give her a break, and explained this on the talk page, but its been restored. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but maybe somebody else is willing to.

In the case of Ms. Sellers, similar, although I just removed the besmirching (but referenced) material. It hasn't been restored yet but it might be. Herostratus (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian Harvey

This article seems to have been a vandalism target the past few months, I've attempted to remove as much as I can, but don't have time to run a full check on it at the moment. The Brian/Bryan Harvey namespace is also getting a bit crowded, I'm currently counting 4 articles sharing it:

• Brian Harvey - British pop and dance music singer
• Bryan Harvey - US baseball player
• Bryan Harvey (musician) - American musician
• Brian Harvey (lecturer) - Lecturer/Professor at Berkeley College

A disambiguation page and/or renaming the articles to include middle initials/names might be a good idea. --Brandished (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ally McCoist

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

I've had some problems with partisan editors looking to whitewash this prominent Scottish footballer's BLP. Specifically, an off-field assault conviction in 1987 which is been reverted out despite its clear notability in reliable sources. The Independent The Guardian McCoist was convicted (where two team-mates were found not proven) and fined £150 by the courts. He was also fined two weeks' wages by his club Rangers (£1500).

I'm informed by the editors concerned that the referenced material is unsuitable because it is variously "negative" or "minor". This seems to me to deny WP:BLP - particularly WP:WELLKNOWN. Self-styled "experienced user" Off2riorob reverted with a claim it is "a minor conviction unworthy of note," yet he or she argued strongly for the inclusion of Cherie Blair's £10 train ticket penalty as a notable "controversy." Again this doesn't seem to stack up and I would appreciate some guidance from the community. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not a whitewash its a minor issue not worthy of hosting on wikipedia , a minor assault charge and a small fine. As for Cherie Blair there is no connection and no comparison between two issues, its like chalk and cheese. Your additions are repeatedly flagged by BOTS as possible violations, and you are constantly being reverted by multiple experienced users, I am not a partisan editor as regards Scottish football at all, I don't care about it, it is your repeated additions of singularity controversial issues to the articles of living people that I am bothered about. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that (in the vein of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) comparing the two cases isn't useful, I have to say that I think that the Cherie Blair train ticket incident really shouldn't be included in her biography. But we can discuss that on the talk page of the article!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a repeated bot comment about your additions (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) . Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

those two people are hardly of equal notoriety. Your endless spree of edits across Wikipedia including negative and questionable material on articles affiliated to a certain club, has reached the point that your contributions can't be taken seriously. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an assault charge it was a conviction - widely publicised in reliable sources. Also, please try to look at the content at hand instead of making baseless ad hominem attacks on me. For the umpteenth time, there is no requirement that edits are not "controversial" - as long as they are properly sourced. The bots pick up everything to do with racism/criminality/sex etc. Does that mean nothing on these subjects should be added? I will let others judge whether the Cherie Blair case points to hypocrisy and/or gaming on your part. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, imagine, Rangers only paid star players £1500 for two weeks back then.--Scott Mac 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

...and they were one of the top-spenders in Britain at that time. So I suppose the 'equivalent' in today's money would be getting on for a quarter of a million quid. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

David Campbell (composer)

The article for David_Campbell_(composer) (which at one time was deleted, but subsequently reappeared) was recently heavily edited by a user with the name Kanebell Assistant, which caught my interest because Campbell's wife's name is Raven Kane. I looked at what was done to the article, and it has been puffed up enormously (for instance, listing much more detail about his works than you typically see for this kind of article) and uses non-neutral language like "As an arranger and conductor, David Campbell has become the go-to guy for innovative orchestral collaborations with pop and rock artists." On top of that, much of it is not referenced, and of the references I looked at, a few were no good. I admit, I am not interested in taking on the job of editing it and fixing the references, I just want to point it out because I feel it is not up to Wiki standards. Candy (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at Kanebell Assistant's contributions, it is clear that his or her edits on Wikipedia all involve David Campbell. Also, I have found that there is a Kanebell Enterprises that is owned by David Campbell: http://www.manta.com/c/mm5dvl1/kanebell-enterprises Candy (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This noticeboard is usually for cases where people are adding undue material. You may want to make this report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I had a quick look at the article – it's not too bad, but I added it to my watchlist because it does have a couple of puff items, mainly the one you mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. I am not familiar with all the different noticeboards! Candy (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oriental Daily News

This article contains the following unsourced claim: "The founder of the newspaper was accused of committing heroin trades and series of corruptions in 70s by Hong Kong government, earning him the moniker 'White Powder'. He fled to Taiwan and never returned to Hong Kong." I'm just going to remove that, but finding a source for it, if possible, might be better.

There is a next section about a criminal conviction that appears to me to be sourced to original legal documents - without 3rd party reliable sources I have often found that sourcing directly to legal documents is WP:OR for the purpose of POV-pushing. Certainly this at least needs some scrutiny.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed that - edit summary, primary court record, removed, please find independent secondary sources. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivaldo

95.68.37.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is an IP user who keeps adding unsourced claims and weasel words to the article, and he keeps citing unreliable sources (such as Wikipedia itself) or repeat the same source within the same paragraph. He repeatedly accuses me of being "not good". Despite my attempt to explain the issue on the talk page of the article, he seems to be having none of it. Craddocktm (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least the content is not attacking or defamatory. He seems to want to help but has only been here a day and about ten edits, I would try to explain what is wrong with his additions but if he won't listen, I would revert anything her adds that is detrimental to the article and try to explain to him, or you can try letting him mess it all up for a few hours so that he can see what a mess he is making and then go and revert to the last decent version. Ill watchlist it and we can revert him together, hopefully he will take his time and become a worthy contributor.Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BLPN related discussion in Arb Com case about Race and Intelligence

Apologies if this is too far off topic, but I may be sanctioned in an Arb Com case for "disruptive forum shopping" for three posts that I made at BLPN. Background here. My claim is that my behavior at BLPN adhered to the highest standards of Wikipedia. Not only did I do nothing wrong, but I did everything right. Yet, perhaps I am kidding myself and my behavior justifies significant punishments. (I can hardly judge my own case fairly!) So, I would be curious what BLPN regulars think of my behavior. Comments (ideally at the Arb Com page) welcome! David.Kane (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The accusation against you at Race and intelligence is here and runs like this: David.Kane (talk · contribs) has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view. In pursuit of his agenda, he has disruptively removed sourced material (sometimes spuriously claiming BLP violation),[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] has engaged in disruptive forum shopping at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard,[35][36][37] has tag-teamed with users Mikemikev and Captain Occam.[38][39][40] and gamed the system with a spurious outing complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents[41].

The original of this accusation was badly listed, it has been corrected and two ArbCom members have now voted in support of it.

I have a little bit of sympathy for you on the "outing" complaint, but this looks like ridiculous over-reaction on your part, you should indeed have mailed an admin and not left yourself open to claims that "both you here and the David Kane at gnxp.com write under your full names, and you both have the same interest in race-related issues. But what clinches it is, the David Kane at gnxp.com explicitly claims he is you on Wikipedia [169]." As you've been told, "If you have an imposter at gnpx.com, then you need to contact gnpx.com."

It is not obvious to me that your conduct at BLP has been disruptive but the chances are high that you've been making a nuisance of yourself at Race and intelligence. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand the complaint (which I largely agree with) is not that it is your particular behaviour at any of the boards that is disruptive, but the act of forumshopping itself. In this keys my beef is with your attempt at turning to the content issue into a BLP issue - which it isn't IMO (because we are fully in our right to reproduce other authors criticisms of living persons (founded or unfounded) as long as they are sourced to reliable sources). In my view this worked as an (admittedly very well thought out) tactical stalling manevure attempting to direct the high level of BLP concern in the community to help you censor notable viewpoints that are critical of Arthur Jensen. You seem to always behave with a high degree of civility and even courtenousness at this board and at Race and Intelligence - the disruption your opponents are complaining about is your using this kind of tactical maneuvres in a content dispute. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue I have with your assumption about this is that even if the claims about Arthur Jensen weren’t a BLP issue, I don’t think David.Kane could have known that without asking about it here. There were several people who had far more experience as Wikipedia editors than him who also believed that it was a legitimate BLP issue, including Jimbo Wales, and someone else from this noticeboard awarded David a barnstar for “detecting a complex WP:BLP violation that few understood, regarding living person Arthur Jensen”. Perhaps David.Kane, Jimbo Wales, and the person who gave David a barnstar were all wrong about this, but even if they were, could David.Kane really have been expected to know ahead of time that this wasn’t a BLP issue when even Jimbo Wales thought it was one?

Your attitude (and that of the arbitrator who posted this proposed finding of fact) seems to be that if someone raises an issue at the BLP noticeboard which eventually turns out to not be a BLP violation, then that can retroactively be considered to have been disruptive, even if there was no way for the person to know it wasn’t a BLP violation before they posted about it here. By that logic, the only way for an editor to make sure they aren’t disruptive is by only asking about anything here if they’re already 100% certain that it’s an actual BLP violation. If editors are discouraged from asking about issues here when they’re uncertain whether those issues are BLP violations or not, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of this noticeboard’s existence? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a question of whether we can reasonably assume that DK came here with a question in good faith or whether he was attempting to "game the system". I am personally happy to extend the assumption of good faith to DK in which case no sanction about this issue would be necessary. I was merely explaining what the motivation for the complain about "disruptive forum shopping" was about, which isn't about disruptive behaviour in the BLP forum but about the possibility that DK may have used a change of venue as a vehicle for gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. As for Jimbo's support I am pretty sure was just a backbone reaction in favour of a strict policy against unsourced controversy in BLPs - and untill he takes an active ineterest in the issue of R&I related articles I wouldn't place too much importance in his edicts about the issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

“As for Jimbo's support I am pretty sure was just a backbone reaction in favour of a strict policy against unsourced controversy in BLPs”

Jimbo said more than this. His comment is here:

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.

The last sentence is the most important, I think: “we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.” This was David.Kane’s perspective also, and the basis for his assertion that claiming this about Arthur Jensen (cited to books such as The Funding of Scientific Racism) was a BLP violation. It really seems excessively harsh to suggest that David.Kane should be sanctioned for bringing this up here based on the assumption that it might be a BLP violation, when Jimbo Wales thought it was likely to be one also. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as it should already be abundantly clear I disagree with you, Jimbo and DavidKane about that reinterpretation of BLP - which encourages original research by editors and disallows criticism published reliable third party sources as sources for BLPs unless the BLP subject agrees with the criticism. It is ludicrous and would kill the reliability of wikipedia if it were implemented. But this is not the topic now - the topic is Daviod Kane asking whether he has misbehaved here in the BLP forum I am saying that he hasn't and that it is irrelevant because the question is whether his coming here in the first place was misbehaviour, not how he acted in the forum. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have previously commented on the WP:SPA editors who are extremely civil but relentless in their efforts to promote an undue point of view in race and intelligence articles. As always, David Kane's comments on this noticeboard were fine, but experienced editors can see the strategy of using anything possible to prevent due and sourced scientific criticism of Jensen on the basis that Jensen is alive and so nothing negative must appear. We assume that David Kane's behavior was entirely noble, but it is indistinguishable for WP:CPUSH forum shopping. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Shriya Saran Obscenity charges

I was concerned about the "Obscenity charges" section of this BLP, so I edited it, but was reverted, therefore I have begun a discussion on the talk page, where I have explained my thoughts.

Talk:Shriya Saran#Obscenity charges

Thanks in anticipation of any input.  Chzz  ►  03:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I commented there (your version is best), and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unverified insertion of recent death date into Laurence Gardner

Resolved

 – subject appears to have expired - detail added to his biography, cited to his official website Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors are inserting a death date into this article. I can find a few blogs and forums with this date, but no news stories. One editor said his webmaster knows about it, but it's not on his website. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your totally correct , we need a quality reliable citation to report a death. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• - It does appear to be true (verifiable) and I have now added it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. I've removed a 2nd reference - we don't need it, we wouldn't have used it as an RS before, and if we use anything else to verify his death it will hopefully be a news source or similar. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan

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

Hi I wanted to know if the last paragraph of the section (which I partialy changed so as to be really what Wafa Sultan says) added by User:The Sphinx is relevant and/or acceptable and if so can it be sourced by solely youtube?--Chrono1084 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it cited to those unofficial youtube uploads. There are at first glance some more dubious looking contents and ctes and externals and so on that need a look at by an experienced user. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick.--Chrono1084 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Youtube is not very good at all to support any content and only the ones that are on official uploaders should be added, the rest are likely copyright violations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks.--Chrono1084 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If a person is put on record making controversial statements, then a YouTube video is just as good as an official transcript. This looks like it was taken from a personal video camera, so there is no such thing as an "official uploader", copyright issues and what not. Your arguments are IMHO just bureaucratic. Especially that the two YouTube links I posted (which aren't my uploads, btw) were removed, but two others were left standing in the same article, even though their sources are just as "unofficial" as the ones I found. Why?

Chrono1084, I don't know what your agenda is, but you claimed in your last edit that she never mentioned atom bombs and was probably talking about "re-education". However, I have quoted the audience member that explicitly asked "Atom bombs?" and how she responded in the affirmative. It's in the video for you to see, so why are you trying to cover it up? Besides, it is a controversial issue and people have been talking about it on blogs, I just think that linking to blogs in Wikipedia is poor practice.

Anyway, I've restored the passage with the links and added the moments where the statements are being made, for better verification. If you want an experienced user to look at it, then fair enough. But if you don't want YouTube videos in the article, then please remove the two others that are posted, along with their passages, just for consistency. Thank you. The Sphinx (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read once more the article's history, you'll see that I said there was no advocacy for atomic bombs in the first part and that there was no talk of atomic bombs in the second. I think, it was a bad idea for you to restore your edits but since you did, I'll restore my correction. Of course I still agree with Off2riorob's deletion because of his arguments. As for having an agenda, you sure made yours clear. Your statement that it's a controversy needs to be sourced.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Those comments from Spinx about youtube and videos being as good as an official transcript are way of the mark. I have removed it again, please do not replace it, if you want to again attempt to add it then present it here so users can look at it and judge the addition and its value and reliability, you can also take the citations and the content you want to support to the WP:RSN to see what users there think about them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be only one more youtube link to this official channel David Horowitz Freedom Center http://www.youtube.com/user/dhfcenter and it supports a small quote from that video, I am not too keen on that as it is primary research , but it is only one and it is to an official channel, perhaps someone else will comment about that? I am tempted to remove that also, at least the quote, and replace it with, and she responded in an interview and then the citation to the video.? I removed the actually quote. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

desired addition

Alright then. Here's what I posted. I want people to comment on it and whether it's reliable or not:

During a speech to an audience in New York, Sultan has suggested the use of atomic bombs against Muslims [Video Source (quote from 00:34 onwards)], saying "I truly believe that King Abdullah can change Islam overnight, but you need to put pressure on him to do it. And the same kind of pressure you put on Japan (..)". When an audience member interjects and asks "Atom bombs?", she replied, "Yes, eventually the West will need to do it". When asked later by another audience member, "How would we stop [Islam] from infiltrating?", she eventually said " (..) You reversed the Japanese culture, the same, you might need to do it, you might need to do a heavy pressure, I cannot predict the kind of pressure, you understand it, I don’t have to say it."[Video Source (quote from 02:08 onwards)]

The Sphinx (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lentz biography

The biography of composer Daniel Lentz contains a factual error:

"In 1972, he won the First Prize in the International Composers Competition (Stichting Gaudeamus) in the Netherlands. Lentz was the first American to ever win that competition."

Daniel Lentz was not the first American to win the competition. Previous American First Prize winners were Pauline Oliveros (1962) and John McGuire (1971). The complete list of prizewinners is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudeamus_International_Composers_Award —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snail09 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What does the citation say? Whatever is in the citation should match the info in the article. If it is uncited then if you feel its wrong then remove it with an explanation.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it, and linked to our article. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

The article on Israel Shamir has recently been stubbified by yours truly, as it was borderline libellous. Could those interested keep an eye on it and rebuild as necessary? The subject of the article is aware of it's existence. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure

• - Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure

As this new tool has been used to assist in protecting the Biographies of living people, comments are welcomed as to its possible continued use as the trial has ended. Community consensus is required for continued use.Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alumni of academic and military institutes

I have posted a BLP related question on the reliable sources noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Alumni of academic and military institutes. So far the issue has not received any responses, therefor I am canvasing it here. Please respond at WP:RSN. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom Emmer

Only campaign approved literature is being allowed in this article. Opposing viewpoints, even well cited ones are being deleted by an operative of the candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.76.179 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Campaign material is being used for his political positions. Allegations that information is being deleted by an "operative" are without any justification. This editor is also edit-waring on the page. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Other well cited posts have been deleted and rerouted to keep this article campaign friendly. That is censorship and has been reported to the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.76.179 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you join the discussion rather than make pointless threats? That article is a WP:BLP, which you should read since you obviously found this page. As for the censorship, there is plenty of bad stuff about Emmer in that page, I am not sure what you feel is being censored. Arzel (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. 75.72.76.179, edits on the Tom Emmer article like this, blanking the page, leaving only a cleanup template, are completely unacceptable vandalism. Edits like this and this will of course be reverted. You don't do yourself any favors with those edits and may be blocked for them. Your most defensible edit, this one, could be fixed if you replaced "lyrics" with "radio interview", but you are burning bridges. I'm going to re-read the article and see if it deserves a POV tag now. -Colfer2 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been a problem. At points, Arzel, you've argued that mentioning his drunk driving incidents was motivated by "political purposes" (rather than a full accounting of past criminal activity closely linked to later legislation) and have changed contextual text around quotes so as to misrepresent the utterance itself. ThtrWrtr (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They were motivated by political purposes. That issue was broght forward by someone in his opponents camp. The connection between the two issues are also being made for political purposes. I would ask you also to be careful about making statements of criminal activity, or imply that they were closely related to other legislation, this is a BLP remember, not a place to promote a political point of view. Opinion is not fact, and we have to be careful not to confuse the two. Arzel (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Tom Emmer's political opponents might mention his history of drunk driving partly in pursuit of their political goals. However, we mention it in his WP entry because it's a series of criminal offenses by a candidate for public office. Those supporting Mr. Emmer in his drive for office might not like the way or reason in which the decades-old misdeeds migrated into public consciousness, but the offenses are, to my mind, clearly germane to his biography. As to their being mentioned alongside his later legislative activities in regard to driving while impaired, editors on WP didn't make the linkage; reporters and public officials elsewhere did. One article in the references from the Star Trib is even entitled "Sponsor of DWI change has 2-ticket DWI record." Another ST article ("Emmer, MIA on DWI vote, ignites criticism") mentioned Rep. Emmer's past drunk driving when he missed a vote to toughen consequences for DWI. His convictions and his legislation, though not necessarily causally linked, live together in independent coverage by the secondary sources that undergird the Emmer WP entry. The article simply reflects its sources. ThtrWrtr (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the ST is very liberal and always supports the democratic candidate it is really no suprise that they have pushed it as well. It is also no suprise that they have been hesitant to publish any stories that defend Emmer against false attacks that even FactCheck has stated. Point is, this is a BLP, not a political page. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, those kind of assertions leave us nowhere. The Star Trib is a valid source of media reference, as is the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal. You may have your personal opinions of the paper's orientation, but the largest paper of record in Rep. Emmer's home state clearly is a notable well for news. One can't suggest that valid, widely read, mainstream sources not be followed simply because one (or others of similar political persuasion) personally detects a certain bent to the coverage. It's not the Daily Kos, for Pete's sake. In fact, didn't the ST endorse Coleman over Franken in MN's '08 senatorial race? (And if memory serves, your argument for including Rep. Emmer's age at his first arrest was that the ST had also done so.) Frankly, I'm a bit concerned that nearly every one of your edits, here and elsewhere, appears geared to favor conservative candidates, causes, and organizations. Why on earth WOULDN'T one want to note that a candidate re-writing drunk-driving legislation has a history of drunk driving? It's nothing like the linkage problem occurring with MN Forward. The problem would begin to creep in were one to write, for example, "Rep. Emmer's proposed law would lessen the very penalties he faced in 1981." ThtrWrtr (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed most of the article, except the drunk driving section. I did not add a POV tag but I did put a lot of context around a paragraph about the Target-funded ad and the gay rights response, a national story at this point. The paragraph seemed to have been pared down to nothing, just, "there was an ad, and a bunch of companies" (that's not a direct a quote!).

It might be a good time for us to read WP:WELLKNOWN, the BLP section about public figures. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

Katie Couric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A video of Couric was posted to YouTube which allegedly shows her making fun of Sarah Palin's children's names. It was added unsourced to her article. Within one day, blogs picked up on the item. Now, reliable sources have begun their reporting on it. Like the editted video of another high government official, how should this be treated? When should it be included? 04:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the incident is notable enough for a BLP, it's trivia.Jarhed (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jarhed. 24-hour news cycle trivia. Exclude. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of editors just itching to put it in her article. They don't seem to understand the basic BLP issue much less the fact that Wikipedia does not report the news. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

List of persons who have made fun of Sarah Palin's children's names? It'd run into the thousands, I'd wager. Fences&Windows 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have a section on The Palin interviews (2008) I would say this is somewhat related to content already in the article. But also since this is a BLP we should certainly err on the side of caution. Admittedly I have not read all the refs that were offered up. But the ones I saw all seemed to say the same thing and looked like the common journalistic practice of "copy&pasting". I suppose if Couric herself or one of her producers, or even the "Palin camp" say something quotable about the video it could gain enough "weight" to be included. But for now I would say exclude. Colincbn (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan Quinn (fighter)

Dan Quinn (fighter) appears to be a royal mess, extensively using primary sources from Quinn himself including Youtube videos, as well as others like court cases. I was thinking deletion but there does appear to be at least one old RSS discussing Quinn [42] Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A shocking article that might be best stubbing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Like Cameron and a few other users recently, I just took a hatchet to the whole thing. I definitely don't think it should be deleted, since Quinn fought Frank Mir, but still, yikes. Şłџğģő 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another reason why I didn't want to delete, I know next to nothing about MMA :-P Actually looking at the article now, it's more clear that he's probably slighly notable. Concentrating on what he's primarily known for, his sport/MMA career, not his Youtube videos with his cat or whatever is of course proper Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do we go for assistance on biographies of non-living persons?

I am having difficulty with an anon on the Larry Norman article and need some assistance in sorting out our opposing opinions, but the subject is deceased and I don't see an equivalent noticeboard. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no real noticeboard for those since they aren't covered by any specific policy outside the the ones which cover other pages. But generally speaking, WP:RFC (specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies) or Wikipedia:Third opinion are good ways to try and get help to resolve disputes. If it's a specific sourcing issue Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and if it involves something disputed as OR Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

You could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. If none of that is helpful, take a read of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. BTW, remember you can still bring issues involving other living persons on biographies of non living people here.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

Over at Helen Thomas there is a discussion regarding whether to paraphrase the statements she made. The full exchange is replicated in the article body, but there is some debate on whether editors should venture a summary in the lead as well. Comments welcome here. Unomi (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Soho Properties

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

Issue was raised at ANI but is more of a content dispute. More eyes on the article which is getting smeared a bit with BLP issues would be handy --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Translator (Chinese?) needed for Zhou Libo

Can someone who reads Chinese(?) verify that the source supports the content added in this edit [43]. Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not according to google translate it wasn't it did mention his wife and I believe they had a bit of a up and down divorce issue but those comments were not there, the picture also has no evidence of permission and is a possible copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I saw you also got rid of the other copyright vios, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Ullyot

Ted Ullyot attended Harvard as an undergraduate, not Mt. Ida College. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.225.167 (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to update it yourself, by providing links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (if the article is locked, then please indicate so in your statements), under the principle Wikipedia:Be Bold - Also, it is possible that he could go to more than one undergraduate university, so please consider that as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The current ref (WSJ) says "The 41 year-old Ullyot (Harvard, U. of Chicago law) began his legal career,,,". Does that arrangement of schools mean he went to Harvard as an undergrad, or is that OR. Maybe he left Harvard Law School and then went to U. of Chicageo? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraud accusations against Michael E. Mann

Professor Michael E. Mann is currently the subject of a widely-criticised fraud investigation by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. According to a Va. newspaper,

Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said the revelations "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud. "Given this, the only prudent thing to do was to look into it," Gottstein added. "This is a fraud investigation, and the attorney general's office is not investigating Dr. Mann's specific conclusion." [44]

Another editor has read this to mean that the investigation is into the data itself and has added material to this effect to the BLP on Mann. However, I read the statement as saying that the investigation is into the application for taxpayer-funded grants (the investigation is under the auspices of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act - if there was no financial issue there would be no hook to hang the investigation on). I'd be grateful for outside views on how to parse this statement, as it seems rather important to say exactly what Mann is being investigated for. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It reads to me that the investigation is into the data, the data was used to form the conclusions, Mann appears to have only been responsible for the conclusions derived from the data. There seems to be no claims that Mann falsified the actual data. Why not wait for something to actually happen, this is just the hyperbole and fluff. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really clear what it means, though it's hard to imagine you could have a fraud investigation without examining the alleged manipulation (unless the manipulation was an established fact, which it isn't). Because it is very unlikely that the allegation will be followed up in a timely manner (either because reliable sources won't bother, or because Wikipedians won't notice), and is currently so vague, it shouldn't be included. It can be left on the talk page for followup as/when/if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a whole section about the CRU email controversy, and the AG's investigation is a direct result of that. The fact that there is an ongoing investigation, and the fact that the underlying data to Mann's claim to fame is called into question is the only way to treat accurately and neutrally Mann's hockey stick research. If the investigation and fraud allegations are left out of the article, then the whole discussion of the hockey stick research and conclusions should be removed as well. Removing the AG investigation leaves the remaining discussion about the hockey stick unfairly represented as accurate and beyond dispute when that is not the case. I object to the wholesale removal of that section of the article, as it was extremely well sourced with multiple reliable sources, and it was stated in a neutral manner. There is an entire article about the investigation -- to remove the well sourced, reliable and notable information from this article is censorship. Minor4th 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a link in the Mann article to the AG investigation article, with as little detail as possible (can of worms). That should suffice for now (at least to avoid OMG! Censorship! claims). If you're not familiar with them or haven't looked recently, check out WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. That latter is probably still violated by the prominence given to the CRU episode. Rd232 ^talk

In fact, whether this is an investigation into the data or the grants appears to be in dispute externally too. Cuccinelli says he is only looking into the fraud issue ("results of Mann's research isn't at question but that he is investigating whether Mann defrauded Virginia taxpayers as he sought five public grants"); whereas the university (and Mann) says that it is "an unprecedented attempt to challenge a university professor's peer reviewed data, methodologies and conclusions." (from a Washington Post blog So any addition would need to reflect this conflict in interpretation by the participants itself. --Slp1 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Which states in more detail my point above: and going further and further into the detail of this in the BLP necessarily becomes more and more WP:UNDUE. Leaving UNDUE aside, there is still a BLP issue from airing unclear and unevidenced fraud allegations at the beginning of an investigation which shows every sign of being politically motivated. Ergo it should be merely mentioned in the existing section (with full [currently sketchy, response aside] details available in the topic article), not immediately promoted to its own section and discussed at length. PS The essay WP:RECENTISM is not irrelevant here. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And I must add that I find it disturbing that editors are willing to ignore BLP policy and immediately reinsert the contentious content (and as we're talking about vague insinuations/accusations/entirely unevidenced possibilities of fraud - where it's not really clear what exactly the subject is accused of or what evidence there is - it's surely contentious). For those in the cheap seats, WP:BLP states in its second sentence that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misstating or misunderstanding BLP policy. Please brush up on this policy so that you may apply it correctly in the future. There is no policy that contentious material be removed from a BLP unless it is unsourced or poorly sourced, neither of which apply in this case. Your own quote of BLP policy makes it entirely clear. Please revert yourself as you are the one who has violated policy by removing well sourced information that is about the article subject. If it's acceptable to immediately remove controversial content from BLP's irrespective of high quality sourcing, I have quite a bit of work to do because there are many BLP's that contain negative information that casts aspersion on the LP, and I would prefer that we paint all BLP's in a positive light and not include any of the negative information about them. What do you think? Minor4th 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be argumentative (and do pay attention: at the time you wrote your comment the material had been reinserted and I haven't touched it). The substantive material qualifies as poorly sourced, since it is entirely unclear what exactly the subject is alleged to have done, or is precisely being investigated for, etc. That this vagueness may (I haven't checked) be accurately reproduced from acceptable sources does not magically make it well sourced: it is well established that Reliable Sources are not judged reliable irrespective of context or content (because they often make mistakes). By which I mean, to be clear, that in this context the Thing That Needs Sourcing is the fraud accusation itself, not the Vague Media Report Of Ooh He's Been A Naughty Boy. The latter is well enough sourced, the former is not, which creates poor sourcing because what is communicated to the reader as a result is not fact but insinuation. Clear? And you may still disagree, but BLP caution dictates discussing these issues including whether the sourcing is poor prior to reinsertion. In any case, it is ludicrous for this discussion to proceed as if I'd asked for content to be deleted from Wikipedia. The content exists in its own article and remained linked from the BLP. It is a question of due prominence. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

. Well I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I suppose youre right, my response was a little point-y. I'm frustrated because your removal of well-sourced information in a AGW proponent BLP is so representative of what continually happens im this topic area. NPOV is hard fought, and the section you removed was actually a rare example of a collaborative compromise/give and take among editors of opposing viewpoints. Remarkably, the result was a pretty NPOV summary that included factual information, both the negative and the criticism and response to the negative information. It could be argued that the participation from both sides was an implicit consensus that the summary should be included in the Mann article. It was not UNDUE at all because there was much more attention paid to the reaction to the investigation and it is clear from the summary that the AG's investigation is not well-received. To include praise for Mann's hockey stick research without summarizing the fact that a cloud hangs over it in the form of an ongoing invrstigation by the State AG's office is terribly misleading and intellectually dishonest. The controversy surrounding Mann's research is what the man is most notable for. He is the veritable icon of climate change controversy. Whats more frustrating is that reliably sourced information is often removed from articles in this area when it cuts against the majority POV (a consensus that is shrinking), yet poorly sourced (blogs, op-eds, SPS, Twitter) and completely unsourced content is regularly added to "skeptical" BLP's and articles that call into question the reliability of the scientific consensus. This is why theres an omnibus arb case pending, and the particular article you edited is under probation and has been very contentious and has been subject to many edit and revert wars. For you to come in and unilaterally, and against consensus, remove an entire section citing BLP policy that doesnt apply -- well, at best it's controversial itself and at worst it's tendentious and factionalist. If ChrisO had done it, he would have likely faced severe sanctions; if William Connolley or Polargeo or Stephan Schulz had done it, there would have been an arb com request for enforcement filed. The fact that 2 or 3 editors have reverted you should tell you something. And I should have mentioned before now that ChrisO's description of the controversy is completely misleading as well. The content in question is very clear that it is a taxpayer fraud investigation related to public grants obtained by Mann for his hockey stick research -- thats not disputed at all, and it's stated clearly. But the suspected fraudulent activity involves the question of whether Mann deliberately manipulated climate data to reach a conclusion that he wanted to reach. That is also clearly stated and impeccably sourced. There is actually no controversy over any of that, and there is nothing "vague" about the nature of the potentially fraudulent conduct thay is the subject of the inquiry. Think of this -- if a marginally informed person is googling Michael Mann to learn more about him, and that person arrives at Wiki's BLP, is the person going to get an accurate presentation of what notable, reliable sources have stated about Mann? Nope, not if that section is removed and the remaining content says that Mann has been cleared of wrongdoing and suspicion. Minor4th 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your final sentence makes clear your intentions: you want passersby to be exposed to the vague accusation of fraud right now - before any details are known, and certainly before any conclusions are drawn. Of course conclusions may take ages to emerge publicly and to make it onto Wikipedia, throughout which time these vague insinuations will remain to vaguely discredit the BLP subject. Well that's honest at least... but it is has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The accusations are not vague and the response and Mann's reaction are noted. It does not unfairly discredit the BLP. It lets the reader know that there is currently some doubt about the data behind the hockey stick research and it shouldn't be taken as prima facie accurate and above doubt. Minor4th 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good use of the board. The Washington Post has reported it, and Mann is a public figure. That more than satisfies the BLP policy. One of the reasons we have editors who worry that the BLP policy is too extensive is that it gets misquoted this way, and it's an important policy, so we need to be careful not to make misleading claims about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As the first section of WP:BLP says: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Reliable sourcing is just the start of the BLP process. There are many more issues that need to be considered. The fact that something appears in the press does not dictate the way we cover it, or even whether we cover it at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Chris, we dont print rumors and vague allegations. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Some people mistakenly think that if it's in a newspaper it's worth including in a BLP. However, WP:BLP makes it clear that there are more considerations to be taken into account than just reliable sourcing. That's the reason why we have a separate BLP policy in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And why the forest fire? You're double posting, which is just annoying. It's not helping any. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind closing this down here, its a content dispute with only minor BLP concerns, as per SlimV, when a subject is notable and there are a plethora of quality citation discussing it there is no reason to keep it out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, when I removed the section I replaced it with a sentence pointing to the main article. So "keeping it out of the article" is not the issue. It is what is appropriate coverage for this barely-launched investigation at this time. Rd232 ^talk 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "forest fire", as you call it, is because I posted a request for input that seems to have got hijacked for an entirely different discussion. It's most annoying - my original request seems to have been forgotten about. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is what constitutes due coverage. Is 15-20% of the BLP's body text appropriate? Is that the significance of this investigation being launched? Rd232 ^talk 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that issue, because this is indeed a problem. Another editor actually wants to expand that section still further to take it up to about 30% of the article length. The ironic thing is that Mann himself is actually not involved - it is entirely a dispute between the University of Virginia and the Va. Attorney General. Mann doesn't work for the university any more and isn't a party to the dispute. So I question how relevant it actually is to his BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would cut the para down to something like this:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann in April 2010 focusing on his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. Academic and civil rights groups criticized the decision to investigate and the University of Virginia has filed a countersuit.

Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good but it needs a bit more focus, as the investigation is not "of Mann" himself, and specificity is needed on the subject of the investigation. I would suggest "began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's applications for research grants at the University of Virginia..." -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Ronnotel has picked up the current wording on that point, and it should be changed. Also, I've just read the main article more carefully, and I see it isn't even established that the Attorney General has the legal standing to request the documents he wants - which disputed request is all that this "investigation" currently amounts to! Clearly it needs mentioning in the Mann article, but in view of this a sentence in the CRU section (since that prompted the request) is quite sufficient. Plus, the relation between the request and the AG litigation against CO2 regulation further reduces the relevance of the whole thing to Mann personally - the guy seems to want the records at least in part to support an unrelated legal battle. Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) OK, let's suggest another version, picking up on the point you've just made. I've corrected one point - the university has sued the AG; he didn't sue it, so it's not a countersuit.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's applications for research grants at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. His demand for documents from the University was criticized by academic and civil rights groups and the University of Virginia filed suit to block the demand.

ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if you include a brief summary about how it applies to the inquiry into potentially manipulated climate data, and that is directly related to Mann and not just the University of Virginia. The whole issue and the reason for the inclusion in an article about Mann is that it's Mann's research practices that are being investigated and called into question. Minor4th 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really - as Rd232 has said, the whole thing is very vague. Basically there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing but the AG wants Mann's old records from the U of V so that he can ... well, nobody really knows what he wants to do with them. You can understand why it's been characterised as a fishing expedition. It's not even clear that there is any actual investigation ongoing, as there's nothing to investigate without the records that the AG wants. Given that, it shows why we need to treat this very carefully - there is a great cloud of innuendo and political game-playing with very little substance. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is how it reads now:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann in April 2010 focusing on his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. He served a civil investigative demand on the university seeking a broad range of documents in pursuit of a determination whether fraud may have been committed in relation to the award of four grants. Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, criticized it as "a shameful abuse of his office and a real threat to academic freedom in Virginia."The Union of Concerned Scientists released a letter signed by more than 800 faculty members at state colleges and universities, opposing Cuccinelli's demand and calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted." Mann has stated that subsequent investigations have validated his work and cleared him of wrongdoing. Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said that the Attorney General's office was not investigating Mann's scientific conclusions, but said that it was prudent to look into whether grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. The university filed suit to overturn the demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and charging that Cuccinelli was exceeding his authority.

It would not be this long if you did not insist on including multiple references and content and quotes about the reaction to the investigation. You cannot leave out the prominent aspect of the investigation into Mann's use of climate data, which is what the investigation is looking into. How about this:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the university seeking a broad range of documents in pursuit of a determination whether research grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. . The investigation has been criticized by academics and scientists as violative of academic freedom.The university has challenged Cuccinelli's demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and on the basis that Cuccinelli is exceeding his authority.

Minor4th 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one adding detail - I've been trying to trim it but constantly have had editors trying to force in yet more content. Again, though, you're missing the point that Rd232 has made several times above - that it's unclear what exactly is being investigated other than the issue of research grants. Your version introduces unnecessary innuendo. There is too much unnecessary detail in general about the arguments on both sides. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you kept adding "unwarranted and burdensome" and "abuse" -- that certainly was you. And there is not too much unnecessary detail. I thought you wanted to avoid the vague accusations. The way to do that is to cite specifically what's being investigated. Otherwise, leave it as it is. it's not too long in any event. it's a small summary in the overall article. It's well sourced, it's notable and it's about Mann. You're not going to keep out information about the investigation though and how it pertains to Mann. Minor4th 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not only is it unnecessary detail, it misrepresents the sources. The investigation isn't "focussing on Mann's work" according to the cited sources, it's much more specifically "an investigation into "possible violations" by Mann of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act." Your phrasing "determination whether research grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion" does not mean the same as the spokesman saying that leaked emails "indicate that 'some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions' and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud." You should be able to follow the distinction. The question of an investigation into climate data is not in the cited sources, but is covered in this source used in the main article on the investigation. That source indicates that on July 13, Cuccinelli's lawyers introduced arguments about Mann's scientific conclusions, and the university's lawyers pointed out that this undermined Cuccinelli's statement that the results of Mann's research isn't at question, and was outside his authority. That aspect should be shown if the Attorney's side is being shown. Looks rather like a blog and hence unsuitable for both articles, but the information should be available in better sources. However, these aspects of this political fishing expedition belong in the detailed article, and are inappropriate in the biography. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume by "blog" you mean the Washington Post's Virginia Politics: News and Notes on Politics in Richmond and Northern Virginia. It's perfectly fine as a source since it's clearly covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. The Washington Post is an important source, since it's the area's newspaper of record. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP

A user argued that the only person who died in the AIRES Flight 8250 is covered by the BLP policy. I said she wasn't.

Wikipedia:BLP#Deceased states "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased"

My position is that WP:BLP does not apply to the person because the policy clearly states that deceased people are not covered by the policy, despite the policy's statement asking for consideration for recently deceased. His position is that the policy covers the recently deceased despite the policy's statement that "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased" (He said on his talk page "No, BLP still applies whether someone is dead or not,")

Refer to: User talk:MickMacNee#BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And a response to the user, continuing from his talk page:

• "I can't see how you read that instruction as not being part of the policy." - The instruction clearly states that dead people are not covered
• "It doesn't refer to any other policy, we don't have any other pages dealing with writing about the recently deceased," - There is no other "policy," and no pages about recently deceased. The idea that one should consider relatives should be taken as a consideration or suggestion. Broadly speaking, living people are under BLP, dead people are not.
• "BLP is all about consideration for living people, including relatives," - BLP is for consideration about text and articles discussing any living person, but any people not specifically mentioned or referred to are outside the scope. Joe Millionaire is mentioned by name and his actions and events are mentioned, so he applies. But his wife Etta, his son Charlie, and his uncle Buck are not covered by BLP.
• "so pretty clearly, BLP applies here." I maintain that the first sentence explicitly states that BLP doesn't apply.
• "And the archive discussion only backs that up - as living relatives likely exist." I maintain that the archive discussions say the opposite. The users wanted to caution Wikipedians to give consideration for relatives, but dead people themselves are outside of BLP

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note, this is the disputed edit WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking closely at this, but the recently deceased are covered as it pertains to their family, per the policy. What that means is open to debate, but it's incorrect to say that a recently deceased person's article has absolutely no BLP considerations. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine: Which parts of the BLP policy are you referring to that have not been already stated in this thread? I think the heading "Deceased" quite clearly states that the dead people aren't under BLP. The family of the deceased are not covered (unless names of family members and/or actions of the family members are also mentioned, which in this case text about the family members themselves is under the BLP protection) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The part that says "but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased." You're an admin right? It's not saying living family members are protected by BLP (although they are, as all living people are), it's saying living family members are protected with regard to information about their dead relative by BLP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin :) That sentence is a consideration, a guideline of sorts, something to think about when doing an editorial dispute, not a procedural policy like (the rest of) BLP is. This sentence effectively says: Even though dead people are not covered by the BLP policy, one should still think about possible effects on family and friends. It doesn't imply that the family and friends are protected by the BLP policy in that manner relating the content about the deceased person (if the names of family and friends are mentioned and/or their actions are described and implied, then they are protected by the BLP policy).

I agree that one should think about how the family would be affected by the posting, but that concern/dispute is not a BLP dispute. It is a concern that the BLP page mentions anyway as a guideline for editors discussing dead people.

My point is that BLP is not concern when listing the name of the only person to die in an airplane crash, saying that the person had a heart attack

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether or not the victim should be named, isn't it. As the victim is not a Wikinotable person, there is no need to name her IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the non-BLP concerns; that will begin at the talk page (or I can start it now if you want) - In any matter read articles about "one man/woman survives" plane crashes, and you will often see names of the sole survivors (this definitely is a BLP concern when that happens!). WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-BLP discussion is now at Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not every debate about whether a name should be listed or not is governed by the BLP policy. This is one of those cases--Nothing bad is said about her, and what is said is sourced as well as would be expected. Even if it applied, it wouldn't prohibit the edit in question. It's really a consensus question: do we name victims when the name is RS'ed, or do we not? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. Once the BLP talk is wrapped up, I will begin a talk page section at Talk:AIRES Flight 8250 so that the non-BLP stuff would be discussed as a consensus question. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Do we name victims when the name is RS'ed, or do we not?" - I think this very much depends on the circumstances, at least for me it does. One very valid question is whether or not naming the name is likely to cause any harm. In the case of, for example, rape victims, it may very well, and so particular sensitivity is warranted. In other cases, where the victim may have been doing something embarrassing, I would say particular sensitivity is warranted... say for example victims of Advance-fee fraud are often deeply embarrassed later for having fallen for it. (Notice that I don't state this in terms of absolute prohibitions but rather in terms of factors that may rightly pull us in one direction or another.) In this particular case, it is not clear (to me) what the supposed harm would be. There's nothing embarrassing or shameful here, the poor woman died of a heart attack after a plane crash.

I don't think an answer to the very valid question of whether or not naming the name is likely to cause any harm is the end of it, either. There's also the question of whether or not it adds anything to the understanding that the reader may have of the event. In this case, in addition to not seeing what the harm would be, I also don't see what the benefit would be.

Certainly, to sum up, I do think that recently deceased people - particularly non-notable ones who are innocent bystanders who happened to die in a way that caught the attention of the media - are subject to the BLP policy - but that doesn't automatically mean we don't name them - it means that we take an extra level of care and consideration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I take Jimbo's point. However, I think there is another consideration as well. Historically, the notification of a person's death generally becomes a matter of public record. There are often issues of probate, discharge of debt, etc. that members of the public have a right to know about. I don't know if any of those issues apply here - however the principle that death notices are a matter of public record is well-established. In fact, I think there would be few instances where a death should not be reported due to privacy concern. Basically, I believe the "L" in BLP is there for a reason. Ronnotel (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The womans name is not notable and adds nothing of any value. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I agree that adding the name does not appear to add anything of value to the article. However, requiring notability of the subject before listing the name of a decedent is an incorrect interpretation of BLP & N. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really referencing any policy, I was just using my common sense, what little I have. The names of not notable people seem to be un-encyclopedic irrelevancies. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Broadcaster "improving" his own entry on Wikipedia

Listening to the BBC Radio 5 programme Up All Night last night, I heard Cash Peters discussing the changes that he had to his Wikipedia article and elsewhere. From the editing history of the article, he is clearly Monkeynuts54 (talk · contribs). I've reverted the article to a pre-Monkeynuts54 version, added a {{BLPunsourced}} and left what I hope is a suitable message at his talk page. Anything else need doing? Incidentally, those who can use the "listen again" feature on the BBC website will find the discussion at this link, starting at about 1hr 34m 45 s. Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The edits you reverted look 100% appropriate to me at first glance. I fact checked a handful of things (not everything yet) and didn't find anything wrong at all. I am not sure why you used scare quotes around 'improving' as it seems that he did improve the entry, and in a factual manner. He also didn't remove any negative information or do anything else that I would find problematic. Again, this is at first glance, can you give more information that would lead us to conclude that this is a problem?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum] Your note to him is very friendly and kind, thank you. And I should add a small clarification. While his edits look fine, and I was able to confirm some of it, it would of course be better to have sources. I think the best overall response to this case is for several of us to turn in and help to improve the biography with good sourcing, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Second that last bit. If we all took the time to be so... polite I can't help thinking some of these auto-biographical editors would be hugely valuable :) kudos Bencherlite --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we might have lost this guy, if this is anything to go by. This would be a pity as he seemed to be fairly committed to following the rules (at least, that's what he told me). I've left a message on his talk page encouraging him to stay, but I don't know if it'll have much effect. The responses to this has been very impressive on most levels, so it would be a pity if he left as a result. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is Monkeynuts a user-name violation? Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tomasz Schafernaker

I think the section 'Gaffes' should be reconsidered as WP:UNDUE weight. I think this is particularly true in light of the most recent one, raising his middle finger, which seems completely harmless. It is true that the BBC apologized for it, and reported on it. But is it encyclopedic? The other one - referring to the Outer Hebrides as "nowheresville" is probably noteworthy. I'm primarily concerned that the 'gaffes' section is currently about 1/3 of his biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't think it is WP:UNDUE given this article on today's Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/aug/18/bbc-weatherman-tomasz-schafernaker Here in the UK, he is primarily known as the weatherman who makes gaffes. --Morus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.117.112 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Joel Osteen

• Joel Osteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anonymous IP editor is adding in unsourced original research and refusing to engage in the talk page. I've requested semi-protection for the page.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for one month, as the IP in question wasn't the only one making recent dubious edits. AlexiusHoratius 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Stroud

Someone has been trying to add the name "Chad Stroud" to the Les Stroud article for months, usually at least once a day and sometimes a lot more. The edits are coming from a bunch of different accounts and IP addresses (all resolving to the same geographic region). The article probably needs to be protected for an extended period. SmashTheState (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done 6 months semi. Taking previous page protections into account. -- œ^™ 06:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)