Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive1

Question concerning an image

At the head of the new anti-Semitism article is an image by Senay Dennis. Nowhere in the article is there text saying who's claiming that the image is anti-Semitic (only linked references to fairly respectable blogs connected to news sources). In this light it is arguable that Wikipedia itself is saying that the image is anti-Semitic (particularly given the image's file name Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg). Does Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy apply in this type of case? Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. The image depicts unnamed persons, wearing yarmulkes, with fangs, gloating over a burning planet. If that's not anti-Semitic then the picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is a glamour pose. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing one way or the other actually. What I'd like clarification on is whether or not a case such as this would fall under WP:BLP or not? Obviously there are POVs that say the image is merely an expression of Anti-Zionism and not Anti-Semitism while there are clearly POVs that it is sooner Anti-Semitism masquerading as Anti-Zionism (hence it's usage on the New anti-Semitism article). (→Netscott) 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What this has to do with BLP? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[The artist] is a living person. With histhe image he created at the top of the new anti-Semitism article and with no additional text specifying who is saying that his image is an example of new anti-Semitism Wikipedia is essentially saying so. There are sources saying that his image is anti-Semitic but they are provided in reference links. Shouldn't those (preferably reliable sources) who are saying his work is anti-Semitic be actually specified in the article and not merely linked to? Such a question would seem to fall under this policy no? (→Netscott) 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was the person who on labelling the image as "Anti-Semitic", against the strong objections of other editors. Now that he's gotten his way, he's insisting it be deleted based on WP:BLP. This is the third grounds on which he's tried to have the image, and arguably the most duplicitous. This disruption must stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my asking Jayjg but how does including what the source of the very image's view on it (in the article) constitue my saying that the image was anti-Semitic? Even the image's file name had to be changed. (→Netscott) 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The article doesn't say it's anti-Semitic; you're the one who is insisting it must be labelled that way. Now that you've gotten your way, you're trying to have it deleted for that reason. This is the third excuse you've used to try to get it deleted. Please stop this disruption. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When the image is the lead for new anti-Semitism it is implied (by Wikipedia) that it is an example of "new anti-Semitism". My edits were to properly cite who was saying (or implying for that matter) that the image was an example of what is discussed in the article. How is that being disruptive? (→Netscott) 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been explained many times, the image didn't imply anything of the sort; rather, it was an example of different meanings people take from the debate over New anti-Semitism. It could equally well be described as an anti-Zionist image, yet another proof that New anti-Semitism doesn't really exist. You're the one who insisted that it be labelled "anti-Semitic", so you could then get it deleted on those grounds. You've now tried three entirely different grounds on which to get it deleted. That's duplicitous and disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact you are misrepresenting the history of this Jayjg. The issue of BLP did not arise until just in the last day or so when SlimVirgin went ahead and added [the artist's] name to the image. It was only at that point that a very valid concern about Wikipedia publishing libelous content about him became an issue (as it is now). From edit 1 on this issue I have strove to bring the formerly non-descript caption into line relative to neutral point of view (which is what I still am pushing for). Fortunately some progess towards such ends has been achieved but there still is a bit of way to go particularly now with the artist's name associated with his work on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason we had to find the artist's name was because you were insisting it be deleted otherwise. Now you keep listing the artist's name, and deliberately linking it to anti-Semitism. You are deliberately trolling, and endangering Wikipedia. Stop now. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of BLP

I am very concerned about Netscott repeatedly posting the name of the artist and then linking that name to discussions about anti-Semitism — supposedly in order to express BLP concerns but, in so doing, causing BLP problems. He has posted the name so often now, despite being asked not to, that I am convinced he is deliberately trolling in order to cause trouble. There is no benefit to Wikipedia from these repeated posts about this artist. None. Can I ask people to be alert to the possibility that this is trolling, and to remove the artist's name if it is posted gratuitously? Whenever I remove it, he simply posts it again elsewhere. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should add that the only reason I added the name to the image page in the first place was because Netscott and Liftarn wanted to have the image deleted on the grounds that we could not claim fair use unless we knew the artist's name. I therefore posted the artist's name to the image page. Netscott has now pounced on this to repeat the name over and over and over on numerous pages, discussing the name in terms of alleged anti-Semitism, and claiming that I am causing BLP problems. It's disgraceful trolling in my view, and there appears to be no end to it. But if I remove the artist's name from the image page, you can be sure that Netscott will revert me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You have made many edits and reversions to that erticle. Quite frankly, it's starting to look a lot like WP:OWN. I would suggest you take a break from editing that particular article for a few days (Netscott as well) and return after you've had a few days to calm down and reflect. Once you start assuming other editors are trolling or being disruptive merely because they disagree with you it becomes hard to get any meaningful work done. Mexcellent 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well expressed there Mexcellent. Labeling my editing as "trolling" is just a bit of a technique to get what I'm saying discounted. Hopefully others will see transparently the nature of such bad faith demonstrations. (→Netscott) 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't ignore the part where he says, "Netscott as well." Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mexcellent, you haven't addressed the issue at all. It's not about the article, it's about Netscott's insistence on linking an individual's name to anti-Semitism, even while he pretends he's concerned about that very thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "pretending" but I am indeed very concerned about Wikipedia being libel for labeling this artist's work (and thereby himself) anti-Semitic. Just specify in the text who's saying what and allow Wikipedia to disassociate itself from such an accusation otherwise just remove the image. I'm going to folllow Mexcellent's advice now and concentrate on other things. (→Netscott) 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But you are the only person who is making that claim and trying to link it to a particular name. Therefore, if you're worried, you could try shutting up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nescott, are you arguing that the image in question is not anti-semitic? A image that is depicting Jews with kippas and fangs, and dollar signs over the globe? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, are we labelling a placard maker an "artist"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing either way but you can be sure that with the image as the lead for the new anti-Semitism article it is Wikipedia that is saying so (through implication). That is a libelous thing for Wikipedia to be doing and as such the verifiable reliable sources saying that it is an example of new anti-Semitism need to be included in the text. The placard maker is an artist whether or not one agrees with his "art". (→Netscott) 01:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very concerned about this discussion. If this page is going to another place where BLP problems occur then we have made the situation worse not better. I do not think that was the original intent. As far as I'm concerned at a mininum this discussion needs to stop and the page archived. Maybe we need to delete there pages to keep google from picking them up. --FloNight 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Flonight, that'd be fine... if we're going to delete this then we'd better delete the image that displays the artist's name as well. Just get rid of it all. (→Netscott) 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the artist's name from the image page. Your complaint was the only reason I added it in the first place. I agree with Flonight that this discussion needs to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, sorry but Fair Use policy #10 does not allow for the usage of unattributed images. If you are planning on not attributing the image then you are planning on having it deleted. (→Netscott) 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As predicted, Netscott has reverted me, which is clear evidence of his lack of good faith in this matter. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, so lesse, we must put in the name, because otherwise it will have to be deleted as a violation of Fair Use, but once we do put in his name, we have to delete the image because of BLP. I have a better idea; maybe we should just block the guy who is trolling this board, using any excuse he can imagine to delete an image he doesn't like, and arguably being the worst violater of BLP himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also archive this discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that fact that you two are both [2] [3] removing this artist's name from the description page on this image is just confirming that WP:BLP is seriously not being followed here. (→Netscott) 02:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I put the artist's name on the page is that you were insisting. I regret doing that, because beforehand you didn't know the name, and in posting it, all I did was give you an opportunity to play more games. You've been doing it for weeks; it is 100 per cent transparent; and it is no longer possible to assume even the minimum of good faith from you. This is my last response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that you keep trying to delete it based on BLP when the name is there, then delete it based on CopyVio when it's not, is just confirming that serious trolling is going on here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, who would be a neutral party to decide whether or not I am "trolling"? Is there someone that could look at this issue from a balanced point of view from both sides and make a determination? (→Netscott) 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at it, Scott, and it's painfully obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call it trolling, but you are trying to manipulate the rules to get an image deleted. Wikilawyering, trolling, or whatever, it is an abuse of BLP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually formulated an example of what needs to be done relative to this image. (→Netscott) 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's painfully obvious is that most of the people here are acting like children. The edit-warring, warnings, and accusations of trolling/disruption need to stop. Just let it drop for a while. Walk away. Seriously. Mexcellent 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we drop this now? Discussions about this is happening in several places, the image page, this page, in BLP talk and in the new antisemitism talk. 'Nough? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin could you archive this discussion. Netscott, Jayjg, and SlimVirgin could you email me with your ideas and concerns about this image. I'll come up with a solution and run it past GMaxwell to make sure it is okay. The three of you do not need to continue the discussion anywhere on Wikipedia. Okay?FloNight 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to "chill". That sounds like a plan Flonight. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

• Ali Sina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ali Sina is not a real person. It's a persona (that admits this is ficitonal) on faithfreedom.org and it's unknown if it's even a group of people/moderators. The article on faithfreedom is enough to explain the group and this non-person is unworthy of a bio on wiki as it's not a living person.

Daily Kos

• Daily Kos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - At the talk page of this article and the subject at the crux of the debate, Armando (blogger), a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to put personal details of this living person in. The details (full name, profession, law firm) are not libellious in nature, but it is asserted that the details in question may cause harm to the subject. These details have been published in very reliable sources - National Review, The New Republic - as well as publically distributed by the subject himself. Is this a BLP issue, and is it improper to have such information? // badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of National Review and The New Republic as sources should be avoided as probable NPOV. Use of personal details in an article is highly highly discouraged. Electrawn 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet they're from opposing sides? No one's relying on one side for one part of the info and one side for something separate, as discussion at the articles indicates. And use of personal details isn't discouraged, poorly sourced use is. Certainly, no one would consider two magazines of their stature poorly sourced, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Was a majority of the damage/potential harm already done by articles posted in these publications posting the personal info? If Wikipedia can be used to further harm the anonymity of the blogger, avoid using it. If its out of the closet per se, then include it. If borderline, error on the side of keeping it out per WP:BLP. Electrawn 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me toss it out this way - there's nothing that's being put into the article that hasn't been published in two very reputable sources already. As the cat is out of the bag, no further damage could really be done unless we were going a step further and adding information that was not well sourced like this. If you have any question, there's a ton of discussion at the talk pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is, IMHO, quite right. The only concerns that I suppose might be raised is that Wikipedia serves to aggregate personal information already published in disparate reliable sources, but I don't appreciate the existence of any consensus for the proposition that BLP means to proscribe the inclusion of a real name and profession in situations such as this. Joe 03:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion. These are mainstream, reputable publications and meet the requirements of WP:RS. Gamaliel 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. What is the useful encyclopedic purpose of including the personal information? Crockspot 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a newsworthy event. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, and it probably does not violate BLP. Just consider whether it really adds to the article. You should also consider whether we as Wikipedians should be aggregating personal data and publishing it in one place. That's the kind of crap that Daniel Brandt does with some Wikipedian's information -- do we really want to start doing that? Morton devonshire 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That was what I was hinting at. Unless Daily Kos is hurting for examples of notability in order to maintain qualification under WP:WEB, which I don't think it is, I don't see how the inclusion of this information enriches an article about Daily Kos. It could be construed as a purely malicious entry. Crockspot 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kancha Ilaiah

Kancha Ilaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - user:Blnguyen has protected the page ; the version does not conform to WP:BLP.Plz see the talk page.Immediate action required.HW 10:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The protection was entirely justified in this case. HW has been edit warring over a well-sourced insert on the subject of the article and making allegations of BLP violations despite the fact that several users clearly detailed that there was no BLP violation, nor defamation, nor anything (see article talk page). Instead of debating the matter, he has been making threats in my talk page of getting me blocked and using similar intimidation tactics. Please see his edit summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&action=history

[4]

Here: [5]

Here: [6]

He changed his stance suddenly and said that the edits were "in bad faith" whereas all good faith efforts were made

Here: [7] When another user reverted the changes back, he makes accusations of libel, which, I believe, constitute a legal threat and are a violation of Wikipedia: No legal threats.

Then he made allegations in the talk page that did not even make any coherent sense to me (or, for that matter, to any of the other involved parties).

In other edits , he said "revert as per talk page", yet no legitimate reason was provided in the talk page, nor a single coherent sentence that qualifies as a logical argument.

I repeatedly requested him to debate the matter sensibly, but he has just kept re-iterating his accusations in the article talk page. I do not believe that this merits the valuable time of those admins who are monitoring wikipedia for legitimate acts of BLP violations.

As example of a similar edit, note that the article on David Duke, a personality similar to Kancha Ilaiah has similar descriptions in the beginning (alleged white supremacist for Duke, alleged anti-Hindu for Ilaiah) and it was decided in the talk page of that article that no BLP violation was committed. Hkelkar 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not supposed to rant here .,It might be considered disruption of ANB.HW 10:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that I was ranting. I believe that I was laying out the facts for the benefit of the admins viewing this "request".Hkelkar 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you really have an issue with me ; Go for RfC.This method is not acceptable.HW 11:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plz see Talk:Anti-brahmanism user:subhash bose made some remarks violating WP:BLP on Kancha Ilaiah,I deleted that citing diffs,he rv again. HW  17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This matter has already been resolved. HW has engaged in furious and disruptive edit-warring over Kancha Ilaiah in the talk page of the article Talk:Kancha Ilaiah and has been censured by an admin to that effect. If you look at the talk page, it will be clear that both admin and several editors agree that the term "anti-Brahmin" is quite apt since Ilaiah has decribed himself as such on numerous occassions.Shiva's Trident 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The matter has not been resolved , Mediator Ben agrees to it ref:Talk:Kancha Ilaiah.This person has charged Kancha in rather incivil tone which has no foundation at all.Matter must be looked into immediately. HW  17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon and articles linked to it

• Jeff Gannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Jeff Gannon article, and at LEAST one other article linked to it, makes a claim that Mr. Gannon is a male prostitute. The Gannon article also has a category of "courtesans and prostitutes". The sources cited to verify this claim are, for the most part, editorials written by authors who can arguable be called biased. While these sources allude to Mr. Gannon being a male prostitute, in none of them can be found evidence that he ever actually engaged in prostitution, which is a crime in nearly every state of the US. I have removed these statements several times, citing WP:BLP, from Jeff Gannon, and from List of famous prostitutes and courtesans. My edits have continuously been reverted by an admin, Gamaliel. This admin disputes my contention that the sources do not verify the claim. I requested an advocate from AMA, and since my dispute is with an admin, another admin, Fred Chess, was assigned as my advocate. The advocate has briefly examined the sources, and also cannot find evidence to support the claim that Gannon ever engaged in prostitution, and also points out that he believes that prostitution is a crime.User talk:Crockspot#AMA_request There is no evidence that Gannon has ever been arrested, charged, or convicted of prostitution.

I am not seeking any sanctions against Gamaliel, I simply want the statements removed, or solidly sourced (which I don't believe can be done at this time). Perhaps a protection of the articles after editing is also in order. Gamaliel and I are of different political persuasions, and have had several disagreements in the past, however this one seems so clear cut to me, and speaks to the basic credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. I am afraid that his personal feelings toward me may be clouding his objectivity on this one. I generally try to handle my own disputes, but this one is beyond my ability to resolve.

Here are the sources cited at the two most aggregious articles linked above.

• [8] (is this even in compliance with WP:RS?)
• [9]
• [10] - another questionable RS, whose evidentiary links are almost all dead.
• [11] - possibly the strongest source, yet IMO, still gives no evidence of actually engaging in prostitution.
• [12] - editorial
• [13] - editorial from perhaps the most left mass publication in the US.

One may possibly argue from these sources that there were nude photos of him online, that there may have been pricetags associated with these photos, or that his sexual orientation may be other than heterosexual, but one cannot verify that he ever actually engaged in prostitution, and therefore calling him such in his biography, catetgorizing his biograpy as such, and listing him on a list of famous prostitutes, is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy as set forth in WP:BLP.// Crockspot 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for BLP, this is an attempted end run around discussion and consensus. This discussion belongs on Talk:Jeff Gannon as a content dispute. And the personalities involved are irrelevant, as if Crockspot can build a consensus among the editors of that article, my objections would be rendered moot. Gamaliel 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue. BLP changes the rules about consensus and discussion due to potential defamation and strawman arguments. Cut first, then discuss and build consensus. The burden of proof shifts to the editors who want content to remain. If it wasn't a biography, regular consensus forming would be followed. Electrawn 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take on this. I had posted it elsewhere, it seems more appropriate to bring it here. At Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans#Alleged male prostitutes, User:Crockspot and I are having a disagreement about the threshold of reliability required by WP:BLP. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that regardless of the caliber of a source, there must be multiple independent sources. Those sources must not have any axe to grind. And perhaps he is claiming something even more restrictive than that, which I'm not quite picking up. I find the second requirement a bit troubling, because it is hard to say who does and does not have an axe to grind. In this case, the two sources I provided, which were rejected as inadequate, were:
1. An opinion piece, published in The Guardian in the UK, which states as fact that the individual in question was a prostitute. As most of you know, the UK has pretty much the world's toughest libel laws, so that if the individual had any intention of challenging this, then that was the ideal venue to do so
2. A piece (originally from The Nation, but reprinted on CBS's website) that says that the individual "apparently was seeking customers as a gay, military-oriented prostitute."
Since then another editor has found two articles from the Washington Post asserting, respectively, that the individual's "naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites" and that he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend". So, if these don't add up to enough, I'm a bit bewildered. Is Crockspot correctly interpreting this rule? If so, I believe we have an enormous amount of material about living people that does not meet this level of citation, probably the bulk of it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From my experience in the industry, opinion pieces generally don't go the same fact-checking and vetting processes as regular articles. This generally makes them a poor primary source, which seems to be the use in the article. As a source in general, The Guardian is reliable. The Washintonpost is reliable. I believe WP:BLP with WP:NPOV apply a higher standard of WP:RS. Tone and bias of sources may have to be vetted on an individual basis for inclusion in an article. Under an ordinary article, using a dubious source may not damage any one individual and wikipedia can move slow to correct it. Under a biography of a living person, there is possibility of harm and reputation to the person and their career via wikipedia. Most states will recognize that accusations of homosexuality are defamation per se, Slander#Defamation_per_se. In english, we are well down the road to a judgement in a potential defamation suit, its already assumed the statement is defamitory. This seems to be why Crockspot is raising such a stink, and he has the exceptions granted in the power of WP:BLP to do so. Make sure the sources used are rock solid in any BLP article. Also, editors who revert such material are to be held accountable, not the editor deleting the material. Further, the fact that wikipedia has an enormous about of material that doesn't pass a high bar of WP:BLP is quite agreeably disturbing. Electrawn 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to make the editors above aware that BLP has a higher standard, and that standard has been evolving. I didn't feel that I was being adequately heard, and that is why I brought it here. It is true that there is an ENORMOUS amount of libellous material on Wikipedia, and that is one of the reasons I have been pushing for a task force specifically charged with dealing with these issues. This noticeboard is a good start, but we need to really crack down. Crockspot 12:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Something along the lines of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit. I have been monitoring Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project, Wikipedia:Criticism,Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. Libel-Protection Unit? Wikipedia:Libel-Protection_Unit Electrawn 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On further contemplation, I think that the strongest statement supported by the sources is something along the lines of "Some have alleged that Gannon is a male prostitute". Anything stronger than that would be drawing a conclusion from the sources, and that, I believe, is Original Research. Crockspot 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be directly quoting news stories in the Post to say that "[his] naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites" and he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend". [14] [15] That's rather more specific than the mealy-mouthed "some have alleged", and much more verifiable. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If it said "According to an editorial in the WaPo, blah blah blah (in quotes)", with a link to the article, then it conceivably would be more of a grey area. Wikipedia is merely presenting the information reported, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion as to its veracity. Is it still a violation of BLP? I'm not sure. (In some cases, it might be preferable to use the mealy-mouthed approach, for brevity's sake, ie., when the quotes are long, or there are a lot of them.) But that is a far cry from listing Gannon on List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, even with the same source links. Just appearing on that list is having a conclusion drawn about him. Perhaps another article called List of famous alleged prostitutes and courtesans would be more of a grey area, though I am not recommending the creation of that article. Crockspot 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the bar is set the same as in mainstream media/journalism. You say the word alleged until convicted by a court of law. Until someone even attempts to charge him with anything, calling him a alleged prostitute is still shaky ground. If he says it in a direct quote "I am a prostitute" and that was published in a reliable source, then that can be included in wikipedia. An article from a reliable source claiming he may be a prostitute should be identified as such and use direct quotes. XYZ at the WSJ says QRS may have been involved with an escort service. This still makes wikipedia look like tabloid journalism. Further, an escort service and prostitute are seperate things. While escort services are often fronts for prostitution, one does not imply the other. Naked pictures of a guy on a website with the phrase $200 an hour probably wouldn't hold up in a prostitution court case, nor can it hold up in wikipedia. Electrawn 23:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, absurd. The reports have been repeatedly published in major news sources and as such, are prima facie verifiable. "The Washington Post has reported that Gannon offered his services as a male prostitute" would not in the least bit violate any Wikipedia policies. FCYTravis 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post articles are not editorials, they are news stories. - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion, it is clear that Gannon's inclusion on the List of famous prostitutes and courtesans is unjustifiable. He has never seen the inside of a courtroom over prostitution, nor made a public admission. He cannot be listed as a known prostitute. The Jeff Gannon article still seems up to debate, though a less conclusionary rewrite will be required. Since I listed this case here, I have been holding off of doing any edits, but if someone else doesn't remove him from List of famous prostitutes and courtesans in the next day or so, I will be bold and do it myself. Crockspot 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No such thing is "clear". If a person openly advertises his services as a prostitute on multiple websites, there is no legitimate grounds for protesting the very obvious conclusion that this person is in fact a prostitute. Gamaliel 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A very obvious conclusion? That, sir, is the very definition of Original Research. Escort does not necessarily equal prostitute. I can't believe you are still arguing this point after so much discussion. I can think of two other "conclusions", like maybe it was a sting operation in conjunction with law enforcement? Or perhaps he was trolling for victims in a blackmail scheme? Admittedly you would need a fair amount of tinfiol to believe those conclusions, but the fact is, we do not draw conclusions on Wikipedia. I am boggled that you do not understand that yet. Crockspot 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Gannon was just charging for his companionship, which is why he mentioned the size of his package. Gamaliel 18:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He is not convicted and he denies press reports. It is not our task judging the plausibility of the denial. --Pjacobi 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there is ample proof that we just can't ignore. Gamaliel 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. There are primary source photos in a gay magazine. IF the category was Persons Photos Appearing in Gay Magazines, you'd have an argument. COncluding that he was a gay prostitute will require a conviction or a secondary source making the allegation. --Tbeatty 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Gannon from the List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, and have sifted through the list of articles that link to Jeff Gannon, and adjusted, reworded, or removed any conclusionary statements regarding Gannon being a prostitute. Crockspot 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• And now Gamaliel has reverted. How do we kick this up to WP:OFFICE? There doesn't seem to be a clear procedure, and that seems to be where this decision needs to be made. Crockspot 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am acting as the advocate of Crockspot. I will try and clarify certain things my advocee is concerned about.

Starting with my advocees main concern, WP:BLP. At one place in (WP:BLP#Use_of_categories), it gives this example about categories: "Category:Criminals should only be added when [...] the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty."

• Q: Isn't prostitution a form of criminality? Has Gannon either been convicted or pleaded guilty to this charge? If no, then why is it insisted that the category:Courtesans and prostitutes is added to the article Jeff Gannon? Is it impossible that Jeff Gannon never actually never commited prostitution?
• My advocee stresses the importance of completely relying on the sources, so that only verifiable and undeniable truths are mentioned. This is also supported in Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded? where it is stated "An edit counts as original research if it proposes any of the following: [..] It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". Since nowhere in the sources can it be concretely proven that Gannon actually committed prostitution, my client believes this to be original reserch. Instead of this, he wishes that the articles in question only mentions the undisputed claims, such as Gannon having offered services as a male prostitute on several web-sites.
• My advocee also wants it to be clearly written within the article what the sources are. Instead of presenting conclusions made by various newspaper as facts, the article should state clearly in the text that, for example, "it was concluded in several newspaper editorials that Gannon was a prostitute [1] [2]".

Fred-Chess 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the case on one side has now been succinctly stated, I will state other side.

I would like to make it clear: I think the Jeff Gannon article currently goes on much too long about this, and gives much too much salacious detail, but I feel like there is an effort afoot to suppress entirely the mention of something that is by no means libelous, and is well worthy of mention. Please note that I had never made an edit related to Gannon until I saw User:Crockspot trying to remove this, at which point I got involved in the effort to show that this could be well cited.

These are the cited news stories (from the Washington Post); I'm not the one who found these:

• Howard Kurtz, "Online Nude Photos Are Latest Chapter In Jeff Gannon Saga", Washington Post, February 16, 2005.
• Howard Kurtz, "Jeff Gannon Admits Past 'Mistakes,' Berates Critics", Washington Post, February 19, 2005.

This allows—or I certainly think allows—us to say "According to the Washington Post 'Gannon was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend' and had 'a Web page, which he paid for, featuring X-rated photos of himself.'" I, for one, would consider that to make the matter quite clear. If that can't be shorthanded as "prostitute", then fine, but this is like having to say "it appears that the side of the cow that is facing us is brown."

For what it is worth, here are the other sources I have cited on the matter:

• A hireling, a fraud and a prostitute, The Guardian, February 17, 2005.
  • This is an opinion piece; I cited this mainly because it was published by a major newspaper in the UK. If Gannon wished to make any claim of libel, presumably this would have afforded him the ideal venue: UK libel laws are pretty much the toughest in the world. The fact that he did not see fit to sue The Guardian or Blumenthal should settle any serious question of libel once and for all.
• David Corn, Gannon-Guckert-Gate, originally published in The Nation Feb. 25, 2005, reprinted on the site of CBS news.
  • Crockspot saw fit to remove even from the talk page Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans a link to remarking that this piece might be relevant, apparently claiming that WP:BLP means I cannot point to an article that CBS News deems appropriate to reprint in its entirety. CBS News would seem to be the very model of a reliable source.

- Jmabel | Talk 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the entire section from Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans because Jeff Gannon has no business being mentioned in that article, and WP:BLP requires that possibly libellous material should be removed from both articles and talk pages. Listing him on that page is basically saying that Wikipedia is passing judgement on him and categorizing him as a prostitute. If you want to quote the sources in the Jeff Gannon article, I don't have a major problem with that. There just shouldn't be any editorializing or conclusionary language in the Wiki part of the text. Other articles on Wikipedia should not refer to him as "Jeff Gannon, male prostitute" either. That is libel. The furthest other articles that refer to him should go is "Gannon, alleged by some to be a male prostitute" (citations). A hypothetical example: I can find possibly thousands of sources calling President Bush a moron. Even members of parliament of Canada have been quoted in the press calling him a moron. Lots of people think he is a moron. But does he meet the dictionary definition of a moron? No. Can Wikipedia refer to him as "President Bush, a moron..."? No. Can Wikipedia say "Some high profile govt. officials have been quoted calling the President a moron. (citation)."? Yes. Crockspot 14:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• As to the fact that Gannon has never sued a British newspaper for libel, that is irrelevant. You are drawing a conclusion that because he didn't do X, it means Y is true. That is flawed logic, and again, is original research. Just as the fact that Gannon refused to deny or even discuss these issues with the Washington Post is not a confirmation that their allegations are true. Crockspot 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• As to there being a "movement afoot" to remove the information entirely, I suggest you read WP:BLP very carefully. If I am convinced something is libel, I am to remove it with no discussion. It is not my responsibility to rewrite the information to my satisfaction. The responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of those wanting the information included. Simply reverting repeatedly my edit can be construed as repeated reinsertion of libel, which is a gross violation of WP:BLP, and is a blockable offense. Crockspot 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this diff by Derex is pretty good. But for the sake of redundancy, I will repeat that any reference that concludes that Gannon is a prostitute in any article needs to be purged. Crockspot 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• And now Gamaliel has gone through my edit history and reverted every edit I have made regarding Gannon. This needs to go to WP:OFFICE immediately. Can someone advise me on the procedure for that? Crockspot 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gannon has been identified as such my multiple reputable mainstream media sources which meet the requirements of WP:RS and thus your purge is unjustified and unnecessary. Gamaliel 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you fail to understand the spirit and meaning of WP:BLP. As to the outcome of this dispute, it is out of both of our hands now. Crockspot 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposed a tentative solution. Expand the category to "Courtesans, escorts, or prostitutes". Comment? --Tbeatty 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Wikipedia should lower itself to this kind of discussion. He's been named in the press as a prostitute, and he's not sued for libel. However, there is quite a good chance he's given it up (either for personal reasons, or because the publicity made it impossible for him to carry on). He has his life to lead and it won't be easy to recover from what's been said about him already. How would we feel if he committed suicide now, and one of the factors was people reminding him of those days, based on what they saw about him in here? Do we really not have better things to do with our lives and this resource? PalestineRemembered 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz (1)

I have been working on the article at Barbara Schwarz. The original article and talk pages have been deleted. The page is now unprotected and discussion is ongoing regarding structure of the new article. Fred Bauder 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

She is blocked from Wikipedia, isn't she? I found this information to this article, apparently written by Ms. Swartz herself. -- Randy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Red (talk • contribs)

Ed. Note: I removed the addition of an external link by the obvious sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz, now editing under the name Randolph Red (talk · contribs · count). Ms. Schwarz is not permitted to participate in this discussion until she agrees to abide by Wikipedia's anti-harassment policies. Vivaldi (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific concerns are, so I left a little general guidance on the article's talk page. Crockspot 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, but (according to a reply over there) apparently the subject of this article is soliciting an attorney to sue Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc., over the article. Crockspot 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article portays her deliberately in a negative light. This is not good for Wikipedia. It is based on many rumors and dubious sources as Usenet and not exactly world class papers. -- Vicky.

She tried to sue the Salt Lake Tribune after it published an article on her; not only did the trial court dismiss it, the appeals court also threw it out with prejudice, see [16] The SLT article is one piece of source material, and it's already undergone court scrutiny twice. As long as we editors follow Fred Bauder's advice on the article (just the facts) and keep it NPOV, there are neither grounds nor cause for litigation. Orsini 06:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, a few editors are trying to push their POV with original research, and use their arguments to build a "consensus" to support their extrapolation of "facts"(OR) between sources. One such "fact" they have been trying to push is that Barbara Schwarz has never won a lawsuit. This is not true. I've contacted some people in Utah, and she has filed and won at least 2 civil suits. Also, she has been granted most of her FOIA requests but the editors on her article only seem to be interested in presenting the negative part of her story. --HResearcher 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She's won two cases? Please cite them (case numbers). Orsini 16:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask her for the case numbers. In the meantime, remember that you were the one making a negative claim "she has never won a case" while failing to present any citation. You, Vivaldi, and Tilman keep pushing this POV, WP:OR, and WP:LIBEL. The responsibility is upon YOU to provide your source. --HResearcher 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She probably won/settled several cases and perhaps signed a gag order not to talk about it. It must be difficult as private person to win against the federal government. It is much easier to sue private folks. I strongly suspect that Ms. Schwarz figured out very quickly that courts help the government and that she, esp. without an attorney, might not win. I asked myself why she didn't stop suing them and googled some of her postings. I found an answer. She continued to sued them to have a documentation of the curruption within agencies and courts. This should be mentioned in the article on her. -- Vicky

A litigation list was provided on the talk page, and then you began vandalism of the talk page when you were asked to look at the rulings. She's admitted she's never won a case in the US, "only settlements", on 4 Dec 2005 13:49:50 -0800. Cite [17] to answer your point only, not to include in the article. Since you mention WP:NOR, please explain how your attempt to procure boxes of documents from Germany at your own expense isn't your attempt to publish your own unverified, previously unpublished original research to support your position. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And still, you do not understand. In the "reference" (a usenet posting) you just gave a "Barbara Schwarz" says she won settlements in the USA. The statement could be interpreted in a number of ways, but there is nothing there that says she has "never won a case in the USA". Seems like you just want to argue. This is the last time I will discuss this point: There is not reliable source to support any claim that Barbara Schwarz hasn't won a case in the USA. And for you and Vivaldi, or Tilman to repeat it on the talk page is LIBEL. --HResearcher 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong logic. The correct reasoning is: 1) there is no source to claim that Barbara Schwarz has ever won a case, but over 80 showing that she has lost; 2) she admits that she has never won a case; 3) there is no reason that Barbara would falsely claim that she has never won. Therefore: she has never won a case. However this discussion doesn't belong here, it belongs to Talk:Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong logic? 1) There is no source stating that Barbara Schwarz has never won a case in the United States. 2) She does not admit she never won a case in the United States, but she does say she has won settlements. Therefore, Tilman, your "Therefore" is extrapolation (original research) being used to make a negative claim about Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer 1:); yes there is. According to published, verifiable sources and Schwarz herself, it is a verifiable fact. Quote: "The slightly built woman in her late 40s with wavy dark hair rarely appears in court and has' never won any of her lawsuits. Cite: [18] (Smith, Christopher, "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System", The Salt Lake Tribune (Payment required), 2003 May 11). This statement is not open to interpretation or extrapolation. To answer 2): This statement was not challenged in Schwarz's case against the Salt Lake Tribune, in which none of her other claims were found to have merit, cite [19]. If this statement in the Tribune was wrong, it would have been mentioned in her 17,000-plus word Tribune lawsuit. The post on the Usenet from Schwarz herself cited previously also indicates she never won a case, "only settlements" (which is where parties to a lawsuit resolve their difference without having a trial). To settle a dispute means to end it; both sides make concessions and compromises. HResearcher, please rescind your libel accusations and show of bad faith towards Tilman, Vivaldi and myself. Orsini 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What we can say VERIFIABLY is that she didnt win lawsuit #1 thru lawsuit #105 in the list of lawsuits she was involved in that was published by Lexis. We can also say, Judge So-And-So says this about the case -- and Justice So-and-so says that Ms. Schwarz has filed 35 previous frivilous claims, or whatever other relevant claims he has to say. We can point out the word "DISMISSED" that appear in each of the lawsuits that she has appeared in as a plaintiff and cite the specific 80+ cases where the words "DISMISSED" appear. It will be painfully obvious to the reader that the lack of any mention of Ms. Schwarz having won a case -- will indicate that she likely hasn't won any. And the talk page discussion on the topic will bear that out as well. There is no counter-evidence showing Ms. Schwarz has won any U.S. case, however it isn't necessary to specifically state that in the article. Just say, she lost #1, lost #2, lost #3, ....., and lost #105. Cite each of the cases she lost and be done with it. Vivaldi (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I took a closer look at the article. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that some of the sources are usenet postings made (supposedly) by the subject. I don't know if those are primary sources, are verifiable, etc. Could be wandering into an OR grey area. I'd like someone else to take a look. Crockspot 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy, the usenet postings cannot be considered reliable. Delete them. Morton devonshire 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

They are by the subject herself, telling her own story. More or less like a link to personal website. Fred Bauder 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Might Wikipedia be better off if the article were just deleted? Seems like we could be getting ourselves in needless trouble by having this article. Morton devonshire 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It has already been deleted, and apparently the subject wants no article. As a business decision, might be best to delete. I commend the work that went into it though. Crockspot 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still up. How do we proceed, given that it has already had 3 deletion nominations? Morton devonshire 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material, "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6)." Crockspot 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not unsourced (actually it's one of the better sourced biog articles I've seen) and the tone seems pretty dispassionate and neutral. I advise against invoking CSD - I certainly wouldn't delete it on the grounds you give above. Nor are the wishes of the subject paramount. Wikipedia is not censored, and as a matter of policy it would be an exceedingly bad move to give the subjects of articles veto rights over them. I should point out that Ms Schwarz has participated in editing "her" article but has been blocked indefinitely for gross and repeated breaches of Wikipedia:Harassment after several warnings. Her legal threats are no doubt related to her dissatisfaction with that outcome. -- ChrisO 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not suggesting that we delete it to suit her -- never heard of her before. Suggest deleting it to protect Wikipedia, balancing here notability with the harm it could do to Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The potential harm she could do to Wikipedia is nil, even if the article was libelous and an attack page. Either or both of these outcomes are unacceptable to the editors who have been working hard on the article to ensure neither of these outcomes. A verifiable, NPOV article is attainable form the source materials available for a notable subject. Orsini 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

She has never won a lawsuit. --Tilman 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion of libelous claims isn't her ability to win a lawsuit. Nor is that the standard for notability.--Tbeatty 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the standard of what she calls libelous claims is determined by the courts. Poorly sourced or unsourced negative claims must be removed from articles according to WP:BLP policy, and the editors working on this article aren't interested in adding libel to the article, or violating that policy. The SLT article has been determined by the courts not to be libelous. Orsini 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

She onlhy went pro se against the SLCT. If she had an attorny, the outcome would have been entirely different. She has threatened to get an attorney against Wikipedia and she HAS won lawsuits in the past. And you Orsini, keep making negative original research on the talk page such as your claim about "disconnection" and "never won a lawsuit". Both of those claims of yours are not sourced but based on yours, Tilman's, and Tivaldi's extrapolation. I suppose you 3 are the editors who would consider deletion unacceptable? --HResearcher 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She has threatened to get an attorney against Wikipedia. What happened to WP:NLT? You are wrong on all your accusations: the SLT Tribune case was discussed and cited on the talk page; as was the comment by Linda Simmonds Hight; as is your false accusations of the article using OR, and using uncited or poorly cited sources; as well as your incorrect assesment of what is defined as original research. When asked to cite the numbers of the cases she's won, you can't, despite her own admission she has won none; when asked to cite proof of inappropriate psychological detention by German government; you can't, and then you state you're getting a box of documents from Germany, in German, and wanting to put them into the article. File an AfD if you feel the article should be deleted and cite some new grounds, instead of turning the article into a battleground with the object of getting it deleted. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she has threatened to get an attorney and sue Wikipedia. I believe that is one of the reasons she is blocked. I think if she gets enough money together, she can also sue the SLCT, but I don't know. Anyway, you still defend your tendency to engage in original research. Do you intentionally make things up, or do you honestly believe in the things you make up? Linda Simmons Hight said NOTHING about disconnection, yet you try to interpret her words to match your original research. It is NOT a false accusation that you engage in original research. You, Orsini, have engaged in original research, either intentionally or unintentionally, you have. I know what original reserach is, my assessment of it is not incorrect just because you think it is. You seem to think a lot of things that are not real. 1. You think when someone says they won settlements in the usa that it means "they never won a case in the usa" 2. You think that when someone says they are "clueless about someone" that it means they wish to disconnect from the person. 3. You think USENET is a reliable source. 3. When someone points out these things to you and says you're engaging in original research, you choose to accuse your critic of misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is on your part, Orsini. There is nothing to understand about your arguments unless one wants to also start making things up. --HResearcher 09:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the article sources, you would know that she did sue the SLCT. She lost. She appealed. She lost again. However this discussion belongs to Talk:Barbara Schwarz and not here. --Tilman 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We already know that, and it has been sourced. The discussion here is that Barbara Schwarz has threatened to sue Wikipedia. And as Tbeatty has stated, "The standard for inclusion of libelous claims isn't her ability to win a lawsuit." I agree with Tbeatty. WP:BLP should be followed regardless of potential lawsuits. WP:V/WP:RS must be adhered to, but some editors in are extrapolating (original research) "facts" from sources and claimimg that their OR is sourced. Tilman, can you provide references that state "She has never won a lawsuit"? You wrote "She has never won a lawsuit" in this discussion. You, Orsini, and Vivaldi have also used this claim as "fact" in your discussions on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

HResearcher, WP:CIVIL - you are making ill-considered accusations of impropriety. According to published, verifiable sources and Schwarz herself, she has never won any of her court cases. Quote: "The slightly built woman in her late 40s with wavy dark hair rarely appears in court and has never won any of her lawsuits." Cite: The Salt Lake Tribune, 2003 May 11 (Payment required). There it is; a plain statement not open to interpretation or extrapolation. This statement was not challenged in Schwarz's case against the Salt Lake Tribune, in which none of her other claims were found to have merit, cite [20]. It would have been unthinkable for Schwarz not to include it in her libel lawsuit if it's incorrect. If you have contradictory evidence, cite it from a verifiable source. "Someone told me she's won cases" isn't a good enough citation. You have accused Tilman, Vivaldi and myself of libel by repeating this published statement and you have been pointed to this same source of citation many times on other occasions. It's very difficult to believe you didn't know a reliable source for this fact was already in that article, but also with difficulty I will assume good faith by you and assume you've made an honest mistake. However I now insist you demonstrate good faith by either: a) rescinding your uncivil allegations of bad faith and libel here and on the article Talk page; or b) providing counter citations. My own error here has been biting the bait before, and I am not repeating that mistake. Orsini 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes her notable enough to include in Wikipedia?--Tbeatty 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that she is. Morton devonshire 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider reading the article. It tells why she is notable. --Tilman 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think she is notable. She has led an interesting life and published her version of it. Fred Bauder 00:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So have I and I could publish it on Usenet too. Heck, I could also write about my life in a submarine under Salt Lake City and growing as the Grandson of L. Ron Hubbard and Dwight Eisenhower. But no matter how interesting I make the Usenet story, it doesn't make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Interesting != notable. --Tbeatty 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

She isn't just a usenet figure. She went to the courts, too. --Tilman 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You could write about your life in Great Salt Lake and post it to the Usenet and then say you're notable. However, if you were striving for notability, you may wish to follow her example and sue the President, and name 3,000+ government officials in one of your lawsuits. Additionally, Ms Schwarz has filed over 80 lawsuits on FOIA matters when her requests for documentation don't produce documents she wants. Her abuse of the FOIA has been notable in government circles dealing with FOIA matters; her carpet-bombing and follow-up frivolous pre-se litigation for nonexistent facts led to sanctions being applied by the SCOTUS, including a prohibition on filing non-criminal petitions. Under the FOIA, a department must pursue a records search even if the documents being requested from it pertain to allegations which are clearly ridiculous. For example, [21] She is known as the individual filing the most FOIA requests and is notorious in government circles for making outlandish requests for information, then pursuing litigation when the evidence fails to support her delusions. When all of this has been done by a German citizen whose legal status in the United States is questionable at best, and who also has a history with the scientology cult as its German president, her notability becomes evident. In addition to the articles in the Usenet, there are four published newspaper articles and many cites in government documents online which meet WP:V standards; the articles on the Usenet and the newspaper articles are not the only sources. Problems with the article began when one editor began deleting source material meeting WP:V and it led to an edit war, with the article’s subject wanting the article deleted because it doesn’t reflect her views, for example the Nazi Secret Service infiltration of the US government. Members of the scientology cult appear also to be agitating to have the article removed, together with the rest of the series of scientology articles in Wikipedia. Orsini 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of people who dink with the government this way. They are called 'Crazy People' but they are not notable simply because they are crazy. What concerns me is your use of the word 'cult' which implies a bias against scientology. I have seen this before in Wikipedia where someone becomes 'notable' because their association with an organization is a way to impugn that organization. Some editors have used this association in order to reinforce their own bias or agenda when in fact the two things have little to do with each other. It is my impression that discrediting scientology seems to be the reason to include this person rather than her own notability. Scientology should be covered in a neutral and objective way, but not as an anecdotal list of members that can be skewed to inlcude certain unbalanced persons to make the organization look unbalanced. --Tbeatty 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Orsini is biased, look at some of her comments on the talk page, she goes on ranting about the organization even though we're trying to talk about Barbara Schwarz. Several other editors involved are also biased. One has written books against the organization, one spends his life on usenet against it, the other also spends his life on usenet/wikipedia/elsewhere against it, and one other person is closely connected to individuals involved with the death of their founder. I'm not giving any names or handles. Also, note the "facts" chosen for the article and also the "facts" ignored. They ignored the deprogramming even though there are secondary references in support of those claims. There is one other highly notable event, involuntary pschiatric treatment. Those sources are difficult to get because they are in German, in Germany and kept secure. --HResearcher 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

HResearcher, I would suggest to you the scientology cult's training and treatment of Barbara Schwarz has been instrumental in her behavior towards the courts, the legal system, and to others who cannot accept her version of events. The other editors and I are interested in the presentation of verifiable facts in the article, not unsourced or poorly sourced material. Nor is it the intention of the editors working on this article to create a piece of tabloid journalism. I note again your personal attack with accusations of bias; the only bias I have is towards insisting upon the citation of factual and verifiable evidence from reliable sources, and claims by the scientology cult don’t fit this criteria. The facts you're choosing to ignore yourself in relation to this "involuntary psychiatric treatment" are that in September 1984, Schwarz was facing charges about the attempted intimidation and blackmail of Klaus Karbe (Amtsgericht Munich, Geschaeftsnumber 462 Cs 115 Js 3953/83). This was cited by her in her own multi-part series. In part 27 of that series, she also states her mother had serious concerns about her treatment in the hands of the cult whilst Schwarz was in Los Angeles. The deprogramming attempt you cite did not take place until November 1987. If scientology is not directly responsible for her current state of mind, it is certainly a significant influence on it, and its significance in her life cannot be dismissed. It’s worth noting also you have removed material from the article which met and exceeded WP:V standards, while falsely claiming it violated WP:BLP because it wasn’t favorable to the subject, and at least two admins failed to agree with your unique interpretation of this policy. When presented with verifiable facts, you’ve dismissed them as “original research.” You have also stated your willingness to remove what you consider to be poorly sourced material from the talk pages, after the verifiable sources you insist upon have been cited to you over and over again on the same page; you have made personal attacks and failed to assume good faith with the other editors; you have made statements to provoke people, and you have made extraordinary claims about the German government and its involvement with Schwarz's detention for which you have not provided any evidence. The last straw has been your groundless accusation of libel you have just made on the article talk page, and your attempts of intimidation not to participate in the discussion there. Orsini 19:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Barbara's 92 part story, it wasn't the treatment by Scientology which caused any harm, so I don't know why you're suggesting a biased view of scientology when this discussion is not about Scientology. Again you seem to be engaging in original research with some kind of anti-scientology agenda. If she attempted to blackmail or intimidate Klaus Karbe, that is no reason for involuntary psychiatric "treatment". What Germany did was a human rights violation. Yes, the deprogramming attempt by Cyril Vosper took place several years later, what's your point? And what you are forgetting is the psychiatric treatment and deprogramming attempt may be responsible for what you call "her current state of mind." What is your source for her current state of mind? A citation please! Or is it original research again? Or is your source USENET postings by all the trolls who flame Barbara Schwarz? I'm not here to defend myself or my past actions, but I will not cease to point that you consistently use original research to influence other Wikipedia editor's ideas about Barbara Schwarz. You keep on using original research, Orsini, go ahead and see where it gets you. You still have not cited reliable sources to back up your claims that: 1. Barbara Schwarz has never won a lawsuit in the USA, 2. Her church wishes to disconnect from her. 3. Barbara has a certain "mental condition" 4. Those conditions are due to the treatment by Scientology. You haven't presented sources, yet you continue to push that POV and you act like these unsourced claims are grounds for your arguement. There is no point in further arguing this until you present references to these negative claims about Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 10:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. and 2. Salt Lake Tribune and her 90+ part series; 3. WP:CIVIL as cited on your user Talk page and archived; I didn't use the phrase "mental condition" or specify a mental condition, so there's nothing to cite; 4. nonsequitur, since the accusation in 3) is provably false. "Original research" does not consist of reading the sources which have been cited on numerous occasions and discussing those sources on the article's Talk page, nor is "original research" a POV expressed on a Talk page during discussions about the article. Please rescind your false accusations of libel against Vivaldi, Tilman and myself. I have nothing more to say to you as I refuse to be baited any more by your false accusations. Orsini 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1. If lots of people dink the government this way, I'm sure you can cite similar examples where a foreign national has abused the process of FOIA law and the court system in a similar extent matching that of the article’s subject. 2. The word cult in relation to scientology has been used in many published media articles, and it has tried to sue for being described as "the cult of greed and power", and it lost. [22] A sow's ear remains in actuality a sow's ear, no matter how much spin is placed upon those trying to sell it as a silk purse. 3. Ms Schwarz was not merely a member of it; she was the national president of scientology in Germany; therefore she’s of far more significance in that cult than its kids spruiking on the pavements for "free personality tests". Since she has become a source of embarrassment for scientology, they have attempted to deny any association with her; please see the discussions in the article’s talk pages on this issue. 4. Her notability has been discussed ad infinitum on the talk pages; note also the comments here by User:ChrisO. 5. Her former position of leadership in the scientology cult is part of her notability, not the sole grounds of it; please read the article. 6. The subject of scientology has been covered in a neutral and objective way in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored, which is infuriating to the cult since these articles are not echoes of it's propaganda. 7. Sole reason of citing Barbara Schwarz's involvement with the scientology cult cannot skew it to appear more unbalanced than numerous criminal trials and courts of inquiry, and its own behavior independent of her, has already conclusively established it to be. Orsini 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you really do "know" a lot of negative things about scientology, like an "expert". Can you cite anything positive about the organization or is it all sow's ears to you? --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Only after you explain why Lisa Mcpherson is dead, and point out how Operation Snow White, Technique 88, Audit Process R2-45, Operation Freakout, and keeping The Life and Times of Xenu The Space Alien a secret by filing harassing lawsuits were all for the benefit of humankind. PS: oink. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're anti-scientology POV is pretty obvious. Is that why you edit the Barbara Schwarz article? How about all the original reserach you engage in? Is it your agenda to harm the reputation of Scientology by using original reserach to make negative claims in the Barbara Schwarz article? --HResearcher 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Tbeatty is on to something here. Using the experience of Barbara Schwarz to bash Scientology is fundamentally unfair. They may not have optimized their response to her, but any organization would be in a spot. I don't think it is much of a reflection one way or another on them. Fred Bauder 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Tbeatty, Fred Bauder, Morton devonshire, Crockspot. And strongly oppose ChrisO, Orsini, Vivaldi, and Tilman. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you agred with Fred Bauder's decision to include Barbara's life story as she presented it on Usenet, right? Or do you think we should leave out her own version of the events that she reported on Usenet? Vivaldi (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you HResearcher, for your show of presuming good faith. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It could also be said the experiences of John Gotti reflected poorly on the Gambino family. Orsini 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be said, but we're not talking about that. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

VOOOOOM! There's not a lot of difference between a crime organization calling itself a "family" and a crime organization that calls itself a "religion", certainly not in terms by which the action of either individual could further tarnish the image of either organization. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? This discussion is concerning possible violations of Wikipedia policy in the Barbara Schwarz article. I could care less about your anti-scientology POV. --HResearcher 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since she's not a member of Scientology, I'm not sure how it could be used to bash them. Having said that, I do think her notability is fairly marginal; if she meets the notability criteria it's only by a narrow margin. -- ChrisO 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know she isn't a member? If you read USENET you will see how it is used to bash them. The USENET trolls attack Barbara, call her crazy and blame her condition on Scientology. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know she isn't a member? Several times in her 90+ part series, she claims she was "kicked out". Cite [23] (Part 88) Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if she is or isn't a member. She claims to have been physically kicked out of the building she was supposed to be in charge of, but does that have anything to do with membership? Or are you engaging in original reserach? USENET is not very reliable as a source. How about citing some reliable secondary sources. --HResearcher 10:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't imbue this page with the authority to casually delete articles. It doesn't have it. The WP:OFFICE does, and AfD applies some consideration. If it is not a speedy, then don't just toss things in the bin. Armchair lawyer or no...(by which I don't mean Fred Bauder, of course). -Splash - tk 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was CSD'd a couple of weeks ago, so it seems that any admin has the authority to delete the article as A6. Those of us discussing it here so far are not admins, so it's not our call, we're just discussing. But to me, it appears that the only purpose of the article is to showcase the "absurdity" of the subject. Crockspot 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the Scientology series before it became the center of an edit war when one editor displayed - ah - unique interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:V. It was never an A6; if I recall correctly, some scientologists claimed it was A6 only in order to get the article deleted. Please also see reply to Tbeatty above. Orsini 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Better check your recollections again. This is not the first time you have forwarded "facts" without providing a citation. Ask Bauder who claimed it was A6, I doubt it was a scientologist, based on your constant claims without citations. --HResearcher 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My constant claims withouty citatations? OK HResearcher; I'll bite. When asked to cite evidence meeting WP:V standards to support your allegations of direct involvement by the German government in Schwarz's psychiatric detainment and involuntary treatment, and you ran away; now you're stating Schwarz won two lawsuits and you can't provide case numbers, and you've run away again. When citations are provided from reliable primary sources - ie not the Usenet - you've ignored or dismissed them. The article was never intended as an attack page, although scientologists and cult symphasisers claiming it was only to get it deleted after 3 AfDs failed. When you removed the SLT article and stated it was "poorly sourced", if I recall correctly,it led to an edit war; after someone added the phrase "illegal alien" in the first or second line there was little choice left but to stub it, as it was made into an attack page with that foolish comment. When the article was recreated as a stub, its old edit history went with it. If I'm wrong with my recollections, someone else please correct me and I'll apologize. The deletion records and edit history of the old article may be available to administrators. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Who ran away? I'm here responding aren't I? Is my "running away" another indication of your tendency towards original research? --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on getting secondary sources to support the primary source (Barbara's 92 part usenet postings) regarding the involuntary psychiatric "treatment". Are you trying to intimidate me to prevent me from doing this? --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is silly that people are calling for deletion here based on notability concerns. First off, Ms. Schwarz was notable enough for the Associated Press to write an article about. She was notable enough to have three newspapers do an expose about her activities. She was notable enough for the Supreme Court of the United States to make a specific ruling that bars her from filing any more claims with the court. She was notable enough for the U.S. Department of Justice to say that she has filed more FOIA requests than any other human being on Earth. She was also notable enough to have been mentioned in 2 books in regards to her Scientology deprogramming. And lastly, on 3 seperate occassions this article was subjected to a vote for deletion with the notability concern being a specific focus each time. This article survived 3 of these AfDs by an overwhelming majority. She is notable by Wikipedia standards. Vivaldi (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

News articles do not determine notability. But the issue isn't just notability, it is the tone of the article. Facts are cherry picked to showcase absurdity, while other things have been ignored. Such as the deprogramming which was resisted by you and a couple others at first even though I had references. If the article still exists, soon I will be presenting references about the human rights abuse of the German government when they illegally detained her and then subjected her to involuntary psychiatric abuse ("treatment"). --HResearcher 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also include the papers concerning Amtsgericht Munich, Geschaeftsnumber 462 Cs 115 Js 3953/83 when you say her detention was illegal. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make that comment on the article's talk page, or message me in a couple weeks so I don't forget. --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To people that suggest that these are claims that are "poorly sourced" or "unsourced" -- you are obviously not paying attention. Each claim in the article is supported by numerous sources -- including, in most cases, an admission by the subject that the events occured. If you want to suggest that Ms. Schwarz's own words written to Usenet can't be used here, you might consider that these words are verifiably hers. She admitted in the newspaper article that she published her multi-part life story on Usenet. And, in any case, Mr. Bauder suggested that we add her own words to give the article more balance, or to present her side of the story, since he didn't think "her side" was explained sufficiently. But you guys are laboring under a false premise -- Wikipedia has no obligation to present a biography with 1/2 positive information and 1/2 negative information. When a person is primarily notable for something negative, then it makes sense that an article about them will include the things for which that person is notable. Vivaldi (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your main source is USENET. It is unreliable as anyone can claim anything anywhere and claim that they are IT. You claimed on the article talk page that she admits to never having won a lawsuit, yet you did not provide a citation of her admission, and I now know that she has won several lawsuits, one of them was a civil lawsuit recently in SLC. I'll have to get the case # the people who have contacted me over the last 2 weeks. --HResearcher 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

HResearcher, you are wrong. The main citation sources for the negative references in the article are the court filings and the published newspaper articles, not articles on the Usenet (with one exception, and it was verified by another source). You have stated several times now she's won lawsuits; what are the case numbers? Repeating "she's won cases" over and over will not make it any more verifiable without them. A long list of the cases she's lost already appears on the article talk page. Orsini 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Orsini, the article was poorly sourced and discussion continues to be poorly sourced and often based on original research / extrapolation and it was/is being done in a way as Tbeatty has expressed concern, however the issue is not notability. The issue is direct violation of WP:BLP "poorly sourced negative comments/claims". Orsini has made original reserach to include negative comments in the talk page and some of those ideas have made it into the article. Also note Orsini's comment about Barbara Schwarz' current mental state. I'd like to know the source of that. --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hresearcher suggests that the article uses Usenet as the primary source of information. This is incorrect. There were 80+ lawsuits that were cited and there were numerous newspaper articles cited. Admin and ArbCom member, Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) inserted Barbara's own words from Usenet because he felt that it would provide balance to the article. The only reason Usenet was cited at all was because it gives a verifiable place where Barbara has had a chance to explain her side of the story. Previously the article did not give as much prominence to the viewpoints only expressed by Barbara in Usenet, but what are we to do when a senior admin and ArbCom member says that they need to be included? Vivaldi (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone can please point me to any edit I have made using the phrase "mental state", please point out where it is. It may be appropriate now to provide this citation, Schwarz v.US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY et al, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action 98-2406 sourced from the DC District Court site and highlighted by Google. This document contains many items of background being discussed on the article Talk page, and was cited in the original article. Orsini 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

She wants to be left alone, that's not insane. We should just write articles on living individuals, who clearly are public persons. My proposal, don't step on a slippery legal road, remove the article and let's have some peace. If Ms. Schwartz is bound for more fame, she could be portrayed at a later point in time, when the public person part indeed is somehow clear. I don't think that she qualifies under the definition of public person. It looks that some individuals are interested in her but she isn't interested in permanent public exposer. She hasn't even got a website! The critics of Scientology should look for another outlet to bash Scientologists. Wikipedia is not the right place for such games. --Bragg Sauce

There have already been three failed attempts to delete the article about Ms. Schwarz based on the premise that she is not notable. If you wish to start another AfD based on this premise then assemble your thoughts and put them up in an AfD request and lets vote on it again. Clearly there are tons of editors that disagree with your opinion that she isn't notable, but perhaps you can convince them otherwise with YAATDTBSA (Yet-Another-Attempt-To-Delete-The-Barbara-Schwarz-Article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaldi (talk • contribs)

The article WAS deleted by an admin (claiming A6) after the 3rd AFD. --HResearcher 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Sockpuppet alert. Bragg Sauce (talk · contribs) has made no other contributions to Wikipedia other than to make the above comment on the BLP/Noticeboard at Ms. Schwarz. Take the viewpoints of this user in light of that information. Vivaldi (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The sock puppet alerts of yours against Ms. Schwarz sound paranoid. You are very obsessed with this woman. Perhaps you should let go of her and the article and do something else with your life for a while? -- Vicky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicky Platin (talk • contribs)

On the other hand the article doesn't do any real harm since almost no one will look at it. It also gives a few people something to do with their time. The one and only real Steve Dufour 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has suggested that Barbara Schwarz' block be lifted to allow editing only to Talk:Barbara Schwarz. I support this idea. --HResearcher 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Steve Dufour 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Barbara Schwarz was blocked for repeatedly "outing" other editors, which is a serious violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. She's explicitly said that she won't abide by the harassment policy and has even taken to posting lengthy personal attacks against Fred. Limiting her to editing only her own article would be pointless, as she was using that article's talk page to "out" editors in the first place. Frankly, her behaviour throughout this episode has been appalling. -- ChrisO 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vivaldi and ChrisO. If she wants to contribute to the article, she must agree to follow fundamental policies. We do not need a repeat of this. Orsini 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Suat Kaya

• Suat Kaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously adding this sentence, "Kaya will be the new Galatasaray coach after the 2006-2007 season". to article. I try to add the {{fact}} template. But he is removing without explaination. I try to contact via talk page, no response:) I try to write a message explaining the situation but after a few minutes he reverts back. Now you can say, try 3RR page but there is a case opened there for him breaking 3RR on a different page. He has already blocked 2 times. // Ugur Basak 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it and asked for people to provide sources. Gamaliel 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond (talk · contribs)

I have removed a libellous statement about Woody Allen from this person's userpage. I believe strongly that this use of userspace is very inappropriate and cannot be tolerated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation for it. It was in Connecticut Magazine in '97. Justforasecond 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the citation. Farrow alleged that Allen molested Dylan, but Allen was cleared of all charges. I think the way it's currently stated is still potential libel. I think it would be better to simply state that Farrow alleged the molestation. That's a fact. Even better, state that he was cleared. Link to the articles if you want. For me, saying "there's a lot of evidence" goes a step too far... Just my opinion. Brian 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)btball

The only mention of any "evidence" was testimony, which is in that case was not evidence in law. I quote, "A panel of experts from Yale, headed by pediatrician Dr. John Leventhal, concluded no abuse had taken place." The most accurate and fair thing to say (but still misleading, IMHO) opinion thing to say would be "alleged sexual absue" but, then again, anyone can allege sexual abuse against anyone else. - Abscissa 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the point of refering to any allegations about people's private lives, unless they're substantiated in a court. And probably not even then. I know I have better things to do in life! 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina

Emmalina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I can't find her birthday anywhere, yet this article lists her birthday. She is not a public figure and I doubt that she is notable enough for her own entry. According to the BLP policy on Privacy about birthdays, shouldn't this removed? If this is true, I think that an admin needs to delete the page and restore it without her birthday. // Hbdragon88 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A message on my talk page [24] from the subject of the article now affirms the fact that her birthday is indeed private. Hbdragon88 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

There's a lot of nasty talk about Marsden on this article and on the talk page 64.26.170.175 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is subject to a current arbitration case over Warren Kinsella - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Took a quick spin through the notes and sources section, here's what I found: Note 3 (cv) is a dead link; Note 4 no longer archived at the site. Crockspot 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• There's not a lot of "nasty talk"; there's a lot of carefully sourced discussion of behaviour which Marsden has quite notably and publicly been accused of in the past, which does not draw any conclusions about her guilt or innocence. The article has been continually subject to vandalism by two editors for months; one of those two editors has variously identified themselves as either Rachel's sister or Rachel herself, and the other one is Rachel's personal friend Mark Bourrie, who is involved in arbitration over his edits to Warren Kinsella and Pierre Bourque. Both appear to take the position that BLP prohibits any negative material at all, whereas BLP actually prohibits unsourced negative material, and quite explicitly states that properly sourced material stays in the article whether the subject likes it or not. And prior to their complaints about Marsden's article on September 5, User:64.26.170.175's only previous edits were to one of Bourrie's banned sockpuppet user pages. Bearcat 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Anything that relies on the two sources I identified above as no longer being valid links should either be removed, or new sources found. Crockspot 18:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll review the CV link. For link #4, I don't know whether it's been changed since your comment, or whether it's the same link but was down temporarily, but as of two minutes ago the link currently numbered as 4 is up and running just fine. Neither one of those, however, are among the claims that Bourrie and Marsden are objecting to; they're taking issue with material whose sources you didn't identify as problematic. Bearcat 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have been #4 from the revision on Sept 6. I made no judgement about the quality or reliability of the sources on my pass-through. Just their existence. Crockspot 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is now an arbitration request. I have voted to accept, but would welcome outside involvement by readers of this board. I find the article quite unbalanced, with a great deal of negative material (which may be well sourced for all I know), but almost nothing about her political positions or writings. Fred Bauder 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Marsden was a well-known figure in Canada long before she ever became a pundit. I think it would be against NPOV policy to give undue weight to her punditry when she is known more for her involvement in numerous harassment controversies than for her political positions or writings. This perceived unbalance is the fault of Marsden's own actions - not of biased editors. Geedubber 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Involovment in several harassment controversies" involves one case with a former boyfriend that resulted, basically, in a warning. The rest is unproven allegations that never saw a court of law or a public hearing and are now more than ten years old. Marsden has been a politocal columnist for several years now. This article should not be tailored to Geedubber's priorities.64.230.114.207 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem, Pre-School Sex Scare of the 1980s and "satanic ritual abuse"

Please see discussion page for Ms. Steinem regarding an attempt to document Ms. Steinem's one time high profile involvement in this issue, allegations of which our editors find potentially libelous. Those who recall this are invited to contribute their documentation and citations because as it stands now discussion of this episode in her life has been deep sixed from the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Cod (talk • contribs)

I looked at the deleted paragraph, and I think it was justifiably deleted, due to lack of any sources, and an editorial tone. I presume this is related to the McMartin preschool trial and the Day care sex abuse hysteria, (the latter also not citing any sources)? There should be plenty of source material available to write a neutral and well-sourced summary of the issues, particularly documenting Steinem's involvement, which could then be included. Crockspot 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my footnotes to my comment on the discussion page of this article.Tom Cod 14:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How does living bio patrol work?

I get asked this by the press a lot. So I thought I'd come here and ask how it actually works.

1. What is the actual process?
2. How are new living bios spotted?
3. Who watches edits in them, on what sort of schedule?

And 4. the big one: is there anything that can be done to make the living bio patrolling volunteers' work easier and more efficient? What magical software features would you like? Is there anything that as-yet-unwritten bot software could do to assist?

I'd love to be able to answer "we have a volunteer patrol who look out for any rubbish going in living biographies. We're not perfect but I think we do pretty well" and be able to give more detail if they ask ;-) - David Gerard 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just now being organized. Care to help? WAS 4.250 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:-) I can't promise time or whatever, but I see there's now lively discussion on wikien-l. I was thinking in terms of (1) people to keep an eye on changes to anything in Category:Living people (just quickly checking for obvious problem edits), which runs at about 10 edits/minute; (2) people to keep an eye on Special:Newpages for anything that looks like it might be an article about a person and tagging it if it wasn't created with one. Something really light on procedure - not like the planned "libel patrol" or whatever. It looks like Jossi is running with the idea, and devs are offering software help - David Gerard 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BLPP#Tools. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I've just outlined the proposed simple process we've been discussing, and have signed up as an interested party (even if I haven't time for patrolling) - David Gerard 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jack Vance

• Jack Vance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users:

• Arvin Sloane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.19.14.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.19.14.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.82.9.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.82.9.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• etc. see the article's talk history for more information

I may have stepped on a mine here, as it looks like many well-intentioned editors trying to clean up Wikipedia have repeatedly run into self-appointed owners of the page (usually because they have "personally dealt with him") who end up attacking those quoting MoS guidelines and policies as "child minders" or as having "guideline fetishism".

Currently, "Arvin Sloane" is exhibiting some rather bizarre behavior. (the IP addresses listed also belong to this user, as he edits by IP and then changes his signature to say "Arvin Sloane") He has removed the WPBiography template repeatedly, saying it is "tasteless", "unsolicited" and "racist" and that it "personally offends" him and "in [his] opinion, Jack Vance." He has posted a "Notice to Vandals" warning those trying to add the template to the talk page from doing so. The user has not violated the 3RR, and I assume he will not, but has stated that he will revert it 3 times each 24 hours (I guess to make a point). He has also posted personal attacks in response to having his redirect deleted. Something needs to be done here. -- Renesis13 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the talk page and posted a warning. Gamaliel 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As for guideline fetishism, that was my take on it. I object, as would most normal people, to someone coming in and giving us orders to "fix" things, when this someone is as much editor as you, me and anybody else and is quite capable of "fixing" things themselves. To me, it was an arrogant suggestion and I pointed that out to the individual in question. A lot of you may be administrators or bureaucrats or whatever, but if you seriously tell me, a common or garden nobody contributor, that you can't source information or verify something as well as the next guy, then we'll all have a good laugh. I'm not here to do your job and vice versa; true? Peter1968 09:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

John Seigenthaler, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For over a day, Wikipedia was reporting that Siegenthaler had "killed and ate then-President John F. Kennedy." Considering that this is highest profile gaff on Wikpedia BLP's this seems pretty sad. --Tbeatty 02:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Add it to your watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me an adequate response to one of the most collossal fuckups of article watching and vandalism patrol ever. Phil Sandifer 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion to propose? Crockspot 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but I want more information - how many people are watching this article? How many edits per day does it have? What percentage are vandalism? Phil Sandifer 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This group was just formed less than two weeks ago, we are all volunteers, and we are still forumlating an official policy. (See WP:BLPP). For today at least, people adding it to their watchlists is as good as it's going to get. Crockspot 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC) further comment Looking at the history, it was not edited at all since the 7th, when Tbeatty reverted vandalism, until yesterday, the 11th, when there was a flurry of vandalism and reverts, until the page was semi-protected. Only registered editors may now edit the article, and it seems to have quieted down. Crockspot 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we create a Watchlist requests list like there is in Requests for investigation? Geedubber 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Two little girls photograph

You guys seriously can't find a better public domain/GPLed photo to represent a living person than the current photograph? Peter1968 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You would not believe the amount of discusion that has occurred first on the article Human and then on the BLP site concerning this image. What is a good image to represent human ???? My smart-ass answer is that it was deleted when PublicGirlUK decided to withdraw her contibutions. The real answer is that what it is to be human is something every human finds out for themselves. WAS 4.250 11:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with using Image:Two young girls at Camp Christmas Seals2.jpg. Peter, what better photograph do you suggest? --HResearcher 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I was thinking along the lines of George W. Bush. Arguably the world's best known living person and there are plenty of public domain images of him out there courtesy of US Govt. legislation. Has to be better than some anonymous photograph of two children, who may well be dead for all the average punter knows. Peter1968 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the template page. Gamaliel 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel like telling me where it is? Peter1968 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Blp. Peter O. (Talk) 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars kid

You might want to keep an eye on this one. A lot of personal information was just removed to protect the privacy of the young man. However I expect a counter attack soon. Steve Dufour 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this is o.k. now. Steve Dufour 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, fine. The information you deleted to "protect his privacy" (and the one about the people who put the tape online) is all over the internet. [25] --Tilman 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that. However I think that Wikipedia should have a higher standard than "all over the Internet." Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he lives in Trois-Riviere is not only well known in the Province of Quebec, but Trois-Rivieres is also a huge area, with a population over 100000. Including that info is not an invasion of privacy, and certainly not libelous. To say he simply lives in Quebec is ridiculous (Quebec is three times the size of France). Themindset 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Crown Princess Mary of Denmark

I am having to restore an external link, a satirical blogspot about Crown Princess Mary, twice daily. There was a section outlining controversy surrounding the princess, and a lot of that material supported by external links was removed. There was an arguable case for that. I can't see that removing a link to a satirical blog about the princess is anything other than censorship - it's clear from the naming of the link that it's satire, so punters can simply not click if they're not interested. What is the policy re external links, clearly labelled, as opposed to libellous material on the page itself? The editor constantly removing my link is not conversing with me about it, just serially removing it. This is very un-Wikipedia in approach, and there needs to be a consensus please!. Lyndella —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndella (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stanwood Duval

(Stanwood Duval history)

It seems this article is being used for political POV. Only controversial ruling are listed, rather than notable rulings if any. Some claims are unreferenced. See talk page. --HResearcher 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is part of an overall series of dozens of articles by Billy Hathorn, modified based on heavy original research. These include Dan Richey and many more - in the references are included "Billy Hathorn, email exchange with Dan Richey of Baton Rouge, August/September 2006." This is clearly prohibited by Wikipedia and we need to ensure that all of this is cleared out. I've already reverted a couple articles to subtract the original research. FCYTravis 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked some of these articles and many of them violate our content policies. I left a message with some pointers to this user, that BTW, is also using his own thesis as the source for some articles and in contradiction to WP:AUTO. I have placed {{noncompliant}} templates on some of these articles, as well as removing some obvious POV stuff and advocacy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From a quick Google search, it appears that he is a professor, so I would assume good faith - I think he's a good contributor who just doesn't quite understand our policies. Let's not scare him off. :) FCYTravis 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave Carter

Dave Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sorry for being long-winded, but this is complex. I would like to hear some opinions as to whether or not policy has been followed in this article. Carter was a singer-songwriter who died in 2002, but the issues relate to WP:BLP. In a conversation at Talk:Dave Carter a new user revealed several facts about Carter not previously known to the public and still not available elsewhere, among these were:

• Prior to his death, Carter had begun "to persue a gender change."
• Information about legal ownership of Carter's songs at the time of his death--mentioning by name Carter's ex-wife and executor of his estate.

The person making these claims, User:Grammer, revealed that she was in fact Tracy Grammer, Carter's partner both in his musical career and life. This was verified via e-mail by administrator, Phil Sandifer. Sandifer took the additional step of confering with Amgine (who I gather is a Wikimedia big wig) before making the following edits:

• Adding the first claim above to Dave Carter [26] and including the same into Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians.
• Adding both claims to the article, Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer [27]

Here are the issues that trouble me:

1. We have some controversial claims being made without citations. Shall we cite the Dave Carter talk page?
2. We are stating as fact Grammer's claims that involve not only herself and the deceased Carter, but also non-public figures such as his ex-wife (and including the ex-wife's name).
3. OK, so and an admin tells me Grammer really is Grammer, I suppose I can buy it. I'm actually a fan and have been to several of her concerts, but should Wikipedia be the first place to publish this?

I would like to hear some additional opinions. -MrFizyx 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Amgine is a Foundation volunteer, hence my running the language past her - because this clearly was something that needed to be handled with care. That said, MrFizyx's points, in order.

1. WP:BLP provides for the subject (Which this ultimately is, since Tracy Grammer is solidly involved in all of this) offering information on the talk page - it doesn't comment on how to do the citation, but I think all of the criteria on BLP are satisfied here. The only issue would be contentious, and I don't exactly think that's accurate here. The information is neither contentious nor controversial - there was no raging debate on whether Carter was transgender, nor on whether he had a romantic relationship with Tracy Grammer. The first was unknown previously, and the second a matter of speculation, but never of particular comment. The information is unusual, and I'll admit surprising, but it is not controversial - nobody has denied it.
2. I was quite impressed, actually, with how Grammer phrased the section - it was NPOV, discrete, and polite. It referred to "acrimony," but did not attempt to suggest that Grammer had a legal or ethical right to the songs, and brought in no dirty laundry. As for the ex-wife's name, she's mentioned as one of the people administering the Dave Carter memorial fund on a press release from their official website, and so it's not, to my mind, a massive deal - that said, I would not be averse to removing her name.
3. I'm willing to forward the e-mail to a Foundation member if this becomes an issue, but I would imagine that an administrator verifying that User:Grammer is not an imposter is sufficient.

This seems a by-the-numbers case of how a figure can add information to biographies. And I can understand why Tracy Grammer would not issue a press release that Carter was transgender, or on the settling of his estate. It seems respectful to tell the truth as Carter's quoted "partner in all things" tells it. It also seems respectful not to turn the matter into a spectacle. Grammer provided the information in a way that satisfies our requirements of verifiability - she's a perfectly credible source, and her identity is verified - but also in a way that seems respectful given the subject matter. Phil Sandifer 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I had hoped to solicit some third party opinions on this matter, but unfortunately those active on this board seem to be a bit overworked. I have had some involvement in editing and discussing the policy, WP:BLP. Let me tell you in my view what the problem is with what you (User:Phil Sandifer) are doing. In short, moving Grammer's statements from talk page to articles introduces original research. The policy on biographies of living persons, was created to aid in the removal of unsupported and/or negative material. The policy makes it clear that when subjects get involved in editing their own articles that their statements whether they arrive on talk pages or in e-mail must also meet the criteria for verifiability and reliable sources. The edits you have made to these articles do not correct errors or misstatements, rather they introduce new research that you yourself have verified by e-mail. The only way that I or any other uninvolved reader may know that they are true is to repeat your original research. There is no liability for not including new information on topics not addressed in our articles. Although, your edits may well have made these articles more truthful, you have made them less verifiable--for better or worse verifiability is the factor that determines what goes in an article. Let us agree that Tracy Grammer is probably the world's greatest expert on the personal life of Dave Carter, but even experts may not use Wikipedia as a site for primary publication. We should thank her for logging in and sharing her story and let her know that we would like publish this in our articles if she decides to go public with the information elsewhere. If you still think my read on this is wrongheaded, I would suggest that the guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography is a good read and lays this out quite clearly. -MrFizyx 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This is silly - the BLP policy clearly allows the sort of addition engaged in here, specifically stating the talk page as a valid place to leave information. The information is verifiable - it was definitely claimed by the most reliable source on the talk page. I have not added any information that was given via e-mail - all I did was verify the source, as is proper. All of the information from the article depends on Tracy Grammer's published words. This is not original research - there is no "more appropriate" or reviewed venue she could post the information. If she'd stuck it on her webpage, we wouldn't be having this argument, and it would have had just as much editorial review. Given that User:Grammer is Tracy Grammer, the only dispute here is a semantic one. Phil Sandifer 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • BLP does not trump WP:V or WP:OR. Yes, if it were on her web page we absolutely would not be having this argument. Currently, however, you yourself are a key link in the chain of verifiability. O.R. by an admin is still O.R.! You may take whatever angry tone you wish, it does not change this! In this day and age the words "verified via. e-mail" should inspire skepticism not confidence in any reasonable person. You may have an ongoing history of communication with Grammer that gives you some self-assurance or you may be very savvy in reading the ip addresses within e-mail headers. In any case your research is an unknown quantity to all other readers. If you did not examine WP:AUTO please do. -MrFizyx 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
        • If you are no longer trusting admins to verify the identities of people claiming to be notable figures, I think the problem runs a bit deeper than the information presented. Phil Sandifer 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Excuse me? -MrFizyx 03:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Verifications of this sort are wholly within the purview of what admins should be doing. If you're not going to accept them, then ultimately, I can't really do anything to address your concerns in this conversation, because you're not really dealing with Wikipedia in terms of how it works. I e-mailed Grammer through her website, and got a reply to the e-mail confirming her identity. There is no plausible way for that e-mail to be fabricated. WP:BLPP - which is policy - provides clearly for subjecst who are confirmed to be themselves. I know of nobody in Category:Notable Wikipedians who confirmed their identity via a blogpost. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer is 100% wrong here and MrFizyx is 100% correct. Phil, go talk to some of your admin friends. This is like arguing if lukewarm water is wet. WAS 4.250 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm going to need a bit more of a reason than. I ran this past a Foundation member and got an OK. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not enough for authors of BLP to explain BLP to you? Amgine is welcome to join the discussion.

Can you point me to other articles citing wikipedia talk pages as their only source? -MrFizyx 15:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If BLP is intended to trump reason and common sense then it is mistagged, as that is not and never will (or can) be policy. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were the one invoking BLP as permission to allow original er, internal to Wikipedia research? You know you don't have to like the rules, but as an admin, you really should try to follow them. I know of no precident for your use of Wikipedia as a primary source. It seems you will not respect the written policy, consensus, or precident, but you are the one with the tools. Where do we go from here? -MrFizyx 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The user who wants to add the material to the article should read Wikipedia:Verifiability very carefully, and after having read it once, should read it again. This is not really a case for this noticeboard. Sure, As per WP:BLP in itself, the material is OK, but there are other policies on Wikipedia. I again want to point you to the very fundamental policy Wikipedia:Verifiability? / Fred-Chess 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is not verifiable here? Phil Sandifer 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The person Tracy Grammer and her writings on a Wikipedia talk page is not "a published and reputable source. " (Wikipedia:Verifiability). It is Wikipedia:Original research. Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability yet? / Fred-Chess 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Other opinions were invited, so I guess I'll chime in. I have enormous respect for Phil Sandifer, but I don't understand why he has blinders on about the verifiability and original research issues raised here. Take this sentence from No original research:

“ That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. ”

Will this communication from Ms. Grammer be published independently, or has it already been published somewhere? Where can other editors go to see these messages? Can we interpret these messages for ourselves? Why does the above quote from WP:NOR apply to every other Wikipedia article except this one? Is Wikipedia now a publisher of original content? Is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia now truth instead of verifiability?

If this is allowed in the article, we'll be starting a slide down a very slippery slope. We spend hours and hours (and pixels and more pixels) trying to convince newbies and even some established users that their own research – what they "personally know" about themselves, their relatives, or their bosses – is unacceptable as source material. If Ms. Grammer's messages can be used as source material, what is the difference between her messages and the original research we spend so much time discouraging? I guess I'm dense or something, 'cause I just don't get it. BaseballBaby 02:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

MrFizyx 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC) said:

Where do we go from here?

I would suggest the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Fred-Chess 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved and the related thread has been archieved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive136#Phil Sandifer

Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow

Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Completely unsourced despite claims of criminal activity. CovenantD 04:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that the last two claims could be reliably sourced, and almost nothing else. An admin should probably just delete the article, IMO. Crockspot 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Toure

Toure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The person in question, Touré, does not use his last name, and does not wish it to be known, as he has stated on his talkpage. Now, obviously, I don't know why he doesn't want it known, he might think that one name sounds cooler, or it could be a deeply personal thing. I wondered what the community thought about this. I can't see why, if this is a personal issue for him, his last name shouldn't be excluded from the article, even if an external link to a site which states his last name is left in the article. Thε Halo ^Θ 09:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Last name is irrelevant to notability, he wants it out, sourcing it would probably have to be from a primary source, including it adds nothing to the article. Seems pretty straightforward. I would even go so far as to delete it from the edit history. Crockspot 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't a BLP issue. There's a difference between the whims of a public figure, which we can ignore, and libel, which is covered under BLP. If a reliable source reports his last name, then there's no reason privacy issues come into play since it's already out there. If there is no source, it should be removed because it is unverified. Gamaliel 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue. Personally identifiable information should not be automatically added to articles. Even if it is externally available. How important is his last name to the article? If it doesn't add anything to the article (i.e. he isn't known by his last name. Last name isn't widely available and he takes steps to keep it private) Wikipedia shoudn't find it necessary to add it simply because it can be found. It is policy to keep personal, private information off of pages. For example, if someone's phone number is in the phone book or their social security number is inadvertantly published, Wikipedia does not include it in their articles. --Tbeatty 20:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the phone book qualify as WP:RS? Who cares? I'm talking about stuff like The New York Times. I'm also clearly not talking about phone numbers or social security numbers which appear in zero Wikipedia articles, but basic biographical data like a person's birth name, which appears in almost all biographical articles. Gamaliel 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think this is a BLP issue, from a privacy standpoint, bolstered by the fact that the information adds nothing to the article. Crockspot 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How does, say, a birthdate "add something" to an article? And yet we include it as a standard. Gamaliel 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not the best comparison for you to choose. See the "privacy of birthdays" subsection of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. In fact, the linked section applies here, though I am not sure how notable this person is, if he qualifies as a public, non public, or somewhere in between. Crockspot 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times covered his wedding, so I'd say public. The NYT is content to identify him as Toure, so I'm fine if our article does as well unless a source of similar weight appears identifying him by his full name. Gamaliel 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the line. The weight of the source in terms of credibility/reliability. NYT chose not to. The name is available obviously but there is some line drawn by by reputable publishers. It doesn't appear to be well drawn however so I am not sure how to tell other than by gradations of "public figure." In the spirit of BLP, I would always defer to less information. It can alsways be added later if determined to be relevant. --Tbeatty 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems we essentially agree, which is a pleasant change of pace, though I of course disagree with your attitude of deferance in all things. I still believe this is not a BLP issue and it would be more easily covered under WP:RS and WP:V. No need for a long debate, no need to call in the libel squad, just remove it because there is no source. Simple and uncontestable. Remember the KISS principle. Gamaliel 17:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

1. Is the following unsourced statement by User:JzG[28] a violation of WP:BLP ? Sathya Sai Baba has been described in reputable sources (BBC) as a charlatan.
2. Is the following sourced statement [29] by user:Pjacobi a violation of WP:BLP? The source that is quoted by user:Pjacobi may be considered not neutral, non-reputable, or even partisan.

Andries 17:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, what's going on here? WP:POINT or even WP:SPIDER? My edit demonstrated markup and style to use, taking a fictional source as example.

As a bonus, I'll start giving charlatan sources: [30]

--Pjacobi 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Me stupid. I did not realize that you used a fictional source. However I am sincerely interested whether using doubtful or fictional sources in the talkpage is okay. Andries 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How will achieve editor consensus about the suitability of source if not by presenting and dissecting it on the talk page? --Pjacobi 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You could have mentioned the author and the book first without mentioning what he wrote and requested comments regarding his reputability. And only mention what he wrote after the source was found to be reputable. Andries 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the comments by User:JzG have to be sourced as per Reliable Sources. Editors are not allowed to draw conclusions based on their own personal beliefs and state it as a fact. View Thread SSS108 ^talk-email 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison (politician)

Could someone take a look at this right quick? I think this is rather important. I have the page locked right now, but I don't want it to stay that way unless absolutely necessary, and I want to be very sure that I am not wrong. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is your concern? If it is about the letter from the blog, I think you made that call right. It can only be included if it comes from a reliable source, or can be directly attributed to him, such as posted on his own blog or campaign site. Was there another issue you were concerned about? Crockspot 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's 90% of it. I think the election is today and I'd like not to be the only one watching the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Green Day

I noticed this one when viewing the recent changes to BLPs tool. Should bands be using the "living persons" category? They are living people, but it's a band. I was going to remove the cat, but I though I should get a second opinion before I do. Crockspot 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a band is more like a company or corporation, since members of bands often move on or die, and are replaced with living people - but the name of the band retains the same. In the case where a biography of a band member forms a significant part of an article about a band, the biographical part of the article about the band member ought to be covered under WP:BLP if the band member doesn't have his / her own article, in which case the article should include the tag. There's one opinion for you. Orsini 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The rules of BLP may apply to biographical sections of the article, but the band doesn't belong in Category:Living people. -MrFizyx 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okeliedokelie, I'm removing the cat. Crockspot 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Taylor

Wayne Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I updated the article a few time deleting what appeared to be vandalism. Notice the edit bickering on September 14. I infrequently check my Wikipedia email account. I received the following email on my Wikipedia email account:

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:15:28 GMT To: "Royalbroil" <[email protected]> Subject: Wikipedia--Wayne Taylor From: "Libertine14" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney at Moran & Shams, P.A., located in Orlando, Florida. Please be advised that this firm represents Wayne Taylor whose biography appears on the Wikipedia website. Over the past few months several inaccurate and wholly libelous material has been posted under the biography of Wayne Taylor. For instance: - Wayne Taylor was never deported from South Africa, but, instead, became an American citizen voluntarily. - He was never expelled from Selborne College. He left Selborne Collegre at the end of Standard 9. - His racing team was not funded with apartheid money and his largest sponsor was not the South African Minister of Manpower. - His wife's name is Shelly, not Sheila, and she was never a lap dancer. His son is named Ricky Scott, not Ricardo Scotch. - He does not have any illegitimate children from his mother's maid in South Africa. In fact, most of the information contained in the biography was completely wrong. His birthday is July 15, 1956 not July 10, 1956. Due to this libelous and inaccurate material, we have taken the liberty of deleting the entry in its entirety, which has been replaced with minimal factual information. As a participant in the WikiProject IROC, you have a responsibility to make sure that all information posted on wikipedia.com is accurate. To that end, we would like to work with you in order to make sure that all information posted in Mr. Taylor's biography is true and will be e-mailing you an accurate biography shortly. We request that the material remain as it is right now with minimal factual information until we can forward to you an accurate biography. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected], or at (407) 841-4141, or P.O. Box 472, Orlando, FL 32802. Thank you. Sincerely, Keith C. Durkin

The concerns in this email appear to be quite warrented. I believe that vandals caused this problem. I did not reply to this email. I'll let the Wikipedia admins and legal team deal with this problem. Royalbroil 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article from scratch using his official page on his racing team's website as the reference. Royalbroil 15:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As a member of a Grand-Am team, I'm rather dismayed that this great driver's bio would be so hatefully vandalized. I'm going to start wholesale-watchlisting drivers. FCYTravis 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted all the contents of the article up to the rewriting from a sourced stub done by Royalbroil - anyone who vandalizes that page from this point on will be indefblocked. FCYTravis 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn Wood

• I have concerns about the attention to this living individual and statements made about her. Please see talk page of article for the whole debate.Joaquin Murietta 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My initial observations: The sourcing seems pretty solid. I didn't take the time to read each one, so I am assuming that the sources actually support the statements made. The introduction does a very good job of pointing out that many of the claims didn't pan out. Being a bio, the controversy section should probably come after the military career section. She is notable, and that notability stems from the controversy, so the information should be presented in a neutral way, which it seems to be. Documenting what was reported about her is reasonable, as long as it is clear that the allegations never panned out. I think you have done a good job of herding the other editors toward neutrality and accuracy. Crockspot 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

Carlos Latuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) possible start of content dispute. 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Article appears to use absolutely no reliable sources for any of its claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Diomedes Díaz

Diomedes Díaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I came across this article by chance, by following a link from another article. I deleted the extensive BLP violations, here, which were inserted by User:F3rn4nd0. I don't know what kind of warning/advisory template is available to issue to this user, or if the article even reaches notability. Hope someone here will follow up with an appropriate notice, warning. Sandy 19:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I took some time to research Diomedes Diaz, found that he is notable, found that highly critical text was reinserted in spite of a previous BLP advisory/warning in the edit history, and found the template to leave a warning for the editor, who I am now dialoguing with on talk page about the need to cite reliable sources. Sandy 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Nigel McGuinness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - His real name is available through the United States Trademark & Patent Office's website on the trademark of his gimmick name, yet someone keeps removing it (apparently his webmistress) citing that he doesn't want his real name available. What should be done? --James Duggan 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

His real name was removed after I fielded an OTRS complaint on the issue, requesting that his real name be kept private. I examined the request and found that the man's real name appears nowhere else on the Internet. Nor is there any evidence that any dead tree media has published his real name. Wikipedia should not be an instrument of disseminating information which has heretofore been private. There is no good reason for us to violate his privacy on this matter - it quite simply adds nothing to the encyclopedic tale. We perhaps can mention that his name is a stage name, but that he chooses to keep his real name private. This is a shining example of the principle that just because we can do something, does not necessarily mean that we should do it. What possible encyclopedic good comes out of publishing this man's name against his wishes? FCYTravis FCYTravis 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Against my personal preference, I've deleted the page and restored without those revisions...sorry guys. alphaChimp^(talk) 23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected the page, but someone added the name almost immediately. I've reprotected the article and blocked the involved user. Per my conversation with User:Lid, I'm linking to this discussion of WP:ANI, to hopefully generate a little more discussion on the issue. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this not the exact same issue that occured with Tron (hacker), or, say Criss Angel. His name is documented, just because he'd rather people not know it we don't post it? If he'd rather people not know the real reason he carries his iron (and, truth be told, he would) and has his webmistress complain do we remove that too? If he gets a contract with WWE and decides he wants his offense to be a suprise to the mainstream TV crowd do we have to remove his Finishing and signature moves until he debuts them there?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tron's real name was widely reported at the time (e.g. [31]) of his death. It's merely that German newspapers generally honored the family's wishes that his real name not be used. By contrast Nigel's name has never been widely released. Dragons flight 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

His name is not documented anywhere except for a PTO filing. A Google search on this man's name + wrestling reveals exactly TWO hits of relevance - both of them on Wikipedia. There is clearly reason to believe that Wikipedia is being used here to expose someone who would rather remain private, and that is not what we are about. FCYTravis 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What we are about is adding referenced facts to articles and maintaining the integrity of wikipedia by sticking to the facts, which this is. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Bdve on this. This is the same situation as the Tron guy. NM's real name is available to the general public on a reliable website(the USPTO). Not allowing his publicly available name to be included just because the webmistress of his site asked it to be removed would be censorship and set a bad precedent. The Tron case even established that real names can and should be included if they can be verified as real(which we can in this case). Also, what about all the Mexican and Japanese masked wrestlers? They rarely(if ever) let their real names be known, but we add them if they can be confirmed as real. TJ Spyke 02:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Public_figures emphasizes that basic facts should be published in reliable secondary sources (such as a newspaper or magazine article) before being included in articles. A USPTO filing is primary source. Dragons flight 03:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied at WP:ANI. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it was completely unsourced, the bit about the iron also violated BLP and I have removed it. Feel free to restore it if there are published sources for that story that you can reference. Dragons flight 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to restore it when the page is locked? Interview with him telling the real iron story. Back to the real topic, just because he's not a big enough star that no one has written a newspaper article with this provable fact in it it doesn't go in?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: The patent office info is a primary source, and should not be used to support having the name in the article. (Wandering into original research?) If and when there is a secondary source publishing the name, then the primary source can be used to verify the secondary source. Crockspot 13:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that the article reads like it is about a person, when in fact it is about a character played by a person. None of the "facts" are sourced to credible real world documentation. It is possibly all fiction. The article should clearly distinguish between the fantasy world of pro-wrestling and the real world of trademarks, driving licenses, parents, contracts, and legal documentation showing birth and education data. WAS 4.250 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

An admin needs to look at his talk page again. The what was there 24 hours ago is gone, including it's history, and someone's been listing his real name there. It needs to be fixed. James Duggan 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interview someone found under his real name.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article doesn't appear to be from a source that would meet WP:RS, and making a connection between that interview and the gentleman in question is pretty iffy. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a niche field and sources in this type are hard to come by. What we have here is an interview in the field with a wrestler of the same name that owns the trademark in wrestling with the same trainer who applied for the trademark used for a wrestler of the name who used the same trainer while both are the same height and from England while the official trainers website only lists ring names thus explaining the absense. It's a secondary source and supports, if not proves, the primary. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What you are describing qualifies as original research, and is not allowed. Please read WP:OR. If you can find a published reliable source that mentions these "coincidences", and draws the conclusion that they are the same person, then you could report that. But you cannot gather pieces of a puzzle, and put the puzzle together in a wikipedia article. That is OR. Crockspot 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actully the primary source is what proves the name, I'm using the secondary as a supporter of the primary not the other way around. The individuals who took out the trademark are the same and by the USPTO's website glossary the person who took out the trademark is the user of the trademark, which is not original research as those conclusions are met by the USPTO's website own glossary. I don't need to say the person being interviewed is McGuinness, it can however be used to illustrate a picture of the person who took out the trademark itself which the trademark lists as the person using the McGuinness name. Connections between interviewee and McGuinness are OR, yes, connections between interviewee and that same person are not. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any connection between the subject of that interview and Mr. McGuinness would be entirely unverifiable conjecture. FCYTravis 04:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable except for the primary source and the fact no other Nigel McGuinness professional wrestlers exist. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So where exactly does it say in that article that he is Nigel McGuinness? FCYTravis 06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the article was before he was famous and in the article itself lists no gimmick at the time of the interview that question is impossible. Using logic it is impossible to see that this is the same person due to the same trainer, same birth, same height, same name on trademark, trademark is for professional wrestling, interviewee in question is a professional wrestler and just for emphasis the USPTO slip, as per the USPTO website glossary, was applied for by the person using the name. This is not original research, this is logic and using of sources, hwoever I still feel you will reject this on the grounds that it can never be proven to be a secondary source even though the primary source makes this impossible to be to the contrary, unless there are two (real name)'d professional wrestling running around from the same location from the same trainer. Wrestling is a niche business, you are not going to find an article in the NY Times as a source on this especially given the nature of kayfabe. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we cannot discuss them. End of story. Living people are not Pokemons or airports or Star Wars characters. They are living people, subject to special scrutiny and legal issues. Anything remotely controversial in their biographies on Wikipedia must be scrupulously sourced to unimpeachable sources. If we can't do that, then it doesn't go in. FCYTravis 07:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And we're right back to precedent, we're running in circles. This is not a legal issue or controversial apart from maintainance of kayfabe. Sources change from level to level, with wrestling being a secretive niche market as I already stated. I understand your point perfectly but I still disagree, and doubt we will ever come to an agreement. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiyuki Tomino

• Yoshiyuki Tomino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is currently being plagued by an exceedingly negative, biased and to top it off, unsourced section previously entitled "Kill Em All" (which I later renamed "Policies" after adding the NPOV and unsourced tags), which claims that Mr. Tomino has an alleged "kill em all" reputation (there was even a sentence saying that he "earned" the nickname "Kill Em All Tomino", which I later removed). Can any editor who is familiar with this policy and who wouldn't mind helping resolve this exceedingly troubling issue, have a look at the article? I'd certainly love to have another neutral editor familiar with the BLP policy have a look at this entry and this particular section, since I really don't think this should belong in Wikipedia. Ganryuu (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire "policies" section reeks of original research. Summaries of other reviews in secondary sources are fine, but this looks like a review done by a wikipedia editor. I don't think the article would suffer without it, but I don't see any real libel going on either. Crockspot 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be familiar enough with the subject to know that his reputation as "kill em all" is very real, and that just about everything in the section is true. It's not even in serious dispute; he *is* known for such things, and he *has* received that nickname. If you really doubt it, plug "Tomino" and "kill em all" into Google and see how many hits you get.

Moreover, the article already lists "The Anime Encylopedia" as a source. When I go to Amazon and look up this book, and search inside it, I can immediately find the following:

"The director... who had gained the nickname "Kill Em All Tomino" after Zambot 3 soon exerted his trademark angst and tragedy".

Frankly, the fact that I should even have to look this up shows that people are failing to assume good faith on the part of the article writer; the article has sources clearly indicated at the bottom. It's true that each sentence in the article isn't individually footnoted, but there is no Wikipedia rule about removing information that is not individually footnoted on a per-line basis.

The complaint, to me, sounds like a typical complaint from a fan who is enthusiastic about a subject, doesn't really understand Wikipedia policy, and doesn't want to see anything that resembles criticism in an article. It's a shame that this "dispute" even got this far. Ken Arromdee 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the section doesn't cite any sources at all, which makes it appear to be original research. My suggestion is to update the references with page numbers that refer to the subject, and add a couple of citations to the section. But as I said before, this doesn't seem to be a libel issue, just a sourcing one. But just so you understand the rules about living persons, if it WERE a libel issue, every claim WOULD have to be sourced, or be removed.Crockspot 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Arnold Rüütel

Yesterday, Toomas Hendrik Ilves was elected President of Estonia over incumbent Arnold Rüütel. It was also on Wikinews etc., and thus attracted problematic attention.

On the talk page of Toomas Hendrik Ilves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Magabund keeps inserting that Ilves was a Karaite Jew, which is factually not correct. In my personal opinion, that is rather a compliment, but in the context of the Estonian elections, this was apparently used as slander against Ilves from one of the opposition parties, and the reversals are offered, apparently, in this spirit, i.e. to slander.

Arnold Rüütel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), on the other hand, and from the other side of the political spectrum, suffers from heavily POV edits against him by User:Constanz that are merely political grandstanding and soapboxing. They are continuing the election polemics from the other side, in an extremely unbalanced and one-sided way. The motive for that, as the editor makes clear in his summaries and statements, is that he sees Rüütel as a "commie holdover" ("this appalling remnant of a totalitarian regime", edit summary for the main article: "the old commie funcionary appearantly seeking life presidency"), and he supports that with references to commentaries (from election times) from Estonian newspapers. I have tried to reason with him and to come up with a compromise, to present a balanced article, but to no avail. Rüütel is currently the Head of State and therefore subject to public criticism, but the edits by User:Constanz are clearly designed to personally malign and not to inform. Constanz also keeps removing the POV label and reverts, in a slightly vandalous way, updates of the article (such as changes referring to the fact that Rüütel lost the elections yesterday), and is dismissive and offensive against anyone who challenges his personal views. Clossius 07:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that Colossus has taken usage of this edit dispute on Arnold Rüütel for raising some rather unfounded accusations against me.
1. previous edit summary notifications can hardly reflect the referenced additions to the article - otherwise it would have been considered vandalism long time ago by users other than Clossius.
2. As far as I know, I have removed the tag once - a mistake caused by reverting.
3.inserting critical material - in case it has sources/is factually correct, doesn't qualify as soapboxing. The point is that almost every article on a politician in Wikipedia constains controversies/criticism; I don't see why Rüütel should be an exception.

again I strongly object to Clossius' way of disputing with me: and is dismissive and offensive against anyone who challenges his personal views sound like personal assault, for who else, apart from him, might I have been 'dismissive and offensive against'?08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Constanz - Talk

Duane Chapman

This article is using nndb.com and about.com as sources for negative information. Doesn't about.com feed most of their info off of Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, nndb doesn't even cite any sources at all. I don't believe these meet WP:RS, especially for negative info. Crockspot 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragons flight is all over it already. Thanks. I put some comments on the talk page. Crockspot 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Meeting resistance from the natives. I had to rv back to Dragons flight's last edit. It's on my watchlist. Crockspot 18:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Which 'natives' are you referring to? Duke53 | ^Talk 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would be you, chief. :} My apologies. We seem to be on the same page. Crockspot 22:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox

• Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Justif insists on removing a paragraph which is not negative and which is adequately sourced. Can an uninvolved user confirm that this is not an appropriate application of the BLP policy? David | Talk 12:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The user seems to misunderstand the application of BLP, I'm confused as to who is being libelled in their eyes, maybe the organization she used to work for? The government of Sudan? He has made some comments on the talk page, and he seems only to be concerned with the time parameters of her work with the slave-buying organization, and the reason for her human rights award. Perhaps a couple of very simple changes can placate this person, like "she worked for xyz from (date) to (date)", and leave it at that. Maybe a little further investigation on sources about her award is in order too. The user also refers to a previous arbitration, but I don't see it there. Crockspot 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Coyote Shivers

Coyote Shivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No dispute (yet), but I'd like a double-check on my work. Coyote Shivers has had a long-running dispute with his two ex-wives, Bebe Buell and Pauley Perrette, as described in today's article by Fox News. I believe all three of these people have edited the Shivers, Perrette and Buell articles in the past as anons; there's been a lot of bickering in the edit summaries, and I've done my best to keep it out of the articles as it had no sources. Now, on the one hand, Fox isn't a terrific source, and their article is a bit sensational; on the other hand, I know from past experience that the bickering and name-calling is likely to start up again here, now that it's in the news. I've tried to pre-empt this by sticking to the facts, choosing a quote carefully from the story, and citing it properly, in this edit, but I'd really like some other opinions on adding this negative piece of information at all. What do you think? — Catherine\^talk 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And, as expected, it's been removed by one of the IPs I believe to be Shivers: [32] Any advice? — Catherine\^talk 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't expect there to ever be harmony in a three-way drama fest between marginally notable people in the entertainment industry. You will only be disappointed. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that Fox News is any less factually reliable than any other news reporting agency, so it can be used to source claims with confidence. Just be sure the claims accurately reflect the source, and that you are not synthesizing the information for the reader. The short "personal life" section is unsourced, and reads POV to me. I removed a libellous statement from the talk page, but left the rest of what the editor contributed. Good luck with that situation. You'll need your hip waders. It's possible that with at least one of the ex-wives, you are dealing with a publicist, rather than the subject herself, since she seems to be a little more notable, and probably has better things to do with her time than vandalize Wikipedia. Crockspot 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct to be wary of the source, since it is Fox and is essentially a personal essay written by a person who knows the participants, and ideally we should seek another one. I had a look at your edits and they seem fine to me and I don't see why this information should not be included. The only quibble I had is that I don't see what need is served by including his aliases. Gamaliel 18:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The information has been removed again, and been reverted. Could others please keep this on their watchlists for a few days? Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 01:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see further discussion on Talk:Coyote Shivers, and the history of the article. Thank you! — Catherine\^talk 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sai Baba

There was an arbitration this month concerning sai baba article. It is concluded now. I was not involved in this arbitration, I made my frist edit to this article earlier today. The article mentions defenses to allegations, it mentions governments making statements concerning these allegations. I would like to include the allegaions themselves, also. I have found one article on BBC [33] which mentions both sides of the controversy, and would like to use some material from this BBC article in the sai baba article.

One quote from the BBC article is: But in the last four years, and with the growth of the internet, the tide of claims against Sai Baba has become a groundswell.. Does anybody see any objection to the inclusion of this quote and link? Greetings, Sacca 06:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article in question, but if the source meets WP:RS and is a secondary source, if the added information is written neutrally, is completely verified by the source (meaning no synthesis of the source info), is relevant to the subject and their notability, and it does not reveal personal private information (like mother's maiden name, social security number, etc.), then there would really be no grounds for anyone to object. That doesn't mean that no one will object, but I can't think of any reason that objection would have merit. Crockspot 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannes Heer

Hannes Heer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) New article just created and it has unsourced negative material -- If I took out the negative material, there'd be no article. --plange 05:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't heard back and so put up a {{db-attack}} notice since this is a BLP. Let me know if this is out of bounds --plange 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. The article is entirely negative, and there are no sources. Crockspot 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not experienced enough yet with BLP, so thought I'd bring this up here for your opinions. This article has had some activity today centered around the Mark Foley scandal that's unfolding. Info about this was added to Cantor's page and I accidentally missed seeing his name in the content and deleted it, since it's negative stuff that I thought had nothing to do with him (I need to go to sleep, been at computer too long), but reverted when I realized my mistake. However, I did follow the link for the source it gave for saying Cantor was involved and there's no mention of his name in the AP article. Am I missing something? I haven't watched the news today, so am pretty out of it, but since this is a BLP, thought I'd alert on this... --plange 05:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• You were right the first time. Cantor is not mentioned in the source, so the entire section seems irrelevant, at least with the source used. I removed the section. I also have a problem with the Wikisource that was in the article. It self-identifies itself as a transcript of "alleged" communications. Is it verified? Is that even a proper source for Wiki to be housing? I think I'm going to slap a prod on that wikisource. Crockspot 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • db templates don't seem to work at wikisource, but this wikisource appears to be a license violation. Can someone who knows how to deal with that get on it? Nevermind. Figured out the reporting procedures there.00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Crockspot 14:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Having a problem with a particular single editor who seems to insist that a phrase saying Barrett planned to teach conspiracy theory, be included in the article. All attempts to come to a compromise seem to be rebuffed. (The only proposed "compromise" from the other editor's side included the phrase in the article.) I added a source which specifically refutes that. The source states that the finding of University of Wisconsin was that Barrett was not planning on incorporating his personal views into the course. Pihanki 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The above user insists on theorizing about what Barrett was "planning" on doing. We have no way to know what Barrett's intentions were/are. It is a sourced fact that Barrett came to notability when it was suspected he would be teaching conspiracy theories in his class. The university has since said he has not done so. That is what the article has long reflected, and I see no reason to start imputing "intent" into the issue. Levi P. 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) An admin. has looked into the issue- and this whole request doesn't belong here anyway, everything is sourced to a reputable source and there is nothing defamatory involved. Levi P. 21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin

Somebody recently replaced Image:Congressman-malkin.jpg, a photo of columnist Michelle Malkin with Congressman Steve King, with a Photoshopped picture supposedly depicting Malkin in a bikini. I attempted to revert to the earlier version but I can't tell whether it worked, possibly due to page caching. (See Malkin's site to see what the underlying dispute is.) --Metropolitan90 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm seeing the Malkin/King photo, so your revert worked. Crockspot 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) PS, I left the user who overwrote the public domain image with a derivitive version of copywritten material a nasty note on their talk page. Crockspot 17:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• I note for what it's worth that there was a similar incident with a photoshopped Congressional picture for the Mark Souder article. John Broughton | Talk 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw that. Two different users, though one could be a sock of the other. Crockspot 15:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul McKenna

• Paul McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dealing with a user who insists that an unsourced and self-referential discussion of McKenna having contacted the Wikimedia Foundation with concerns about the article belongs in the article. --Michael Snow 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Paul McKenna#Wikipedia Dispute really shouldn't be in the article. Discussion page perhaps. Crockspot 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Minor revert-war now in progress. - Crockspot 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I've warned Yakuman about the three-revert rule at this point. It appears to have been the first notice to this user about the rule, so we should hold off on any blocking. --Michael Snow 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia." The two above users seem to be acting in tandem. I am quoting a statement from Brad Patrick saying that McKenna's legal counsel compained about Wikipedia content that materially affects its content. They also try to delete uncontested material in the article.A primary source is a source. I am not citing "Wikipedia." I am citing a statement by Brad Patrick speaking for himself. Since Patrick is WF's legal counsel, that counts as reliable. "Michael Snow" also posted a defamatory threat on my talk page. Yakuman 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1.) Note: "If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to include in Wikipedia, the information would not be included in that article unless it was relevant to the topic of the article itself." Read that again: "unless it was relevant to the topic of the article itself."
2.) "WE should hold off on any blocking." Are we going to try censorship now? Look, I have no animosity against McKenna. But truth is truth and it is obvious that he took action against Wikipedia. Are you saying that the message from Brad Patrick is forged?Yakuman 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, Michael Snow has not even been on my radar screen until he posted this notice. I am a volunteer on the Living people patrol. We are not working "in tandem". Second, in my opinion, it is extremely imprudent and dangerous to the Project for you to be basically taunting a subject and his attorneys, when they have already taken action against the Project. Discussion about how an article is written goes on on the discussion page, not in the article itself. I have left a note for Brad Patrick on his talk page to comment on what is going on. Third, I am not an admin, so I don't have the power to block anyone. - Crockspot 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Keating

• Paul Keating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of potentially defamatory postings and unsourced innuendoes concerning a living ex-Prime Minister of Australia on his article's talk page (see here, and at another talk page here. There's been no attempt (so far) to introduce the material into the article(s), but seeing as how WP:LIVING extends also to talk pages, I'd removed it. The original anon contributor (in the former case, could be the same contributor as the latter but unable to tell) wants to restore it. Would appreciate an adjudication/opinion from someone here; for my money, it's worthless and irresponsible at best to retain these comments.--cjllw | TALK 07:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. That kind of rumor mongering needs to be shot on sight. It is not any kind of how-can-we-make-the-article-better talk. It is simply unsourced sleeze. WAS 4.250 08:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with WAS. - Crockspot 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Janice Rogers Brown

• Janice Rogers Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I added :

• "The NAACP, a leading Civil Rights organization, opposed the confirmation of Brown, labeling her "Extreme Right-Wing".[34]"

Editors keep removing this info, or the characterization "Extreme Right-Wing" These are the NAACP's words, and I think appropriate for inclusion. Note that they did not characterize Judge John Roberts as "Extreme Right Wing". Should editors be removing this well sourced info? NBGPWS 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If those words are used in the report, and you cite the report, then I don't see any real problem. What I DO see as a problem is the link to the cite, which links to the google cache of the report. Why not link directly to the report?. Nevermind, I made a new citation directly to the report. Also left my rethug opinion supporting inclusion on the talk page. Crockspot 19:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I don't really see the removal of this part as an exception to 3RR per WP:BLP. This is a content dispute that you regulars on the article need to work out. I have given my opinions over there, and am disengaging. Crockspot 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis

Up for deletion again. Employee of Joe Scarborough who died alone of natural causes. Article kept around in an attempt to raise suspicion without any facts to support it. Less notable than Brian Chase. The BLP concern is "false light" claims. --Tbeatty 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

TJ left that note on the talk page a while ago. I brought to front office attention but htey ignored it. I even whois'd the IP to florida. --Tbeatty 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dale Abenojar

• Dale Abenojar is a Philippine mountain climber who claims to be the first Filipino to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. However, because he was unable to provide documented proof (document, pictures, videos etc.), Filipinos do not believe him. Filipinos (and the Philipine mainstream media) recognize Leo Oracion, Romi Garduce and Pastor Emata as the first three Filipinos to reach the summit; their ascent has been documented and followed by at least two major Philippine media networks (ABS-CBN and GMA-7). In spite of this all, the Philipine Mt. Everest expedition (more specifically, Dale Abenojar's claims) remains a very controversial topic in the Philippines.

An anonymous user going by the IP address 203.87.186.162 has een editing these four articles in this manner: Oracion, Garduce and Emata are "allegedly" the first three climbers, but Abenojar is "the first" to reach the summit. This is contrary to fact, as Dale Abenojar has not yet provided solid proof to contest the claims of Oracion, Garduce and Emata. He claims to possess pictures of his climb, but AFAIK he refuses to show these to the public. But user 203.87.186.162 edits these four articles constantly to push the point (that Abejonar was #1), despite a warning that I had left on his/her user Talk page. (I also noticed that most of this user's contributions were focused only on these four mountain climbers.) Recently, he/she reverted my reverts and also added some new information on the Dale Abenojar article which, not surprisingly, does not have citations. I have not (yet) reverted the Oracion, Emata and Garduce articles, but I have reverted the Abenojar article (again), and also added another warning on user 203.87.186.162's Talk page.

--- Tito Pao 11:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)