Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive190

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Just raising this here to check I handled it correctly - the Engy Ghozlan article was prodded yesterday by someone from a shared IP saying "as the personal subject of this article, I do not wish to be on this site, for potentially endangering reasons. Kindly delete this page". The article seems strongly sourced, Ghozlan is a prominent enough activist and spokesperson, and I could see nothing "endangering" about the article, so I removed the prod with a mention of WP:AUTOPROB if the editor still had concerns. I can't see any policy mechanisms that should be tripped by "subject requests deletion for safety reasons" (and am aware that this could easily be a critic of Ghozlan wanting her article removed), but thought I'd bring it over here in case there was anything I was unaware of. --McGeddon (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. From an IP registered to the University of Sussex? And a lot of disruptive editing on that page, looks like. Perhaps she has pushed some buttons somewhere, or perhaps it's actually her. I'd recommend contacting OTRS, but I'm not sure a message posted to that talk page is the best way to reach her. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've since contacted Ghozlan privately and have been able to confirm that she did in fact make the deletion request. Looking again at the sources, there are just a couple that quote her as a spokesperson or activist (rather than having Ghozlan as the subject of the article) and a couple of WP:PRIMARY blog interviews, so perhaps this article never met WP:GNG in the first place. Shall I prod/AfD it, or recommend that she contact OTRS? --McGeddon (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Dear Wikipedia volunteers

I'd like to report a concern with an article on Joellen Riley, one of my colleagues here at the University. I noticed that recently an account of Prof Riley's public statements during an industrial dispute has appeared on her page at Joellen Riley. The information under the "Monumental" Intervention into Industrial Controversy at Sydney University' heading is extremely biased and unfair. Its basically a hatchet job and defamatory.

I don't feel I can make the changes myself because I am also conflicted by having a personal and professional connection with Prof Riley but, if it were possible I would like this section to be edited by an independent person so as to be more balanced. This should be fairly easily done as her comments were made in Australian newspapers as were those of people who disagreed with her I very much appreciate your work and I am also a donor to Wikipedia and I am worried about this unbalanced content.

Best regards

C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.210 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussed with the editor responsible here[1]. The extensive editorializing concerning the subject has been removed from the article (twice now, but the editor has now agreed to refrain). Dwpaul ^Talk 15:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to have more sets of eyes looking at this article. It's been heavily edited by a SPA. It appears to me to be skewed toward peacockery - making minor things appear major, omitting contextual information to mislead, and adding citations that don't really support the assertions. Thanks for taking a look at it. 71.139.152.181 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC on articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, often in a misleading way and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[2].Smeat75 (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Everyone please watchlist this article. An ip editor has been attempting to make this grossly undue by over reporting a sexual incident. -Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone please review this. One editor insists upon restoring unsourced information in this BLP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm being bold and have restored the filmography and biography section, adding sources to the article per WP:V and WP:BLP. Consider this report resolved and your concerns acknowledged. There has been other mass filmography removals on voice actors, but they were all restored. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Resolved tag here, as this is very much not resolved. While Sjones23 has indeed added some references to the article, large chunks of it remain without. I'm copying here what I wrote at Talk:Tara Platt:

Yes, I removed the filmography because it was (a) totally unreferenced and (b) in list format. I am completely mystified by the restoration of unreferenced material to this article by Sjones23. Do we have some guideline somewhere that WP:V does not apply to anime voice-over actors? That FilmandTVFan28 thinks that "Her filmography is correct" and doesn't "want to have anymore problems again" is completely irrelevant here. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the assurances of one editor. Similar considerations apply at Steve Staley, Wendee Lee, Cristina Valenzuela, Courtenay Taylor, Karen Strassman and Mary Elizabeth McGlynn, where in each case either Sjones23, FilmandTVFan28 or AngusWOOF has added massive amounts of completely unreferenced material to the article. Can anyone explain to me why those editors think unsourced material is acceptable here, because I'm having trouble understanding that?

Please note that I am not suggesting or implying any improper action by those three editors other than the addition of unreferenced material to BLP articles. Other similar articles where masses of unreferenced stuff have been re-added include Laura Bailey (voice actress), Veronica Taylor, Johnny Yong Bosch and Kari Wahlgren; in the first of those, a considerable and laudable effort to add references has been made, but much of it is still without. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't assume that restoring the filmography is the same as adding massive amounts of unreferenced material. The articles should be tagged with BLP sources and BLP unsourced first and that should prompt editors to add sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have some BLP experts review this article, the majority of the information is very negative and questionably sourced with edit wars abounding. I don't think this is an area where I can personally help from the BLP sides but there are loads here that can give it a once over. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has an extended history of coatrack-related problems. Noneless, it has been relatively quiet for some time. However, a WP:SPA who wants to "protect" the article subject has returned after over a year of no editing and slashed the article. Two editors (not me) have reverted the SPA, but she insisted. I warned her for edit warring (she was up to three reverts). Her talk page comments have been singularly unhelpful.

I just started a topic on the talk page to encapsulate the history of the problem (it has to do with Joan Juliet Buck and an article she wrote in Vogue) and the history of the SPA. The topic is fairly long, but it still doesn't completely capture everything that happened in 2012 and since. I have also reverted the article to the status quo ante.

More eyes would be helpful on the article, and any comments on the talk page would be even better. As I stated there, I have no objection to revisiting the issues. Indeed, content-wise I probably think the material in the al-Assad article is too prominent (and repetitive of what is in the Buck article), but my views are just those of one editor and not necessarily the consensus of the community, or at least of those editors who are interested in expressing an opinion. In the meantime, the SPA cannot unilaterally impose her views on this or any other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

He's not-notable in a big way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.238.44 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

In his wiki it states "Fellow Texan, the late comedian[17] Bill Hicks, opened for Eric Johnson on at least one occasion in the Eighties. The highly intoxicated Hicks made light of Eric's lack of hit singles, as well as his vegetarian and teetotal lifestyle, by suggesting that if Eric were to eat a Hamburger and drink a beer he would be able to write more popular songs. After this incident Bill Hicks was not asked to open for Johnson ever again.[18]"Which is not true.In an interview,Eric tells a totally different story

I’ve read that the late comedian Bill Hicks was fan of yours, but was pulled as an opening act for you after making some ill-advised drunken comments about you onstage. Did you have any contact with him after that?

Eric - "I don’t think that’s exactly true. He always opened shows for us, and there was never a time that he didn’t open a show. He would do it anytime that we could work it out, and he got really popular and his career did real well, so he was out to make his own fame. The only thing was, for whatever reason our audience has always [included] eight-year-old kids and 80-year-old people, and it was always kind of a running joke that when Bill would open the shows for us we’d say, “Hey Bill, can you kind of just make it R-rated, you know? Just back off the X-rated stuff a little bit? Because there’s eight-year-old kids out here.” And he’d go, “Yeah, sure, sure, sure, no problem.” Then he’d go out and do the X-rated show (laughs).

That was the only thing, but no, there was never a problem or anything. After we played he would always come back and criticize my show. He would tell me, “You’ve gotta to talk to the audience more, you’ve gotta put on more of a show,” you know? “You’re staring at the floor, too.” He really cared about the show and how to make it better."

A lot of people don’t realize he was a fair guitar player in his own right.

Eric -"Yeah."

Do you remember the last time you spoke with him?

Eric- "It was at one of my shows in Houston. That was probably a year or so before he passed away." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.201.17 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Filmography: Stalker 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.201.93 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Auric talk 00:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on about a description of the author of the column--not about whether the things said are true (no one is disputing the truth of the claims in question), but simply about whether the claims are *properly sourced*. The only sources I can find for most of the claims are, well, specific examples of the column in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In the page about General Barry McCaffrey, previous authors wrote extensively about Seymour Hersh's critique of the "left hook" attack that essentially ended the first Gulf War. Hersh's opinion column in New Yorker was first laudatory, then critical, and editor-in-chief David Remnick supported Hersh in an editorial in the same issue of the magazine. Hersh is a widely-respected author and a frequent critic of government actions.

The problem is that the account of Hersh's column was the ONLY discussion of the "left hook" attack, slanting the entire page away from General McCaffrey's accomplishments and toward appearing to be an article largely critical of General McCaffrey. That slant is not fair.

Tonight, I added extensive information about the "left hook" attack, putting together pieces from disparate sources on World Wide Web, since no single authoritative soure exists about the battle plan, its execution, and its aftermath.

I shall ask General McCaffrey for a copy of his after-action report entitled "24th Infantry Division Ground Operations." If that document still exists, it belongs in the public domain.

I did not subtract from the discussion of Hersh's column, but I added his initial laudatory comments as well as the above material and extensive additional references.

I hope that my additions "stick," and that we can re-shape the page to be fair to all parties.

Jay.wind (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have spent the past 4 or 5 days over on the Rupert Sheldrake article. I was going to jump in and help when I heard of the problem from the BBC coverage of the issue on the page. After going through it, I don't think I nor anyone can do much of anything and I don't want to get harassed like other editors who seem to jump in and help do. It's ridiculous to see what is happening there and no progress is getting made on very simple things like listing the man as a scientist with his proper degree, an argument going on for months now with no resolution. Rules are being stretched left and right. It's just a tit for tat that is going nowhere. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Philofellow...I have sadly spent the last month+ on this article, if only to prevent it becoming some sort of whipping post for radical 'scientific ideas'. Mr Sheldrake's page is becoming a war zone. His intro should ONLY contain his name, date of birth, job description, (that he is a scientist, was a scientist and will continue to be one regardless if certain people disagree with that point, he's referred to as such in a number of UK publications which I have already referenced, but have been ignored) and what he is famous for.... The problem is certain people don't agree with his theories, and think that scientists ONLY investigate certain areas of research, which completely misses the point. His name and data should be on this page, regardless of certain people's OPINIONS. It's now surfing very near to being libellous and as my husband is a lawyer and I'm a published author (so I'm very aware of libel issues) and have read most of Mr Sheldrake's books, I'm trying to help keep the peace and keep the intro on track but I was dismayed to read the words decidedly pseudo bla bla tonight and have made a revert, which I'm sure will be removed in less than a blink of an eye....I will persist, if only because I happen to like the man......This article is at pains to make Mr Sheldrake appear as some sort of wacky being, when in fact he's an intelligent, caring and interesting Human Being.....and since this is a biog of a LIVING person, surely we must be careful of certain people's opinions??/ I apologise for adding this comment here, but I added it at the end of this piece and it got rattled and wouldn't save so I've added it at the top of the page as it's extremely important to make sure a living biog article is not defamatory... xxxx Veryscarymary (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

VSM, you have been making the claims that the lead should be blanked for "potential libel" for a long time and you have been pointed to WP:LEAD and WP:BLP multiple times that the lead covers the important aspects of the subject of the article including any major controversies that are reliably sourced. Since Sheldrake's only notability is for the controversial pseudo-scientific works he promotes, they must be covered appropriately in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is entirely consistent with WP:FRINGE. Mainstream viewpoints are represented.

Isn't it strange how Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) turns up in November 2013 apparently partially familiar with Wikipedia policies? Weird. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the morphic resonance that people scoff at. Its obvious that the more people who know and use Wikipedia, the quicker new entrants will come being familiar with the systems. (except for some reason the mental block at comprehending WP:VALID never seems to go away) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, wikipedia, where editors are WP:NICE. Here is the second half of WP:VALID -- "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." (Translation: if it ain't mainstream, don't call it mainstream, nor imply it is.) "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them,"... (such as in an article about something completely unrelated per WP:ONEWAY) ..."and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

    There is nothing here that says, if you the editor dislike some of the ideas that some BLP has put forward, that you can omit Reliable Sources of your choice, cherrypick what facts to include in mainspace, and in general call anything reliably sourced you want to exclude WP:UNDUE. It is an absolute abuse of WP:VALID to say, that omit-stuff means we can downplay the fact the guy has a PhD, since if readers *knew* the guy had a PhD, that would unduly legitimize his work. Similarly, it is a horrid abuse of WP:FRINGE, to say that because *some* ideas are "accused of being pseudo" as Barney puts it below, that therefore every idea and every action and every BLP-detail are thus *also* now WP:FRINGE... including their religion, their mainstream professional credentials, and their philosophy-books... as opposed to just specifically their scientific-theories-or-pseudoscientific-concepts (which themselves must be kept firmly separated for folks like Sheldrake which have published both kinds of things).

    p.s. WP:AGF may help explain why PhilosophyFellow knows something about policy... just like myself, perhaps they read the five pillars prior to editing, and used their anon editing for some time, before signing up for a registered-username-account. But if you want to discuss who started editing when, introduced to wikipedia by whom, that info might be helpful in answering Roxy. Suggest instead that you stick to being WP:NICE and WP:AGF, plus specifically quote the sentences you are using to justify your actions, rather than always saying WP:PG is the justification for your actions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I still dont get where you are coming from. we cannot /not/ cover the fringe concept because that is why the subject is notable, and so we must cover it as the mainstream academics cover it - ranging from dismissing it as irrelevant to considering it harmful pseudoscience that misguides the public and leads them to not understand science.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the article is consistent with WP FRINGE but that's the problem. It's a BLP page, not a page about some spook hunting theory. Editors, especially the ones responding here, are twisting all kinds of logic to create an impression of a living person that flies in the face of proper encyclopedia editing. That's just one of the problems. The other problem is that no matter how many times new voices come into the page to state the blatantly obvious - editors get attacked or harassed or are given circular argumentation and no progress ever gets made. If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment over arguing something as simple as the first sentence in a BLP. The only solution at this stage is just block all current editors from the page for the next 30 days and let a new crop of editors not associated with either Psi or Skepticism and let them work it out. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people are so fanatically committed to declaring people in areas of interest to them as "fringe" that they constantly violate "Wikipedia" policy. Maybe you have to document the issues and take it to WP:ANI to get an article ban on them or a topic ban if there are a series of related articles. I don't think it would hurt to tell editors who tried to edit and were harassed off about the WP:ANI, would it? Sometimes it takes several anis and visits to noticeboards before people figure out there is real bias (and probably hidden COI?) involved in stifling WP:RS info about individuals. Biased editors often try to get long quotes of criticism in, without there being even a one or two sentence explanation of overall views. That's probably your problem too. CM-DC talk 21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) - the issue here is partly that a number of pointed criticisms have been made. It's not just "he's completely crazy" (I've left those out for BLP reasons). The criticism, repeated over and over again, is that his ideas on MR are so vague as to be worthless, and not scientific because they're not falsifiable and also not testable, inconsistent with existing scientific theories, and fail Occam's razor by invoking forces for which there is no evidence, avoiding peer review, and distorting the public's understanding of science. I've tried to find Sheldrake's responses to these criticism, but apart from one complaint that Steve Rose was basically being nasty to him, I can't really find where he's addressed it. WP:BLP doesn't mean whitewashing the article of all criticism (especially because if we don't summarise it and cite it and present it his fans try to claim said criticism doesn't exist). Yes, you are right that WP:ARB/PS applies and I wish it would be enforced more. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Every single statement in this diatribe is false. It's the criticisms of Sheldrake's theory that are "so vague as to be worthless." Morphic resonance is not only testable (and therefore by definition falsifiable) but has been put to the test several times, though of course any edit describing one of these tests is almost instantly reverted. Morphic resonance is in no way "inconsistent with existing scientific theories" and does not fail Occam's razor precisely because it does not invoke "forces for which there is no evidence." Sheldrake would love nothing more than to see his theory widely tested, with the results published in peer reviewed journals. I challenge you, Barney, to find a single source that provides substantive details behind any of these claims. And when you're done with that exercise in futility, how about reading one of Sheldrake's books, say, A New Science of Life? How about educating yourself on the man before disrupting his biography page? Editing the Sheldrake page requires two things: a knowledge of science and a knowledge of Sheldrake. I see no evidence of the latter in any of the editors currently controlling the page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) - so highlighting quite specific issues with philosophy of science is vague and meaningless is it? Just because this topic (philosophy of science, sociology of science, seems to be beyond your evidently meagre ability to understand basic topics, doesn't make it "vague and meaningless". Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To get specific, you need to explain why morphic resonance isn't testable despite many apparent tests having been conducted, which scientific theories it's incompatible with and what forces it invokes for which there is no evidence. Otherwise you're just repeating vague claims circulating in the media. While there's no reason the Sheldrake page can't include these claims, that doesn't mean we have to work under the assumption that they're true. When we do that, we're involving ourselves in a dispute rather than just reporting it. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney -- once again -- WP:NPA. "your evidently meager ability to understand basic topics". WP:ROPE. WP:NICE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:BLP is not a whitewash.

Philosophyfellow can you please state specifically what if anything is unsourced or is not representative of the mainstream academic perceptions of Sheldrake and his work? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia has a general problem with BLPs of the originators of or noted campaigners for fringe theories. Supporters of such theories regularly (but quite improperly) try to use the BLP as a way of sneaking in support for the theory. But opponents of such theories also regularly (and in my opinion equally improperly) try to disparage the BLP subject as a way of attacking the theory. Frequently such opponents "win", as it is relatively easy for them to quote policies usuch as WP:FRINGE in apparent support of their editing, but this approach is confusing, for example, Rupert Sheldrake with morphic resonance: a BLP is not an article about a scientific theory. Uninvolved editors need to watch carefully for both types of error. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones (talk) Yes, you put it more succinctly than I. A sense of neutrality is lost on the page and it's become a tit for tat between the skeptics and the supporters. Wikipedia not a place for that battleground and we have to watch this carefully. The fact that this made it to the BBC and I have since found a number of bloggers covering this issue for the past few months is sign enough that this battleground needs to stop. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathon is correct... and, if you look into the edit-history, there once *was* no conflation between the man and his theories. Over on deWiki, they still *have* two articles, but on enWiki there was an ill-advised merge-n-delete of the article covering morphic-stuff. Undoing that mistake was one of my first suggestions, but one of the editors involved in the merge-n-delete claims that Sheldrake-the-BLP and also Sheldrake-the-BLP's-theories-about-various-things must all be in the same article, because otherwise wikipedia will have a POV-fork. In other words, the *goal* seems to be the ability to apply WP:FRINGE to questions like the BLP's religious stance, and to whether or not the BLP has a PhD, and so on. If there were two articles or more articles, WP:FRINGE would only be rarely applicable. That said, there are deeper problems here, about whether or not wikipedia editors are permitted to discount reliable sources they disagree with, on that basis only. Especially, there are several attempts to discount *parts* of sources, through an abuse of WP:UNDUE. It is a sordid business, but many appearances at noticeboards, not to mention in the BBC and New Republic, have failed to bring sanity to the mainspace, or even the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the opening sentence, the conversation is only a day old. The root problem is that people either do not participate or do not participate constructively. vzaak (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The conversation is not a day old. If anyone goes through the talk section, they can see the same issue being addressed over and over in other topics going back some time. I went back a few months and it's the same questions and the same responses all with the same argument - 'Sheldrake cannot be listed as a biologist or a scientist even though the majority of all secondary sources refer to him this way as well as the primary sources because to do so would lend credibility to his work on morphic resonance'. Some editors at one point did not even want to refer to Sheldrakes 'Hypothesis of Formative Causation' as an actual hypothesis because that too would mislead readers on the page that the idea has scientific support. All one needs to do is collect the sources on the page that are being cited, find other proper RS sources and compare what the majority say. They say he is a biologist. They say he is doing scientific research. Because he is a biologist and because he is doing scientific research does not make his theories accurate. He could be absolutely wrong and still be a biologist doing scientific research into telepathy. If this page is having problems with the simple stuff like the opening sentence and can't use common sense to asses a sticky topic, the rest of the page is hopeless. Please, let's get these editors out of here and invite a new team to come in. This is becoming more about dynamics between editors and egos and it's never going to get resolved this way. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In that section I spent some time outlining the essential problem (conflicting sources) and presented possible solutions. However instead of engaging the issue, people are just asserting that their opinion is obviously correct and drawing caricatures of the other side. Both sides are doing this. vzaak (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any conflicting sources to Sheldrake either being a scientist or a biologist are in small number compared to the high number of quality sources that list him as such. How does Sheldrake list himself? As a a biologist. How many secondary sources support the primary source? Plenty. University of Cambridge should be enough, but even his most recent appointments list him that way. It would seem to make matters simple to list him as a biologist, or at least as a scientist which appeared to be the compromise before it was reverted. Any editors who have problems with morphic resonance or issues with Sheldrake performing faulty science can list those as quotes where relevant and that satisfies WP Fringe. This is such a simple issue to solve. If there are issues with conflicting sources, just use common sense and be careful not to interpret. The fact that the problems on the talk page prevent this easy step from occurring is why I think we need a change of the guard here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a simple issue, though people on both sides seem convinced that it is. Please, make your argument addressing conflicting sources at the talk page, not here. Remember I got reverted, too, after adding "scientist"; that is why that talk page section exists. If I add "scientist" again it would basically be warring. I wanted people to make arguments in that section, but that hasn't happened in any serious manner. vzaak (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't happened in any serious matter apparently for months. The warring has been going on for awhile. That's why we need to get a new team in here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The team is fine; it's just that policy does not support having an article that hides the contrast because Rupert's fringe views and those of mainstream science. MilesMoney (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If people are Not pushing a fanatical agenda, it should not be that difficult to have a description of what his views are and what the criticisms are, in a balanced manner. But when you find that people won't even admit what multiple solid refs show is their field of study or area of knowledge, then you have a major problem, just like you would if all criticisms were removed. I just read the Depak Chopra article "The Rise and Fall of Militant Skepticism" in the SF Gate about editing this and other articles about organized bias on wikipedia and I've found that problem in a number of areas. Let's be aware of it and figure out how to get editors to be more neutral - especially on BLPs. Unfortunately, as I found in editing a couple of them, some times threat of sanctions is the only thing that cools down temperatures. Trying not to get involved in more articles, but may take a look... CM-DC talk 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of organised sceptic activity on the Sheldrake page as suggested by all the gullible press reports, initiated by a blog post from a "psychic" editor? Instead of making wild accusations, present this evidence please. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

When you see the same issue jumping up on three noticeboards at once, you know something's up. And the description of issues above sounds like that. CM-DC talk 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Organised or not, one of the truly depressing things is that despite everyone seeming to recognise that there are differences that are being (re)hashed out on the talk page, a NPOV tag keeps coming and going at a dizzying rate - the very tag designed to alert readers to underlying disagreements of this nature! The Sokal/Dawkins stuff in the interactions section is a shameless display of WP:OR triumphing over WP:RS - how is is possible to edit constructively under such circumstances? Blippy (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone experienced with noticeboards should notice that this report is content-free—there are plenty of generic claims, but no specific issues. It's pretty simple: what text at Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP problem? Why?

@CM-DC: It would be better to examine the issues at the article before taking sides. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with @Johnuniq:. No specific issues have been mentioned. I read the article lede and everything seemed fine. What specific issues are there with this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well these responses are indicative of the problems faced. Numerous issues have already been flagged here. The NPOV tag, the Sokal & Dawkins content, the use of the word "theory" to describe MR, referring to Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist/biochemist. There are others. Or are you simply dismissing these out of hand as content-free generic non-specific issues? Blippy (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

THe issues, Blippy (talk · contribs) have been addressed. WP:IDONTHEARYOU isn't an excuse. You've been told why we can't call it a theory, you've been told why we can't use the Dawkins story, you've been told why we can't endorse him as a scientists if he is being accused of not doing science you've been told you must justify the NPOV tag with reference to sources and policy (especially WP:FRINGE). If these tired old refuted arguments are the best you can come up with, it's not good for your case now is it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, please remember that this is a new noticeboard, and that people who have not been following the Sheldrake talkpage since the sea-change in mainspace this summer, may not understand exactly what you specifically mean when you say the "issues have been addressed". Please give the one-or-two-sentence-each summary, for 1) why reliable sources that call Sheldrake a biologist are kept out of mainspace, 2) why reliable sources giving Sokal's actual *serious* views on Sheldrake's work are kept out of mainspace (different Sokal's purposely-false-views expressed in the hoax-paper as you well know), and in particular 3) why wikipedia cannot "endorse" him by calling him a scientist "if he is being accused of not doing science". Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others, and some reliable sources trump others? Wikipedia is supposed to describe the conflict in Reliable Sources, not pick the winner. This is no place to WP:RGW, and try to keep gullible readers from thinking Sheldrake might have highly respectable scientific credentials... *especially* when those credentials are the very reason his telepathy-like theories allowed him to co-author half a dozen books. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq (talk). The opening comment from myself lays it out pretty clearly. The very first opening sentence in the article is the problem in question. I specifically mentioned the issues with referring to him as either a biologist or a scientist. I'm not sure how much clearer it could have been but hope you have clarity now. Any issues being brought up about 'organized skepticism' on the page are irrelevant. Organized or not, there is a battleground happening on the page between two sides of an issue.

@Barney, you're not being very forthcoming here. The fact that you would even write 'he has been accused of not doing science so we can't refer to him as a scientist' is a perfect example of biased editing that doesn't serve Wikipedia well. Let's get a new team in here who are not so emotionally attached to the outcome or how the world perceives Rupert Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

calling or not calling someone "a scientist" is not a BLP issue. (particularly someone who has made their living for the past 30 years as a author) "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine any scientist would feel defamed if an article on Wikipedia claimed they were not a real scientist. Also, a BLP needs to be accurate, even if it's not libelous. Surely you are not suggesting that inaccuracies or misleading articles are acceptable as long as they are not defamatory, are you? Also, I have not seen one source that shows that Rupert Sheldrake has made his living for the past 30 years from writing books and has divorced himself from scientific research. The fact that these little opinions or interpretations of Sheldrake are making their way into a BLP is why we need a new team to come in and clean this mess up. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Show me where the article claims that he is not a scientist ( that is not a reliably sourced quote from an expert)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the editors who are claiming he is not a scientist doing real science and that claim informs the article. Diff 01 Anyone can see this diff which claimed he was a scientist was removed. Diff 02 citing the arguments listed here. Now he is not even listed as a researcher, just an author and lecturer. Surely any fair minded person would agree that it makes no sense to have either supporters or detractors inform the content of the article. Philosophyfellow (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article. You still have not identified any actual BLP concerns. You have identified that Sheldrake would like to have his article read as a promotional POV CV, but that doesnt really matter-we dont do that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: I could not ask for a more clear response that highlights the problem with biased editors in question. I rest my case. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

While the article never says "Sheldrake is not a scientist" the article's history is littered with examples of the word "scientist" or "biologist" being deleted or reverted with dismissive edit summaries. And the Talk page has whole sections devoted to hammering home the proposition that calling Sheldrake a scientist or a biologist violates WP:FRINGE. The same argument can be found in the archives. Also, easily found in the archives and edit history of the article are crusades against describing morphic resonance a theory or a hypothesis. TRPoD, you have made these arguments and edits. It's extraordinarily disingenuous for you to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article." I imagine that sentence is true. But it's misleading, in the extreme. DiffsExamples to follow. David in DC (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 1

Examples of disingenuousness on current talk page:
"scientists do not cling to magical proposals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)"
"He is NOT a "proponent of an alternative scientific world-view" and mis-labeling him as such in the lead sentence is a non-starter.WP:NPOV / WP:VALID his is a pseudo-scientific world view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"
"The intro sentence must provide a basic context around the subject and why they are notable. Sheldrake is notable because of his lecturing and writing on fringe subjects and the rejection of those subjects by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"
"Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_. "Hypothesis" has multiple meanings, some of which are completely inappropriate for this article. There are other words that do not contain the same chance of presenting words in a way that would be able to be misinterpreted by our readers. We take the path that avoids misinterpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)"
"and he may still be carrying out "research" but as has been shown multiple times, to call it "scientific" research is to put a false label on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
"I must have missed something. How does having a doctorate mean that everything that you do (even if what you are doing does not follow scientific standards) is qualified as scientific research? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
""resting your case" on Content in Wikipedia is a very tenuous position to put yourself in. He is now an author on parapsychology and not a scientist at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)"
David in DC (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard for everything posted in this section. Even if disingenuousness of editors on a talk page could be established, this is the BLP noticeboard and the only thing relevant would be to explain what existing text is a BLP problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, John. The heart of the problem with the page is a determined, tooth-and-claw effort to derogate this Living Person by marginalizing him. We must not call him a scientist. We must not call his idea a theory or a hypothesis. That approach might be OK on an article about Morphic resonance. But not in a Biography. We MUST treat biographies of living fringe theorists differently than we treat their theories. When a principal warrior appears on the BLP Noticeboard to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist"", that argument must be contradicted, in the same place. The examples above and the archived sections below establish, dispositively, that there are indeed ones (including TRPoD) trying to make this biography "say" that Sheldrake is not a scientist.David in DC (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A deletion of "Hypothesis"
and a couple of archived talk sections with TRPoD arguing vociferously against using "hypothesis" or "theory" to describe morphic resonance are sufficient to back my accusation of disingenuousnes of the sentence "But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article."
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Statement_by_TheRedPenOfDoom
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Decision
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Removing_reference_source_17:_Consensus_sought
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Morphic_resonance_as_.22alternative_theoretical_formulation.22
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Solidify_at_least_one_decision
David in DC (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, what exactly is the BLP issue of content in the article? (And I will fully stand by my analysis that "morphic resonance" should not be described as a "hypothesis" or "theory", terms which have multiple meanings most of which do not apply to the crackpot idea and we have words that better describe what MR is without the chance of misleading our readers to think it is something it is not and so we should use them.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that there are sufficient reliable sources to call Sheldrake a biologist. Deleting the word (or the word scientist) from the lede, as has been done repeatedly, is derogation of the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. His recent work is quite well contextualized in the subheds about his books, public appearances and interactions with other scientists. No sane reader could read the article and think he was anywhere but out on the fringe. Calling him a biologist, as the sources do, misleads no one. Neither does calling his theories "theories" nor his hypothesis a "hypothesis". A months-long campaign against these words violates BLP and brings disrepute on our project.

WP:FRINGE is not license to turn a BLP into an ATTACK piece. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and again, I am not seeing how not calling somebody a "scientist" and not calling something a "hypothesis" is either an ATTACK or a BLP issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear there is little understanding of that. It's why we need to get a new team in here who does. Philosophyfellow (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately TRiPod it is your willingness to "fully stand by [your] analysis" that is symptomatic (causal?) of the problem. Editors are performing WP:OR and analysis instead of simply relying on WP:RS's. There are umpteen WP:RS's which refer to Sheldrake as a scientist, biochemist, biologist. There are as many more with refer to MR as a theory and/or hypothesis. However you continue to insist that your analysis is what matters. This is not how WP operates, despite your (and others) insistence that it does. The Sokal & Dawkins interaction pieces suffer from exactly the same problem. In fact, the problem also arises in the insistence to not allow a stand alone article on MR to exist despite it being so prominent in so many different fora. Blippy (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Blippy is making a valid point, and as for TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's comment about the innocuous nature of removing descriptors, they change the entire context of the discussion and role of those involved. "The man had an idea about eggs" connotes some clueless guy who's hungry, "the scientist had a theory/hypothesis about eggs" connotes an academic who had a structured, researched argument about bird embryos.

Whether that structure stands up to scrutiny and that argument is correct is irrelevant, the issue is that descriptors matter and their use or abuse reflects the legitimacy of the BLP they're present in. The Cap'n (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and per WP:VALID, Sheldrake is hungry. show that there is any significant or even "minor" support in the mainstream academic community for Sheldrakes WP:REDFLAG ideas. using terminology that promotes otherwise is the violation of NPOV and BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of WP:WIKILAWYERING, but WP:'s have been bandied around pretty loosely as a justification for just about everything, so let's take a look at the text of the two links you attached. WP:REDFLAG is referring to editors making fringe claims about legitimate topics, not to the articles on fringe claims themselves. Thus someone who tries to edit the JFK page to say Kennedy was killed by the Illuminati would be a red flag, but the page on the Illuminati itself would not. In the same way no one is not making fringe claims about Sheldrake, but rather reporting accurately on a man who has made fringe claims. There's an important distinction in the burden of proof.

As for WP:VALID, it says:

"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." (emphasis added)

The focus is on neutrality, balanced legitimacy and context, not on restricting any factual information that might legitimize the subject. 2/3 of Sheldrake's article is contextual info about his contested place in the scientific community, so there is no case to be made for his legitimacy being misconstrued unduly. For this article to be a legitimate BLP, we cannot fall into the trap of using WP:VALID & WP:REDFLAG to justify violating NPOV. There is no danger of Sheldrake being depicted as mainstream, no language indicative of misrepresentation and no reason to avoid descriptors that are sourced and common sense. The Cap'n (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but is any text currently at Rupert Sheldrake a violation of WP:BLP? If so, what text, and why. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to prove a negative. The problem isn't in the current words of, for example, the lede. The problem is the routine deletion of words from the lede. Important words for making this article BLP-compliant are absent, because FRINGE-fighters wheel war to revert or delete them. Here's an example, just from the lede, although they happen throughout the article.

In the lede, the BLP violations are what happens when someone tries to call Sheldrake a biologist or his work a theory. I've just done both, because fixing a BLP violation does not require consensus. I hope to be proven wrong, but I expect to be reverted. David in DC (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing that you certainly HAVENT done is show the affirmative that Sheldrake has any size support in the mainstream academic community - Please provide some before you keep claiming there is ANY POV problems in the article's presenting of him as someone without support in the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My similar efforts have been reverted persistently, so I will be (pleasantly) surprised if yours aren't! WP:BLP is predicated on NPOV, NOR, and V. All the claims mentioned above fall under these three policy areas. The Sokal bit is an obvious piece of OR, as is this bizarre notion that Sheldrake not be referred to as a scientist/biologist/biochemist, and that his theory not be described as a theory. We know it's OR because of all the Verifiable sources that use this language. Sokal arguably violates NPOV too, since it only serves to link Sheldrake to a hoax that he had no part in i.e. a smear. NPOV is also relevant to the exclusion of the Dawkins incident (which satisfies WP:V) since Dawkins is critical of Sheldrake and this incident provides an important (according to RS's) example of how he has had to defend himself against "abuse"^[1] and "prejudice"^[2] that have been "have been unfair and uninformed"^[3]. How is it presenting a fair and balanced view of things to exclude such things? And as for this odd notion that there is some sort of OTHER standard of proof that has to be satisfied for Sheldrake, where does that come from? This is BLP. The Sheldrake page is not a FRINGE page - Sheldrake is real, so is his life, so are his efforts/work, and his reception. We don't pretend the controversy doesn't exist or that because not everyone agrees with him that he therefore doesn't exist or do anything of NOTE. There are multiple RS's for the suggested edits. End of story. Blippy (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you for providing the evidence to show that there is not any mainstream support of his ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and please provide a rationale for why including Chopra's criticism of Dawkins that only includes Chopra and Sheldrakes take on something Dawkins decided not to do (not include Sheldrake in his TV show) in the article about Sheldrake is a BLP compliant action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the BLP problem. [3]. It took about an hour. Using the words misleads no one and does not violate WP:FRINGE. Deleting them is derogatory toward the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. Fixing WP:BLP violations does not require consensus. But it's impossible to fix them here, because of determined edit-warring by editors with a skeptical POV. WP:NPOV would be to call him a biologist (or scientist), call his ideas hypotheses (or theories) and use the body of the article to tell the story of his life, including the voluminous (and accurate - I'm not a Sheldrake acolyte) material from reliable sources critiquing the ideas he promotes that are deeply flawed. Adding material opposing the theories is totally justifiable. Derogating the living person by deleting reliably sourced biographical info about him is not. David in DC (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

we do not participate in Sheldrakes promotion of pseudoscience by using scientific terminology where non-scientific terminology is not only adequate but more accurate. There is no BLP violation in using more accurate terminology.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Your terminology and phraseology are wholly inappropriate, judgemental and biased. (2) Describing Sheldrake's views does not "participate" in the "promotion" of his ideas, any more than the Wiki article about the Nazis does the same. (3) Using scientific terminology does not lend undue credibility to his ideas, any more than, for example, the use of the word "theory" to described "Phlogiston theory" or "Nordström's theory of gravitation". Likewise the suggestion is contradicted by a source that you offered,[4] ie. Rose's paper[5] which uses the term "hypothesis" extensively, but leaves the reader in no doubt of his position against Sheldrake's views. (4) NPOV describes views neutrally, not judgementally, ie. without bias (WP:NPOV, first sentence.) --Iantresman (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and it was bound to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic correction: Godwin's law specifically requires that one side *call* the other side a Nazi, or at least, imply that the other side is no better than the fuhrer. Iantresman is not calling anybody that, or even coming close to implying that; they could just have easily said that the Sarah Palin article is fair, or the Barack Obama article is fair... or what the heck, even that the Kim a-new-star-appeared-in-the-heavens-the-day-he-was-born Jong-il BLP article is fair, compared to the one-sided Sheldrake article. Quite frankly, the articles on the national socialist party, and on the fuhrer, are written by pansies, people afraid to say what those folks *really* did.

  Folks defending the Sheldrake mainspace as NPOV, please, compare the Rupert Sheldrake article to the Charles Hapgood article, two scientists gone to the dark side, and notice the difference in tone, and one-sided-ness. That is the point Iantresman was trying to make: we treat the nazis more fairly than Sheldrake, and they are all dead, so BLP restrictions do not even apply. The problem is not that Sheldrake is pure as driven snow, the problem is the mindset that sources agreeing with Sheldrake, about anything whether it be his academic credentials or his telepathy-theories, simply because they agree with Sheldrake about anything at all, therefore must be fringe. This is a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which demands we reflect the reliable sources, all of them, not just ones we prefer, not just ones that are true, but all of them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And indeed it did. Perhaps if you could address what appears to be a common sense rebuttal to your argument instead of offering snarky commentary the page could actually get somewhere instead of being stopped for personal reasons. That fact that some editors are unable to progress their arguments past a reasonable point informs us that we need to get a team in here who can. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 2

As an uninvolved party, maybe I can help propose a compromise acceptable to both sides. This is, in one sense, and unusual dispute because it is not as much between advocates of different views of the article subject, but instead between advocates of different policies. After reading the dispute and related materials, the issues appear to be simply:

1. Should Sheldrake be described in the led as some flavor of scientist?
2. Should morphic resonance be described as a theory or hypothesis?

Sheldrake is currently described as: "an English author and lecturer on science-related issues" I see nothing in MOS:LEAD, WP:MOSBIO, WP:FRINGE, or WP:BLP that suggests this is an unacceptable or derogatory description. It is eminently neutral and clearly identifies his current, primary activities. Sheldrake may call himself a scientist, but we are under no obligation to favor the subject's views about themselves in any description them. Removing the word "biologist" or its variations from the first sentence is especially not a problem when the immediately following sentence identifies him as a "biologist," "biochemist," and "plant physiologist." If the various advocates are dead set on integrating biologist into the first sentence, then perhaps, "an English former biologist who currently writes and lectures on science-related issues," would bridge the gap.

The dispute over the use of "theory" versus "idea" is one that appears to depend on different definitions of "theory." In one sense, both are correct. American Heritage Dictionary variously defines "theory" as:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. (skipped)
3. (skipped)
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation
5. (skipped)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

From his detractors' perspective, Sheldrake's morphic resonance clearly fits one of the latter two definitions. From his own point of view, it clearly fits the first. Regardless, using the world "theory" is a fitting description. It implies no endorsement unless one is determined to ignore the clear qualifiers that contextualize the way morphic resonance is described in the article. "Idea," by contrast, strikes me as not sufficient to describe the primary intellectual activity that the subject is engaged in. Either way, the point is not so much about the inadequacy of "idea" as the adequacy of "theory." "Theory" means both what supporters and detractors want it to mean. The difference in views is more about the connotation of this word than the denotation. Connotations are of primary linguistic importance when other context is lacking, which is not the case here. I hope this helps the involved editors reach consensus. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While I think the first part of your analysis is correct, the second part is not. As a pseudo-scientist, Sheldrake is laying a fake scientific veneer over non-scientific acts. We should not be collaborating in such a process by using terms which have among their meanings some that are specific to the scientific arena and applying the words in a manner which supports a casual lay reader into assuming that Sheldrakes ideas are more scientific than they are, particularly when we can appropriately use terms (like idea or concept) that will not inappropriately promoting the misunderstanding of science and the place of Sheldrakes pseudoscience ideas in the world of actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake[6] and others[7][8] tend to use "hypothesis", which is a compromise in the sense it is not quite a theory, and more than just an idea. --Iantresman (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I can see how this may seem like a helpful offer, but I am not sure it addresses the problems raised by others. The issue some editors are having is that WP is choosing to remove his credentials as a scientist so as to frame his entire biography as having little integrity to make the claims Sheldrake makes. That's the issue. It's not between supporters of WP policy, it's the question "Is Sheldrake credible as a scientist to question the foundations of science and perform research into telepathy or promote his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance?" As you can imagine - that's a debate editors should not be having, especially when sources conflict. The editors on the other side are providing sources that support removing scientist or biologist, but these sources are opinionated sources. If the truth be known, there are sources out there that could support both sides of the argument, making this more complex than it appears to a new reader. There are no reliable sources that suggest Sheldrake is no longer doing science. All reliable sources list Sheldrake as a biologist who is currently doing research into claims of telepathy in animals and humans. There is a conflation between the *type* of research Sheldrake is doing, which is on the fringes of science, with the quality of research he is performing.

In terms of referring to 'hypothesis' or 'theory' - it is entirely neutral to refer to his Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance as an hypothesis, because again primary sources support this as well as secondary sources. It's also the title of his Book, The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. And technically it is an hypothesis and Sheldrake never refers to it as a theory. Sheldrake has a BA in Philosophy from Harvard as well as his own PhD in Biochemistry. There are no sources, or any precedent that I am aware of that support stripping Sheldrake of his academic credibility as a primary source especially when secondary academic sources support it.

So essentially we have editors on the one side who consider Sheldrake to be performing a kind of fraud by pulling the wool over people's eyes, and on the other side editors who believe that such a treatment of Sheldrake is biased, turning this whole issue into an ideological battleground that has no place on Wikipedia. Remember, this is a BLP, so it's very important we get it right, not to just protect the reader, but to protect the living person. The fair treatment would be to list Sheldrake as his credentials suggest and state very clearly the opposing side of the issue with proper sources. We can't choose one over the other, that's what's happening in this battlefield. We have to present both. It's the only way to stay neutral. And it's also the simplest solution.

Thanks for your good work though. I hope you stick around. FYI I keep telling myself I am done with this. I may step away from this I can see why so many are getting rattled. It's a frazzling situation. Hopefully this is my final word on the issue :) Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears the leading advocates are both opposed to the suggested compromise. I'm not sure this is a sign that it is a bad suggestion or, possibly, a sign it is an actual compromise. What I am sure of is that positions are hardening, and further discussion between these two parties is unlikely to establish a consensus in the absence of other voices. I suggest the way out may be for an RfC be opened on these two points and both agree to abide by those RfC results. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I admire your boundless sense of optimism, Eggishorn. How it survives the treatment of your eminently reasonable compromise proposal, I cannot fathom. But admire it, I do. Thank you for trying. David in DC (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Eggishorn, your points are well-taken, but in this case compromise on particular content-positions is 100% premature; any content-discussion will result in hardening of positions, and permanent grudges, methinks. The policy-misunderstanding must be fixed, first. Apologies for the wall-of-text; David can translate, if necessary, he speaks pidgin-74-eze.

  This they simply cannot do; so sayeth pillar two. After *that* WP:CHERRYPICKING problem is well and truly settled, then -- and only then -- will settling the content-disputes even begin to be possible. (The skeptics firmly believe that taking a pro-Sheldrake quote... or even a neutral-towards-Sheldrake quote... and an anti-Sheldrake quote... from the SAME SOURCE... is cherrypicking on the part of the apparently-vastly-numerous-army of Sheldrake fanbois! To include impeccably-neutral David our BLP specialist... not to mention recent arrivals like myself, PhilosophyFellow, TheCapn, etc... when in fact the *actual* Sheldrake fanbois were harried off wikipedia long ago.) I predict content-disputes will evaporate, nigh-instantaneously, compared to the past four months of WP:battleground, once the core problem of we-are-not-cherrypicking-because-fringe-redflag-pseudo is finally resolved.

  If the core question is left unsolved, namely, whether there *is* in fact a skeptic point-of-view, or not, and if so, whether SkePOV is, or is not, straight-up *identical* to NPOV... lacking those answers, Sheldrake's BLP will be at the noticeboards indefinitely, until enough editors from one faction of this four-sided conflict die of old age, or ArbCom intervenes... but note that if SkePOV==NPOV, the *meaning* of the 2010 decision changes greatly. Hope This Helps. Arthritis. Making. It. Hard. To. Type. Please. End. The. Madness.... —74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr, but actually we are required to weigh and give value to the sources, and give more weight to the peer reviewed academic sources as per POLICIES: WP:REDFLAG, WP:VALID, and Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortuantely we have lots of reliable secondary sources that have done that for us, which I have listed here(permalink). Of course we should state the position of the few academic primary sources we have, and we should look at any secondary sources you provide. I have been requesting them for some time now. --Iantresman (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried. So many sticks, so little life left in the poor equine. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging according to publish or perish, is Sheldrake dead or alive as a scientist? Is he dead or alive as a pseudoscientist? Mind you that biology as a science is not concerned telepathy and does not research it, instead parapsychology (a pseudoscience) does that. You speak of science and of organized skepticism. Well, science is organized skepticism. So pretending that scientists should not be skeptical is like pretending that the Pope should not be a man. If Sheldrake is the victim of organized skepticism this proves that he isn't a scientist (if he ever was one). Scientists actually benefit from organized skepticism and are required to organize themselves as skeptics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake publishes, of course... and notability is not temporary... but since you asked: philosophy-of-science (2012 book), parapsychology (previous two books), phytomorphology-and-pseudophysics(first two books), theology(two co-authorships). According to Iantresman, he has published reasonably-mainstream-scientific papers in 2012/2010/2009, and in the previous millenium published something like fifty indisputably-mainstream-science papers. Sheldrake is also still invited to lecture, including during the past few years, about his mainstream-bio-research axion-phytomorphology stuff. But the problem here is not whether Sheldrake "is" a scientist, based on logical reasoning by wikipedians, which is WP:OR. (( If you **want** that, my own take is he's a semi-active scientist mostly constrained by funding rather than ability, and a *very* active parapsychologist -- but not as active as he would like to be -- again the funding-constraints play a key role. His redoubled notoriety in 2012 and 2013 methinks are an attempt to generate publicity, book sales, and thereby research-funding, for both his science-and-his-psuedoscience. ))

  The core problem is sticking to *ALL* the Reliable Sources, and never trying to eliminate those some subset of the *editors* happen to disagree with. The related problem is trying to apply the pseudo label *outside* the realm of science-based-claims itself: if Sheldrake's subquantum physics is pseudo per Reliable Sources, well then fair enough... but that does not mean his PhD is now pseudo too, nor that his books on spirituality are now pseudo, nor that his position on how research-funding-infrastructure ought to be reformed is somehow pseudo-politics-of-science! WP:FRINGE is being abusively expanded way beyond the question of is-he-or-is-he-not-currently-a-scientist. p.s. Sheldrake claims to be attacked by Organized Skeptik Konspirators... see my WP:OR for this above... but the truth is, the Sheldrake BLP article is (just since ~July 2013... contrast with deWiki on the same topic) an un-centrally-organized emergent phenomena, of personally-skeptical editors that simply deeply misunderstand the very-restricted scope of WP:FRINGE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is not a "very narrow and limited scope" for WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID / WP:PSCI (part of the POLICY level document) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision. There are many people who seem to fail to either understand or acknowledge that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has been withdrawn.

I believe that we are back where we started with a "complaint" about a BLP issue that has not defined or identified any actual BLP issue with the article. Can a neutral admin please close this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

A sockpuppet investigation has been created for Philosophyfellow, the originator of this BLPN thread. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman. vzaak (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Tumbleman (talk · contribs) and has been blocked. vzaak (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A new arbitration request...

has been filed here. David in DC (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on at Alexander Hamilton in which one editor USER:Pmanderson repeatedly removes a quotation about Hamilton by historian Sean Wilentz (who won the Pulitzer prize) saying that it is "defamatory" of Wilentz to quote him. The other editors all disagree and say the quotation is proper and should be kept. The talk page shows Pmanderson had been highly antagonistic for years on the Hamilton article and in 2012 was banned for one year for his disruptions on another article. We need a determination by this board whether the added text is "defamatory" re Wilentz or not. The disputed text is this:

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor, even though Wilentz himself does not go along with it:

"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property." [ref] Sean Wilentz, "Book Reviews," Journal of American History Sept, 2010 v. 97# 2 p 476[/ref] [end of text] Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is indeed conducting an edit war. He is quoting out of context to add undue weight to his party position. Wilentz's review is available [9]; for those to whom this is not accessible, I quote a summary of the review by a third editor: " there are in fact two moderately-opposing perspectives on how to summarize Hamilton it seems to me like it is important to be fair. I think there is no further citation needed, because actually the rest of the article cited does make clear (fairly clear) Wilentz's point of view. The citation is a book review, and Wilentz says this about the author (Gordon S. Wood) in regard to the quote: "Wood differs sharply from these current interpretations and also with most previous ones." Then Wilentz goes on to praise Wood's point of view, making fairly clear where he (Wilentz) falls. It is interesting what Wilentz says in the last sentence of the review, by the way: "It is a mark of Wood's achievement that historians will be arguing with his interpretations, and learning from them, for a very long time to come." " Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pmanderson repeatedly erases the text because he says it is "defamatory". He will not say on the talk page or here why it is defamatory to quote a scholar. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton has been dead for 209 years so I'd say that's well outside of what the BLP policy considers "recently deceased". Take it to DRN instead, or file an ANI report if merited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wilentz is the living person in question here, but I fail to see how it is "defamatory" to quote him accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

John Rhys-Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A SPA posted this Talk:John Rhys-Davies#Edit request 29 November 2013 today. I can't find anything to confirm the info so I thought I would ask the members of this wikiproject to take a look at things and add your input as you see fit. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Article suffers from a number of issues. Lacks inline citations which makes it unclear where information comes from, including potentially libelous information on criminal history and the shooting death of his sister. Article also has NPOV concerns that date back to October 2010. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be poorly sourced and rather offensive... Cogito-Ergo-Sum 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made by User:I Am Peripatetic and 108.182.106.111; false information had been added on several occasions in the last two years and was still there, and the references had been removed in one of the IP edits. Peter James (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation for the following sensational statement seems odd: "Rahman was born with an extra finger on each hand and without the male appendage. He was born with testis, however the penis was absent. Surgeons amputated the extra fingers, and used the tissue and skin from one of the fingers to replace the missing penis, and thus attached the deboned finger to the penal shaft.[10]"

Footnote 10 links to a purported AlJazeera article, but only a Scribd version of the the article (with many typos) and not a link to AlJazeera was provided. Further, running a google search for the name of that article produces no results. While it is possible that the citation provided is to a translation of an article (perhaps) only available in Arabic, it just seems unlikely that such a sensational story is not publicized elsewhere (besides the fact that AlJazeera has a strong web news presence and theoretically would have a link to this story, given that it was allegedly written a few days ago); especially if the subject spent a significant part of his life in an English-speaking country (assuming the other details of the article are accurate).

It's a fake news article, as are the others on the Scribd page, probably from a "newspaper generator" site. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal website link is broken. Website linked no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.210.213 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The website exists - a space was missing between the URL and text of the link. Peter James (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some experienced eyes, specifically on the criticisms and controversies section, are likely needed. I can't tell if anything about NAMBLA should be included, if it's that noteworthy, etc. But it does seem poorly presented. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

On Talk:George Zimmerman, a dynamic IP has been repeatedly inserting content similar to this. Probably either watchful WP:DENY or protected changes on the talk page are needed since it would be inadvisable to block the /16 owned by the University of Oregon (however, all so far seem to have come from 140.211.66.x and 140.211.67.x, so there may be a much smaller range that could work). VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is that edit a blockable violation of BLP policy? Yes, it is hostile, sarcastic, and angry in tone. Yes, it is a comment about the subject instead of a comment about the subject article. Yes, it was neither NPOV nor verifiable. That all said, how is it defamatory or libelous or in any other way an "egregious" violation of WP:BLP? It was correctly removed from the talk page and life carries on. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a blockable offense. The person who made this notice simply polices the discussion board of that page, and is hypervigilant in not allowing critical views of George Zimmerman to be included in the article. This person is a supporter of George Zimmerman and doesn't like anything critical to be inserted into the article about George Zimmerman. When something critical about George Zimmerman arises in a notable news source (that is, in a source that is hard to discredit), this person ridicules the news source and tries to portray George Zimmerman as the victim -- and on that basis attempts to build an argument that notable sources shouldn't be included in the article when they are critical of George Zimmerman. Re-examine that section in question and you will see this person making comments that do not belong on the discussion page either (references to the girlfriend as being in hot water and losing credibility), comments portraying George Zimmerman as something of a victim of a smear campaign conducted by his ex-girlfriend, the police, and the media. 208.54.32.210 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The above, by 208.54.32.210, is un-constructive and borders on being a personal attack. The claims of hyper-vigilance are out of place. The notion of being a "supporter of George Zimmerman" is unclear to the point of meaninglessness. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly a personal attack to make the observation that this editor is among two or three of the editors of this page who makes it difficult to insert anything critical of Zimmerman into the page. It was a struggle to even get a picture of Zimmerman inserted. I believe this editor even tried to get Zimmerman's mugshot deleted from Wikipedia because it was "disparaging" to have it on Wikipedia. As to the comment about hyper vigilance, this editor's page makes reference to their tendency to monitor new pages. Observation (backed up by evidence), not personal attack. (One of the other editors of this page who makes it difficult to insert critical information is a self proclaimed "masculinist" and guns rights supporter.) 208.54.32.210 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of a mugshot is legitimate enough that someone who argues it is not a vandal. We have WP:MUG for a reason. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I never said this person was a vandal. I said they were hyper vigilant on the George Zimmerman page, and I backed up that claim by, (1) referencing said editor's user page where he identified himself as monitoring new pages (which the Zimmerman page is), and (2) by noting that this editor attempted to have the Zimmerman mug shot deleted, claiming it was "defamation" to have it on Wikipedia, a nomination that was denied because it is clear to most people that having a mug shot of George Zimmerman on Wikipedia is entirely logical as he is known solely as the defendant of a murder trial. Certainly there is a reason that Wikipedia has guidelines for mugshots, and as per community consensus is George Zimmerman meets the guidelines for having a mug shot on Wikipedia. Thank you. 172.56.8.27 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Vipin Brar has not done anything substantial to be given space on wikipedia, he has no contribution for veterinary profession . I was part of this movement and know this person. The citation are not showing his involvement in any matter. Kindly review and delete his webpage. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Only 2 of the 10 cited sources mention the subject of this article; one is the subject's own Web site, and the other claims to be a newspaper article but is a link to a privately hosted JPEG image, not the newspaper's site, and contains typographical errors that bring its authenticity into question. As a BLP, this article should be, at the very least, cleaned up to remove information about various events described but not demonstrably linked to the subject, and possibly deleted altogether. In the meantime, I have placed Template:BLP noticeboard on the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• The editor who reviewed the original AfC of this article had reservations about many aspects of this article (discussed with the editor who created it here[10] and elsewhere on his Talk page) that seemingly remain unresolved (but it was created just the same). Dwpaul ^Talk 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• The only one of the references (that is not the subject's Web site) that actually mentions the subject of the article[11] appears to contain a falsification. It claims to be a reproduction of a page from the Hindustan Times. However, the email address "chdnewsdesk@gmail.com" appearing in the JPEG image does not appear on any HT articles. The site uses chdnewsdesk@hindustantimes.com in its bylines.[12] Dwpaul ^Talk 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you take this matter to Articles for Deletion as claims of non-notability are not a BLP issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vipin Brar. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

She recently made her same-sex relationship public without identifying with any particular sexual orientation, and now there is the usual debate over categories. Discussion at Talk:Maria Bello#Lesbian Actress? Siawase (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a single line in one source so far that states only:"Event organizers identified the second victim as Roger Rodas"[13]. Is that really enough to call that an accurate fact right now? That looks very much like gossip we would not mention yet, until an official announcement.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• This appears to be confirmed and therefore is not a BLP concern now.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

A person appearing to be Mr. Barresi has appeared on Jimbo's talk page, and on the talk page of the article, to dispute its contents. The article seems well-sourced, but nevertheless over half of it is negative. I think it might be helpful if outside editors would examine this article for neutrality. Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

There is a "BLP violation" argument being made that any references to the Franklin allegations: testimony, court proceedings, official legislature statements, etc. which call into question the trial verdict or nature of the trial in general, can not be added to the article because, even though none of the accused individuals are mentioned, someone may infer that this implicates one of the living accused by extension. (Larry King)

While I can understand how someone may logically infer this connection, but I am also certain that this is an unfair and unreasonable abuse of Crying BLP. The Franklin child abuse allegations are much larger in scope than a single person. They involve many diverse parties, investigative committees, witnesses, courtroom proceedings, interactions, media reactions, etc. These references include official legislative statements reliably sourced by mainstream newspapers.

It seems very unreasonable that BLP should be able to block reliable information about a subject, a subject far greater in scope than the 'living person', when the 'living person' is not even mentioned in those references.

The dispute is over this edit and the following references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations&oldid=583149106

The Legislature's Franklin Committee, officially charged with the investigation, criticized a grand jury's conclusion that child-sexual-abuse allegations against prominent men amounted to "a carefully crafted hoax." [7] Former State Senator Loran Schmit, a member of the Franklin legislative committee, testified that he still found credible the sexual-abuse allegations. "It would be very difficult for them, in my opinion, to make up those stories," Schmit testified in the Douglas County District Court perjury trial of Alisha Owen. [8] The Franklin legislative committee expressed concern that the grand jury indicted two people who said they were victims of or witnesses to sexual abuse. "Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci are charged with perjury and Troy Boner and Danny King are not," the Franklin legislative committee report said. "As we see it, the victims who stand by their story are charged with perjury, while those that have admitted to false statements before the committee are not. That makes little sense to us. Either all of them should have been indicted or none of them. The message is mixed and appears to favor encouraging the recanting as a way to avoid the hazards of criminal prosecution. It also tells persons they can lie under oath to legislative committees, so long as they change their story by the time they get to court. Neither message is a good one." [9]

70.16.207.76 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This IP editor has been over at that page being nothing but disruptive. This may be a first in that someone that wants to violate BLP and particularly BLPCRIME has decided that the best venue to seek assistance in this endeavor is here.--MONGO 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor was specifically told to bring the issue here by an admin.

This issue was already addressed. The content that keeps trying to get introduced has been removed many times over the years as can be seen in the archive. Even Jimbo stubbed before, I believe. The quotes above are completely without context with an attempt to smear. Just a cursory review of the archives and other sources confirms the cherry-picking and story telling that is necessary to perpetuate hoaxes and conspiracy theories. It does so at the expense of living people and our BLP and BLPCRIME policy. Please close. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Flonight deleted it to eliminate all the BLP issues and NuclearWarfare recreated it as a stub....then the conspiracy theory POV pushers showed up and slowly made the article a wreck again.--MONGO 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The above users are the ones accused of Crying BLP, so obviously they can not be expected to moderate the issue. As user DHeyward claims, because someone may draw an inference to an accused party, absolutely no general statements on the trial can be discussed, despite the fact that these statements come from official legislature and are widely discussed within the mainstream media, and contain no mention of any living persons. These users are essentially demanding practically the entire encyclopedic knowledge of a major state-wide event be censored because someone may indirectly draw inference to a living person who was only partially involved and not even mentioned in said references. This is certainly an abuse of BLP.

Furthermore: Comments pertaining to this issue have now been deleted from the Talk page, comments from myself and user JodyB who was actually agreeing with the BLP violation. So someone is deleting Talk comments from both sides of the argument.

I believe both the article and the now-vandalized talk page are in serious need of moderation. Thank you. 70.16.207.78 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish...the only thing removed from the talkpage was some of your trolling.--MONGO 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The comments that you vandalized were part of a reasonable discussion on BLP violation, and contained a specific WP policy citation on potential abuse of BLP. The comments have now been restored for anyone else to read. 70.16.207.78 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll stub the article out and have semi-protection applied to the article to prevent your further disruption. You have the BLP policy backwards....but you either don't care, haven't read it or you're a buffoon.--MONGO 14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests in Talk for over a month, none of the above have quoted a single specific BLP policy that is being violated. Editors keep referring to personally "know[ing] that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory,"[14] straw man arguments[15] or umbrella claims of BLP violations. The majority of the edits being reverted, such as the timeline of the investigation[16], the Nebraska Foster Care Board's mention of the laws specifically changed as a result of the Franklin case[17] and an edit replacing a claim not in the source with the one that actually was[18], does not involve, mention, imply or refer to any of the accused so I fail to see how these are a BLP violation as claimed[19]. Despite claims of rampant edit warring, after edits have been reverted it has generally been taken to the talk page for discussion yet the first time the page was locked[20] there was no edit warring at all while the second time[21] it was locked it was not for warring as claimed, the IP reverted two reverts, the first was replacing the edit with extra refs[22] while the second was replacing the edit after removing text that he thought may be a BLP violation[23], both good faith edits based on the low quality of the information given to him. I believe the problem is the lack of reliable reasoning by the opposing editors, is it any wonder the IP and myself can't pin down what the problem is? Wayne (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Numerous editors over the years have repeatedly explained to you why your argument is against policy, but you refuse to understand it. The article had to be deleted and then recreated as a stub to eliminate all the BLP violations you and others had swamped the article with. Now it's again shortened but has some of the issues that weren't in the original stub...but that's not enough for you as expanding on the conspiracy theories and violating BLP seems to be your goal.--MONGO 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you refuse to tell a new editor what specific policies he is violating so that he can comply, especially as he has attempted to work with you. Your continuing incivility[24] makes it even harder to accept good faith on your part. You still refuse to say what specific policies were violated with those three reliably sourced edits I made.
I challenge you to show that these three edits[25][26][27] are a violation of BLP or anything to do with conspiracy theories as you claim[28]. Wayne (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also an explanation would be nice for your deletion of long standing text. It was first deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with an added ref[29] only to see you delete it again with the comment "revert per BLP [as] it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". The O. J. Simpson murder case has an entire section for his civil trial guilty verdict[30] yet he was found innocent at a court trial which carries considerably more weight than a Grand Jury finding which does not have court oversight. Wayne (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific policies...how many times does BLP have to be explained? JodyB pointed out BLPCRIME, Tom Harrison explained things as did DHeyward...in the past other editors and administrators have explained these matters to you...but you're not paying attention. This isn't the only time you fail to understand the policies over the years. Someone trying to work with me...neither you nor the IP have shown anything other than a disregard for the repeated efforts of others to explain things. Your POV pushing of fringe nonsense in this article and articles such as Kerry and Kay Danes (Which Jimbo Wales ended up stubbing) indciates you have an agenda here that is incompatible with our policies. The edit you made here is immaterial and nothing but innuendo and a BLP violation...but you don't understand that either because you are incapable or deliberately want to violate policy. As is true with those that oftentimes promote fringe and conspiracy theories, you find the fanatsy more interesting than the truth, but this website doesn't exist to promote falshoods in the manner and way you want to promote them, which is to do so as if these fantasies are in fact reality.--MONGO 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So you decline to justify the reversions and choose to continue your tactic of making personal and Ad hominem attacks instead. There is nothing fringe in the three Franklin edits I made as they are simply reliably sourced statements of fact making no false or unsupported claims. I again challenge you...prove those edits are "fanatsy" (sic) or stop being so childish. JodyB, Tom Harrison and DHeyward are all friends of yours (according to the editor interaction tool) who came to the page specifically to support you, none explained what the problem was in any more detail than you did. We need independent editors to cite specific policy violations. Wayne (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, please take the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations off of your watchlist. No good can come from your continued activism on that page. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you showing bad faith by making an ad-hominem attack instead of proving your BLP violation claims? Please point out how the three edits I made are an indication of "activism". Better still, point out any WP policy they violate. It's been five weeks now without any proof of BLP violation being given, how many times does anyone have to ask? Wayne (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The young gentleman has just made a public declaration that he is in a relationship with another gentleman. Various opinions are being put forward on the article talk page. Eyes are needed here, mainly on the talk page, to make sure BLP is obeyed there and in the article. Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There were some BLP issues on the talk page. I have since redacted them with notation.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been redacting a few further ones. Please keep eyes here, nonetheless. Sometimes it is hard for people to understand the importance of this. Fiddle Faddle 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a very large number of allegations about living persons where no formal adjudication seems to have occurred, using fairly weak sourcing. Likely should be examined in depth as being a BLP minefield. (I can not touch it as someone would likely say it is somehow related to the Tea Party movement "broadly construed".) Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Arkansas Governor Powell Clayton (R) was investigated for corruption but acquitted."

"Louisiana Governor Huey Long (D) controversial and outspoken, Long was widely alleged to have used extensive bribery to prevent his impeachment."

A list of politicians convicted may be acceptable, but a list that includes those who are have not faced trail, or have been acquitted is trouble-sum.Martin451 15:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One not need even be arrested to be embroiled in scandal. Adultery that makes it to the limelight has often been deemed scandalous. Though the definition of what constitutes scandal on the page might need embellishment.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Send to AFD? Briefly scanning the list I found this tidbit "California Assembly Member Mary Hayashi (D) was convicted of shoplifting. (2011)". Hardly a scandal by any stretch of the imagination. While the rest of the list no doubt is populated by a few crooks and filthy lucre (plural?) such a list in its present form and title is tarring everyone with the same brush.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure if this is the proper procedure for such matters. I am the subject of the article in question. It's been brought to my attention that some recent edits or additions to the article may have been made with the intention to vandalize it in order to make a political point. I was born in Nigeria and educated in Britain. I moved to the US from Britain in 1995. In 2006, I became a naturalized US citizen while retaining Nigerian citizenship. However, on October 1, 2013, I formally filed papers with the Nigerian embassy in Washington, DC renouncing my Nigerian citizenship for personal reasons. I also made public my intentions and reasons. (See http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/of-critics-and-patriots/161057/ ). Unfortunately, my renunciation of Nigerian citizenship has drawn considerable negative reaction among many Nigerians. I have good reason to believe that certain individuals may have signed up as Wikipedia contributors since then with the goal to express their disapproval by inserting material in the Wikipedia article. For instance, I've noticed repeated references to my ethnicity that seem odd and out of place. By the way, this article has been vandalized in the past, leading to a temporary lock down to prevent further vandalism. I am told that such vandalism is not uncommon. I certainly feel embarrassed to complain as I do not consider myself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I hope that editors will find time to review any recent edits, and determine what's appropriate. My apologies for such a lengthy note. Olu Oguibe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.207.235 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a recent high level of disruption from the article history except some unsourced content. I removed some of the citizenship/residence information as it seemed excessive, but if there's anything else you're concerned about, feel free to let us know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors and Contributors, I am writing on behalf of the studio of the photographer, Platon. I am an intern at Platon's Studio 1-2 days a week and have been given the task of reaching out to Wiki contributors with the hopes of finding someone to agree to updating the stub entry to a full biographical Wikipedia entry. Could someone please advise on how might I go about getting a photographer's stub upgraded and updated to a full Wikipedia entry? Platon already has a Wiki entry started, but it provides mostly out of date information. Furthermore, his career meets many of the criteria for an entry on a photographer including the fact that: - he has put out multiple books by (non-vanity) commercial publishers or university presses. - his has appeared in many exhibitions that have been noted in more than local press. - his work has historical significance. For instance, he has photographed more world leaders than any other living photographer. I would be happy to provide any factual information in regards to things such as: showdates, books published, holdings in prominent permanent collections by museums etc., that might be required in researching the article. I understand that I may not be able to write the entry myself because I work in his studio, but I was wondering what other options might be open to me in order to get his entry updated? Thank you all and I look forward to your response. All the best, Johnny Platonphoto (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at Platon (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and do not see any pressing issues related to violations of WP:BLP. I will follow up with the editor to thank them for disclosing their COI and give them some pointers on editing. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the BLP has not (yet) been removed, given that the deletion discussion has not (yet) been closed. Also note that there is a section above (here at BLPN) that is still open regarding this same BLP (click here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Joe doesn't seem to realise the severity of calling someone a paedophile without impeccable sourcing. At best, it puts Wikipedia in incredibly dangerous legal waters. At worst, it only seeks to further vilify Reich. This isn't airy-fairy stuff; just in the past 48 hours, we've seen one musician contemplating suing E! Online for confusing with a pedophile musician on the same name, and two murderers jailed for vigilante justice against a disabled man who they thought to be a pedophile. It's incredibly serious stuff, and I think Joe deserved the month-long block. And if Reich's lawyer said that, I think that they're not fulfilling their professional duties. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  A small note just to avoid repeating something false: that idea that Reich's own lawyer claimed sinister motivations for their own client's actions was inaccurate. This was another claim based on mistaken identity, and just more support for the caution you advise. Reich was not somehow denounced by their own lawyer, and somebody should have been more careful reading their sources before claiming this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It was somebody else's lawyer saying that (that of a former fiance, if I recall correctly), and she was suing Karr/Reich. Besides being a media personality herself, that lawyer, Robin Sax. And the main source was Fox News with echoes in a few other relatively obscure venues. All great ingredients for an article, thankfully gone now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned out a lot of uncited text about living persons, and would appreciate more eyes and another opinion on both the text I removed, and the remaining text, cited to procon.org (is that a high quality source?) and a book (where it is not clear that every one of those statements comes from the book, considering the bulk of the article was uncited). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There were four living people mentioned.

((Redacted) per BLP--ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Some changes since I posted here for review; more text was removed, I'd still like guidance on the acceptability of medicalmarijuana.procon.org for the text that remains, and one section I had removed was restored because I mixed up a live person (Rosenfeld) with a deceased one (Randall). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And you just repeated the BLP issue by listing the individuals. I have removed their names.--ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear All Available Editors,

Please take a look at Akon, it is a page that appears to violate WP:PEACOCK and has many problems. I am not sure where to start here. Much has been tagged for years, nothing has happened.

Apparently some links on the page have been "blacklisted."

Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed content sourced to non RS. Blogs are not RS unless from a News blog which neither of the blogs used constitute in any way and primary source court documents cannot be used to source facts. Wikipedia does not engage in gossip.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just posting here for review that I wrote a stub on this case, which is obviously rather difficult to write about neutrally, as the very fact that a murder took place or that she is even dead is contested by the defense. Although a court of first instance has rendered a murder and conviction verdict, it is still being appealed. Mind you, the coverage is all in Romanian. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I came across this page while editing Barry McCaffrey. I've cleaned it up as best I can, but I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG. I'd appreciate other opinions. David in DC (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think GNG is met there either - everything I can find are blogs and self-generated content. Not sure if he'd meet WP:SOLDIER, assuming the claim of being decorated can be sourced, and the decoration in question is notable enough. The CNN program he allegedly appeared in seems to have disappeared (?). Then again this is the first Gulf War, so that was a while ago. Maybe take it to AFD for consensus? I did trim the excessive external links. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis and the trimming. I'll put doing a little looking for sources on my to-do list and maybe an AfD if I can find nothing. David in DC (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Extremely inappropriate content. I have never seen this type of statement about someone on Wikipedia. And I don't even like the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.205.184 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be thoroughly sourced. Is there a section of the article where you feel the source is misrepresentative? —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP may have been looking at a vandalized version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at it again and the inappropriate content seems to have been removed---that was quick....Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.205.184 (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought at first it just needed to be updates and a few lines removed., but the problems seem deeper. And deeper into Australian scandals is one place I have learned not to go here. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a question on policy - a Japanese prime minister (Kakuei Tanaka) reportedly once called Daisaku Ikeda, leader of the religious organization Soka Gakkai, a "sutra-chanting Hitler" (法華経を唱えるヒトラー in the original Japanese). Is this too contentious to include in the article on Ikeda? There's a handful of sources - in English, an AP report from 1991, in Japanese, an article in the weekly magazine Shukan Shincho from 2001, one in the now defunct monthly Shokun (1998) (though I can't tell if it ascribes the quote to Tanaka or not because of the limited "snippet view" of Google Books) and one in the monthly Bungeishunjū (1988).　I can find mentions in 2 Japanese books too - "カルトとしての創価学会=池田大作" by Toshiaki Furukawa and "小泉純一郎と日本の病理: 改革者か独裁者か" by Hajime Fujiwara. It's also in the Japanese Wikipedia (the Tanaka article), though no reference is given. None of these sources give a specific date for the quote, as far as I can tell. So..? 126.25.72.25 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources reporting what was said then it can be added to the article in the proper context and with the proper weight, ie it should report and explain the context of the remark, but not take a huge section to do so.--ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There's very little info on the context of the remark available though.126.25.72.25 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say 'No don't include it.' Regardless if the source is reliable or not, the lack of repetition makes it seem WP:UNDUE and is the weighting criteria. Nearly every politician has been compared to Hitler with the comparison omitted. Hitler comparisons should be avoided as a non-starter. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it's a politician (and not just any politician, the then serving PM) saying it about a religious leader, not the other way around.126.25.72.25 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor has made what appears to be slanderous, or at least spurious, remarks about the subject [34], and also notes that he/she has made a series of recent edits to the article itself, in which info about the same person they claim to be has been added without sources. Some eyes, and experts at COI may want to weigh in. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Now has morphed into something else. Editor did most posts as Magenta1984, identified themselves as Aaron's former producer on the Talk Page [35]. Majority of the questionable edits to article by this editor. Now, a new post on the talk page here by Robertwilliams232323: [36] also identifies as this individual (and appears to make a legal threat), and now edits the article themself referencing that individual in the 3rd person here: [37] Losing track of how many violations are happening here. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

A certain editor is repeating this edit, so that our article says Flowers is "openly gay". I'm not aware that Flowers has in fact come out, so I don't think our article should say this -- but I'd like others to evaluate the edit as well. The edit also indicates that an inexperienced editor is at work here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Clear BLP violation - the cited source does not confirm it. I have removed it.--ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The source in question says It has since emerged that the openly-gay Mr Flowers resigned from his position as Labour councillor in Bradford in 2011 after "inappropriate but not illegal adult content" was found on his computer.. The same phrase is also used in the Financial Times and the Daily Mail. Though I'm not certain if the latter is a tabloid or not. I always get those limey papers mixed up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are quite correct, this "limey" missed that completely (long hours of drafting contracts, in my defence). The Mail is a tabloid-form newspaper, but even it wasn't, it is still not regarded as a RS; but of course the FT is.--ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dan Sebring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reported to OTRS as being the target of vandalism - Can't justify protection given recent activity but a few more eyes just in case it gets bad and needs to be dealt with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Goudanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was created recently, and is sourced only to a YouTube video. I am concerned that BLP policy may have been violated in that a large chunk of the article is unsourced, particularly the part about Goudanis's alleged obsession with clowns and status as a former clown himself. Though not strictly a pure attack page, it is a weird mix of unsourced positive content about his appearance in many films and TV shows, and the aforementioned unsourced negative content. Advice is requested. Jinkinson talk to me 04:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, for BLPs, nuke it. That said, it looks like a hoax, but it's not eligible for a speedy. Going offline here in 5 minutes, so I'll PROD it tomorrow if it's not gone yet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged it for G3 speedy as an obvious hoax - just take a look at the imdb link, not the alleged subject.--ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

'Tis gone.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Bob Huff is the Senate Republican Leader in the California State Senate. He represents the 29th Senate District covering portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I am his Communications Director, and responsible for monitoring content on his Wikipedia page.

Be advised that someone, I'm not sure who it was (all I get is a set of numbers), did a complete hack job on the Senator over the weekend. His entire page was erased and replaced with new information, a task completed by someone who knew what they were doing and has worked on Wikipedia pages before. They showed a level of experience beyond mine.

I'm not that good, yet. But I'm getting there.

Was the new information inaccurate? Yes. Libelous? Without a doubt. Sources cited were web pages that are generally critical of Republicans and supportive of Democrats.

I have since taken steps to repair this damage but I'm still working on this. Information now on the Wikipedia page is taken directly from Senator Huff's biography on his State Senate website ^[4].

Billbird2111 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Taking information directly from another source is a violation of copyright law. Please read: WP:COPYVIO. 70.134.228.224 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Billbird2111 (talk Unless I created that other source, which I did. I'm directly responsible for the language on the Senator's biography since I wrote it on his behalf and he gave his approval to have it posted on his website. There is no violation of copyright law. —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

READ THE GUIDELINES (WP:COPYVIO). It doesn't matter who created the content. You need to demonstrate in writing that the copyright owner has granted permission for the content to be used on Wikipedia. READ THE GUIDELINES (WP:DCM, WP:PERMISSION). 70.134.228.224 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as (or more) significantly, as the Senator's Communications Director, your creation and ongoing maintenance (especially to the exclusion of other editors) of a Wikipedia article concerning your employer violates Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest, and your creating it as a replica of the Senator's Web page (and your apparent attempt to keep it so) violates the Wikipedia core principle of neutral point of view. Please review those policies also. You can contribute to the article by providing other editors (without COI) information and suggestions via the article's Talk page, but you should not be editing it yourself. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversation with Mr. Bird continued here: User_talk:NeilN#Bob_Huff. Based on this, I think there may be more issues coming up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bob Huff 71.139.157.123 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Bob Huff

Dwpaul ^Talk 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The DRN thread is now closed and archived.David in DC (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen was formerly a registered lobbyist. Various editors keep trying to insert the statement that she is operating as an unregistered lobbyist now, which would be a crime.

I believe that WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME, does not permit us to say this. We can attribute a statement to a reliable source, but we cannot make the accusation ourselves.

Note that it appears that Ms. Rosen herself has visited WP to complain about this issue, so this has great potential to become yet another huge embarrassment. MilesMoney (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding Forum Shopping, we should note that a discussion is already underway at WP:ANI about this and four other behavior-related issues. HectorMoffet (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the discussion at ANI was started after this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I stand corrected and owe apologies all round for that error. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MilesMoney here. When speaking with Wikipedia's voice, we should refer to her as a former lobbyist for the reason MilesMoney lies out. But we should probably add communication consultant as one of her professions (since that is what she does now at the SKDKnickerbocker). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

First, the discussion at ANI is not about Hilary Rosen's article. [Added later: though going there now...]

Anyway, since there are various laws regarding lobbying in the US, including the Foreign Agents Registration Act where relevant, I think at least two high quality sources would be needed to make the allegation that this individual currently was engaged in illegal lobbying, or even in the more informal type of influence peddling that is not covered by such laws but which a source might label lobbying. Have those been provided? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

To summarize what's discussed on the talk, contemporary reliable sources routinely refer to her as a lobbyist. She's even called a lobbyist in her official bio by an organization honoring her, published less than a month ago! Meanwhile, we have no reliable sources saying that she denies being a lobbyist-- not even a WP:PRIMARY press release on her own site.

There is a common misunderstanding at work here. It's thought that "all lobbyists must register", but in fact, unregistered lobbying is an entirely legitimate and legal practice. The only source we have that subject disputes the term "lobbyist" is a talk page post, not even a primary source, and definitely no reliable secondary sources. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In April 2012, The Nation said she was effectively a lobbyist even though she is not registered as one. This reference is quite sufficient for the statement. The previous day, the Washington Post called her a lobbyist, as did The Wire, which also threw in a reference to Rosen editing her own Wikipedia biography. A few days later, Breibart commented on the situation of Rosen lobbying unregistered, and in February 2013 he said so again. In August 2013, Mark McKinnon talked about a new book by Mark Liebovich in The Telegraph. Both McKinnon and Liebovich have things to say about unregistered lobbyists, specifically including Rosen. McKinnon puts Rosen in the class of unregistered lobbyists who are pundits, influence peddlers and "strategic" political consultants. Liebovich says Rosen is a PR consultant who can get you into A-list parties and the White House. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

About the WP article: It says "She is a Democratic strategist, and pundit but she’s actually better known for her long career in lobbying" and also "Rosen now works for SKDKnickerbocker, a Democratic communications firm that has done work for Obama’s campaign in the past". Is it the "long career in lobbying" that you think verifies that she currently is a lobbyist or is there is any other sentences/paragraphs? Regards,Iselilja (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP policy protects Wikipedia from liability for publishing false or defamatory statements about living people who might sue WP. Suppose it really is the same Hillary Rosen who asked WP Admin Bbb to remove what she considers false statements about her. Do you think a court is going to dismiss her complaint against WP because the some WP editors find similar false statements elsewhere? After her request to have the statements was ignored by WP editors, by an Admin, and by this discussion board? I'd call that putting WP at risk for no good reason. Policy tells us the statement should be removed pending whatever further investigation may be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as experience has shown, Rosen can't sue Wikipedia, only individual editors, and then only if she proves that the allegation is false. If an editor merely says she is a "lobbyist" and then adds 2-4-6 refs to support that fact, even Rosen won't bother to hire an attorney to sue. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not willing to violate WP:BLP and put the Project at risk in such a manner. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember reading on the talk page way back when, Gilad Atzmon repeatedly sent emails to Wikifoundation asking that BLP-violating material meant to destroy his career as a musician be removed, but they were sent to no avail. If it really is Ms. Rosen complaining, she can go there. But in any defamation suit truth is the final arbiter. From all those diffs, it sounds like Wikifoundation and Wiki editors have nothing to worry about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

No reliable sources have been presented above describing her as a lobbyist, and reliable sources have been presented calling her a former lobbyist. Therefore clearly we should not call her one. TFD (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc' No offense, but the Foundation has not vested authority in us lowly editors to take risks like that. Hence the policy, which standard creates a bright line to protect WP from catastrophic risk. If WP wished to delegate such authority to Carolmooredc, they would designate you as the BLP Arbiter. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, per the below, we must always look carefully at the sources. There’s just one strong RS stating she is recently/currently a lobbyist in the list, April 2012, The Nation which calls her: “a Democratic lobbyist”. (The Telegraph book review is interesting, but only infers it. Perhaps the book is more explicit.

But I found two recent new sources (or three if one is RS) that say it explicitly:

• Michelle's To-Do List, Newsweek, November 19, 2012, | Michele Cottle: “top Democratic lobbyist Hilary Rosen”.
• New York Times, November 15, 2013 writes: “Hilary Rosen, a longtime Democratic lobbyist”
• The Daily Caller (which seems to be debatable on WP:RSN) in May 2013 wrote: “Democratic lobbyist and consultant Hilary Rosen,”

More research always helps. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Duncan Graham (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:BLP of a journalist who covers immigration issues.

Most of the article is attributed to opinion pieces or blogs; there is some phrasing that appears to be meant as slurs; and claims about his wife (there is a book of this name with ISBN 9789792235036, but I can find no evidence that the subject is married to it's author). The edit history seems pretty odd. I'm reluctant to edit the article due to a COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been fully protected by User:Gnangarra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).--Auric talk 02:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review these diffs [38], [39], [40], [41]. The first two are the problems. The second next two represent an effort to resolve this collaboratively. My post to the other editor's talk page was summarilly reverted without comment. So I started a thread on the article talk page. Please review and assist. David in DC (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor is right that there is no confirmation of a deal being agreed upon. Also, a physical examination needs to be passed before a deal is official, and Beltran has had knee problems in the past that could potentially thwart a deal once the Yankees check them out. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, factually. But what on earth does it have to do with the policy question of whether we go with what's reported in reliable sources or with some editors' knowledge or original research about the truth? David in DC (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A paragrah was removed 3 times in a recent 6 hour period - twice explicitly for BLP reasons - and reverted back by editors Steeletrap and MilesMoney who support it. Reverts are:

• mine writing in relevant part removal of info again given unsatisfactory responses to BLP issues on Krugman's failure to Name Murphy and self-published blogs ;
• here with User:John Reaves writing: this is bogus original research involving blogs and unreliable resources, do not re-add);
• here with AnonIP writing: Violates WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPSPS and probably others.

The statement is an accurate reflection of what the source says:

Paul Krugman once linked to Brad DeLong's blog entry about "a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same." The blog entry shows that individual was Robert Murphy. Reference: Paul Krugman (December 30, 2012). "Is Our Austerians Learning?". New York Times. Retrieved 1 November 2013.

Previously the paragraph falsely gave the impression that Krugman actually mentioned Murphy in his article, which he does not. Note that issues related to this have been discussed for months on the talk page, currently here and here, but I'm not sure if any editors actually checked and noted the Krugman doesn't even mention Murphy per se until last couple days. This seems definitely to be a WP:SYNTH/SPS issue vs. BLP. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In he original blog post Carol cites, Krugman is unquestionably talking about Murphy. He just doesn't use the term "Robert Murphy" to describe him, but instead refers to him as a "guy." He is linking to a blog post by UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong's (a reliable source for econ per the "expert" provision of WP:SPS) specifically and exclusively about the failed predictions and methodologies of Murphy; Krugman himself discusses Murphy's predictions in his blog post. In a follow-up blog post, Krugman specifically refers to the person he was talking about as "Robert Murphy."

There is no ambiguity as to whom Krugman was referring; this is an attempt to 'cleanse' an article of criticism, based on a hyper-technical criterion (the lack of mention of Murphy's formal name) which has no basis in policy and would compel all statements which use pronouns (rather than formal names) to refer to BLPs to be purged from Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This new link from Steeletrap was not in the article and I don't see it off hand on the talk page. This new ref might be acceptable if the criticism that Murphy was wrong in a prediction was properly described in a balanced way, including Murphy's responses, in a couple sentences. I'd have to study it more. But the original Krugman ref should just be left out entirely for synth reasons.
• Brad DeLong's personal blog as a stand-alone ref already was rejected as RS in some other Austrian economics BLP; but it may be acceptable as a link after Krugman's new article is mentioned, just as Murphy's would be. (And Murphy's would be anyway if he defends himself against what he calls inaccurate comments.)
• Obviously four editors so far have reverted this material as currently presented as problematic under WP:BLP. I can't speak for others if it was rewritten better per policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ironically, it's not clear that Murphy would pass muster as notable enough to warrant a WP article were it not for the Krugman connection. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not true. But I did find a much earlier article by Krugman featuring Murphy and he seems quite taken with the guy. Who would have thunk it.

this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Serota#Criticism_from_Stuckist_movement doesn't have reliable sources, and keeps being re-added by the people responsible for the unsubstantiated claims. Nonartinfo (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Blood on the Dance Floor (duo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There's a dispute on this article over whether certain negative allegations against one member of the group should be mentioned in the article (and if so, how much attention to give them). I'm of the view that the sourcing isn't strong enough for inclusion. Here's the disputed section being re-added:[42] Robofish (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, nothing but allegations in blogs and non-reliable sources, claims by individuals not widely covered by mainstream press. Removed. If this goes on, you should report them to WP:ANI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dorothy Otnow Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Cynthia W. Sheppard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An editor, Cynthia W. Sheppard, indicating that she is Dorothy Otnow Lewis's attorney made this edit to remove/revise information. Other's edited the article, there's a thread on the Help Desk, and posts on Cynthia's talk page. I'm opening this thread to give Cynthia a place to post any remaining concerns. Also, please look over Cynthia's propose changes[43] with a view towards BLP. -- Jreferee (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Ok whether you believe me or not SAL SOLO is my uncle, my mothers older brother. The wiki states that his name is Christopher Stevens born in 1961, which is incorrect

is real name is Charles Smith, Born in 1954.

He has the same name as his father and changed his name because he disliked his father

http://bittersuiteband.com/music_birthdays-september.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.43.173 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

OTRS received a request for the removal of some information from the article Jonathan Nolan.

It is not perfectly clear that this request should be accepted. I have temporarily done so, in order to have this discussion.

Items removed:

• Middle name
• A sentence identifying his mother and father, which also served to support a claim he is a dual citizen.

The items were sourced, but the source is Find My Past UK. I am not familiar with the site, but it sounds like it may consist of access to or copies of primary sources. If so, that may be sufficient to justify removal.

It is also relevant to consider how integral the information is to the article. While parents names and circumstances are commonly part of a biography, they are often not integral to the reason the person is considered notable. --S Philbrick(Talk) 11:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The site appears quite akin to "ancestry.com" which has repeatedly been deemed "not a reliable source." It is noted that the Terms and Conditions include Accordingly, you may not use the records or features to create your own work (for example a database of records), copy or reproduce the records (either in whole or in part), or make available, share or publish them unless you have our permission (and/or that of the owner of the copyright/database rights in the work) in writing. making it quite unusable on Wikipedia in the first place. Thus this is easily settled on WP:RS grounds at the start. Collect (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the next time you hear from him, ask him who his NSA source was -- PoI seems all too real with the current headlines! Collect (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Became interested with Vitali Klitschko (Phd in physical education and independent politician ). I found a contradiction with the article and a Pele Reid article . On the one hand the ' Vitali ' article points out he lost on contact points except never "taken / hit to the mat" i.e. lost consciousness . In the Pele Reid article who had made the contact TKO , spin kick etc. , and stated He , Pele , Knocked out Vitali . I have briefly checked sports articles and find the Pele citing inaccurate and not true .

The comment in the Vital article is the most accurate . the following is cut and pasted from the Vitale article. 'has never been knocked down in any professional boxing bout. His two losses have come via a shoulder injury during a fight and a deep cut above his eye, which were recorded as TKO losses. In both fights, however, he was leading on the scorecards'

Please give Pele article the credit except remove the knockout comment . Maybe fine tune to agree with the accurate comment in the Vital article. Techical Knock-out.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.209.168 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I read this link below and then checked the history of the article. It does seem like some important parts were erased over 11 edits to make the person seem more favourable. Not sure whats gone on here. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

http://onthewight.com/2013/12/06/who-has-been-sanitising-david-pughs-wikipedia-page/

Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a BLP that seems to be the battleground for an off-Wiki dispute that played out on the Arxiv scientific publication archive. The subject contacted OTRS asking for help in removing a paragraph regarding the "controversy" he was involved in - the alleged submission of inappropriate papers using the "G. Forst" pseudonym. The claim for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on a single line included in an Arxiv submission here, which reads: This submission has been removed because 'G.Forst' is a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms, in violation of arXiv policies. So at first glance to me that was a clear and simple violation of WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:BLPPRIMARY, since the controversy at Arxiv is sourced to Arxiv itself, and there seems to be no other way to verify it through one or more independent reliable sources. User:Headbomb disagrees. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If The New York Times writes on the page of one of their articles "One of our journalists deliberately misrepresented his interviewer's opinion, and we therefore retract the original article. This journalist is now no longer affiliated to the NYT.", it is silly to contend that you cannot report this until you have confirmation from The Los Angeles Times that the NYT retracted the article and dismissed the journalist. Not only is the arXiv management an authoritative source on whether or not someone has violated the policy, it is the only authoritative source on that question. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "silly". The policy for use on primary sources states explicitly that they cannot be used as a sole source, much less for negative information on biographies. The link you're using can be included to support the assertion made by a secondary, independent source about the issue. And I'm pretty sure that if the NYT published a retraction, the LA Times would be all over that, so it wouldn't be a problem to find a secondary source. So what we need here is that secondary source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Whether someone violating its policies is noteworthy for Wikipedia, though, is another matter. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but the thing with primary sources is that its not easy to tell, which is why they should be used with caution.

On the other hand, the whole article seems to be based on primary sources, so it is not clear that the article subject passes GNG. I'd say the article should be deleted. If it is kept, it is hard to see why some information based on primary sources should be kept but not the bits the subject doesn't like. Formerip (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with an AFD, however I'm always tripped by the WP:PROF guidelines, so I'm not sure if the subject would merit inclusion based on these citation levels. Misuse of primary sources for everything else aside, my concern here is their use to support negative information. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've submitted it to AFD and we can let them sort out the GNG issue. Update: according to initial commenters this is a clear keep. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the disputed text doesn't just say his article was removed and he was prevented from posting on arXiv. It specifically calls his actions misconduct in the section heading.

In any case, it's worth remembering one of the reasons we prefer not to use primary sources is not simply because they may be misintepreted or wrong, but also because if all we have is primary sources there's no real evidence of significance. If something relating to a living person is significant to warrant inclusion, we would normally expect other sources to pick them up. This is particularly true for stuff which may seem negative (or positive for that matter). Simple non self serving stuff like someone's religion, ethnicity, sexuality etc are exceptions, particularly considered that we generally require self identification. (Of course if there are no secondary sources in the first places, it's not surprising if they have not picked it up. That's an indication the article perhaps fails our notability guidelines, not that we should start putting up random stuff editors find from primary sources about suggested wrongdoing.)

Incidentally, in many cases it's not true that an organisation is an authoritative source on whether someone violated a policy. In many jurisdictions, such claims may be subject to court challenges, particularly in relation to libel etc. And even without that, if all reliable secondary sources say based on the presented facts a person did not violate some policy, it would be ludicrious for us to ignore them and claim that the person or company who's policy it is is definitely right. (Not to mention in plenty of cases, a company will say something violates policy and then change their minds without changing the policy, when it causes an outcry or someone else in the company reevaluates it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that this is an inappropriate use of primary sources. If this dispute is significant enough to include, a secondary source will examine it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lamberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP has been adding dubious and unsourced information to this page, which I have removed twice at the time of writing. This information is almost certainly not true, as Google turns up virtually no results as would be expected if the information were correct. Jinkinson talk to me 03:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Watching. For what it's worth, it doesn't matter if it's "true" or not, it's unsourced. Any unsourced material can be removed from any BLP without even so much as a "whoa". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I, and another editor, reverted to remove content being added without reliable sources. I have temporarily blocked User:Lynn Weidman after repeated requests to cease the addition. There are several other, non-3rr exempt issues with the posting (notability, unencyclopedic tone), but the lack of sourcing brings it here. The user did include OR sources to the yahoo groups posts, but those I did not deem reliable. Thoughts on further action? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is that inappropriately worded at best, it's poorly sourced and irrelevant to the subject of the article. And since it has BLP connotations, the block is appropriate. Should be lifted only if they agree not to do it again in their request. And by the way, I'd be surprised an English-language Yahoo newsgroup is "popular" in what is essentially a tiny town in the middle of Sonora. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I add such information about the brother of Eric Rudolph and use Salon as the source? --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the information? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric bombed a lesbian bar and has a gay brother. I just want to inform readers about this. --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we should stick his brother's name in the article and attach an unnecessary taint of criminality to someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed by Eric Rudolph. If there is no compelling reason to include a non-public person in an article about a heinous criminal, why do it? If there is something useful from the interview that could be added to the article, it's a valid source, but adding a line just to say "he has a brother who is gay," I don't see the point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, Eric was reported to have visited his gay brother in New York City on January 1998. The advocate also says so. Another book says so. Eric seemed calm about Jamie, according to Jamie. Yet he spewed negative remarks about homosexuality. George Ho (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. Of what value is it for us to know that he visited his brother on a random date, and what relevance does it have to an encyclopedic account of Eric Rudolph's life? There doesn't seem to be any. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what my compassly challenged friend NBSB is saying is that while the sources have commented upon the relationship, they have themselves failed to comment upon any relevance that reaches over bar of the BLP policy. Would it be permissible to mention that Rudolph has a brother? Sure. A brother that is gay? Not unless his brother's sexuality is relevant to the story. I see where George is going with this, and it very well may be the case that sources feel that cognitive dissonance might be in play. I would appreciate more sources, and possibly one with a more neutral view to supplement the advocate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not just The advocate and Salon, the print book would suffice, right? If not, another book, another article not mentioning his sexuality, USA Today, another book. But if I can't add it and edit statement alone, perhaps someone will without violating BLP policy (or illegally passing the limit)? George Ho (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

George Ho, this is a biography of Eric Rudolph, not of his brothers. Our BLP policy prevents us from making a big deal out of his non-notable gay brother, just as we don't make a big deal about his non-notable brother who protested by cutting off his own hand with circular saw. Focus on Eric, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That includes Eric's views on Jamie's sexuality, right? George Ho (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Only to the extent that you know them and can document them. Speculating about them, even based on the observations you have cited, is not appropriate for Wikipedia and would be synthesis. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the bio is about Eric, how can I add his brother Jamie and make him relevant to Eric's bio? I don't want to add written analysis about Eric's sexuality while he still lives. But I can't let Jamie be omitted in Wikipedia just because it's "irrelevant". George Ho (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You cannot possibly make something "relevant" on your own here on Wikipedia which has not been discussed in detail by reliable sources. Passing mentions amounting to "he had a gay brother" do not cut it. We summarize the important things that reliable sources say about a topic. We do not scour sources for trivial factoids such as the sexual orientation of a sibling to make a point. Certainly, one brother's spectacular self-abuse is far more unusual than another brother's sexual orientation. Why focus on the gay brother? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So because you can't add speculation about the sexuality of the article subject, you want to add the sexuality of the article subject's brother? That is textbook WP:COATRACK. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

H. A. Hellyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This individual does not meet notoriety standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spism34 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally we go by notability, not notoriety.--Auric talk 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And note that the standards, and requirements for verifiability, are different for published academics. See WP:SCHOLAR. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No need at all to point out a common newbie error, Auric. Some great writers scramble words sometimes, and need the help of skilled editors. Let's be good editors here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to lend a helping hand.--Auric talk 04:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've previously raised at this noticeboard the controversy surrounding Lloyd Irvin and his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu team. After a rather long discussion here: [44] there was some support for reporting the controversy, especially as it affects Irvin himself (e.g. he disbanded his affiliate program). However there was a problem with sources, as the main sources were MMA websites. Recently a long article has been published about Llord Irvin and the controversy on the Miami New Times website: [45]. I assume the article has only just been published because the relevant court case only finished last month. The article is long, and appears to me at least to be a good example of investigative reporting, including interviews with "over two dozen" associates and research into court records. I would therefore like to report the controversy in the article as follows:

Cult allegations controversy

Following an incident between three of his students on New Year's Eve 2012 Irvin received a lot of negative publicity in the mixed martial arts press. Several of his best students decided to leave, and Irvin disbanded his affiliate program, citing the "lynch mob" mentality of his attackers. A 5 Dec 2013 article on the controversy with accounts from former Irvin associates and students claimed Irvin's students were training in a cult like environment.^[5]

Could I get some feedback please? Thanks in advance. --Merlinme (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is at all proper to have a section titled "sexual allegations controversy" when there is no substantiated allegation, much less proof, that Irvin engaged in any sort of sexual misconduct. That title creates an entirely misleading implication. The focus of the text should be on the claim of a "cult-like" environment, not on the alleged actions of two people who are not Irvin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the title. --Merlinme (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to de-emphasize the rape allegation element, given that they were found not guilty and the link was tenuous to begin with. Frankly, I would omit it entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, text changed. It's rather vague now but people do of course have the option of following the reference if they want more detail.--Merlinme (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I believe this is this article's fourth BLPN submission. During one of these lengthy discussions, I was convinced that WP:NPF was a relevant policy to this issue. If we could get even a weak consensus regarding that issue I'd be a lot more comfortable to support inclusion, now that WP:BLPCRIME, WP:TABLOID, WP:UNDUE and all the other policy considerations aren't probably as pressing as they once were when this was all very fresh info. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that the controversy is one of the main reasons Irvin is notable now. He was notable before as the head of a successful BJJ team, however I think he's a lot more notable now as a result of the controversy (and the relating discussion it generated in the MMA press). I simply can't imagine he would have received six pages in the Miami New Times without the controversy. It seems therefore reasonable to me to briefly report the controversy, provided it's done using a reliable source and with due consideration for the reputational issues (and frankly, my suggested edit is pretty mild compared to some of what is reported in the Miami New Times article, using interviews with people who trained with him and court records). Regarding weight (and what he's currently notable for), for comparison you could look at his profile at bjjheroes, where over a third of the text is devoted to the controversy. --Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is a main source of his notability now, shouldn't we have far more valid sources to substantiate it? A free weekly newpaper, being the best source available, in itself says a lot. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone is going to comment on my concerns with WP:NPF, so can we at least have some comments for inclusion or exclusion one way or the other and try to establish some consensus here? Anyone? Please? Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in the absence of any further feedback from the Noticeboard for a couple of days now, I'm going to assume there is at least tacit consent that people don't see any BLP issues with the proposed edit. I'm sure Buddy23Lee and myself can amicably resolve any other issues we have. I'm going to stop watching this page now, so if someone sees this late and wants to jump in, please send me a message directly (or put a message on the Lloyd Irvin Talk page). --Merlinme (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor who claims to be the subject of this article has been removing content from the article. At first glance, some of the content being removed appears to be poorly sourced and may be in violation of WP:BLP. I don't have time to look closely now, so could someone else please have a look? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject's financial woes are sourced to two blogs, both which claim to be written by the subject himself. This is why we don't accept blogs as reliable sources, as the identities and the information are not verifiable. Per this edit summary, the material added may have been done so due to a real-life beef. IMO there should be no mention of the financial stuff unless it it deemed relevant to the biography and is covered by a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Google web and news searches turn up nothing other than the blog posts, which indicates that this is not encyclopedia-worthy content. JNW (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject's financial situation is in the public domain and is of public interest (as the same type of information appears on other notable people's biographical pages on Wikipedia (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Katona and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Filan) Why should the person this page be an exception? Location of information in the public domain: http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/IIRCaseIndivDetail.asp?CaseId=701050789&IndivNo=600363631&Court=EX&OfficeID=600000097&CaseType=B & http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/52797/pages/918 & http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60585/pages/15251 Whoisthisalfonso (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is translated in full from another WP, but I do not think it meets our standards. Certainly not the first part a, which seems to be guilt by association. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I stripped the unsourced BLP material. The other negative was sourced and seemed pertinent. JodyB _talk 03:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors trying to modify the birth name using dubious sources. I'd like someone else to have a look here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I left a message for the editor inserting the material. The site appears to be fan site for the family name of Chastain. I don't think it is reliable. JodyB _talk 03:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheetal Sheth's page is repeatedly being edited, replacing true facts with falsehoods. Examples:

• Twice now someone has changed the true statement that Ms. Sheth was the first Indian American woman to appear in Maxim magazine to the false statement that she appeared in Playboy magazine. Ms. Sheth has been repeatedly asked about her appearance in Playboy by members of the press, and it's awkward and embarrassing for all concerned.
• Once someone changed the name of the play she first appeared in from "Slight Indulgences" (correct) to "Sexual Indulgences" (wrong).
• Twice someone has changed her religious upbringing from Jain (correct) to Muslim (wrong).
• Three times someone has changed her father's country of origin from India (correct) to Malaysia (wrong).
• Three times someone has changed the languages she speaks to completely random wrong languages such as Swahili and Chinese.
• Three times someone has changed her birthplace from Phillipsburg, NJ (correct) to Camden, NJ (wrong).
• Three times someone has changed the statement that she's the second of three children (correct) to the claim that she's the second of nine children (wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBChristy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing the languages she speaks and her father's country of origin to something wrong is annoying but relatively minor. But changing the name of the play to "Sexual Indulgences" and claiming that she appeared in Playboy could be considered malicious. It's certainly proved embarrassing to her. And, given that members of the press have asked her about it, there's a real risk that some less-than-fully-diligent reporter might publish that as fact without confirming with her first. Also, Google is now prominently displaying info from Wikipedia on search results pages for people. Wrong information about Ms. Sheth has been cached by Google and displayed, even after I've corrected Ms. Sheth's page. I can easily imagine that many people don't realize the info displayed on Google's search results page comes from Wikipedia and may be incorrect.

I have just gone through and corrected as many falsehoods as I could find. Would it be possible to protect Ms. Sheth's page to prevent whoever is repeatedly adding falsehoods to the page from doing it anymore? Thanks in advance for your consideration.

JBChristy (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

on the search page under Wikipedia it is correct but when you actually go in to the actual main page, it has her at 62 yrs of age. She's only 38.24.99.48.250 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed - the page has been vandalised. GiantSnowman 12:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Some unsourced content, with possible BLP issues. If anyone's familiar with the bio of this billionaire, please have a look. JNW (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This corporation appears to have been trading controversially. There are citations for that allegation. However, there are named parties in the article and that requires experienced eyes to check for uncited statements that may prove to be defamatory. This is not a call for a discussion here so much as a heads up that eyes are needed on the article. Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is now revealing a great deal of information about the addresses of directors. I am starting to form a view that, despite being referenced and relatively neutrally written, this is a campaign article for those affected by the alleged controversial trading of the organisation. While the information may be in the public domain (Directors' home addresses are in the UK public domain for UK corporations, for example) I believe that experienced eyes are required on this article to ensure BLP compliance. Fiddle Faddle 09:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The director information has been removed, presumably as a result of this message. Please would editors keep a watchful eye on the article nonetheless. 09:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Her name and occupation is offensive and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.190.154 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism was already removed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Multiple problems with biography. No citations or links. Suggest removal of page because the person does not meet the standards of a notable living person. Or merge the biography with "Second Amendment Foundation" entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mairemasco (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kahlil Byrd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems tending to whitewash (removal of cited statements about unsuccessful outcomes or commentary regarding lack of followthrough) and inclusion of of non-neutral language or overstating facts or impacts beyond what cites support. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In the article on Kobe Bryant, the intro includes the following sentence: "In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault after having sex with a hotel employee in Edwards, Colorado."

This is in violation of Wikipedia's policy of not including libelous information on living people: The hotel employee is a living person, and she has said that she was raped by Kobe Bryant that night. Therefore, this sentence presents as a fact that a consensual act occurred (sex) when the act is actually a claim that has not been proven. Instead, the article should read, "In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault by a hotel employee in Edwards, Colorado." That is a factual statement that does not pass judgment either way on the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.241.175 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Stating the apparently-uncontroversial fact that sexual intercourse took place does not establish judgment on whether that intercourse was consensual or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I noticed there is a Wikipedia page for me that contains a number of errors:

(1) My name is mis-spelled (the correct spelling is KathArine, two A's) (2) I've authored over 60 papers, not 50 (3) I am not American, I am Canadian (4) I am not a climatologist, I am an atmospheric scientist. Not the same thing!

Is there a way these errors could be fixed?

Thank you!

Katharine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.38.24 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Those changes have been made! Thanks for letting us know about the errors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

This person should not be on Wikipedia. Any reference to him should be removed, because he is just another small-time nobody who is trying to promote himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallow73 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In the RY X article, the writer seems to merge the projects of Ry Cumings and RY X into a single entity. RY X was intended to be a completely separate project away from the connotations of Ry Cumings. Also, details regarding record label are incomplete - the Berlin EP's European release is on Infectious Music which is his current label.

References See this Guardian New Band of the Day article: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/dec/10/ry-x And this link to iTunes re: release info: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/berlin-ep/id767455884

In the current article, references 1 and 5 are dead links.

I would propose splitting Ry Cumings (and accomplishments) and RY X (and accomplishments) into separate articles with correct discographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamueljamesHill (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This notice board is for issues specifically related to controversial content about a living person. The RY X matter appears to be solely content related and is more appropriately discussed on the article talk page, noting that the criteria for a stand alone article WP:GNG are that each subject has received significant coverage in its own right in reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rong Xiang Xu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per a recent request to OTRS would someone please review this article for compliance with BLP? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Quite measured/restrained, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date. Initial bio paragraph contains no sources and is biased and out of date.

For example, here is the Professional Bio per the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce: What does your business do? When and Why did you join the Brooklyn Chamber? Founded in 1985 by Robert Scarano, Jr., AIA, FARA, ALA, award-winning Scarano Architects, PLLC is responsible for the design of over 400 multi-family and mixed-use properties designed and built in 2004, primarily in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Working with a wide range of developers in both profit and non-profit sectors, such as The NYC Housing Authority and Chamber Members Strategic Construction Corporation and The Kay Organization, Scarano designers achieve a new dimension for the architectural vocabulary that is respectful of the history of a given area, while providing gracious, livable space. In October 2004, the firm completed its unique office roof extension, which has become a visual signpost for travelers on the Manhattan Bridge, instantly identifying Vinegar Hill. - See more at: http://www.ibrooklyn.com/member_promotion/scarano.aspx#sthash.cDDl7IqI.dpuf

Here is an example of one editor removing large amounts of information (see Awards and Professional Honors that were all deleted below) and replacing with entirely different content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=496283904

Here is one example of many biased statements made within the bio by anonymous IP addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=525200973

Real Deal is used often as a source for negative citations but not once from this article: http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/with-100s-of-projects-scarano-remakes-b-klyn/ which is a positive example of coverage from the source.

These are just a few examples. I would like to update the article with current, accurate and unbiasedly sourced content, awards and current member standings.È

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikabogner (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

content requires reliable sources before being restored to an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of warring over content. Could be ripe for page protection, but given accusations of gossip, speculation, and general hostilities it makes some sense to shop this here first. JNW (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected. Looks like it was just unsourced rumors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Thomas Alexander William Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why do we have an article about this guy, when there are already articles about Libor scandal --_nonsense ferret 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the title of the article appears to be incorrect, as even the US federal complaint about him uses the first (given) name "Tom", not "Thomas". Dwpaul ^Talk 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Alexander_William_Hayes --_nonsense ferret 20:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)