Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive88

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Poorly sourced, looks like a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brecherdc (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not being an admin, I can't see the original Madison Eagles articles, but Madison Eagles (wrestler) has just been created again. Lots of references, not sure how many are independent or that reliable, but I'll let others who can see the old version decide if it's a CSD G4 candidate or not. If it's OK, then it probably should be moved to the original non-disambiguated page name, which I guess has been salted.The-Pope (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the same person but this version is much expanded. I didn't check all the references, but from a cursory glance and comparison I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a G4. -- œ^™ 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rohmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Rohmann is part of a campaign against this person by Korean netizens that has been reported in Korean media 12. He has repeatedly inserted non-notable and potentially libelous material into the article.--Ben Applegate (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked once for edit warring, but the material has stayed out of the article and he's not edited in four days. Nothing to do at the moment, but if he resumes edit warring he'll get blocked again. Fences&Windows 17:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This section of the article contains the passage "Such appeals to quantum mechanics as an explanation for New Age or paranormal beliefs have been criticized by physicists who are experts in quantum mechanics as being based on incorrect or pseudoscientific interpretations.", which has 3 citations none of which mention Jim Tucker. Furthermore there is no particular evidence of anyone considering Jim Tuckers work flawed or that it has been criticized as shoddy. When asked to provide sources that the editor that added the passage was unhelpful and gave an explanation that basically amounted to a claim of guilt by association[1]. Given the perjorative nature of that passage I believe it represents a BLP concern. Artw (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty obvious "synthesis" problem. Glossing over a few wording problems, I'll take it on face value that the sources cited properly verify that attempts to explain purported observations of paranormal events according to quantum mechanics are indeed criticized by experts as mistaken or pseudoscientific. However, "such" indicates that Tucker's specific beliefs are criticized by those experts, when the sources don't in fact say that. Wikipedia editors are making the connection, not the sources - something we are not supposed do. It fails WP:OR. Whether you call OR about a living person a BLP problem or not is up to you. On the other hand, if you asked critics that is what they would probably say, no? I cannot imagine mainstream science agreeing that human memories are passed from deceased people to their reincarnations via a quantum-mechanical process. How much do we really need to stress that point? I would just ask for a better source, and characterize Tucker's research as something other than mainstream science. BTW, the introductory phrase, "although critics have argued there is no physical explanation for the survival of personality" is not properly sourced either. The two sources at the end of that sentences cover Tucker's research but don't describe that specific argument by critics. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Two minutes of Googling gave this: "According to Tucker, mainstream science dismisses reincarnation as it does not fit in with a materialist view of the universe. But he hopes proof of reincarnation lies in quantum physics [...] Dr Susan Huelga, a lecturer in quantum mechanics at the University Of Hertfordshire, disagrees. 'The mechanisms of brain dynamics are extraordinarily complex,' she says. 'Their study requires a combination of ideas from physics, biochemistry and physiology. However, there's no evidence quantum mechanics is relevant any more than asking quantum mechanics to prove or disprove the existence of God.'"[2] Fences&Windows 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That addition addreses my concerns. Thank you. Artw (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

this page which is on your site is nothing but utter rubbish as this person has yet to complete his MSc In cell and tissue engineering and has yet to do his practical thesis module. Secondly, I quote from the text death due to "disease and not telomere shortening" I would like to point out there are many age related diseases linked to age and telomere shortening ie loss of control of the protein p53 which is involved in over 75% of human cancers. To allow such false claims which for example research into linking neurons to computers I must point out this was an assignment Mr. Stoyanov hypothesised in an assignment and he has to date not undertaken any of his claims. Thirdly, he does not lead any research group. For someone to actually write an hypothesis which is not being researched and not published in any peer reviewed journals makes wikipedia a little of a laughing stock for accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.66.245.32 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted material. He's done this before. Fences&Windows 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gary Brooks Faulkner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page could use some attention. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

About half of the people in this list aren't even referenced and most of the rest of them are sourced to (turkish) wikisource. Is this acceptable and for that matter should we even have this list? Misarxist (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced stuff should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Siegfried Verbeke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes needed please on this bio of a Belgian "historical revisionist", an IP-hopping editor inserted a screed of unsourced text last month and mere minutes after I removed it they reinserted some of it. In general the article needs a lot of work on sourcing. Fences&Windows 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected it, for 2 weeks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has put an BLP notice on this articles talk page, however some say this article is not a BLP but is an article about an expression. Does an article about a satirical expression fall under BLP guidelines? There is a RFC currently running about this [3] mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Without going into detail about the article (I've already commented in the AfD) I agree with the principle that that all biographical material about a living person is subject to WP:BLP, but I don't think the article contains any significant BLP material about Al Gore. The alleged statements by Bob Marciano, Joe Joyce, Curtis Brainard, Steve Benen, Lisa Miller and Joseph D’Aleo seem to be accurately quoted, Nancy Pelosi's actions are properly sourced to Michael Daly at NYDailyNews so I think the only possible BLP concern might be the "gloss" of Harald Martenstein in Die Zeit. If the article is to be challenged, I don't think BLP is the way to go. - Pointillist (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a BLP at all, but as with all articles, any content about living people should comply with BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the article was created explicitly as an attack page on a living person - the original version, authored by the person who started this thread, was openly polemical and included attack images as well - BLP has to apply. The article still functions as an attack page with the clear intention of ridiculing and denigrating a living person, which is one of the reasons I took it to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Give over the article is about Global warming and is not a BLP at all, neither is it an attack page, apart from its an attack on global warming climate models.There is also what appears to be a consensus on the talkpage that the template is not required. Off2riorob (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the template should stay as there are obvious BLP concerns in the use of the term. Verbal chat 09:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attack page. However, there is no harm in reminding editors that BLP has sway throughout the project space and that anything contentious about the living person himself must be thoroughly and carefully sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

True, and not disputed by anyone involved. But the question remains as to the Wikipedia propriety of tagging this article as "BLP" with attendant RS implications for sourcing...which is then being cited as grounds for rejecting content and sourcing not even referencing Mr. Gore...as in this case where relevant and easily sourceable content was deleted, assumedly under the "immediate removal" BLP mandate, as "Unsourced per BLP". |Revision as of 22:23, 12 June 2010 (edit) (undo)KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (?Appearance and Background: Cut: Unsourced per BLP)

This article is about a satirical concept and references to Mr. Gore are limited, at most, to RS citations that he was in a certain place at a certain time, surely not content about which BLP sourcing considerations should be proffered...or tagged in "talk". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Context is everything. I was removing quite a lot of material that was either unsourced, poorly sourced or wasn't in the sources produced (see the previous removal). - as BLP requires. This was one of the 5-6 removals that was there. Source it and readd it is what you should do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is not on the propriety of your individual edits citing BLP considerations but whether BLP considerations are applicable to this entire article which is, as I understand it, what the BLP "talk" tag is designed to establish. It is mis-applied and should be removed from the article talk page as an unwarranted impediment to the composition of this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all articles, so your expansion here tells us nothing. The article is question is about humour/satire directed towards a living person, and thus the BLP guideline should be one of the very first things that people keep in mind when editing that article - and that is the reason for the tag. But tag or no tag - BLP applies. There is a terrible tendency amongst editors to thing that BLP only applies to directly biographical articles, such as Al Gore - and it is often forgotten that BLP is about all content that relates directly to/is about a living person.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all articles, so your expansion here tells us nothing.

Quite the contrary. It tells me, at least, that you appear to be persistant in promoting the mis-interpretation, mis-application and subsequent demonstrable mis-use of the sourcing requirements mandated by the placement of a BLP tag in the referenced article. I'll go out on a limb and suspect its legitimate purpose and use will be made evident to you...eventually. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO do you honestly believe this image [4] is an attack image and not just a bit of fun? mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a situation that I wrote WP:CRYBLP to apply to: BLP may apply, but it should not be used as a lever to force the removal of tangentially-related material. If it's unsourced and attacking Gore, it goes. If it's reliably sourced and making fun of Gore, it stays. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• BLP applies to all content about living people but we don't add the template willy nilly to here and there , that is a weakening of respect for the template and policy. The article is at AFD and the editing there of an article at AFD is incredulous.. the template is meaningless there, a POV devaluation of its authority. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That is why it isn't being added "willy-nilly" but because of genuine BLP concerns that have been realised. Verbal chat 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • What genuine BLP concerns [...] have been realised?? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone point to an actual edit to this article (not obvious vandalism) that attacked Al Gore? Other than Gore's name being in the phrase "Gore Effect", I can't think of any way that this article would be any closer to the subject of Al Gore than any other non-biographical article would be. People joke that the weather gets unusually cold at Gore appearances and other events related to climate change. One paragraph of the article states that "Gore Effect" has been used to mean Gore's influence. This seems to be the closest we come to Al Gore. Is that the passage where there might be a BLP concern? How can this article get closer to the subject of Al Gore than that? Will we put BLP notices up on every article in which Gore is mentioned as much as that Gore's-influence paragraph? The use of the template appears to be over the top. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I had removed the template per the talk here but it has been reverted back in, can we please get this sorted mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for discussion to die out at the article talk page and, I guess, here, before removing the box. The initiator of the RfC on the talk page, Jake, can remove the RfC tag and close the discussion after it dies down (see WP:RFC#Ending RfCs), and if there's a consensus, we can then take down the BLP box. Incidentally, there is a ban on citing self-published sources for information about living persons (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:BLPSPS). That applies to subject matter, not whether or not this article is considered BLP taggable, and self-published sources referencing Gore only indirectly or in a trivial way but referencing the subject of this article directly can't fall under the BLP policy in any way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus here or there to remove the tag. Verbal chat 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also no consensus to include it, it matters not it is valueless to add it there and does nothing apart from demean the value of the template in a POV way. it is not a BLP. There is also as I see 40 keep comments and 35 delete comments and no consensus to delete the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the template, surely this issue has been settled before? Does it belong on non-BLPs or doesn't it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Only my opinion, of course, but if there is significant content that might relate to legitimate matters of BLP concern in a non-BLP article, I suppose it could be appropriately applied. Then there's this article, referencing a satirical concept that is, at most, incidentally referencing an LP whose only reference in the article itself is within citations placing him somewhere at sometime. This is not the stuff of BLP concern and it is a rather clear cheapening of rationale for use of the template.

But your question really presumes resolution of this BLP/N...which is to ascertain some consensus of opinion as to whether or not this article is a "Biography of a Living Person" with attendant BLP caveats and increased sourcing requirements. Clearly it is not, though the resulting fallout from the satire may have consequence to the credibility of both Mr. Gore and the AGW cause. Life is tough out there in the CC trenches. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us try it again: BLP (despite the "biography" part) applies to all content about a living person. If you want to say "X was in Y at <date> where Z happened" then its a direct statement about a living person, which must adhere to the rather more strict sourcing demands of the BLP policy. It doesn't get mooted or otherwise invalidated because its used in a humourous context. (otherwise you may want to point out where our policies state that humour has a lower requirement for WP:V than other contexts). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this comment about? I agree that my point of view is different to yours but I am willing to discuss for as long as required and additionally have other opinions to insert into the the discussion, I hope this will clear up any issues ant other editors have and that we can move forward in a collaborative manner. (bla dy bla dy bla) Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you appear to have nothing like consensus support for your interpretation of WP:BLP. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dear God people. You're arguing over a talk page template, this'll end up on WP:LAME if you're not careful. The climate change battles are getting ridiculous; can everyone please walk away from this particular dispute and find something constructive to do? The template doesn't only apply to BLPs, it is a reminder about BLP rules in general. As the template documentation says, "{{BLP}} is suitable for other articles containing information on living people." Obviously it'll usually only appear on talk pages of BLPs as part of the BLP WikiProject template, but what harm does it do to remind editors of WP:BLP, which does indeed apply to all articles? Fences&Windows 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

...but what harm does it do to remind editors of WP:BLP, which does indeed apply to all articles?

The application of a BLP tag to an article is not without consequence as your post suggests. I documented a single example above. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that Template:BLP others is the better template to apply here anyway Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is spot on (and I was unaware of this tag's existence). For the record, from its text (emphasis mine)....

While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article...

Any assertion that the currently appended Template:BLP is of no consequence to the entirety of this or any other article is simply not accurate and, IMHO, clearly rebutted by the text of this tag. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added a rash of content to the article, claiming Devananda had commited murders, kidnappings etc. I reverted, as most of the information wasn't cited, and that which was cited didn't mention Devananda. Another editor subsequently reverted my edit, re-adding the BLP violations to the article. I don't want to edit war, so if someone here can take a look it'll be appreciated. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DO edit war to keep out uncited allegations of murder and kidnapping. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

... however, looking at the article, I see that the first cite included DOES mention him by name. I suspect the characterization is not as clearcut as this summary. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The article used to be well cited. I meant what the IP added wan't cited right. For example, the only citation in the "Allen kidnappings" section added by the anon editor is a New York Times article, which while mentioning the kidnappings, doesn't mention Devananda or his organization. [5] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article used to be well-cited, then surely the real problem is that there are attempts to white-wash his bio? The charges against Devananda are very widely reported, e.g. "He figures in three criminal cases for offences such as murder, attempt to murder, rioting, criminal intimidation and kidnap. In 1994, a sessions court here [in India] had declared him as a proclaimed offender and an absconding accused."[6] Don't just say "the article is poorly sourced", go and find better sources. Fences&Windows 14:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you read wiki policy a bit more carefully? It's not up to me to find citations to contentious material. It's up to the user who added it in the first place. You think it's true, why don't you go find sources? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The content reverted by Snowolfd4 was added by me, not an anonymous editor. Some of what I added (such as his early life, imprisonment in Sri Lanka, military training by Palestinians, attack on Karainagar naval base) wasn't controversial and is widely available on the WWW, even on Devananda's party's website. The rest, such as the murder and kidnappings in Chennai, has been primarily sourced from this article by journalist DBS Jeyaraj. Jeyaraj is generally regarded as a reliable, well-informed source on the Sri Lankan conflict who has written numerous articles on this subject for reputable Sri Lankan and Indian publications including Frontline, Daily Mirror and Sunday Leader. The charges of murder and kidnappings against Devananda are well known and have been reported widely recently in the Sri Lankan and Indian media: Daily Mirror, The Hindu, Indian Express, Sunday Leader, Times of India and many more.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate for an administrator to refer to a living person with comments including:
  • "Now that this mook has been (once again) thoroughly repudiated by the voters", and,
  • "He's the one who proclaims himself in public as a bigot and a homophobe -- how respectful do we have to be to these kinds of people?", while explaining this away with comments like,
  • "I will grant that maybe I shouldn't have called (redacted) a "mook", although I have every right do so in this non-article space" ?

Perhaps there is some rule on Wikipedia regarding WP:BLP that says users, and administrators, can make comments like these about living people, but to me it seems certainly like inappropriate behavior. It would seem obvious that WP:BLPTALK applies to the above situation - Posting here for review from some fresh eyes. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording of that AFD is a BLP vio. I'm stirred to delete it as such. Thoughts? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Gwen, but I'm no longer uninvolved.—S Marshall T/C 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But what about repercussions regarding the behavior itself? -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the entire page seems a bit extreme. Couldn't the few offending comments have simply been amended? --Onorem ♠Dil 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That kind of out-of-bounds wording very likely swayed the some editors who made comments, the only way is to begin afresh. I'll be happy to renom myself if asked. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that the wording in the nomination was a little passionate, as were accusations of canvassing, but neither influenced my recommendation. I also have no axe to grind here in that I was unaware of any previous conflict between the two editors. I believe the article should be renominated, but it might be preferable to give it a few days or weeks to let things settle down. Location (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No BLP applies to non-project space just as it does to article space. The only difference is that there is a SLIGHT lowering of standards. EG If he were to have said, "I heard that so-and-so was arrested for abusing children, does anybody know anything about that?" Then it would be acceptable. You can ask questions or garner input on a talk page that would be a BLP violation if it occured on the Main Page---but it depends on what is said and how it is said. Talk pages can also be used to iron out differences in what would otherwise be a controversial edit, but we cannot allow BLP vios to go unresolved. You cannot make derogatory statements of fact, unless you can source/cite them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be totally unacceptable to state on a talk page or anywhere else, "I heard that so-and-so was arrested for abusing children". That is exactly the sort of thing that BLP expressly forbids, and for very good reason. Ty 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The example I gave was a little extreme, but you could, if it is a legit question and not presented as a matter of fact or an attack.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the AfD as a wanton BLP violation and have warned the user. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The user is an admin. Wanton BLP violation by an admin is grounds for removal of admin status, yes? -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I dislike all BLP violations and imo Administrators should know better and I have therefore have requested him on his talkpage as regards to Administrators open to recall. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there has been a pattern of this behavior and he's been warned previously, the odds of this resulting in the loss of the bit are unlikely (unless he does so voluntarily.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have simply let him know that he has lost my trust as an Administrator. Some other editors also expect better of their Administrators and for such BLP violations other users may also feel that he no longer has their trust and may or may not want to add their comment also. I think six such comments is sometimes considered a tipping point so to speak, but whatever I don't expect Administrators (or anyone)to violate BLP in such a way, to be so bad that his edits are no longer visible, as occurred here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this too, it should be obvious this is a no-no. Has the account been compromised? Has the editor been made aware of this discussion? Perhaps an explanation could be provided (extending AGF), but I support the deletion. Verbal chat 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's been made aware of this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry, he's been warned a lot! I only saw Rob's note and for some reason missed all those above! Verbal chat 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Verbal, yes, he was notified. It seems in the past (February 2010) the account was blocked indefinitely due to concerns of "account owner not in control of account". However, User:Herostratus then proceeded to unblock himself. -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The actual story is here, he never lost control of the account but was admonished for messing about and unblocking himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=347914724#Herostratus_.2F_Viridae Fences&Windows 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that was apparently a joke of some kind, the was a thread at ANI about it here :::::There is also another recent strange action..this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mg1200/My_Hustle&diff=prev&oldid=368120475 where he userfied a recently created article that was tagged as a copy vio and then removed the copyvio template with this edit summary, since its in userspace, it ok to remove copyvio tag. right? i hope so . Note the question mark. I can't find anywhere a request from the recently created account User:mg1200 to have the article userfied, the copyvio template was replaced by an experienced user and then again removed by the new account and has been replaced again by another experienced user. Perhaps this situation is also related, only he can tell us. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So we are starting to see a history of bad judgment and lack of familiarity with policies.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Now hold on. There's already plenty of complaints that WP:BLP is getting out of control. Are you people seriously proposing that WP:BLP be applied as it stands to non-article pages? I recognize that my AfD was not popular in some quarters, but to get back at me for this you would set this in policy? You are saying that on a talk page or AfD or other project page I cannot say "Kim Jong Il, the dictator of North Korea..."? I'm sure he doesn't like being called a dictator. I would be required to say "Kim Jong Il, the Glorious People's President..." or whatever his actual title is? We will now be required to dig up attribution to a reliable, published source "for every any material challenged or likely to be challenged" on a talk page or other project page? Good grief. How the hell are we supposed to be able work through issues on articles if "any material without an inline citation may be removed immediately" from the very talk page where we are trying, for example, to ask for help in finding a citation? And so on. This is the most egregious violation of the basic right to speak freely in scholarly discourse that I have ever heard proposed on this website. This page is not an appropriate venue for this question. You would need a new, separate policy to be proposed, discussed, and adopted for such a sweeping and hugely important extension of WP:BLP to be adopted. Granted there are a few references, in passing, in WP:BLP to non-article spaces, but this sort of thing is not what people generally thought they were discussing and !voting on when BLP was adopted.

As for the other, 1) is the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard the proper venue for grousing about general dislike of individual editors? 2) Admin bits are supposed to usually be pulled for abuse of admin rights, I would think, which an AfD nomination is not, but 3) by all means I may be recalled, it says so on my user page. I do not know what the procedure is. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@Balloonman, yes, that does unfortunately seem to be the case here. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Wikipedia:BLP#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." That has been in the policy for a long time. Ty 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think most people really expect that to be applied with rigor to people's collegial intercommunications (which is what an AfD is). It's just sort of an aside. Tell you what: I'll gin up a new policy proposal that makes all this explicit; the larger community needs to discuss this and chew on the repurcussions, namely that our discussions among ourselves would need to be heavily censored. In my opinion, it seems very likely that, at the least, a separate and less rigorous policy needs to be written to cover collegial intercommunications. Oh, and here y'all go. Herostratus (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Recall petition. Fences&Windows 13:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Over at Peter Hayes (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there is an edit war surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of an unsourced sentence "Peter has two daughters with long-time girlfriend Catherine St. George.", as near as I can tell the statement is contentious (at least a couple apparent accounts are arguing this, although puppetry may be involved), unsourced, and part of a BLP and therefore should be removed. It was tempting to claim exclusion from 3RR and keep reverting, I've attempted to post notices on some of the users Talk pages and I've filed for a sockpuppet investigation, but other assistance (as well as suggestions/advice/criticism etc.) welcome.--j⚛e decker^talk 06:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked one account blocked as an obvious sock, the other I've blocked for 72 hours, and I've revision deleted all edits inserting this from May till now. Absolutely you have a 3RR exclusion. Let me know if this resumes. Fences&Windows 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated, will do! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After discussion above, there is still a bit of an issue that could use clearing up. So we know per WP:BLPTALK that it is not okay to violate WP:BLP in all space on Wikipedia, and this applies everywhere not just main article space. But what about edit summaries? It it okay to make an edit summary of: "SUCKS BALLS" on a BLP article page? When questioned about this, the editor that chose to make that comment while editing a BLP, said, "I believe the edit summary was appropriate.". There are plenty of other more appropriate ways for an editor to describe their contribution to an article with the edit summary function. I do not think this is in any way necessary or appropriate, but would like input from some fresh eyes. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Cirt, you devil you, editing at light speed. Here's what happened party people -- I came across the AfD for Kenneth Dickson and looked at the article to see whether the guy is actually notable or not. The opening of the article is a huge collection of indiscriminate information, far from a concise summary of why the subject is interesting or notable. So I began to edit the article to create a new lead and left the remaining material as a "summary of background" while I continued to edit. Oh, perhaps I could have placed an edit in progress sort of thing on the article, but I figured I could act relatively quickly for human editors. Meanwhile, Cirt came along and simply reverted without discussion, saying, "restore per WP:LEAD. We do not have a summary of a summary of a summary on articles on Wikipedia."). Knowing that Cirt edits faster than Deep Blue calculates, I added a useless space to the article with the edit summary, "but cirt - this summary SUCKS BALLS - my incremental approach was to eventually eliminate that summary of summary and integrate into rest - ok?" My use of the "SUCKS BALLS" comment was not in relation to Mr. Dickson or his notability, but clearly in reference to the summary section of the article. (I would agree that making a edit summary comment that Mr. Dickson "sucks balls," which I am sure he does not, and I would not say even if I though he does, would violate WP:WLP). Could I have chosen a less colorful term to try to stop Cirt's editing march? I submit that the use of such colorful term was required to get his attention. Indeed, before I could even start a discussion section on the article talk page, which I immediately set upon, Cirt had commented on my talk page to tsk tsk me on my use of the phrase "SUCKS BALLS." Ultimately, I concede that use of the phrase "SUCKS BALLS" is not the most civil term I could have chosen, and it happened because the reversion while I was editing was a tad rude in my opinion. I am sure Cirt did not intend anything untoward. I shall survive.--Milowent (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Slightly copyedited within a few minutes of posting, but not before Cirt replied already!--Milowent (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not defend the use of "sucks balls" in an edit summary on a BLP in such a fashion, as it is not appropriate in any case whatsoever, especially on a BLP page. There are plenty of ways to explain an edit properly. Note: Also that the edit in question here did not contribute any content whatsoever to the article, and was seemingly done only for the express purpose of making an edit summary of "sucks balls" on a BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't really see this as a BLP issue. I agree that there could have been a more appropriate way to express the idea, but don't see a big problem here. --Onorem♠Dil 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There was not even any contribution done. It was a gratuitous edit just made and saved to add that edit summary. -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. I still don't think this is a BLP issue...and unless there's a pattern of some sort, I don't think this is a noticeboard of any type issue. --Onorem♠Dil 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cirt - as I just noted above, the comment was made to get your darn attention, because you edit in lightspeed.--Milowent (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WRONG use of edit summary, could have gotten my attention, with a polite post to my talk page, not gratuitous and inappropriate use of edit summaries. -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We all can't be as perfect as you, but I shall try.--Milowent (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Onorem; this is not a BLP issue. It is clear from the thread that primary concern here was the language used in the edit summary, and that the phrase "SUCKS BALLS" was used in describing how the article's summary was constructed. On this point, what language is unnecessary or inappropriate is often a matter of opinion frequently depending upon how thick one's skin may be. After an explanation was given by Milowent, a secondary issue was raised by Cirt pointing out that it was improper to discuss content in the edit summary without making an edit. While this is true by the letter of the law, it really comes across as nitpicking in an attempt to avoid accepting the initial explanation. Lines of communication do go both ways and the offended party could have easily brought this up on the offender's talk page first. Location (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up on the party's talk page. The party failed to see the problem in gratuitous use of an edit without a change, to only serve the purpose of making an inappropriate edit summary with no contribution whatsoever to the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. According to his talk page, he does not agree with you that the language in the edit summary was inappropriate but he did, in fact, discuss it with you. The secondary issue about no content in the actual edit was first brought up here after he again explained his use of language. On this second point, I'm not sure what you want to have happen here. You both are good editors, so I think the civil thing to do would be to avoid escalating the matter over a relatively minor infraction. Location (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, understood. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just did a very thorough revision of Cassandra Clare's entry using as many published sources as I could find. One section of the article, however is problematic: Cassandra Clare#Plagiarism Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Looking at the primary source references of the controversy, the allegations are quite clear and indisputable. However, what's problematic is that no mainstream press has sufficiently covered the allegations enough to truly meet wikipedia's sourcing standards.

Considering the occupation of the person in question, I feel that including the specifics of the allegations on the wikipedia page are absolutely necessary in the interest of preserving a balanced representation of this person. So, keeping in mind that (as far as I know) no mainstream publication has addressed this issue (possibly due to its removal from previous incarnations of the wikipedia page, one of the most popular go-to sources for journalists & media), what kind of sources can be used instead? Would scans of side-by-side work be acceptable to show the nature/proof of the allegation? Infoaddict1 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment until I have a chance to review things, but The_Draco_Trilogy#Plagiarism_controversy is essentially equivalent text and raises the same issues. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on John Polkinghorne, the particle physicist turned Anglican priest, contains this "Criticism of Polkinghorne" section:

The British philosopher Simon Blackburn criticizes Polkinghorne for primitive thinking, and for using rhetorical devices instead of engaging in philosophy. For example, Polkinghorne argues that the minute adjustments of cosmological constants on which life on earth depends begs for an explanation that goes "beyond the scientific." Blackburn argues, following Kant and Hume, that this relies on a natural preference for explanation in terms of agency, and necessitates what Blackburn calls truly spectacular leaps of understanding about the mind of a designer that requires no birth, nurture, language, culture, or physicality. Blackburn's position is that, in order to develop, science had to move beyond this kind of primitive thinking. He wrote that he finished Polkinghorne's books, with their "supreme contempt for philosophical reasoning and historical thinking," in despair at humanity's capacity for self-deception.^[1]

Richard Dawkins, formerly Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, writes that the same three names of British scientists who are also sincerely religious crop up with the "likeable familiarity of senior partners in a firm of Dickensian lawyers": Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, and John Polkinghorne, all of whom have either won the Templeton Prize or are on its board of trustees. Dawkins writes that he is not so much bewildered by their belief in a cosmic lawgiver, but by their beliefs in the minutiae of Christianity, such as the resurrection and forgiveness of sins, and that such scientists, in Britain and in the U.S., are the subject of bemused bafflement among their peers.^[2] Polkinghorne says that debating with Dawkins is hopeless, because he doesn't give an inch,^[3] and writes in Questions of Truth that he hopes Dawkins will be a bit less baffled once he reads it.^[4] The philosopher A.C. Grayling criticized the Royal Society for allowing its premises to be used for the launch of Questions of Truth, describing it as a scandal, and arguing that Polkinghorne exploited his fellowship there to publicize a "weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet." Grayling argues that the "superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds living several thousand years ago" must not be given the same credibility as contemporary scientific research.^[5]

I recognize that the criticism derives from notable individuals and was made in ostensibly reliable sources. But considering that the criticism recorded isn't really specific to Polkinghorne as an individual (it seem directed more at theism and Christianity in general) it strikes me as unencyclopedic and undue. (Really, would a print encylopedia include this material in an entry on Polkinghorne? I doubt it.) Can this be excised on the basis of policies like WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, etc, or do I need to get an RfC together to overcome the 2:1 snap consensus in favor on the talk page in favor of keeping it in? Eugene (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• This material appears appropriate to me. It is a well-sourced summary of commentary about Polkinghorne's ideas, and thus doesn't violate WP:BLP, and it is certainly not so extensive in length, compared to the other material in the article as to violate WP:UNDUE. In fact, I believe its deletion would be contrary to WP:NPOV. Polkinghorne is controversial, and it would do the encyclopedia no benefit to shy away from that fact.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Right, but on the Talk page, there seems to be a building consensus that the material should be worked into the article more cleverly, so to speak, than just dumped in a "Criticism" section. In my first reading through that material I got the impression that the criticism was rather harsh and undue. And the detail was too much, in my opinion, among other things making for poorly written, hard to follow material. A simpler explanation and links to ref would suffice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose it would be better to keep the discussion in one place, and it appears that's the Talk page, so I will respond over there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Rubashkin is a high profile case, in which Sholom Rubashkin has been accused of fraud and a huge number of child labor offenses - this latter has just been shown by the courts to have been one big lie. According to Rubashkin himself, the accusations of fraud is similarly trumped up and he has been framed by the State and US Govenment. None of this has been mentioned in the wiki article, although I would suggest it is highly relevant. This case has appeared on wiki with a very non-neutral slant, and none of his defense has even been presented. Please see www.yated.com for an overview of the case from a different perspective. Each of his cases can influence the outcome of his other cases, so it is most important that this wiki article does not unfairly bias potential judges, jurors, media and witnesses in this very complex case. I don't know how to get a more open perspective into the article as I am a novice user. I wish someone would present his side of the matter somewhere in the article. From what I've seen others trying, and my personal attempts, it is complex to know how to present information in a way acceptable to wiki, and to keep it there despite reverts. Please can someone help here. Eftwithrachelg (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Rachel Geller

He was recently acquitted on state charges but he has been convicted on federal charges of fraud. I removed the extended discussion of state charges regarding child labor violations after acquittal, simply noting that he had been charged and acquitted. But there's no reason to worry about the discussion of the fraud conviction -- that's a done deal, no reason to worry about jurors being affected, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is not a biography at all, it is just about crime and trial, it needs moving to a new title. Perhaps .The criminal trials of Sholom Rubashkin. The article is simply a cited rap sheet or criminal report. It starts in this labeling manner...Sholom Rubashkin is the former CEO of the Glatt kosher Agriprocessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, and a convicted fraudster.... lovely. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity — you are persisting in inserting material into the Rubashkin article that goes beyond what sources support. In this edit you are asserting that Rubashkin is a "fraudster." As you know, no source refers to Rubashkin as a "fraudster." Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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

On the talk page I have requested semi-protection. Not doing it myself to avoid any appearance of admin tools being used in a conflict of interest situation. I don't think I have a COI, so I may do some editing of this biography (or I may not). But Suhas is a friend of mine, so I wanted to be excessively by-the-book here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs to show the "ongoing slow campaign of vandalism on this article" that you have observed. The history of the article shows very few reversions, and only one reversion [7] of obvious page blanking vandalism since the last [8] request for semi protection. Weakopedia (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruption doesn't seem presently excessive and there are constructive IP edits, if the disruption returns perhaps pending changes would be an idea. I have watchlisted the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps slightly OT, I thought it worth mentioning here since it doesn't seem to have been before, it's significant from a BLP standpoint and it doesn't seem to have been advertised that well (perhaps I was too distracted with the world cup). Flagged revisions or pending changes & Wikipedia:Reviewing is now finally being trialed. To propose a page for the limit trial (only 2000 pages will be done during the trial) see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue. If you are not already (many may have automatically been granted the right so do check first) ask to be a reviewer at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer so you can help review BLPs Special:OldReviewedPages Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we please get some eyes on the Kenneth Haywood article? Mr. Haywood, who edits as KLH1986 (talk · contribs), just moved the article to a new title, Flagstaff liers. His edit summary was “Too many biased, and slanderous remarks have been added. Accusations of felonious acts not charged, in any venue but the media, or the editor's mind.”

I have reversed the move, obviously, but if editors here could please review the article contents for BLP violations, it would be greatly appreciated. I have also notified Mr. Haywood of this discussion. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Haywood earlier deleted most of the article here. That was automatically reverted by Cluebot. He is clearly frustrated so we need to assist and/or educate him. — Satori Son 15:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is awful and resulting in an attack BLP. I have sent it to AFD for discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Haywood Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some really cruel, racist remarks being posted to this talk page. The listing itself has been rightfully locked because of malicious edits. The talk page needs cleaned up/protected as well, ASAP. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.244.136 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks cleaned up now. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.244.136 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Phill Jupitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Continual addition of beekeping/apiarist // Chaosdruid (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

[9] If he states it's not true it's hardly a fact  ! [10] [11]

We are still getting many editors who were adding "Phill is a keen beekeeper" and after many attempts to stop this I added a hidden message and still they are removing the hidden tags around "Phill collects bees" or adding "Phill is a keen apiarist" elsewhere - normally IP's

This has gone on for a long time now and repeated removes did not work. The last attempt was to hide the text with a hidden message, warning that he had said on national TV that it was not factually correct, in an attempt to inform rather than repeat the cycle of delete insert delete insert...

I have reverted to the last good version now. [12]

As a last point I would like to say that Phill's denial on National TV also included saying that you cant trust what it says on Wikipedia because it says he is a beekeeper - NATIONAL TV !!

Can I suggest this be added to the trial of revisions ?

I semiprotected for one week; we can flip it to sighted revisions if that seems more sensible. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) Should our article be using the term "fraudster" when no source applies that term? Sources make reference to charges and conviction of "fraud," but no source can be found calling him a "fraudster." Talk page discussion on this subject is found here. I also accidentally started a discussion on this here thinking it was this Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This perspective was already rejected in that other discussion; what we have here is a bit of forum-shopping. My view: using this approach, wikipedia would turn into a collection of quotes from sources. The article here says his lawyers "argued that Rubashkin is not a flight risk" -- but that's not exactly what the source says. Wikipedia editors use sources to write text, conveying the information they provide. There's nothing wrong, then, with using a source that says he was convicted of fraud to support "is a convicted fraudster". Would we worry about someone convicted of murder being "a convicted murderer"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the benefit in labeling him like that? I don't see any forum shopping, and I don't see a rejection of this perspective in the previous discussion. If an article has an excessive POV in it then expect users to keep coming to balance that POV, life is like that. It is easy to claim my article is being reverted, but you should ask yourself why do other editors repeatedly suggest my addition is excessive labeling.Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't see a rejection of Bus-stop's complaint here?? I'm genuinely puzzled by this, and I'm tempted to use a term I've used in relation to you before but will refrain for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can be as rude as you like to me, it reflects on yourself only. I notice you are now wiki warring to keep it in the opening sentence. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then -- it looks like you are having trouble with reading comprehension again, if you don't see rejection of Bus-stop's complaint here. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You and another editor is not a rejection. You are blinded by your anti Israeli POV. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Darling, I fail to see what this has to do with Israel -- you really do seem confused. I suppose you find support in that other discussion?? Hmmm. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen Sheila, keep your male male terms of endearment for your friends, of which I am not one. If you are looking for confusion I suggest you have plenty of personal stuff to be going on with. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? And please explain the relevance of Israel! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity — there is a difference between being convicted of fraud and being a fraudster. The second is highly condemnatory language. The first leaves open the possibility that some parts of the person may remain untainted. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other news source refers to document fraud, or bank fraud or some such language, in relation to Rubashkin. They don't go so far as to refer to him as a fraudster. I think we are to understand these as language decisions made at these sources in relation to this individual. I know of no reason why we would need to depart from the sort of language that they are setting for us as an example. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to nail this "labelling" business. First, there is no policy regarding "labels", even in BLP. There just isn't. Second, labelling is entirely normal. I have fathered several children; that makes me "a father". Jeffrey Dahmer murdered a bunch of people; that makes him "a murderer". Third -- and particularly relevant for BLP -- Wikipedia articles use categories: in a word, labels. There just isn't a problem here, and you haven't been able to convince anyone that there is actually a policy-based problem; no-one is buying the RS argument, and what that leaves us with is that you just don't like it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, you like labeling him, you reject the other opinions and claim yours as the fabulous best POV, also citations are required to support your outlandish claims. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity — basic policy:

WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

The use of "fraudster" is in violation of WP:OR because it is not the "material as presented." No source presents fraudster.

The use of "fraudster" is in violation of WP:RS because no source "directly supports" the use of that term. You can only find indirect support in the use of terminology such as "document fraud" and "bank fraud."

We are supposed to adhere closely to what sources say. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable sources asserting that this person was convicted of fraud, right? Then he or she is a fraudster. I'm puzzled as to why this is even an issue. Were there glaring irregularities in the trial(s) or other substantial reasons to doubt that he or she committed fraud?

It would also be helpful if those editors who have personal issues with one another were to stay away from one another and allow this discussion to unfold without their animosity clouding the issue(s). ElKevbo (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo — we add material in accordance with the language used by sources. No source uses the term "fraudster." That is a decision made in the newsroom of the source. Our job is to convey a likeness of the message contained in the reliable source. That can be accomplished by using the same words or paraphrasing. But that should not involve taking the core of an idea and expanding it into another idea. When paraphrasing, we should be careful not to introduce new ideas. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're advocating too slavish an adherence to sources. We're not introducing a new idea; we're simply restating it in a more concise manner. One convicted of theft is a thief, one convicted of murder is a murderer, and one convicted of fraud is a fraudster. I simply don't see how one can reasonable argue otherwise. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the term "fraudster" is not appropriate language. It is the sort of sensationalist wording used by tabloids, not encyclopedias. NPOV means we describe even crimes in neutral language. Saying he was convicted of fraud is sufficient and makes the point properly. Using "fraudster" implies animus. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it different from "murderer" or "thief"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1st - it isn't English. Already being discussed at the article talk page.

2nd - consider labeling someone a "child molester" instead of saying they were convicted of having sex with a 17-year-old when they were 16.

It is not neutral. WP strives to simply present the facts, and let the reader decide if the person is a "Fraudster", or wrongly convicted, or justified, or just foolish, or brilliant, or whatever. The really seems more about wp:NPOV than "BLP"... and I don't understand why we shouldn't simply say he was convicted of fraud and move on. At the moment, that is the text in the lead, in sentence one... convicted of fraud for actions taken while in charge of the company.- Sinneed 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is English: it's in the Collins Dictionary, & see here. As for NPOV, that's a matter of judgement, and while I can handle being outvoted on that score, it's clear that a few people agree with me, it's not as if I'm a lone voice here. It's worth noting that no one has addressed the broader labeling point in a way that addresses how fraudster is different from murderer and thief. There's something about either the word or this particular person that is getting people worked up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention from editors interested in BLP to this DRV. I'm afraid it's a bit of a mess; the waters have been muddied by sockpuppetry and Balloonman, the closer of the original AfD, has overturned himself, deleted the material, and then brought his own closure to DRV. While I have all due respect for WP:CANVASS (which is why I explained my reasons for cross-posting here in the DRV and gave DRV participants the chance to object), I'll make no bones at all about my view that Balloonman was right to delete and ought to be endorsed. I wonder if participants here will agree.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw commercials were removed from Lee Jun Ki does anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.234.3 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because they were unsourced and had external links. See Wikilinks in the previous sentence for the relevant policies this section violated. Yworo (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. So can I post it with sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.234.3 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, as this is not really a BLP issue. This noticeboard is generally used for problems with the inclusion of unsourced potential libel in biographical articles, not questions about why something was removed. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

List of people affected by bipolar disorder is a nightmare, and needs to be checked for WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if their article has not got anything about this claim then they should not be in the list, like a cat if there is nothing in the article they don't qualify for the list. Feel free to check articles and if nothing is there remove from the list. One citation with a claim of bi polar should not allow us to label people with a medical condition. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time-- perhaps this article should be AfD'd if no one has time to clean it up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently a user was blocked for three months because of an arbitration enforcement. See the notice here. I brought the fact that an obvious BLP violation removal pass before an imposed 1rr. An uninvolved user agreed here. I believe that we are facing an obvious case of BLP violation and the user did believe as can be seen here that there was a BLP issue. The edit warring was mainly initiated by the following:

Frank Pallone, Jr., the co-chairman of the US Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, called her a "true Armenian nationalist who would give her life for Armenia and Karabakh".^[6]

The thing is that Cox is not even an Armenian, and Pallone was teasing her. Neither side, Grandmaster or the blocked user did claim she was an Armenian. The problem with this sentence, is that anyone reading it will falsy assume her to be an Armenian, or even more possibly an Armenian nationalist.

Being able to attribute a source to a claim does not give someone the right to add a material, when even the editor who is adding it knows that the reader will imply something he himself knows is not accurate; and that when even the author of the quote did not really mean.

Grandmaster claims that this was discussed previously and that there is no BLP violation. He refers to this here. But only one neutral editor replied (and with a surprising answer at that) and this was in 2007, in 2010, editors are much more careful with BLP. In fact, Grandmaster during that discussion claimed: The opinion of Pallone is neither libel nor criticism, the problem is that it is not Pallone opinion, he was teasing her, he obviously does not think she is an Armenian.

And more, this sentence provide no relevant info about her, it only become relevant if the intend of the person who is adding it, is to make readers believe that some believe she is an Armenian, when no one claims this, including the author of the quote. Ionidasz (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence at all that Pallone's comment is critical, nor that it's intended to make her appear to be an Armenian.

Your interpretation here is novel and unusual. I don't know for a fact that you are wrong - but you need to provide evidence in much more detail to convince us that you are right.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pallone was not critical of her, he is her friend. It was said during a tribute to her, under her presence and with full of Armenians. He was teasing her, everyone knows she is not an Armenian and Grandmaster is not claiming she is. She was teased because of her advocacy for the Armenian cause. There is BLP violation, not because Pallone was critical of her, but because anyone reading that quote will think she is an Armenian and a nationalist at that. That's when someone quote a tribute speech full of emotions and colors. Be honest, when you have read that quote, did you not believe that Pallone was claiming her to be an Armenian? Ionidasz (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note that, Grandmaster did not clarify, in fact according to the secret mailing list he was a member (subject of an arbitraton on Russian Wikipedia), he opposed such a clarification on her article on Russian Wikipedia. This suggest the intend of that quote is to make readers believe what is not implied by its author. Ionidasz (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ionidasz, the idea you are trying to sell here sounds like pure WP:OR. I really doubt that this is a reason for exclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is an OR? Tell me what you understand from that quote. Ionidasz (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One does not have to be an Armenian to be an Armenian nationalist. Mr. Pallone was paying tribute to Mrs. Cox, and the phrase was a compliment, meant to signify her dedication to the Armenian cause. It is not criticism, libel, or any kind of a negative statement, and thus it is not a BLP issue. Btw, I searched through BLPN archives, and the issue was actually discussed twice, first time here: [13], and then once again here: [14] Both times there was no consensus that this was a BLP issue. So this is a third discussion about the same topic, which I don't mind, as long as it helps to resolve the issue. Also, I don't understand why anyone may falsely assume that Mrs. Cox is Armenian, as Ionidasz suggests, when her entire biography is available in the same article just above the quote in question. Grandmaster 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Grandmaster, the discussion of the second one was interesting, and Meowy share the same position. I see from his talkpage that he was blocked for a year, and checking the link provided, again a BLP issue, and again you were involved. This is an arbitration committee issue. BLP seems to be your target. Ionidasz (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a fan of blp enforcement, but see Ion's point in this case.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is the situation.

• Cox is not an Armenian.
• Grandmaster himself claims she is not an Armenian, but claim that it not what Pallone claim.
• Pallone can not mean that she is an Armenian.
• But the quote says a true Armenian nationalist, this will be interpreted by the reader that Pallone is claiming she is Armenian and a nationalist at that.
• There is the question of the source, which is an Armenian advocacy website, and which may have misreported.
• This is added in a section which already present her advocacy to the Armenian cause. The information does for this reasen bring nothing which is already not said in the article.
• Not saying anything which is already not said, the only information which this source bring, is the one for the readers not so careful, that Cox may be an Armenian and a nationalist.
• This is attributed to someone notable and non-controversial, so for those who may interprete it this way, since the author is credible, so as the claim.
• Square one, since that's not what Pallone means.

In conclusion, Grandmaster should contact Pallone, to confirm this was actually said to begin with. Ionidasz (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You aren't providing enough evidence that there's a real issue here to justify forcing someone to contact Mr. Pallone to clarify.

Again - consensus was previously that this quote was innocuous, and you and Andranikpasha are the only ones who seem to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, but to change Wikipedia content or treatment of the issue you have to convince others that there's a valid problem here. So far, this appears to be an attempt to use BLP to fight some sort of external battle here, and not at all the claimed "protective BLP" reason.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Check the second discussion..., I, him, in the discussion I see Meowy and VartanM. This makes four users. Also, while I have provided several reasons, those who are replying me (like you), don't give any reasons or argumentations, but just that they are disagreeing with me.

To add insult to the injury, you write: to fight some sort of external battle here, I amd wondering if you have read the above. I wrote that the info does not add anything which is not already in the article. The section already provide and confirms (something which I do not deny, nor try to supress) her advovacy to the Armenian cause. The problem I have (which you did not even bother replying directly), is that the uncareful reader will assume that Pallone is claiming her to be an Armenian nationalist. In UK, such words are not used as loosely as in the US, and even for an American who does not know her, he will be needing to double check to see if Cox is whatever or not an Armenian. Please don't turn around the subject by claiming you disagree, but directly reply to the points I have provided. Ionidasz (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As for contacting Pallone, that's because the info was sourced with an advocacy site. I think imputing such a claim to him such as an Armenian nationalist for someone who is obviously not an Armenian will take more than an advocacy site. We should first confirm he said that to begin with. Ionidasz (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again -

You and Andranikpasha have not established any credible reason to believe that this is a BLP violation. Your reasoning that it must be is simply not adequate or self-evident. I understand what you are saying, but you have not provided a convincing case. Your conclusions don't follow from the evidence you presented, and you're confusing and conflating factual information and your own interpretation / spin / original research on the issue.

I cannot understand why anyone would have edit warred in a way that violated an existing well-marked 1RR restriction, with many prior blocks, with this poor of a case that there is an actual BLP issue, without there being some sort of underlying external dispute. It makes no sense that either you or he would be this actively engaged in arguing over this unless you have an agenda.

You have the right to bring this to administrators' and the community's attention, and to argue your case. You and he have had a reasonable chance on that. You have not been convincing at all so far. All you're doing is making your own motivations look suspicious.

You don't have the right to demand that we agree with your interpretation or conclusions. You have to convince us.

You don't have the right to insist that BLP apply even if nobody else agrees with you that it's a BLP problem. BLP doesn't say that and has never been interpreted that way. Using BLP as a shield to attempt to cover up or justify other disruption is a well established blockable offense here.

There may be an actual case in there somewhere, but you need to focus in and make that if you intend to. Repeating the same claims that we have found unconvincing is not a useful approach.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full of accusations, and yet you have replied none of what I have brought above. I have no motives, neither my actions are suspicious and I don't appreciate you making this matter personal. Particularly when the filer of the report, Grandmaster, has run a newsgroup commending users to add negative materials on BLP issues (the newsgroup is currently the subject of an arbitration case on Russian Wikipedia) and I am the one being accused to have a suspicious behavior. It will help if you directly address the fact that the info is from an advocacy site, and even if it was to be accurate, the fact that the quote will be misinterpreted should suffice to remove it on sight. The misinterpretation being, her being an Armenian and a nationalist. And that the blocked user was caught prior revert warring or was blocked is unimportant. Ionidasz (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the quote will likely be misinterpreted. I don't see any evidence presented that the quote is false, or derogatory.

Your degree of persistence is highly unusual (nigh-on uniquely unusual) for someone who truly is not involved, and the fact that you appear to have information already on Grandmaster and are trying to personalize it with them rather than respond to the content issue they brought up are not good signs of your being uninvolved or neutral either.

How is the quote likely to be misinterpreted, what evidence is there that it's false, what evidence is there that it's derogatory?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Further this -

Having reviewed your edit history ( [15] ) in depth - you appear to edit only Azerbajani / Armenian conflict areas. How on earth can you represent yourself here as uninvolved and without an agenda, Ionidasz??? Did you think nobody would bother to look at what you've done?

00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, believe it or not, I could care less if Cox was accused to be a raper. What I will have a problem though, is that one user from each side revert war on it and for the same number of reverts, one of the two get caught and is blocked. True, she is not accused to be a raper, but there was a sentence claiming her to be an Armenian nationalist. Someone can not be an Armenian nationalist in the proper sense of the term, if that person is not an Armenian. True, that's not what Pallone meant, but I say that an uncareful user will think that. You disagree, but let's poll users about that sentence and how they interprete that. Three months block for this is plainly excessive. It's true he had a month block prior, but now contrary to the previous block, he had legitimate reasons beyond simple content dispute. The argument of BLP violation is strongly defendable. To add being a nationalist can and do often have negative connotations, so the assumption that even if one was to believe her to be one, it is not negative is ridiculous. Besides, you never replied to the fact that the site is an advocacy site. Ionidasz (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To add, that I do not claim to be uninvolved, what I advance is that I am without an agenda. Also, since this account is an admitted alternative account, solely used for AA matters, what you imply is innacurate. Even if it were to be true, arguments should be judged on their merits, not on the users contributions. Ionidasz (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again -

The argument of BLP violation can be made, but for it to be valid you have to convince others. Saying it, and not convincing anyone else that there is in fact a BLP violation, does not then excuse you (or more precisely Andranikpasha, who was blocked) edit warring. When people say "No, we don't agree that it's a BLP issue" you can take that to BLP noticeboard or to WP:ANI for a consensus ruling. But if you can't convince others that the BLP issue is valid, the BLP policy does not protect your behavior. BLP is an explanation not an absolute shield. You cannot just say it and wave it - it has to be true, and you have to convince others that it's true, not just say so yourself.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But again, you have not replied to the point made above. Just lets make this simple, can someone assume that Pallone is actually claiming Cox to be an Armenian nationalist, when he calls her an Armenian nationalist? You just have to reply by a yes or a no. Ionidasz (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I did reply on that point several times above. No, I don't think it's likely that people will assume that. The phrasing didn't indicate that to me on reading it. It's possible that others disagree and feel that it might be confusing, but I don't see it right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So now, we need editors to reply on that point, non-admins would be better, since there is a blocked user involved here. Ionidasz (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, i'm a non-admin. Clearly, absolutely clearly, there is nothing in the quote that will make a person think that Pallone claimed Baroness Cox to be of Armenian descent or nationality (which i assume is what you're asking, though not what you actually asked at this point. To again repeat a point made previously, one can be a Fooian nationalist without being of Fooian descent, without holding Fooian nationality, without living in Fooia. It's not a BLP issue. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 02:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

About your second point, I don't think the discussion is on whatever we can call someone who is not of Armenian descent an Armenian. But rather, what a significant number of readers might assume when reading the words Armenian nationalist. As seen in the second discussion, another reader thought of the same thing. Also, the issue of the nature of the source (an advocacy site) is still pending. Ionidasz (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i evidently misunderstood your concern. So, in that case, the answer is "Yes" ~ a reader may understand that Pallone called her an Armenian nationalist. That, too, is not a BLP issue. It was simply a way of expressing his appreciation of her support for and of the people. What they won't assume, if they are reading the article, is that this Hertfordshire born and raised, London educated, British member of the House of Lords is an Armenian. Right? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeap, that was it..., the possible assumption that she might be an Armenian. This might not be a BLP violation, but the word nationalist may have a bad connotation. If someone here was to claim I am an Armenian nationalist, I'd be offended (and this comming from an actual Armenian), because of the possible connotation, even if it were to be a compliment. It's true that if someone read the whole text, he may conclude she is not an Armenian. But, still, he may be wondering still, most Armenians live outside of Armenia, and are intergrated in several countries including in UK. There is actually an Armenian community in Hertfordshire. And again, still, the source being an advocacy site is still pending. I do not wish to continue further, for a lack of time, and because at least one user understood my concerns, even if not necessarly agreeing with me. So finally, a non admin does seem to be at least parly devoid of administrative influence. ;) Ionidasz (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your point, Mrs. Cox did not object to being called an Armenian nationalist, and she did not seem to be offended. Mr. Pallone said that compliment to her in her presence. Grandmaster 05:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

i think what he is saying is that how she may have taken it is not really elevant. what may be relevant is that the term nationalist may have a negative connotation and can be perceived as such by readers. which is true in this context! and it shouldnt be ok to read the whole text to understand that she is not an armenian for someone who might believe she is one at the sight of that quote.

i note that Ionidasz also brought the fact that an advocacy site may not be an adequate source to use which I also agree to. 217.76.2.214 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)it was my message. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think what everyone is missing here is that the word "nationalist" today carries with it a negative connotation. It signifies an individual who is only concerned about the problems of his own nation and is impervious to hearing out rational and sensible arguments, resorting to emotion and sometimes aggression. How often do we read in the media statements like "ultra-national leaders threatened to throw out [insert ethnic group] out of country" or "nationalist historians claim that they belong this land"? The American Heritage Dictionary defines a nationalist as the "belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals." In the United States, the word nationalist is substituted with "patriot" and nationalism with "patriotism", which is what Pallone probably might have meant. This is in light of Grandmaster's adding of this superfluous quote, in a section where Madame Cox's support for the Armenians is extensively shown. Given the word's negative connotation, one cannot help but wonder how this quote contributes anything to the article.

It's a poorly-worded comment and the truth of the matter is that it adds nothing to the article - given its connotation today in politics, its inclusion only makes one think that Pallone is criticizing her. We're deluding ourselves when we pretend that the average reader will obviously think that Pallone intended his comment to be a complement.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that i disagree with you, Marshal Bagramyan, in that i don't believe the word carries negative connotations, except when qualified (as you did above) by something like "ultra"; that's the reason i was not agreeing with Ionidasz's desire to remove the comment. I understand that language evolves, though, and maybe i'm a dinosaur with regard to that word; i'm certainly not wedded to it. As for the sourcing, i have no comment; i was simply giving an opinion on whether the quote needed to be taken out for strictly BLP/defamation reasons: I still don't think it does, but if the sourcing isn't up to scratch or reliable, then out it should come. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 02:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone think that Mr. Pallone was criticizing Mrs. Cox, when the article clearly states that he was paying a tribute to her? Again, as Jossi noted in previous discussion, the article does not claim that Mr. Cox was a nationalist, it is asserted as an opinion of Mr. Pallone, who is a notable person, and a good friend of Mrs. Cox. It is a compliment, not criticism. The word "nationalist" is used in the same sense as the word "patriot". As for the source of the quote, it is Armenia Fund USA, an organization, which can be trusted to be reliable when reporting the events, sponsored by that organization. Grandmaster 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry guys, it was my message above that the IP wrote. I hadn't noticed that i wasn't logged in. i signed it now.

i think everybody agrees here that it is possible to take the word "nationalist" can be perceived negative and "Armenian nationalist" may mislead a reader.

I jumped into the discussion and reading that edit i'd not seen ticed the discussion i had a confusion myself. the wording is not correct for sure because it may mislead. and i'm telling it from my experience. This is why i commented here. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If it had been negative, I believe Mrs. Cox would have objected it, but she did not. If she does not consider it negative, why should we? Remember, that statement was made in her presence, and it was meant as a compliment, not criticism. Grandmaster 19:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently this biography makes the unsourced allegation that "She tried to make it big after posing as one of Edie Sedgwick's nieces, the Sedgwick clan made it public that they had no relation to Misha Moore (her real name); she then left New York and returned to her native San Diego, she has stopped claiming to be related to Edie Sedgwick ever since, after being faced with possible legal action; however she still continues to go by the name of Misha Sedgwick."

I remember this case from a long time ago. I came across it again this week because it was on my watchlist and was recently edited by a bot.

My own view of the underlying facts, which I offer only to help orient those who are looking at this case for the first time. Misha Sedgwick performed in a play in 2004, playing the part of Edie Sedgwick. A review at the time correctly noted that she's no relation. Later news reporting (there wasn't a lot, as Misha has never been particularly famous) sometimes made the error of calling her a niece. It is unclear what part Misha played in either fostering that idea or allowing it to happen, but in any event Edie's family got quite upset about this.

Since that time, Misha seems to have left show business completely, although it is hard to be sure. IMDB lists no roles of any kind in 4 years.

I would recommend one of two courses of action. This article can arguably be deleted - the only press of any real note that she ever got was related to the Misha/Edie confusion, and that was only a tabloid blip as far as I know. Alternatively, the controversy could be sourced, but here I think it is important to be careful: there is precious little evidence (though, more than zero evidence, as I recall) that Misha intentionally misled the press. The Edie Sedgwick family may have used strong terminology like "morbid identity theft" but in terms of what is available in reliable sources, that's far from proven.

My own preference is for deletion, but I bring it here for reflection and discussion first.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The uncited content has been removed, although saying that the remaining citations are of little worth also to front pages and expired domains as I can see. The subject is of very limited notability. The identity theft is not something we could build a decent biography round. I would support delete as well. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced and poorly written section. I suggest AfD. Verbal chat 13:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

World cup referee who made a controversial decision in the Slovenia-USA game the other day. Is it reasonable on a very short article on a living person, to have around half the article be about the "controversy" of one decision he made? See also User talk:John#Koman Coulibaly, User talk:Jpgordon#When BLP meets NPOV and User talk:Enigmaman#When BLP meets NPOV. --John (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, there has been over the last few hours a far bit of discussion on the content and a draft of a slimmed down version is ready for inserting, the recent discussion is at the bottom of the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The editing of the wikipedia BLP has been reported here http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/18/u-s-world-cup-fans-take-revenge-on-koman-coulibalys-wikipedia and http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/06/angry-fans-deface-wikipedia-page-of-usa-slovenia-referee/1 Off2riorob (talk)

I have after lots of discussion and a degree of support made the edit. Koman_Coulibaly . We can do better if we can to protect living people, pending changes or semi protection need to be applied earlier in such situations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could people please keep an eye on the Rich Nathan article? One particular editor keeps adding OR personal attacks, which I keep removing, the editor is now on their third warning. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling this article airs too much speculation about her sex life, and that the sourcing is iffy. It reads more like a trashy celebrity mag than an encyclopedia. Could do with a look over. --JN466 12:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is bloody awful. I axed stuff from that article in the past, someone else should do it now. Utter tabloid crap.--Scott Mac 15:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the shitty sections - someone should rewrite them.[16]--Scott Mac 15:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The hatchet job done on the article recently has not improved it at all, and in fact has left it open to even more possible libellous claims. For example, it explains that Elvis and Priscilla began a romantic relationship, but the information that informs the reader that Elvis refused to have sexual intercourse with her until their wedding night has been removed, leaving the reader to assume that he not only committed an illegal act with an underage girl, but that she willingly went along with it, something that previous well sources references denied. These sources came, primarily, from Priscilla's own work. The most recent information was re-added by myself, with perfectly acceptable sources, and once again has been removed for no good reason and leaves the article open to libellous accusations and a huge jump in the timeline that leaves the reader confused. Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with the making it clear that they did not have a sexual relationship until after marriage, and what is wrong with explaining to the reader how they kept in contact after Elvis left Germany and the reasons for Priscilla ending up at Graceland in the first place? If things continue the way they are then I will end up adding this article to the long list of articles I no longer wish to work on, and that would be a shame considering I have already put in a decent enough effort towards its current state (very little of which is involved in the current discussion) and have access to the kind of information that could/would improve the article. Constant reverts of good information that is well sourced is becoming a joke. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Elvis Presley article, all we say about this is, "While in Friedberg, Presley met 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu. They would eventually marry after a seven-and-a-half-year courtship." I fail to see why we should go into greater sexual detail in her article than we do in his. --JN466 03:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Priscilla Presley#Dating Elvis reads fine to me now, the section was overboard before. Fences&Windows 16:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Over half of this short article is given over to a 'controversy'. I'm not sure that recording embarrassing incidents in the life of people is the kind thing we're trying to do? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting as well that even the part that isn't about the alleged "controversy" (he sent a private letter of complaint to his kid's school that got released somehow on the Internet, not particularly notable I think) is about his alleged salary. This is sourced only to The Daily Beast blog, and the blog had to update the post with a strong objection from the company: "This is categorically false."

Unless reliable sources can be found that suggest that this guy or his salary are notable, and containing sufficient information such that a proper biography can be written, I think deletion is the only real option.

The blog story was written January 9, 2009. A story about Baclay's which discussed Mr. McGee's role in the company which appeared in the New York Times on May 27, 2009 does not mention anything about a salary controversy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's at AfD now. I've noted reliable sources in the discussion, will add them to the bio shortly. Fences&Windows 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Darrin McGillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - AFD appears to have started with a dispute over a comment by Mr. McGillis on a blog calling the leading Democrat for Gov Florida not a nice name for her position on Gay marriage, pleanty of sourced info on the subject Darrin McGillis when another unregistered user asked a registered user to change vote to keep he/she came back posting what can only be libel of a living person and the only source is a Blog - the comment is very scandalous, but even the quote states that the libel is not true and is not meant for a wikipedia page when even the sourced comment from a blog says the allegation is not true. A review on this should come from some top administrators as I do not want to get into a dispute with anyone on this matter. // Dymo400 (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC) --Dymo400 (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The blog you refer to is a not a personal blog but a newspaper blog maintained by the journalistic staff of Miami Herald, see its description at[17]. The difference is clearly explained in WP:NEWSBLOG: ""Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Thus the post that GregJackP quoted in the AfD and to which you objected actually satisfies the WP:V requirements. Note that the IP User:98.242.241.252, who was accusing everyone in sight of libel, has now been blocked for disruptive editing. Nsk92 (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin McGillis, one editor claimed: "This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper." I have reviewed the edit history of the article, as well as the contributions of the nominator, and I do not believe there is any evidence to support that assertion. It appears an entirely different editor found the aforementioned article in the Miami Herald in an attempt to locate reliable sources discussing the subject. That article fails to portray the subject in a flattering way, but it is not libelous. No foul play here. Location (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to point out, the material are supported by the following cites:

Susannah A. Hesmith (October 25, 2008). "Clerk of Courts: After 16 years, Ruvin faces first challenge - The longtime clerk of courts Harvey Ruvin is facing his first challengers in a four-way race". Miami Herald. p. B2.

Staff (September 10, 2007). "Miami-Dade County: Ex-band promoter aims to be clerk of courts". Miami Herald. p. B3.

Staff (June 12, 2006). "Political Beat". Miami Herald. p. 3B.

Everything he is complaining about is well sourced by a reliable newspaper. GregJackP Boomer! 00:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather blatant case of a person notable for only one event, I think. How best to remove this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:PERP is the relevant notability guideline. This was first covered in Feb 2009, and is still getting coverage.[18] But he's on bail at the moment, and the article is terrible, so I'm taking it to AfD. Fences&Windows 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs reliable sourcing. It's too old for a speedy deletion, but there are no reliable sources for any of the claims. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a real BLP problem, but there was some overtagging, a lot of unsourced junk, and a copyvio (either the WP came from the fan site or the fan site copied WP quietly). I applied the editorial hatchet and rewrote sentence 1 for the copy problem, either way. The stub-tag covers the lack of sourcing. I did *not* sourcecheck. - Sinneed 14:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No BLP issue with present content, but Rudd (the Prime Minister of Australia) announced a leadership challenge tonight Australian time, in which Gillard (Deputy PM) is the main contestant. If admins/experienced editors from other regions could watchlist these two articles for the next 12-24 hours until the result is known, that'd be great. Thanks. Orderinchaos 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Greg Caton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - non-NPOV edits and non WP:RS introduced on Greg Caton page by individual IP 96.237.170.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (with possible WP:COI or other agenda. Have provided 3rr warning and attempted resolution on talk pages with no effect. Jettparmer (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Michael Hastings (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced BLP, currently receiving a bit of attention, due to "The Runaway General", Rolling Stone. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't quite a blatant hoax, but A) given I can't find anything and B) the editor who created it has only edited one other article and it was a hoax, could someone figure out the right thing to do with it? We could wait for the BLPPROD to expire but it seems like it should go faster than that... Thanks Hobit (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zapped it. It is a blatant hoax if there are zero hits for someone apparently mixing with the rich and famous. Fences&Windows 22:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure where the bar is for "blatant" Hobit (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Humm, could someone look at Lia Beyincé then too? That one is less clear to me, but I'm still not finding anything. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That one is totally got me laughing, which has a value. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had a button I would have deleted on sight and further investigated (at least when I stopped laughing) otherwise template as a hoax, be bold. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I don't know enough about pop music to be sure about "blatant". Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks Hobit. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion brewing here regarding the use of a self-published blog to link to material unrelated to the subject in question which discusses topics that pertain to the credibility of other living persons. Could uninvolved parties please weigh in on the issue? Thanks. --BLPWatchdog (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

BLPWatchdog is a banned user editing from an open proxy, per [19]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please address the merits of the argument rather than disrupting the discussion for your own purposes. --213.5.154.39 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 213.5.154.39 is nhpproxy.webcreatif.ch, the open proxy "BLPWatchdog" is abusing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kirity Roy is a noted Human Rights Activist in West Bengal, India. He is presently the Secretary of Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), a Human Rights organisation mainly active against Police Torture, Extra-Judicial Killings, lacunae in Criminal Justice System and prevailing Capital Punishment. He is also the National Convenor of Program Against Custodial Torture and Impunity (PACTI), and South-Asian Network against Torture and Impunity (SANTI). His organisation and he himself has confidence in International Humanitarian Laws, Conventions and universal acceptance about the Human Rights treaties.

• Kirity Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Categories: Living people //

The published portion portrays him as a 'Maoist' and has 'active collusion with Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India, who supports the Communist Party of India (Maoist), listed by India as a terrorist organization' is baseless and false. The data about his organisation MASUM that is a 'Maoist front' is also far from truth. It needs to be reiterated that this organisation has no such political affiliation with any political parties or political ideology. Hence, the whole para is suggested to be removed. However, it is true that he has been the board member of Amnesty International - India.

The next para which depicts 'Roy is well-known for organizing Kangaroo courts where he stands accused of manipulating facts and fabricates' is also malicious and utterly false. The term 'Kangaroo Court' should be replaced by 'People's Tribunal/Hearings'. It needs to be mentioned here that Kirity Roy and his organisation has complete faith in the democratic principles and Indian Judiciary, working in tandem with those. 117.194.97.204 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've reverted to a previous version for now. Both versions would seem to have NPOV issues, but I think we should default to the somewhat overly positive version rather than the blindingly negative version. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Caroline Nokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - British MP, recent newspaper reports of an affair have been added to the article by an IP. Concerned that sourcing is mainly to tabloids (although The Daily Telegraph has also been used) and that it has been added to the lead which seems excessive. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone was amending it while I was writing this. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this content that she had an affair is notable unless it has a notable affect on her life in some way, and it should be removed. Presently it says Noakes had an affair with a not notable person and nothing happened. Its tabloid breaking stuff and has no value encyclopedic value at all.Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• the content, In June 2010, it was revealed that Nokes was having an affair with 27 year old Conservative councillor James Dinsdale, a 27 year old Conservative councillor in Westgate, Suffolk who works in publishing, whom she had first met at the Conservative conference in Bournemouth in October 3, 2006.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2010/06/14/cheating-cam-cutie-caroline-nokes-family-stunned-by-affair-with-tory-toyboy-115875-22331554

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286264/Cameron-Cutie-MP-Caroline-Nokess-4-year-affair-toyboy.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7824849/Cameron-cutie-MP-Caroline-Nokes-has-affair-with-younger-councillor.html

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/180765

The breaking story primary report is the Daily mirror Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the one sentence in the article is reasonable given the sources. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you expect to find the content in an encyclopedia britania article about her? What is notable about it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems notable enough to the locals voters and the Local Conservative office, who have been holding an edit war over this particular issue since the story emerged in the newspapers. Would we mention it normally? No, but then we don't normally see broadsheets sources like the Telegraph dealing in ideal gossip, and we can conclude sufficient coverage in multiple WP:RS to conclude it is notable. We can hardly conclude that it didn't occur, as the other party has confirmed the relationship in interview with a newspaper. Why do these multiple sources include it? Because she campaigned as each of the WP:RS point out on her family base, and signed a Christian pledge pre-election which covered the issue of adultery. That's what makes it notable. This issue has been removed as brutally by her supporters, much akin to the actions of Off2riorob did this afternoon by just removing (Hence my two vandal warnings to him, and secondly because he gave no reasonable edit notice on either occasion; can't see that that should result in a threat breaking WP:AGF, but see my talkpage for evidence); to one of a series of anti-anon's, one of whom this morning pushed it right up front. I conclude with sufficient sources coverage, it should be mentioned at a reasonable level, which the article before Off2riorob edits and this debate reflected, and I had consistently reverted to. (NB: I declare no constituency bias in this one being Welsh based, and happy to declare that I voted Conservative) Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is encyclopedia valueless scandal, the sort of stuff children are interested in the playground. Unless it affects something notable n her life it is not notable in her life. As for the I have a broadsheet citation claim, the broadsheets are no better in general these days in publishing titillation than the tabloids. As for your other comments, regarding me, I made efforts to discuss and as I warned you , re read vandal as you don't understand it, take care not to template the regulars a simple wiki etiquette. Off2riorob (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is properly sourced, and I see no problem with covering it in a single sentence. If sources give it further attention with regard to implications for her career, etc., then perhaps it can be expanded a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nomoskedasticity. Although on its own the affair doesn't merit coverage, its the duplicity of the position against her public electioneering, and hence wide WP:RS and secondary. Again this morning, more Anon input (thankfully minor) - I request that other editors keep the article on their watchlist. Off2riorob: you only made an effort to discuss the issue after I placed the second vandal warning and I made the suggestion to discuss on the talkpage. I suggest you make your edit summaries clearer next time and engage before double reverting - there is a common position on most issues if we all talk and follow WP:5P. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is totally valueless in a decent biography of a living person it is not notable and has as yet has had no notable affect on her life at all, it is such additions with a claim of I have a citation that belittle this project and reduce its value as an educational tool. Enjoy it, if it stays it should be further expanded to explain that her husband still loves her and that her mother in law supports them and that they plan on taking a holiday to spain in the sun ...yawn. Mrs smith went to university and qualified as a 2 1 and became a politician mp for bla and supported this and that and got married with two children and had an affair with jonny the toy boy...bla bla. Is such absolute titillation and scandalous tabloid style additions what wikipedia is about? Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We cover material found in RSes. The only issue is one of WP:WEIGHT. Does this one sentence put undue weight in the biography about this issue? I'd have to say it doesn't. We cover what RSes cover, and they are certainly covering this. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not simply add anything users can find in a citation, we add decent informative educational stuff about notable incidents in a subjects life, having an affair unless it affects their notable life issues is not in that category at all. At least not in my understanding of the scope of this wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the name of the non-notable person involved, does anyone disagree with this? Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If the content stays then I support his name staying, If it stays I am going to expand the whole thing, if it is notable and it is the kind of content wikipedia wants then I will expand it, a citeable councilor that has had a notable affair with a notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:POINT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yawnn... Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought - to all. Why don't we agree a text and place some form of protection on the article? I see the anti-Anon's are back again, and well done Cassandra 73 for the multiple reverts. Off2riorob I and I am sure all here agree with your point on trivialisation, but the reason that this incident becomes notable is the duplicitous position between her public statements and her private life. If it was just an affair I would agree with you, no need to mention; but its the duplicity which gave it so much media coverage. Dinsdale on his own wouldn't seem to merit an article presently under WP:Bio, so not worried either way if his name is included or not. What I would like is a nice stable and reflective article, but I don't think we are going to get close to stable without some form of protection in the short term. Thoughts? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not simply add anything users can find in a citation, we add decent informative educational stuff about notable incidents in a subjects life, having an affair unless it affects their notable life issues is not in that category at all. If you add rubbish to the BLP of a living person then expect users to come in good faith and remove it, attempting to say please protect because I want this rubbish cited content in the article and users are coming to remove it is not what protection is about, if you add crap expect people to come and want to remove it.Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I already requested temporary semi-protection. The IP in question is the one trying to make it more prominent. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw, there are IPS coming to add more and to remove it, the actual issue is the content is crap and has no place in a biographical article, it will never be in a decent encyclopedia and it has no place in wikipedia either. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal of the non-notable person's name. A) the information is the source so anyone who cares can find it and B) I don't think it's needed here. I'd suggest going to the BLP noticeboard, but hey look, we're there. I don't have a good policy-based reason or anything, it just seems like something the article doesn't need... Hobit (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the details. A news search strongly suggests that any article that might be written about this person would fail BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholic priest who appears to be known for conducting exorcisms and healing. I think he probably has been mentioned in mainstream news media and is notable, but non-reliable sources are crowding out any reliable ones, so it is difficult to tell. One section tagged for NPOV since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Information is being added that they are married. This appears to be based on one article. All other sources I can find say they are not married. There aren't even any news reports about their wedding. I reverted changes and suggested discussing on Jason Momoa's talk page. Subsequently, the references I added were removed and the one of the article (which I actually found and put on the talk page) was substituted. I am trying to avoid 3RR and edit-warring, so I am requesting help here. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He is the eldest living son of Sun Myung Moon and has recently been involved in controversy. I just removed a paragraph from the article which consisted of allegations against him from other church members, mainly self published. I hope that BLP policies can be backed up here. On the other hand the article should have more information on the controversy, which has been reported on in reliable sources. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see there is no interest in this issue. Oh well, WP like the rest of the world is imperfect. We have to just do the best we can. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan is currently receiving some attention because of rumours that he is going to buy the Liverpool football club (despite the fact the latest rumours appear to be he has dropped out of the process). I've just removed some claims it was a done deal but not publicly revealed due to the Livepool club being leak free. A few eyes until this dies down will probably help, I'm tempted to ask for pending changes protection but it's only been a few edits and so it may be too minor for the trial although as the as the current President of the UAE, it's a bit embarassing to us to allow such misinfo (the only reason I noticed is because someone asked at WP:RD/Misc. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it got worse then I thought so I requested and was granted semi for a month Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"James Delingpole’s latest column in the Spectator is about Wikipedia, and how it is apparently dominated by a Left-leaning caucus of self-appointed editors who spend their days adjusting entries to fit in with their Weltanschauungen. Delingpole cites his own Wikipedia entry, in which he berates the featuring of an episode in which his suspicions of the credentials of a correspondent to Newsweek proved to be unfounded. Delingpole takes exception not because of the presence of the story, but rather because its inclusion carries a disproportionate emphasis when set against his body of work." [20]

I looked at this, and it does look like Mr. Delingpole's complaint is a valid one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is, however a small group of editors have forced their point of view on any article related to climate change, including BLP`s. Hell if you write climategate into an articles text it gets changed to the current stupid name which the pov pushers forced on the community mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Which small group of editors is that? Before you respond, look at the article history so you don't make a fool of yourself. -Atmoz (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the group of editors who say he is unreliable whenever he is used as a ref. I was referring to the abuse by a certain group of editors on sceptic BLP`s. I was referring to a certain group of editors who refuse to allow the use of "ClimateGate" in article text against policy. Do you know of any editors who might fit that description Atmoz? mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No. But what does that have to do with the James Delingpole article and the issue raised by Jimbo? -Atmoz (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Due to the paucity of reliable independent sources, it does not seem possible to create a decent article on James Delingpole that would contain much more than some basic biographical data. The one issue that Delingpole has picked up is just one of the deficiencies of that article. It may be best to stub the article, unless a larger number of reliable independent sources can be found.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Powerful strange argument -- there is a paucity of reliable sources therefore we should get rid of what is there (which happens to be reliably sourced). I would object to the article being edited in that direction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as of this revision most of what is there seems to me to be more or less anecdotal. For example, we claim that he has a "rivalry" with George Monbiot but the only evidence we have is that they were on a debate program this past March. Without more evidence, I'm unpersuaded that there is an actual "rivalry" here, much less one which deserves to be the centerpiece of his biography. He's an opinion columnist and climate change skeptic, so I am going to have to guess that he has verbal exchanges in print and elsewhere with lots of people - that's more or less his job, and any particular exchange like this one seems very unlikely to be notable. He's written hundreds of columns, multiple books, etc. So I think that the argument that this debate is reliably sourced (which I suppose it is), isn't really conclusive as to whether it should be there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You`d have to read their columns really, not so much a rivalry as blinding hatred. It is to much in that article as you say, it is time for a major rewrite. I`ll get onto it tomorrow if nobody beats me to ti mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For inclusion, a certain piece of information does not only need to be verifiable, but it must also be due in relation to other content. While basic biographic data can be assumed to be due, this is not the case for other information. So if there are few independent sources available, and if, due to that situation, it cannot be established that a certain information is due, then we would have to leave in it. The burden of proof with regard to this question should be higher for biographies and for information about individuals than for other content. Furthermore, the use of the term "rivalry" very likely is synthesis, and a large part of the section is based on opinion pieces by involved people, which are primary sources in this context.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

At this diff was twice reverted as POV important information Atzmon revealed in a WP:RS interview about the reasons he turned against Israel, something I had inserted after a neutral editor from Editor’s Assistance wrote the article needed exactly such biographical info, to me and to the person who reverted it. I tried to get specific relevant comments on this from other editors on the article talk page but did not receive any. Given there are now more than 500 words in a whole section of criticism of Atzmon's writings on Israel/etc., one would think these 24 words where he describes the actual issues that brought him to views would be relevant. Opinions welcome here or on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish both sides could agree to give the basic information on this person, rather than engage in an endless edit war. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some help at Keisuke Honda? Editor Frankenstein3000 is persistently adding unsourced materials (that Honda is known as Godzilla) to the page. I have discussed it with him, but he is refusing to adhere to the WP:BLP guidelines. If I make further reverts I may violate the 3RR rules. Can somebody revert his edits and explain it to him (again)?Craddocktm (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SOmeone else (I forget who, now) left a 3RR warning on his page, and I added more to it as well. I also removed the unsourced information. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Craddocktm (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We need some more eyes over at Talk:Stephan Martinière#Primary sources as I have an editor there claiming that primary sources may never be used in any article about living people, which is patently false. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the article talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was long ago made clear that we should not be citing blogs or resumes or anything of the sort when dealing with WP:BLP articles for the simple fact that a) anyone can write anything they want in a blog/resume b) it is not verified by an independent and reliable third party source and c) allowing citations from such a source places undue weight within the body of the article. I too appreciate your time and feedback on this matter, both in specific and general terms. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Canadian government official Stephen Owen has been mistakenly placed under the category of U.S. Sinologist Stephen Owen, a professor at Harvard University. The Canadian material on Stephen Owen should be redirected to a topic under Canadian politics and removed from under the heading of U.S. Sinologists. Professor Owen's entry can remain temporarily blank until it is filled in by someone knowledgable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfcwms (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain in more detail what the problem is? From the contrib history Stephen Owen is not currently and doesn't ever appear to have been in the category for sinologists. It is an article on the politician but there's nothing wrong with that, it links to the disambig page for other Steve Owens which lacks the sinologist because we don't currently have an article on him. That's the normal state of affairs. If and when an article on the sinologist is created, we can discuss whether the politician is the primary topic or it should be turned into a link to the disambig page or whatever. I did find a link from Harvard Asia Pacific Review which I'm guessing is for the sinologist and I've turned it into a redlink for the academic/sinologist. Similarly List of Pseudopod episodes for who I presume is another Stephen Owen who I suspect isn't notable but that list has problems of its own having everyone wikilinked so I just turned it into a redlink. I can't see any other links to the Stephen Owen page which may be referring to the other person. Do note if the problem is with some other website, we can't help Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit nevermind found the problem was at List of sinologists and has been corrected. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied discussion from WP:ANI thread.

OK what began as a debate over the reliability of Myspace as a source of information for WP:BLP has now escalated now that the other user involved, Musikshun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now claiming that he knows Taio Cruz personally and that he is correct in using a Myspace profile for Taio Cruz as an acceptable source of information. See the discussion here: User talk:Musikshun. The revision history speaks for itself. I have no personal vested interest in the article and it is a subject I very rarily edit. To diffuse the situation I will agree to continue to have little involvement with the article however this is definately an issue which should be resolved. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks or anything like that. You've got the wrong place. Go to WP:BLPN. Feedback (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left a COI notice for the other editor involved, but on cursory inspection it seems that the sources in the version you're reverting to don't seem to be working. The only mention I could see of the other name used the phrase "also known as" not "born as" so... there may be a possible compromise? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there could be a compromise. But the main issue here is that the other user involved is adding Myspace which is already proven to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source with the discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (see discussions here, here, here, here and here). Therefore please correct me if I'm wrong for assuming that it is wrong for editors to persistantly add content from a source which general consensus seems to disapprove of. Note not long after I made this post another user also undid Musikshun's edit [21]. Perhaps I didn't explain that well enough before. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted to that version just because myspace doesnt work as a source, but it needs a content review pretty badly at this point. -- ۩ Mask 23:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

While primary sources should be used with care, this issue comes up on occasion and I have some sympathy to the plight of people who find information on them that is incorrect but have great difficulty in correcting it. The classic response is to ask them to write to the sources we use which have the info wrong but while this works to some extent, particular when we have very high quality sources and the info is discussed in many of them it should be done with care, if we're using a fairly obscure source it seems fairly unfair to tell these people they have to write to this obscure source which no one would have noticed we re it not for us. We've had various things before, like people offering to scan their passports which IMHO is the kind of direction we shouldn't be heading in.

My view of this is that if there is evidence of a dispute of basic factual material from the person involved, in particular if they self publish stuff saying that the info we have is wrong (whether referring to us or not) we should look carefully at the sources and info. If they aren't that great, consider removing the info. I know some people dislike removing info since they consider it makes the article incomplete but IMHO if there is evidence of a dispute that can't be adequately resolved by the sources, this is evidence that the info isn't notable enough to be in our article. This includes alleged birth names, alleged birth dates etc. In some cases, when the dispute is notable, high quality reliable sources may refer to it, in such a case, referring to the dispute is fine. But we generally shouldn't report a dispute without good sources (in some cases it may be okay to e.g. say someone's birthdate has been variously reported and X, Y and Z even if none of the sources mention a dispute but again I would look carefully at the sources before doing this).

An additional thing is to check the article before the source is published. Unfortunately, it's getting to be the case where any info in sources, particularly the not so HQ ones should be considered automatically suspect if it comes from after the info was in our article. Of course there are some exceptions, for example if the source shows they have actually researched the info, e.g. if it says it saw the birth certificate, spoke to family or friends or whatever then fine.

Now I know plenty of people lie about stuff particularly birthdates but also birthnames and other things (as disputes predating wikipedia show), so self published sources should also be used with care even if the person makes a claim something we said is wrong, that's one of the reasons I don't recommend we come down on one side of the dispute by inserting the person's claims instead.

In addition, I'm always very concerned about the WP:ORry use of birth record searches, even online ones to try and established someone's birthdate and think they should almost never be done on WP:BLPs. Even worse if the search relies on other info of questionable providence like a real name. In terms of this specific case, I'll make additional comments on the article. If people haven't already, I would encourage them to read WP:BLP particularly the section on birth dates.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As this article names a number of living persons, I'm bringing this here after finding at at WP:RSN. Recently an IP has heavily edited this article, and many footnotes are like these footnote 30, "^ (wishes to be kept anonymous), Hazmat Instructor, near Utica, Ohio". 33 and 34 " Personal account of David Brock, former busboy, purported arson witness and long-time private researcher and archivist of club records and testimonies. (Personal accounts of former club employees, Wayne Dammert and David Brock, "Survivors for Justice"" - a large number are like that, eg "Additional accounts were obtained from Bruce Rath's son, Scott, who is also a volunteer firefighter at Southgate fire station, Ft. Thomas, KY., and lifelong resident." None of this is verifiable. It was bad enough before with so much being based on a book without page numbers being provided, but these edits based on personal accounts are much more of a concern. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone read Spanish and able to find a source to add to this article ASAP. Active Banana (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I read Spanish, what do you want to source? Feedback ^☎ 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a pretty solid reference from the NYTimes, which establishes him as the convicted assassin. Article is clearly inadequate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony Meléndez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Addition of unsourced and defamatory content. DIFF, Note: this occured about 12 hours ago! I have reverted back to 'clean' "Revision as of 23:17, 25 May 2010"// --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tonymendelez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Only edited above article. I have warned level 4immediate. Vandalism only account. Suggest Indefinite ban for BLP violations.// --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason not to semi-protect the article?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I have put the article on my watch list to keep an eye on it mark nutley (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No, no reason at all not to. I've semi'ed it indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Dae Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoping to get feedback here. I'm trying to change the DUI item on this page to reflect the following policy:

Excerpted from the wikipedia NPOV page: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepblue357 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On this page, it is given an entire dedicated section, on the same level as his entire body of work. I find this objectionable because it clearly gives undue weight to this one event. In actuality, I think it should be deleted altogether, but I was threatened by being blocked as a result of the deletion.

As a result, I've proposed reducing it to a one line mention in the section marked Personal Life, but the original poster no longer replies. I've written to another editor and he suggested I write here. It seems I must get others approval to make this change. Comments? Thank you. Deepblue357 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article (hows that for a disclaimer), but I remember some college basketball coach who had a DUI, and there was discussion over its inclusion/exclusion. I'll try to find it. --Tom (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I favor the one line version over deleting it. Having it's own section is a really bad idea and has WP:WEIGHT and NPOV and BLP problems. It looks fine as it is (one sentence). Hobit (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice again that this page is subject to edit warring. It is not NPOV, is negative in tone and seems mostly concerned with a football team.Berkinstock (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Peter Holmes à Court where it does seem that some excessive detail of alleged woes re a football club is listed. I checked the "Peter Holmes a Court faked death threats" reference and got a 404 page not found, which is awkward: on the one hand, there is no particular reason to doubt the reference exists, yet such a big claim in a BLP with a dead link is dubious. I will watch the article, but am not sure what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Linda R. Reade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New users (e.g. Lower458 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) are loading up this BLP with material of tenuous relevance to this judge. She presided over the trial of Sholom Rubashkin and gave him a stiff sentence, upsetting some in the American Jewish community, who have mounted a campaign against ostensible anti-Semitism. This has seeped into Wikipedia, and in this article the added material {e.g. this) is apparently designed to make her look bad by pointing out alleged flaws in her reasoning and decisions. There aren't many established editors active on the page and I'm running up against 3RR. It's not a huge problem -- but perhaps more eyes, please? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just deleted the entire section as a BLP violation; at least one of the NYTimes sources was distorted, and the section (apparently deliberately) implied that Reade had denied Rubashkin pretrial bail when she had actually granted it, under stiffer conditions than the defense had originally filed motions for. Too much innuendo to pass BLP, and without the innuendo there's not enough to justify making this the dominant point in the article. Because of the BLP violations and the apparent deceptive intent, I think removing the section clearly comes under the BLP 3RR exception. A much more neutral discussion, covering commentary/criticism of her handling of the entire matter, not just Rubashkin, might be included. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues in the trial pertain directly to judge Reade. Of course we have to give her the benefit of the doubt and use credible sources. But it appears to some that she has some kind of, shall we say, agenda with Mr Rubashkin and his meat packing plant (example Expediting procedures for Federal agents ahead of ICE raid -NYTimes) which should be discussed. Whether it is "antisemitism" or acting as an for the Bush administration and its tough immigration policies. And yes, absolutely some in the legal community and Jewish community have strong feelings about Judge Reade. No denying that. But I'm all for using credible sources and neutral language. Lower458 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"A much more neutral discussion, covering commentary/criticism of her handling of the entire matter, not just Rubashkin, might be included" - any suggestions regarding the direction? I would redo it according to the rules. Lower458 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be okay to just mention the "stiff" sentencing without going into detail re bail and the illegal employment issue? Lower458 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have a RS which indicates the sentence was "stiff"? Hobit (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/22/sholom-rubashkin-gets-stiff-sentence/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/22iowa.html - and feel free to Google "Rubashkin" for 100 more.

But as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz pointed out to me, you can not just complain against a LP here. This is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. If you mention the case from a negative POV, you have to also explain the Judge's rationale behind the ruling, mention any praise she received re the ruling (i.e. from PETA) etc. Lower458 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a prime candidate for either a merger into John Prescott or simple deletion. I seek advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt she the one who said he had a small todger? Merge to JP as a small subsection mark nutley (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is already in prescott`s article [22] May as well delete mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The guy seems to have an unsavory reputation as well as devoted followers and the article attracts POV pushers from both sides. The involvement of some experienced editors who know how to handle BLP issues would be greatly appreciated. Active Banana (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Paul Helmke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Being a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, it feels strange to be in the position of almost defending the Brady Campaign, but right is right and wrong is wrong. The lead in this BLP is not neutral, to the point of almost WP:SOAPBOXing. At the point of this writing, the lead says: "...president of the extremest Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization with the goal to deny American's rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." There is a small edit war about the characterization of the Brady Campaign in this bio and I'd suggest that it needs more input from BLPN observers. // Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift36, don't feel strange :), feel good that you are trying to treat an article "fairly" and with a NPOV even when you don't agree/support/like the subject/their position of the bio(sorry if Iam putting words in your mouth, or that is not the case). I remember trying to "improve" the Tom Metzger bio and saying to myself, why the heck I am I "defending/improving" this *&%^*^ article. I find that its easier/fairer to play devil's advocate with subjects we disagree/dislike. Anyways, I would leave out of the "descriptors"(or limit them) of the group this person is associated with and provide a link if folks want more details, that seems like the most NPOV way to deal with it. --Tom (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I removed them. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they are replaced. Some of the same involved in it are ones who are battling to call the Brady Campaign a "hate group" based on their reading of the wikipedia article on the subject. Again, I find myself in the position of defending Brady, despite comepletely disagreeing with their stance. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is slightly more than 1/3 about two scandals. In the case of the Cash for Peerages scandal, it all eventually came to nothing. Of course the Cash for Peerages scandal was a big one, but her role in it is unclear, and the article merely casts doubt on her without actually giving us any real information. I am not suggesting that everything about Cash for Peerages be removed, just raising the question of undue weight.

The other alleged scandal seems quite different. We source it only to the Daily Mail, which is not a very good source. Apparently her husband (boyfriend?) was involved in the awarding of a contract to a company which she'd left beyond 2 years prior. It seems more like political gossip than an actual scandal.

I will leave this note on the talk page of the article, but I will not get involved with editing it since I am informally advising (as a volunteer only) the Tony Blair Faith Foundation on their Internet strategy and although I don't think this gives me any conflict of interest, I would not want there to be any concern about that. I merely bring this up as a likely violation of our WP:BLP policies and leave it to your judgment. The subject of the article did not bring this to my attention, I just noticed it while preparing for a phone call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be the subject left a complaint on my talk page. I know nothing about the dispute but someone should look into it promptly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Note there is an active discussion at ANI. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That active discussion needs some reigning in from some clueful admins - users there are being WP:DOLTs. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid sources are constantly being removed. She is apparently running for Governor in a state in the Southern United States, and her campaign thinks Wikipedia is a campaign site.

From the looks of the history, references and sourced items have been removed no less than 50 times.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiboss2 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Noticed that this article has been edited with predjudice. Just wanted to bring it to the notice of someone who knows how to right such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2010 April 27

A diff would have been useful here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I am Mr. Leopold's attorney and the material on Salon that is included in his entry is libelous and defamatory and is taken out of context. Mr. Leopold sued Salon and this was settled in his favor as I have indicated in a letter sent to Columbia Journalism Review posted on the discussion page. This entry on Salon was something removed a while back because of ongoing litigation. In fact, the mater I would like to know who I may discuss this with here as well as the general nature of the article and the removal of information that gave it balance, for example, the fact that his book, News Junkie, was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly and others and was a Los Angeles Times bestseller. Why was this removed? The entire article is biased and some of the material is defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history and comments I find some of your comments to be not the kind of comment I would attribute to an attorney. I see you are on a final warning on your talkpage you have been reverting away perhaps you should take a little time to read some of our policies as if your not careful your editing ability could become restricted. I have posted you a menu of links to our guidelines and policies on your talkpage. This link is about the subject and the article and has a link to contact or complain to the foundation Relationship_between_the_subject.2C_the_article.2C_and_Wikipedia Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of the lawsuit and its resolution? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we need verification that the unsigned user is indeed Mr. Leopold's lawyer before we proceed with a discussion. This user is making serious threats against editors of the Jason Leopold page and is not contributing in any way to the article itself. This could all end up being a big waste of time or a significant news story, if legal action is in fact taken.Anthonymendoza (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe wikipedia's legal department can provide you with a copy or perhaps you may ask Mr. Leopold directly. The issues, however, were also raised in this letter, particularly the instances in which Salon is continuously cited. We have asked that the Salon material be removed as it's defamatory and libelous and the article to be free from bias.

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Evan Cornog, Publisher

Columbia Journalism Review

Journalism Building

2950 Broadway

Columbia University

New York, New York 10027

Re: Jason Leopold / "Three Strikes, You're Out – Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" by Paul McLeary

Dear Mr Cornog:

"Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece."

The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was able, and did in fact; provide the aforementioned email to Salon.com. Salon’s concern had to do with authenticating the email. Moreover, the FT article was adequately credited by Salon's standards and Kerry Lauerman, Salon's Washington Editor, has apologized to Leopold.

The above statements are unprivileged and defamatory per se, in that they tend directly to injure Mr. Leopold in that they are an unprivileged and expose Mr. Leopold to "to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" Cal. Civ. Code § 45.

Surprisingly, Mr. Leopold was never contacted for comment on this article. Quotes were wrongly attributed to Mr. Leopold and then used by the author to bolster the attack on Mr. Leopold’s credibility. A basic investigation into Mr. Leopold reveals that his book was published and is available. Further, Mr. Leopold’s book is cited with a link on every story he writes for Truthout, including the ones Paul McLeary cites in his article. McLeary ignores those facts and gives the impression to CJR's readers that Mr. Leopold's book was never published and is not available.

The article has caused damage to Mr. Leopold and continues to cause him damage. Mr. Leopold is currently promoting his book. This article is harming his ability to secure interviews and otherwise harming him professionally. We demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the damage your defamatory actions are causing.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the matter.

Sincerely, David J. Brown Attorney at Law Egerman & Brown, LLC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once you've won a case against Salon and it's reported in the media, it will be added to the article. Meanwhile, the material in the article is cited to sources, and your attempts at legal intimidation are quite unlawyerlike. It seems that the subject would also have a copy of the letter, and not being a lawyer, might behave in this manner. The correct contact method for legal issues can be found here. Use the mail. Yworo (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, the complaint has already been filed with Wikipedia. Moreover, I am not sure where you were educated but not every lawsuit is reported in the media. Lastly, the Leopold article is biased, contains nothing but four year old accusations. Threats about lawsuits are made all the time, by the best attorneys. It's actually quite lawyer like. I have stated that this article is defamatory and libelous and was written in such a way so as to cause damage to my client. Mr. Leopold has built quite a body of work over the past four years, particularly on the issue of torture. Attempts to include those citations have been routinely scrubbed. Any attempt to paint Mr. Leopold in a positive light has also been met with heavy editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then wait for the Foundation legal team to process it and take whatever action they consider appropriate. You are engaging in vandalism (removal of material cited to sources) and are about to be blocked for it. Yworo (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not. I am making this article fair and balanced, which it isn't. The neutrality of the article has been in dispute for two years. There is a reason for that. I am making substantive changes.

And this thread does not answer the questions raised about the continuous use of defamatory and libelous material and the fact that the article is biased. Why do the contributors insist on defaming Mr. Leopold and presenting statements out of context? Why does anything "positive" continuously get erased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For several reasons. 1) The article doesn't libel the subject. It accurately reports what the sources say. It's possible that those sources are inaccurate, but that's another matter. 2) You are violating multiple Wikipedia policies, the primary of which is that if you have a conflict of interest, you are not supposed to edit the article at all. You are supposed to discuss the article on the article talk page and have other editors implement the changes that consensus determines to be necessary. You are also edit warring. 3) The way you are going about it is not how things are done. You've written to the Foundation, and now you need to let Wikipedia process occur. Regular editors and admins have no way to know whether your claim to be an attorney, much less Leopold's attorney, are true. You are acting like a vandal, which makes your claim rather unbelievable. If you'd just follow Wikipedia process with respect to conflict of interest, as outlined above, you might be taken more seriously. But if you just continue to edit war, you will continue to be reverted and eventually blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

still ongoing, still using the same tactics, etc. If someone could step in, it would be appreciated. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute on that page about including his credentials. It would be helpful if individuals who were not the usual climate change suspects could review the issue and comment. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The write-up on the newly elected President of Germany - Christian Wulff - makes the following unsubstantiated claim: "He lives openly gay." This is potentially libellous as Wulff is in a heterosexual marriage and has a two year old child. The claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.254.142 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thaks, it has been removed now and the article has been semi protected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just been on the phone with the subject of this article, who is not happy about it as it includes a number of factual inaccuracies. Looking at the article, it contains a lot of unreferenced material that should be removed, and the referenced material should also be checked, as well as whether the article is representing the subject from a neutral point of view. Would someone be able to look at this asap? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look and it doesn't look too bad, I removed one comment as uncited, the citations are to the BBC and the telegraph and the content seems to be pretty neutral as for factual errors I didn't see anything glaringly obvious. Did he specify any or the alleged errors? If someone else a rugby supporter could have a look that would be good. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up quite a bit, removing some unsourced claims, adding citations and tidying it up generally. Dean Richard had an illustrious playing and coaching career but with a particularly notorious incident as a coach in 2009 which should be noted but not given undue weight. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this - to me, it looks much improved! He did specify a number of examples of where the article was wrong but, not being a sports person, sadly not all of them stuck in my memory. The ones I remember were the undue weight away from things like his playing in three world cups; there was something about the mention of football not being right - was this actually him, or someone else? I gave him the info@wikimedia.org address and asked him to email all of his issues to that, so hopefully he will provide a more thorough list of issues (hopefully on the new improved version of the article).

I have also received a phone call today from the person behind the edits of Pmdcreative (talk · contribs) wanting to know why his edits to this article kept getting reverted (e.g. [23]). If someone could leave a note on their talk page explaining w+hy they were reverted, that would be great. It looks to me like the business is worth noting somewhere in the article, but there is currently little to no third party coverage of it, and the website's about us page also isn't too useful.

On a side note: having a press phone for Wikimedia can be a pain when this sort of call comes through, especially on a work day... ;-) Sadly it's the only phone number in the UK for Wikipedia that people can find... Thanks again for cleaning up the article! Mike Peel (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we don't cover Richards' playing career well. The mention of 'football' refers, I imagine, to an incident when the Calcutta Cup was mishandled, shall we say. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I see - as a non-sports person I misread that as playing a game of football in the Calcutta Cup (some sort of contest?)! The reference doesn't really support them playing football with it, though - it doesn't seem to specify how the damage was done. Mike Peel (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the point I think, no one admitted to anything and they were all pie eyed and I think the commet we have is the generally speculated opinion rather than actual fact. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mike Peel. The article is a lot better after User:Malcolmxl5's good work. Regarding the addition of Pmdcreative (talk · contribs) Perhaps an external link Dean Richard Sports. online sports supplies. The only thing would be that we haven't got a citation that supports that he is involved. I have opened up a dialogue with user Pmdcreative on his talkpage. I notice he has also attempted to remove the football with the cup incident and I start to wonder if he was involved in the actual football with the cup at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of press about the incident (the cup being damaged) but I have removed it as undue weight. Richards did so much more in international rugby than that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have cleaned it up and asked the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union if they would like to improve it futher. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The only comment O would have is that the link to the Bloodgate article was lost in the edit. This is the place where the issue itself can be written about in greater detail. I would go throw a link in to it, but thought I would let others do that.SauliH (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that! I've added a link but do feel free to amend it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Is the use of a blog post here by User:William_M._Connolley on a living person Roger A. Pielke a blp breach or not? The following statements are made in the blog post, To this complaint I do have some sympathy, but RP loses that by ranting. In fact what his post is really complaining about is his failure to get his point of view given primacy in the CCSP report and RP then proceeds to pick up this strawman and run with it I think these are statements of fact being used and would like some help on the issue. mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the question relates to a para starting "In blog posts..." in Global warming controversy which quotes a blog by Pielke, then a blog by Connolley, and the blog by Connolley includes the text you mentioned. I'm sure quoting blogs in an encyclopedic article is dubious, but I do not see a BLP problem. The text that you quote is just a robust statement of opinion that one would expect in a blog, and is hardly an attack in any BLP sense. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I need some help with addressing some concerns.

I am concerned about biased language and information being added to the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Herseth_Sandlin), specifically under the "Election 2010" headings. The information included under this section demonstrates strong selection bias inherent in including the Rasmussen polls but failing to include any other third-party evaluative information related to the race. I'm concerned that this violates Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). In addition, some of the most persistently problematic editors have a history of making almost exclusively positive edits to conservative people and organizations' wikipedia pages.

I have a conflict of interest and do not want to make the edits myself. However, I would appreciate an impartial editor should taking a look at the page. I can provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.

I'd like to suggest taking the whole section off that talks about polling for the upcoming election. It's not really the topic of the article, as well as the data having very little value as you said. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I need help moderating or locking the Eido Tai Shimano Criticism section.

Those who are augmenting the criticism are not signing their posts in a way that can be followed to a name. Right now those who are critical are attempting to suppress a footnote that supports the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995.

Please lock this page until new verifiable information can be added.

I am a very concerned party as I am a Dharma Heir of Eido Roshi and sit on his board, and I can and do state factually that no sexual complaint has been received by the board since 1995.

Thank you,

Genjo Marinello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenquaker (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Attacked?

The objection to the footnote does not concern the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995. The objection is to a reference that states: "By the way, none of the four men I am referring to are members of AZTA, but please be aware that a man who was declined membership in AZTA, in part because Eido Roshi would not acknowledged him as a Dharma Teacher, started the current wave of vilification."

I am the person he refers to as having been "declined membership." The Membership Chairman informed me as follows: "Your application for membership in the AZTA was not "rejected without review," for you have not yet applied for membership in our organization."

Obviously if I have not applied for membership I could not possibly have been "declined" as stated. And there are far more people involved than "four men."

Remove the factually inaccurate material and there is no objection to the reference.

Kobutsu Malone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.102.214 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests for page protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not here. However, I see no basis for such a request at this time.

Here is a relevant passage from Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Zenquaker, it appears that you are the author of the cited source you assert is being suppressed. As such, it is generally not considered appropriate for you to be adding it. Additionally, as an open letter apparently posted to a chat forum, it does not appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source (q.v.). As such, in my opinion it ought to be removed along with any claim it anchors. I agree that it doesn't speak to the claim that no complaint has been made since 1995, and that therefore it is not appropriate that it be attached as a footnote intended to substantiate that claim. Even if it did speak to this claim, as a work that doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source, it would not be a suitable anchor for that claim in any event.

Descriptions of the controversy must stick especially closely to reports previously published in reliable sources, and must fairly represent "all majority and significant minority views" published in such sources. Any claim not directly supported by a published report in a reliable source should be removed.

Indeed, it appears that both of you have some personal connection to subject of this article. If this is the case, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you should avoid editing the article, restricting any edits you do make the reversion of simple vandalism and violations of Wikipedia's policy biographies of living people.

Zenquaker, I note that you have also substantially edited the article Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji, including the section Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji#Genjo Marinello. I would therefore ask you to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with care, especially the sections How to avoid COI edits and Editors who may have a conflict of interest -- Rrburke (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite what has been said here, Zenquaker has now deleted three scholarly references from the criticism section on the page:

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Aitken_Shimano_Letters.html

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html

http://www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive.html

This was done under the justification: (→Criticism: removing references of criticism that are inflammatory and redundant.)

It would seem that there is an egregious conflict of interest operating here.

Kobutsu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Those citations don't look like the kind of reliable editorially assesed that we require at wikipedia, as we have other citations there and the content has not been affected IMO we can do without those external links. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Off2riorob: we want only the highest-quality sources when the subject is living and the subject matter is this controversial -- that is, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (RS). One of the two essays cited appears to have been presented at a conference, but there is no evidence that either was published or peer-reviewed and no information about the author's credentials or expertise has been adduced. If the works are unpublished or self-published, they would be wholly unsuitable for inclusion as sources. The raw letters (please see Wikipedia:Primary sources) appear to have been reproduced at a personal website lacking appropriate professional editorial oversight. In order for sources to be considered reliable works of scholarship, they should meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship.

As for the conflict of interest, I agree that Zenquaker has a conflict which would normally render his editing the article inappropriate. However, removing poorly-sourced controversial material about a living person is one of the few things an editor with such a conflict can do. That said, I believe he should now leave off editing this article except under the circumstances set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits (this list includes removing BLP violations). -- Rrburke (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that high-quality sources are what is required here. As a result, I am going to remove the whole "criticism" section. The Aitken book does not support the allegations made (it talks about problems with social relationships), and the other references are to primary sources - letters, some of which are unsigned, some of which seem to be drafts, and some of which don't mention the subject by name. The danger of original research and synthesis etc is thus grave. It is possible that something BLP compliant can be developed, but this needs to be done with considerable care and the best possible sources.--Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As the person who expanded the original “Criticism” section to include the Aitken letters, I find the censorship of these allegations against Shimano deplorable. I would like to remind everyone that these allegations are made not by me, nor Stuart Lachs, nor Kobutsu Malone, but by a number of Zen teachers, including Robert Aitken. Aitken is widely recognized as one of the most important and credible Zen teachers in America and has published numerous books and academic articles in peer-reviewed journals. To cast aspersions on Robert Aitken is unconscionable and grossly unfair. Slp 1 implies that the Aitken letters, held by the University of Hawaii, Manoa, may be somehow suspect. Copies of the letters, now housed at http://www.shimanoarchive.com/ have been authenticated by the university and each and every page is stamped by the library. They are authentic and to even suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

Eido Shimano is an important Zen teacher in American Zen. He opened the first Rinzai temple outside of Japan. When the history of American Zen is written, he will, like Robert Aitken, play a prominent role in that history. However, the truth is that Aitken, along with a number of other Zen teachers, including Philip Kapleau, another extremely prominent Zen teacher who did much to bring Zen to America, did write a letter calling for Shimano’s resignation or counselling. The letter was written due to Shimano’s philandering and the damage he was seen as doing to the Dharma in America and to the female Zen students involved. This is a fact, a truth, and the attempt by some at Wikipedia to alter history is censorship of the worst kind.

Genjo Marinello seems to think that because no complaints (as far as he is aware, anyway) have been made regarding Shimano’s sexual abuse of female students since 1995, altering history is acceptable. It’s not. The truth is out there and the readers of Wikipedia have a public interest right to know this history. Marinello knows this truth, that the allegations have not been made frivolously, without substance or by people who are deliberately out to vilify Shimano. If prominent Zen Buddhists such as Robert Aitken make such allegations, they should be taken seriously.

Wikipedians, I urge you to reconsider. Do not hide behind “rules” to alter history. The facts in this case are clear and unequivocal. Trying to alter history is one of the worst forms of censorship and deceit. It does more harm than good. Much more.Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

This has resurfaced as a hot potato, and the opinions of other editors are welcome on the talkpage. Another editor is trying to reinsert poorly sourced material from blogs and websites, arguing, as Thinman10 does above, that the allegations are important enough and the sources good enough. WP seems to be in the middle of some sort of Buddhist campaigning for and against the man. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This page needs to be allowed. It doesn't express any opinion. It simply provides verified pdf files of Aitken's letters concerning profiled figure. Removal of this info is simply "whitewashing" against all Wiki guidelines for NPOV. The desire to remove this info is simple bias. It is not said that Shimano DID anything - simply that allegations exist, that he denies. However, this controversy is driven largely by allegations by the most senior figure in American Zen and MUST be reflected in entry. I am not affiliated with either party, but am interested in American Zen. This is a serious issue in the American Buddhist community and should be reflected. I have removed zensite.com citations, since all info is at Shimanoarchive. Arguments that this information is not verifiable are simply ridiculous. There it all is! Look at it!Tao2911 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a tertiary journalistic article on shimano allegations here which cites zensite as source. This cite provides us not only with another valuable tertiary source citation, but provides validity for zensite and shimano archives.Tao2911 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding that disputed content, it is weakly cited and primary claims with BLP issues and your additions are imo giving the issue undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not being given undue weight. If you cared to do a simple google search, you would find that Shimano's name and controversy have been inextricably intertwined for decades, as multiple sources reflect. The passage in question is succinct, and without POV. it simply presents that these letters exist, along with a summary of notable content, and that none other than possibly the most important Western born teacher in American Zen has been calling for Shimano to be held responsible for at least 15 years, publicly, and repeatedly. This can hardly be overemphasized, not in one or two lines. The passage now is in keeping with sources.Tao2911 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its undue commentary about a fringe issue cited to fringe citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Would www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for a BLP? ie this article [24] for this edit? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit and article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there is at least some moderation and editing articles before they are published.[25]. I note that the article something of an opinion piece in some ways... see the recommendations at the end.--Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)