Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive94

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.

Maybe someone can keep an eye on this article - there are rumors abound that may merit it. Thanks! Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This was added to deaths in 2010, I removed it as there is no hurry and it still looks to be only a SFgate blog post referencing a facebook page, but the case is mounting... The BLP is currently fully protected in wait for a presentable reliable statement.Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Robert Schimmel, 60, American comedian. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=71633

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2010/09/robert-schimmel-dies-following-car-accident.html

I never heard of this guy before, so I have no dog in this hunt. An IP user came in and made a massive edit making accusations of criminality and fraud, with no sources, so I reverted back. Then I looked at the old version, and it's almost completely unsourced, too, and not only that, it appears to have been a copyright violation for more than two years. I have reverted back to the version prior to the insertion of the copyvio, which is in itself unsourced. This article needs a lot of work and sourcing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and will see if I can help. — e. ripley\^talk 04:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Restoring Honor rally article has a section called Restoring_Honor_rally#Theological concern about Beck's Mormonism. Several folks have commented on Talk that this section violates the letter or spirit of Wiki's BLP policy. Any input or comments?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly where to raise this, but Gap Adventures are a currently trading company. As with the BLP, one would assume that negative info about a corporation would need to be well-sourced to WP:RS, and presented in a neutral way.

An IP editor is inserting negative, POV-laden info to the article, see here, here and here. Although I raised the issue at Talk:Gap Adventures#Overpricing and the IP has posted some sources, I don't see anything which supports the assertation that Gap Adventures overprice their holidays. I don't want to get into an edit war, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes here. In anyone knows of a better place to post this, please copy/move the discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely However the IPs make a good point that it is pretty spammy. Can We see about stubifying it?Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when does WP:BLP apply to corporations? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It explicitly doesn't, though of course BLP can apply to any people mentioned inside of a corporation's article. — e. ripley\^talk 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if you look at any of their trips that can be reasonably found from alternate sources online, you will find a 100% markup or more. A person looking to buy a trip from them will based on the article from wikipedia get the impression that this is a great company offering great deals. The article reads like a corporate flyer, and is extremely pro-GAP. Naturally, comparing their prices to actual prices on other sites has an element of OR, albeit, it has been difficult to find significant third party sources. Offcourse they need to cover their marketing and distribution expenses, as well as trying to generate a decent profit, but that does not make their trips either budget or affordable. As it stands today the article is extremely POV, and does not represent reality in any encyclopedic kind of way. Additionally, these kinds of articles undermine the credibility of corporate wikipedia entries as a whole, because they often tend to be pro-company-biased. Furthermore, the amount of effort required to balance them, disenchants would be contributors from putting in the work. Finally I did not log-in to make these edits as I would prefer not to involve my name in the discussion, precisely because of the above mentioned negative focus. --84.208.113.245 (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended a number of blogs including Watts Up With That?, a blog by a climate change denier/skeptic. Later she wrote and confirmed via WP:TWITTER that she regretted the recommendation. How to handle this is being discussed at Talk:Watts Up With That?#Virginia Heffernan. More input would be appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that ScienceApologist is himself violating WP:BLP by adding unsourced contentious material about a living person.[1] ScienceApologist: Can you please show us this Tweet that you claim supports your unsourced addition? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well its appeared on the Watts website [[2]], so she appears to have indeed written this Watts himself does not dispute she wrote it and its been repeated by him so no BLP violation. However if we include her endorsements with out the subsequent caveat we are ion fact creating a BLP violation we are implicitly saying this endorsees the page without restriction (which is not the case) and that it might be seen that she endorses the views expressed on the blog (not the case). But if we include the caveat its been suggested that it violates BLP (because it a blog talking about some one not the subject of the blog (actually she it talking about her endorsement of a website but Sellavee). Given that there may be a BLP violation whatever we do it might be best to leave out her endorsement, especially as she is A TV pundit and not a science writer (thus why is her endorsement even notable).Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

Could use a broader range of input on this rfc. It's an attempt to put Cat:Antisemitism on a BLP on the basis of one or two sources, & a failed court-case accusing the subject of producing antisemitic cartoons. Note to the I/P allergic: the underlying argument is about criticism of Israel/antisemitism. Misarxist (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking over this articles sources and have so far removed a lot of blog and self published stuff, this one however i am unsure of, [3] it is sourced to rawstory.com which looks a lot like the drudge report, any thoughts on this as a source in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

According to [4], Rawstory has editorial review, which means it meets WP:RS. The RSN discussions on the Raw Story found it to be reliable. We also have Media Matters (which is just as citable as Fox News) to cite. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is it a reliable enough source for statements of fact on a BLP, media matters most certainly is not mark nutley (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It has not a lot of usage usage is limited It is linked to less than 50 BLP articles only, clearly requires care and consideration in BLP articles and could be considered a bit tabloid-esqe. Personally I would not add it and never for anything contentious or controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Raw Story - Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find the quote elsewhere: CNN, minus quite such a neat "I concur" quote from Robertson (CNN says "seemed to agree"). Note same topic also is in Jerry Falwell. Rd232 ^talk 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

An anonymous user and I are not seeing eye-to-eye at the article Ken Mink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article's subject is relatively non-notable as notable people go, but he is the subject of a rather uncomplimentary profile on ESPN.com, focused on his self-aggrandizing behavior and inconsistencies in the stories he tells about himself. The anonymous user has written a short description of the ESPN piece and says it belongs in the article because (quoting two edit summaries) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". The main thrust of this paragraph is on what really happened when Ken Mink left college in 1956. Since the article is focused on what he did recently, I see inclusion of this material in the article as undue emphasis on a fairly minor detail, and unnecessary negativity in the portrayal of a living person. However, the ESPN profile is currently cited as both a cited reference and an "external link".

I'd like some other viewpoints about the ESPN content, at Talk:Ken Mink#Content removed from the article.

An additional wrinkle is that someone else -- very likely the article's subject -- has periodically contributed unsourced complimentary material to the article. I've also removed that sort of content, which I don't think necessitates discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Platt (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Spork33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing while logged out, has been attempting to insert this [5]. From their edits to Talk:Sailing faster than the wind/Archive 4#Apology and thanks and posts elsewhere with a similar username, this user appears to be directly involved in this controversy. Spork33 has just informed me that they intend to continue editing the article (User talk:Cassandra 73#Charles Platt article) after I advised them of the conflict of interest policy. Cassandra 73 ^talk 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit you are disputing adds content that appears not to fit into the article. I don't think this is really a BLP issue so much as a COI issue or just plain bad writing. Possibly this tiff is worth mentioning in Mr. Platt's article, but the amount of text devoted to it in the proposed edit is far out of proportion with the scope of the rest of the article. Based on the size of the rest of the article, and the time period it covers, at best the dispute being described here merits a single, short paragraph, like this:

In 2009, Platt became involved in a controversy over whether it is possible to build a wind-powered vehicle that travels downwind faster than the wind. In a Make Magazine article, Platt asserted that it was not, and challenged readers of Make magazine to build such a device^{[citation needed]}. At least one inventor has subsequently claimed to have built and tested one.^{[citation needed]}

The editor can't say that Platt hasn't paid the $1000 unless he or she can cite a reliable source backing up that claim. The text in the diff you provided seems to be pushing a viewpoint that Mr. Platt hasn't paid the $1000, which is not supported by sources. However, this dispute occurs is fairly well known at this point, since Wired Magazine has been talking it up recently, so it would equally be viewpoint pushing to insist that no mention be made of the controversy in the article. You will probably get closer to the result you want by simply adding a brief mention of this rather than by trying to prevent any mention of it from being added to the article.Abhayakara (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest I have no knowledge of this subject and I only came by this when checking edits tagged by the software for possible BLP issues. I raised it here after the discussion on my talk page because I was hoping for more eyes in case the user adds any more poorly sourced material.

The user has now left another message on my talk page about the amount of unsourced information already in the article, and they have a point. The talk page indicates that it is an autobiography. I'll consider how to respond to this later today. I can take this to WP:COIN if it sits better there. Cassandra 73 ^talk 05:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chester Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Biographical article about Chester Carlton, a dead person. At controversy is the sourcing for the the first sentence currently under the "Legacy" heading. The sentence summarizes a letter Dorris [Carlson, Chester's wife, also deceased] wrote to the Zen Studies Center; it is available online as part of the Shimano Archive (http://www.shimanoarchive.com).

Editor Spt51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) believes this is not allowable under BLP because (a) Shimano is alive and (b) the site in question was previously rejected as a source for the Eido Tai Shimano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (ref. one, two). Spt51 claims that, once a source is rejected once on BLPN, it cannot be used anywhere (his emphasis) in Wikipedia.

I contend that, for this purpose, the source is reliable. The linked PDF reproduces a letter written by Dorris Carlson. It is stamped as being part of the archives of the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. I think that this gives the letter the status of having been "vetted by the scholarly community" and is therefore acceptable per WP:RS. It is cited in support of a sentence that does not make contentious claims about Shimano; rather, it is a statement of Dorris Carlson's frame of mind, as stated in her own words in a letter that was sent to multiple recipients and archived by a major university. While I would of course prefer to cite a "better" source, this is the only copy of this particular document that is readily available on the Internet. There is no contention that shimanoarchive has, or would, alter the PDF to present their own agenda; there is no commentary by shimanoarchive in the PDF—it is a straightforward, simple reproduction of Dorris's letter.

Because of Chester Carlson's deep involvement with Zen and Shimano in particular, I believe that Dorris's statement that the Carlson name was not to be used by the Zen Studies Center is historically important.

Spt51 did not delete the line in question, but deleted shimanoarchive as an external link, and deleted another set of statements that Carlson (deceased) and his wife (deceased) had a role in founding the Rochester Zen Center (not a natural person) with Philip Kaplan (deceased)—on the grounds that it violated WP:BLP because of the shimanoarchives source. It was first deleted without any log entry or comment on the talk page, subsequently restored by myself, then re-deleted with the above explanation. I have since restored those particular statements using multiple alternative sources. However, the manner in which Spt51 deleted these statements and the rationale seem questionable to me, so I am seeking further opinion.

I would like to know if it is true that shimanoarchive.com has been ruled verboten for all uses on Wikipedia by this noticeboard, and if not, if this usage is appropriate—or, for that matter, if it's even subject to WP:BLP. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I should say before beginning that Spt51 has brought this issue to my attention on my talkpage. I have had considerable involvement in various aspects of Eido Tai Shimano issues in the last few months.

Secondly, thank you Macwhiz for bringing this discussion here. It was a good decision and the question is an interesting one.

For other editors, issues related to Shimano have been discussed here here, here here and here as well as the talkpage. The short version is that Shimano had been strongly critiqued by various Buddhist subgroups on websites and blogs, including the Shimanoarchive (also known as www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive). Various editors have sought to do include poorly sourced information about him on WP. Recently more reliable sources have appeared about allegation and Shimano's resignation. As part of this discussion, letters from the Robert Baker Aitken archive, (a strong critic of Shimano) hosted at the (critical) Shimanoarchive were fairly briefly discussed.

Many documents hosted at the shimanoarchive, are indeed stamped with the University of Hawaii stamp. I don't actually personally doubt the that documents are genuine, but I think it is clear that the shimanoarchive site is not a reliable source per WP definitions as it lacks the editorial oversight required. Having the letter hosted there rather than the U of H website is a big problem. The other major problem is that the documents are primary sources which generally are to be used with caution. The dangers are clear in this case: we have no context so we have no idea whether Mrs. Carlson actually sent the letter, whether she sent it to Aitken as a draft asking his opinion, or whether she later retracted it, something the shimanoarchive decided not to post. And then there is always the possibility that it was fabricated.

Shimano is a living person and BLP affects all articles, including the sentence in the Carlson article. BLP says that we must be extra careful with primary sources and with reliable sourcing in when dealing with living subjects. Given that both are issues here, I think it would be best if the sentence was removed unless a better source can be found. There seem to be lots of reliable secondary sources out there about Carlson. If it is important, a secondary source will have mentioned it. In any case, the sentence is more about Carlson's widow's opinions than Carlson, isn't it? --Slp1 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the statement in question. I'm still not sure I agree that shimanoarchive should be considered wholly and irrevocably tainted, but I understand your logic in this case. One thing I'd like to point out, though: When an editor has a history of removing material about a particular person or group under the flag of the BLP, and does so with no explanation in the edit summary or talk page—or one that doesn't seem to make sense—it can create the appearance of a conflict of interest. It can look like it's a campaign to whitewash a subject. I'm not disputing the goal of upholding BLP; I'm just saying that doing so in the wrong way, no matter how good-intentioned, can lead to raised hackles and edit wars. Slp1, could you offer some advice as to how an editor can better achieve these goals without unintentionally raising a ruckus? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding provenance: Hypothetically, if there were not issues with the letter other than the shimanoarchive site, what would prevent an editor from changing the reference so that it refers to the University of Hawaii archive sans URL? There's nothing that says that a reference has to be available online, only that it be verifiable. Any editor wishing to verify the document could go to the University and ask to see it. (Of course, this would be relatively impractical for the vast majority of editors, but I don't think that "impractical for most" equates to "unverifiable.") Or, what if the University provided one with a copy of the archive along with a letter from a head librarian attesting to the archive's authenticity? Would that then prove the provenance of the letter sufficiently? (Again, leaving aside for the sake of argument whether or not such a letter would be otherwise permissible as a source for reasons of authorship or content—considering only its provenance.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this edit [6] on the talk page of Elana Kagan. The editor in question has previously been warned about potential BLP violations, although in response all he did was attack the admin that warned him. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I "warned" the user and asked them to remove the comments. I suggest maybe give it a little time in good faith then consider redacting them --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Kagan is a lesbian has been discussed in the Washington Post[7] and all kinds of other sources.[8] What is it, a secret now? I find these complaints bizarre. I also notice that the allegation is apparently so speakably heinous that you can't even write what it is on the BLP page, which I find highly amusing. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What Kauffner (talk · contribs) conveniently omitted is his/her inflammatory comments on the talk page, "Her partner is out" and "she looks like a lesbian in most of the pictures", going well beyond the facts in the news reports. Cresix (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed most of it. Kauffner was warned by another editor yesterday, which he reverted with a PA, and I warned him again today (before I noticed the earlier warning in his history). Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a periodic attempt to post an alleged incident for which Saud was arrested and the charges were dropped. This violates the guidelines for bios of living persons in my opinion, which state "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."Belgenius (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Put it on my watchlist, the refs being used fail wp:rs amd it is a blp violation to insert that content using those refs mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ] (timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

(timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Anurag Dikshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a single pupose IP address and new user is repeatedly removing references (and external links) from this article, and completely removing a section on a guilty plea the subject entered (which is about 40% of his notability) while adding a bunch of off-topic stuff. This is the most recent stable version.

• Joproffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new single purpose account
• JamesmaharrisonPRO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - second/sockpuppet account
• 62.49.31.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - IP address of same user

(timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

John McGrath (Western Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - information is being repeatedly added that has no veritable source - the reference given is a dead link. There is further information being repeatedly added (relating to a CCC inquiry that cleared John McGrath of all charges) which contradicts the reference that is cited. (timestamp for automated archiving. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

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

I've just used a {{hangon}} for the speedy deletion on this one, because I think the person meets basic notability; however, it will need some careful checking over, given the subject matter, and BLP concerns - hence my noting here.  Chzz  ►  15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Bio is a bit in need of a good copy edit, clean up, rewrite.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Kern - Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Freeman (columnist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor claims the article is biased and subject to censorship [9]. I've added what I can to balance this, using sources I've found online. The subject is a sportswriter who has apparently written controversial articles, and those that have prompted the strongest reactions have generated the most coverage, hence the content of the article. It appears that there has been a history of unsourced negative edits, but my take is that things are pretty level right now, given the reliable sources that exist via Google searches. Any help here will be welcome. JNW (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted, article looks better now thanks to your recent edits User:JNW. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Abbott (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,numerous adds of additional new data of works completed by person to page I created last yr, only to have every single one undone and have me blocked. I have found additional works and the data for director to add previous movies and additional books written and added them, referenced the source of the United States Copyright Office, Published Catalog. She also when starting her copyrights for her works stated her birth yr born as 1955 which was also added. You can view these as well here:

1) here

2) here

There are many jennifer abbott's and when searching you will see another in the us copyright catalog and they place their yr of birth in their copyright profile, licenses and next to name to separate their works from being confused - see here they all put their birth yr next to their names to protect their own works and not confuse. cocatalog.loc.gov

Clearly you can see from the two links above they each show works that are already posted, for example war of the gods film, other dimension book, scream from within book, and new dvd ms abbott made previous needs added from 2005 Americas Sexiest Girls. Also added data for interviews re prev film found.

The second link shows works listed already of other dimension, poems from the deepest corder of the soul, but new title found needs added called vacuum field. Please have edits reverted, as these are verified and evidenced and stop the auto undo's by many. Its not understood to me how or why every person can come and undo verified, sourced and referenced edits like these. The purpose of this site to have accurate data and adding additional works and birth yr found are relevant data. Thank you - uscopyright User_talk:Uscopyright

• - User:Uscopyright was blocked after posting and is also tagged as a suspected sock. Also after a quick look I can't see anything worthy of BLP action. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I have opened a disucssion about a source making a contentious claim about Fred Phelps at The RSN. You can find it -->here<-- Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to see a couple of editors working to improve this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Someone keeps changing the ethnicity of Louis Zorich from Croatian to Serbian. I previously raised the issue on this board, and it was addressed. See link below. Now the person has returned. I opened a discussion on the Louis Zorich page, but the person refuses to engage. Please help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive92#Louis_Zorich ( unsigned comment added by User:Grabovcan - Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

I've watchlisted it, though I find these continual Serb vs. Croat edit wars to be utterly tedious. Yworo (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is still strong feeling after the horrors or the war. This would be perfect for pending protection, if it continues semi protection is an option. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Actually the owner of the canvas shop is Linda Schreck. Gerald Schreck does not own a canvas shop now. He does not even live in Pensacola anymore. Linda Schreck is the sole owner and operator of the boat canvas business in Pensacola. Please change this information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.53.2 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Disputed content was uncited and I have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can advocacy groups, such as Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center, be used as sources for contentious information for BLPs? I know that these are respected and legitimate organizations, but it seems questionable to me to use these as sources for BLPs (as opposed to secondary, reliable sources). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, and you can chuck in places like media matters as well. No group with an ax to grind should be a source in a BLP mark nutley (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also say, no , they are groups with strong POV against a living person then they are clearly opinionated and nothing contentious or controversial that is disputable should be cited to them. If it is widely known then it will be reported at more uninvolved quality citations, which renders the opinionated or activist citation as excessive and detrimental to neutral uninvolved reporting in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They're both well respected sources of information in their fields, generally the answer is yes. There may be specific problems, ie the ADL is now commonly described as an Israeli advocacy organisation. What is the context? Misarxist (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They can be cited for what their opinions are, in general. Opinions are not facts. If they aver a "fact" then a RS ought to be found for the fact, and not rely on the group for contentious claims. Collect (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist: Well, I'm asking in general, but catalyst for my question is our article on Fred Phelps. There's a quote sourced to the ADL that begins "His Christ-rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface." I can't find a single secondary reliable source that even mentions this quote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A quote needs a specific RS. Really. Collect (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I happened upon this article about a daughter of Fred Phelps and just deleted the entire section about her arrest, see the article's talk page for more details. However there is still a line in the bio that I wanted to put to this board: Her first son was born out of wedlock in 1979 after an affair with a man in a halfway house where she was an intern. which is sourced to The Pitch, which appears to be an alt-weekly owned by the Village Voice's parent company.

Is this an adequate source for such an assertion? I am on the fence, as the reporter appears to have interviewed several family members who seem to acknowledge at least that she'd had a child out of wedlock, but it doesn't quite say that it was by a man in a halfway house (the article says she gave birth to a child out of wedlock, and observes in the next sentence that she became romantically involved with a man staying at a halfway house, but it doesn't connect the two thoughts -- only implies them -- and later in the article says she refuses to state who the father is). Of course, then there's the question of whether it belongs at all. — e. ripley\^talk 16:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that the sentences aren't connected. And I support leaving the sentence in the article, as its sourced to a reliable source per BLP. Aditya Ex Machina 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the connection really isn't explicitly made. It's implied very strongly, but nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that the homeless man is the child's father. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but that's why I wanted to solicit opinions, particularly on a BLP. — e. ripley\^talk 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the connection is obvious enough. I'm not sure if the sentence should be included. It's borderline, but I think it's OK (don't know much about Pitch). One obvious problem is there's a big difference between being an intern and dong a college internship. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ripley: the connection is implied, but not explicitly stated. Implication isn't enough for a BLP; it needs to be explicitly stated. Otherwise, it's rumor. Notwithstanding that, I don't see how the sentence in question contributes to the article. It's a non sequitur. I think the entire sentence should be removed, unless plausible, non-coatrack, properly sourced statements can be added to give it context and a reason to be in the article. (Why would someone care if this person had been born out of wedlock, or had an affair with a homeless man? What's the relevance?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that this is the classic dilemma that ultra-religious people who put themselves in a position to judge others' morality find themselves in when it's discovered that they have done the type of thing they would denounce other people for. However simply to have it sitting out there without context makes it seem cherry-picked to make that point ourselves by its mere inclusion. It would be better if she had been criticized in some reliable source for this having been a part of her life, given her heavy involvement with Phelps' church. Perhaps that criticism exists, I'm not sure, but it does seem to need it. — e. ripley\^talk 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually many Christians, maybe most, have unmarried sex. Christianity is often criticised by other religions for its laxer standards on sexual relationships. Have you ever read The Autobiography of Malcolm X?Wolfview (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't, in fact, but I probably should. I take your point that lots of Christians have unmarried sex, but what I was referencing really is focused more on how publicly righteous someone is about their morality -- people who make it their business to publicly denounce other people for various immoral deeds have a lot farther and harder to fall when it's uncovered that they're doing immoral things too. — e. ripley\^talk 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am nominating the article for deletion. There does not seem to be any substantial coverage of her in the secondary sources cited. Wolfview (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Getting back to the matter of her first-born child: my view is that this statement is both adequately sourced and gratuitous and should be removed. Whether the article's subject meets WP notability standards is a pretty tough call about which honest people may differ, but that's not what's being discussed here. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me like the balance of opinion is that it's at best a borderline case, and given the way BLP is structured that probably means it shouldn't be there. I'm going to excise it. Thanks for your comments. — e. ripley\^talk 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A single user has repeatedly inserted claims in the entry for Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel that he has no Auschwitz tattoo, notwithstanding that Wiesel has written extensively about his tattoo. The only evidence of this claim is a link to a subjective YouTube video with selective edits, out of context, from a documentary about Wiesel revisiting his hometown. The sound is removed from the clip and someone has re-edited with a biased point of view and added new title cards. To use this as a "source" clearly seems to violate Wikipedia policy, and I wrote on the Elie Wiesel talk page as to why. As another user wrote on the talk page, it is potentially defamatory to make such a claim about Wiesel in his Wikipedia article. I agree this could be libelous because it questions Wiesel's honesty and the accuracy of his published books. The user inserting the original research is "Someone ua" and he/she has only ever edited this single article and only added the claims about the tattoo. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The text that's being inserted now by User:Someone ua is utterly inappropriate and irresponsibly states as fact things that are inadequately sourced with highly questionable links. This particular line appears to be pushed by something called the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" and backs up its assertions with cherrypicked quotes and some sort of Youtube video. — e. ripley\^talk 18:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A request a few months ago in the reliable sources noticeboard drew the reply: "Both the codoh and jdl are extremists (to the extreme). Neither is a reliable source for anything but themselves. Since the CODOH is unrelated to anything but the CODOH or Bradley Smith, it should not be used as a source for anything but those two entities."[10] RolandR (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The information has been thoroughly rejected both here and at the article's talk page; as such I've removed the discussion from the talk page per WP:BLP. If anyone disagrees with my scrubbing the talk page of references to such rubbish feel free to revert me, but I thought it was the right thing to do. — e. ripley\^talk 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article should be improved, but didn't see BLP problems.Wolfview (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit [11] inserting an adjectival description of a group, appears to me to be approaching WP:OR and WP:NPOV. particularly based on the edit summary "The reason her association is mentioned is because they are notorious for their radicalism". If our sources are not making that claim and description, Wikipedia editors certainly should not. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The cited source says "far-right": "But while Geller has inserted herself into mainstream politics in America, she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals."[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur; the source supports the cited edit, and it's a reliable source. It also doesn't seem to me to be undue emphasis, given that it's an article about a political activist. As for the edit summary, if the sources support the assertion that the English Defence League's notoriety is primarily due to an agenda of radicalism, then the summary would be literally true (if framed too tersely to avoid raising hackles in a political discussion). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that the cited source uses that description (unrelated sources had been added at one time just to call the group far right) and this article has been subject to much POV editing. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be a friend of this author enquired in live-help about inaccuracies; in particular, the article name was incorrectly given as "Cecile Piñeda" so we moved it to Cecile Pineda, and fixed the name in the article - this fact seems bourne out by her official website.

I made a bit of a start on fact-checking here, but it could certainly do with some more attention. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

[Talk: Charlie Anders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders] An anonymous user is starting up an edit war on an author's talk page, with over use of personal information and non-relevant content including real names, family members, and long quotations of controversial material. It violates WP:BLP and all its cautions about privacy and relevance. This looks like deliberate harassment to me. --Lizzard (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. As I understand it, the "controversial" quote is from the introduction of one of the subject's own books, which has been widely published. There can be no reasonable doubt that Anders wrote it; you can even view it on Amazon's site. The quotation mentions no names. It makes a passing reference to Anders' parents, without mentioning their names, but not in a way that could be considered derogatory. (I think it's reasonable to assume that any person would have parents, so I cannot see how a reference to having parents can be considered a BLP violation.) It's not a particularly long quotation, and it is illustrative of the author's mindset and history—directly so, given her choice to publish the statement in a mass-market book. There is no privacy concern where the material is already broadly published. The material in question seems highly relevant to the biography to me. The quote in question appears OK under WP:SELFPUB. There are no names in the quotation, so WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply. So based on what I can make of this, I'd have to say the anonymous user has the right of it. If I'm missing something, could you point to a diff that better illustrates the issue? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note the potential COI going on at this article. I have flagged my concerns at [Talk: Charlie Anders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders]. Thanks! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lizard - Perhaps you'd consider restoring all the edits you've made to Anders' page and withdrawing from the discussion, as you are in fact a blogger for "other" mag, which represents a huge COI on your part. Your user page has your name and information that points clearly towards your writing work outside of Wikipedia and for "other." (http://www.othermag.org/blogit.php)

I cannot speak for the other editors who have been trying in vain to improve this page, but I am trying to add useful information to flesh out Ms. Anders' entry. It looks like everything I and others have added is sourced. If she is worthy of a Wikipedia entry at all, it cannot simply be a resume. As a notable public figure, she deserves a quality article with interesting, true, and verifiable information! Should the entry on Sandra Bullock omit all discussion of her recent adoption and split from husband Jesse James, because they are not directly related to her acting work? Please do not ruin the aims of this site by reducing the entries of people you know personally to vanity pages. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.140.29 (talk)

I think that lquilter outlined some good objections in the [Talk page], in a much more clear way than I did. Her points about original research, about people's intentions about public acknowledgment of information, and about tipping the scales in favor of privacy. Please take a look there at her explanation. --Lizzard (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those objections apply to the discussion of the book quotation on the talk page. After all, the way to avoid having that quote becoming "undue emphasis" is to add yet more material to what is a very sparse article. If the article weren't so short, this wouldn't be an overly long quote. Again, there is no privacy issue with the quote: it was published in a book issued by a major publisher. There is no conceivable way that one can say that the information in that quote is private information, when it has voluntarily been not just shared, but intentionally published to a potentially massive audience. Lizzard, your actions are not constructive, they're obstructive; why not try helping others construct a better, more in-depth article in good faith? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the quote is undue weight (not privacy); it appears a bit jarring given the dearth of other biographical information in the article. The difficulty with adding other biographical information, of course, is that there isn't a lot of published biographical information on Anders -- one of the sources is a publishers' bio, which just goes to show how little is out there. You can only add what's published, verifiable, etc. So at this point it seems to me pretty difficult to construct a lengthy biographical section that would support that lengthy of a quote. --Lquilter (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, recent contributor to Anders' page dannyobrien has previously edited the Boing Boing entry, adding info there on author Danny O'Brien's work for them. Writer Danny O'Brien has appeared at one of Anders' "Writers with Drinks" events. (http://www.writerswithdrinks.com/past.html) 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The things I edited out were not sourced properly; they linked to various interviews which did not contain the cited information. Those edits focused on Anders' sexuality and gender identity, family relationships, and former names. None of those things are covered in the articles cited. The articles, bios, and interviews focus on her creative and community work as notable things to be covered in news articles. The long and rather prurient quotation from a minor 10 year old work was as long as the rest of the article, and was not encyclopediac or notable. WP:BLP does ask that people respect the privacy of living people and their families. Regarding COI: half of literary San Francisco has worked with Anders and Newitz. I have kept a neutral and unbiased tone, and edit under my real name without any obfuscation. --Lizzard (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, by what metric do you describe this as a "minor work"? Please note that just because you don't like something that doesn't make it minor nor necc. "prurient". You may well have been right that the quote was too long or not useful. The right response would have been to have raised your objections to its inclusion on the talk page (indeed, the anon editor raised the poss. inclusion of the quote on the talk page for discussion rather than adding it before hand -- a nice example of wiki-etiquette some other editors to this article could follow) not to delete it -- from the talk page -- citing bogus BLP concerns. I really suggest that you withdraw from editing given your admitted COI and repeated failure to assume good faith. Of course, you are free to do as you wish, but I will monitor future developments to make sure abusive editing isn't going on. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the use of words like "pruient" and "minor" to describe the book tend to argue against your neutrality. Those are judgement calls, and I don't see that they have been made by consensus—as someone outside this argument, it looks to me like you're trying to enforce those value judgements by fiat. It does give the appearance of a COI. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree at least in part: "Minor" is a legal judgment that really has nothing to do with "judgment calls". Anders was objectively a minor in the quoted passage. --Lquilter (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry; "minor" is about the work, not about the person. That said -- my assessment that Anders was describing her experiences as a minor stands. So -- (a) I am not weighing in on whether the work is a "minor work" -- I'm not qualified to judge, but do note that it is a book not an essay; but (b) the quote is about Anders as a minor, and since it's sexual, it's frankly kind of creepy for that to be selected from the entire book to be a quote. --Lquilter (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's the second time an editor has made a value judgment about the "creepiness" or "prurience" of the quote. I have two observations. The first is that the quote is from Anders' own memoir. Thus it has been written by the source (and not in a mere "throw away" interview) and widely published. The second is that such a value judgment is not only inappropriate, but tends to argue against your neutrality. If you find this subject creepy then you shouldn't edit it. There are plenty of articles on things I find to be creepy (Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for instance). I steer clear of them.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) It's not creepy in context; but excerpted from its context and placed in an encyclopedia article, it's a bit creepy. If you don't like the use of the word "creepy" to describe it, fine; let's just say, then, information about a child viewing him/herself sexually strikes me as inappropriate to excerpt, or non-encyclopedic in tone. Your example is inapposite, since the subject of those articles are people, and you're apparently saying you find those people creepy. I don't find Anders creepy; I find the (proposed) inclusion in an encyclopedia article of a quote about a minor's sexuality to be creepy. The article is not about a minor's sexuality; it is a biographical article about Anders. Such material would generally be deemed inappropriate in any biographical article -- we can find lots of references to various famous people (especially writers) talking about their childhood sexual fantasies and so forth, but it's not relevant. (2) As to whether my take on the topic suggests a lack of neutrality -- frankly I disagree, and I'm honestly not sure why you would even say such a thing. People do in fact have opinions; it doesn't mean they're non-neutral as to the subject of the article. In future please refrain from casting aspersions unnecessarily. --Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lquilter, I think you are being a bit obtuse here. Firstly this debate started because Lizzard felt that the quote was so damaging it could not stand uncensored on the talk page of the article. Not the article, its talk page. Secondly, like it or not, Anders' is known primarily as a writer, not of scifi, but a writer who deals with issues of gender identity and sexuality. I agree such a quote would be very odd in the bio of many writers, but it is not at all odd in the bio of a writer who has written about her gender identity in a full length book. As an aside, I see you criticise me for suggesting that claims of creepiness/prurience argue against neutrality, yet didn't raise such criticism when user ⌘macwhiz said the same thing. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Charlie Anders here. Sorry to be the source of so much fuss. I really appreciate your efforts to make my wikipedia entry more complete. And I do think it should include the fact that I'm openly transgendered, which is something I've said on the record a hundred times. I also absolutely agree that it should list my first book, The Lazy Crossdresser, and the fact that I wrote it under the name Charles. I'm still really proud of that book, even though it no longer reflects my identity now that I've been living as a fully transitioned woman for the past eight years. I'm really glad the Lazy CD is out there. That said, I'm now living as a woman, and almost everything notable I've ever done has been as a woman. Even though I agree my entry should say that I'm a trans woman, adding a bunch more references to the fact that I used to be a guy seems really unnecessary. And that lengthy quote from something I wrote 10 years ago feels way too racy, and as though it's going to turn my whole entry into being about my former male identity. I really don't think that being transgender is the most interesting thing about me, and I think it's going to create a weird impression if there's tons of details on that one aspect of my life and no details about anything else. CharlieAnders (talk)

Anders- If this is indeed you, it is considered very bad Wiki-etiquette to get involved in the discussion of your own entry. It also points more strongly to an attempt to control the entry by proxy. Your wikipedia entry is not owned by you, and you should not attempt dictate what the emphasis or items included are. I note that the IP address (64.81.56.218) you have posted this comment from has in the past edited your own entry, Michael Kupperman's entry, and Annalee Newitz' entry. I'm sure W. would prefer not to have a link in his entry to an article on "Efforts to Impeach George W. Bush," but he shouldn't be attempting to edit his own Wiki entry. If you are notable enough to rate a Wiki, then you must be a public figure of interest to those who consult Wikipedia. You've written some great things on gender and personal identity - and the entry currently lists quite a few publications and activities you've been involved with that are NOT related to your gender identity or writings thereon. You may be seeing this through your own perceptions and concerns. Please remember: the Wikipedia community decides what's "unnecessary" and what the "impression" of you is. You're an awesome writer and person - I respectfully ask you to stand back and let the community make you shine with a superior entry that will be both compelling and informational.

Lizzard - if everyone in San Francisco has worked for or with Anders, then perhaps unaffiliated wiki-editors in New York or Chicago should be the ones working on this. To continue my examples from above, I'm sure lots of people know Sandra Bullock and George Bush socially and through working with them, but they shouldn't be the ones working on the Wikipedia entries for those two. Also, I think you're not reading the articles that were linked to properly, when you claim they do not cover the details cited. For example, I have recently added in a direct quoted phrase regarding Anders' teenage years to try and combat such a false claim, as dannyobrien made on that subject. I can, however, add more direct quotes on other topics if you feel it's necessary, in order to point out what I think you and others are not seeing. As for privacy, why are you trying to censor something that was widely published, which doesn't even cite proper names -- especially on a Discussion page? "The Lazy Crossdresser" helped establish Anders' career in a major way. Regarding an entry for an author who has published two book-length works and edited a book-length collection of essays, it seems very important to discuss those books, no matter how many articles they have published as well. I see your user page lists GLBT history as one of your main interests, so I do not understand your anti-trans edits here. I am surprised you wish to support any type of censorship, let alone in a forum like Wikipedia. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear 76.169.140.29: You are further going over the bounds suggested by WP:BLP right here. WP:BLP says, "The subject should be welcomed and invited to explain his concerns". Instead, you are bullying the subject of the article who has written to directly and politely address Wikipedia editors. As far as my edits, I think that I may have been a bit zealous in counteracting a pattern of what I saw as deliberate and malicious harassment. But I stand by my edits as unbiased, and as taking out unsourced or improperly source material. You are also arguing to silence me, and the subject, while accusing me of actual censorship and being anti-trans... a bit much. I have to conclude you are trolling and hiding behind clumsy officiousness. I hope that an admin who is sensitive to the issues of BLP and becomes involved soon. My main concern is that the article not out people, their relationships, and is not, as Anders points out above, framing a biographical encyclopedia entry by overemphasizing one aspect. --Lizzard (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How does "outing" someone come into this discussion? You posted regarding a quotation in a book; if any "outing" happened, it occurred ten years ago when the author published the statement in a book. No one's trying to silence you; they're raising reasonable concerns that you may be too tightly tied to the subject of the article to be able to view the subject dispassionately. The rather loaded language in your reply, in my opinion, adds support to those concerns; it's anything but dispassionate. There's a difference between "being silenced" and "having a different viewpoint than the consensus opinion". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Though for full disclosure, it should be noted that your IP (76.169.140.29) address also edited the entries you referred to, including ones with very subtle connections to Anders. If I were to step back from this, I would see a classic wikipedia edit war emerging, in which one party with a particular interest in the subject is attempting to (disingenuously) reframe an article of a living person in an unencyclopediac way in order to hurt the subject or those connected with them, which inevitably attracts those who attempt to fix that problem. Because of the long history of such battles in Wikipedia history, at least each group on each side these days conducts their edits using sources, and verifiable facts, and with a nod to NPOV, which are effectively the lowest rung of compliance with WP policy. However, such edits wars often end up more subtly distorting other WP aims: the desire to be encylopedia-like, privacy-protecting in the field of BLPs, and without drawing WP into external battles that don't help with building WP. It's exactly these kind of sensitive issues for which WP has BLP policies, and this page, and additional process. I recognise BigDaddy1981's concerns of COI in the current pattern of edits, and would respectfully ask other editors to step in who have not been involved in the editing of this page. However, it's my belief that 76.169.140.29 and other anonymous IPs attempts to re-work this article are as conflicted as anyone else, and that in protecting this article from malicious editing from any side, particular attention should be paid to the longer history of Anders' article to attempt to detect long-term patterns of harassment that do not immediately appear when considering simple line-edits. In particular, it may be useful to involve those who have both a long record as WP editors and a sensitivity to the kind of intimidation that GLBT notable living persons undergo to take an interest. --Dannyobrien (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

76, you are quite mistaken in your claim that it is 'very bad Wiki-etiquette to get involved in the discussion of your own entry'. In fact both WP:COI and WP:BLP make it clear subjects are welcome to offer their opinions on the talk page and other relevant places of articles concerning them particularly when they disclose who they are. It's true that they cannot dictate how articles should be, but we will take their comments on board as we will any other editor. The thing that is disagreed is people actually editing articles concerning them, which isn't what's going on here Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Nil Einne, that's exactly what has been going on. Ms Anders -- if you look at her edit history -- has repeatedly purged content from her entry (with no edit summaries). Bigdaddy1981 (talk)

That's not true, actually. I did undo a couple of edits quite some time ago, which were adding unsourced and personal information that had already been removed previously by other people. I regret doing it, but I don't think it's germane to the current discussion. CharlieAnders (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't germane to the current discussion. However, I wanted to make sure that Nil Einne was aware that his comment that "[t]he thing that is disagreed is people actually editing articles concerning them, which isn't what's going on here" is not really accurate. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't read the discussion properly. In retrospect I should have said "The thing that is strong discouraged is people actually editing articles concerning them, which isn't what the main part of your comment referred to. If Charlie Anders has made mistakes in the past, that is unfortunate but if she now understands these were mistakes and isn't going to make them again, then it's best they are left in the past. She is still welcome to contribute to any discussions involving articles related to her and it is inappropriate to suggest otherwise." In any case 76 has accepted they were mistaken and my main point here was to ensure the's no confusion on that part so I'll bow out of this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Danny: Let's not imply that only people with a professional connection to Anders (and therefore having a COI) would have interest in her article! That would unfairly diminish her notability. Those of us outside the SF Bay area writing and GLBT communities want to contribute meaningfully, too! 76.169.140.29 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Anders: I get the sense that the frustration here is that quite a few people want to do you justice by expanding your bio, but they're having trouble finding acceptable sources under Wikipedia rules to do so in a way that doesn't seem to give undue weight to certain parts of your life. I don't think this is intentional; it might even be an unintended consequence of a private lifestyle. Although you shouldn't edit your own article, because of the obvious COI, this doesn't mean you can't contribute. I suggest that you're in the best position to point other, uninvolved editors toward acceptable secondary sources that would expand your bio in a fair, balanced fashion. (For that matter, I'm sure you have media contacts that would help you create such sources if you were so inclined—mind you, I'm not suggesting anything unethical, merely that you probably have a better chance of getting an interview published than most people.) Perhaps you could use the Talk page to suggest articles, books, etc. that contain information about you that you think others could use to update the article? That would be a constructive way forward, it would make Wikipedia better, and it would help you build a stronger relationship with your fans. After all, some of these people care enough about you to spend their time, without compensation, fighting this fight to make your article better. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A generally good analysis but surely we need not suggest to subjects of articles that they become less private than they would like to be in order to make wikipedia better! Encyclopedias make use of published material; they don't solicit its creation. If as a consequence of a private life there's not a lot out there, then we have to deal with that. --Lquilter (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying "you must go publish a defense!" No, my point is that the subject of a BLP likely knows better than anyone what interviews she's given and where information about her has been published. Therefore, if the subject of the BLP wishes to have that information included, it seems to me that the best way would be to bring those sources to the attention of the other editors. Further, at the risk of pointing out a loophole in BLP policy, if the subject of a BLP has information that isn't currently sourced that they'd like to see in the BLP, their best route is to get that information published in an acceptable source. Ya don't have to do this, but it is an option. It seems to me like these options don't necessarily come to mind for a lot of BLP subjects. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Anders here again! Thanks for the suggestion, Macwhiz. I actually can suggest plenty of interviews with me, as well as personal essays I've published more recently, which people can feel free to mine for biographical details and insights into my life and work. I'll be happy to do that over at the Talk page for my entry in the next couple days. Thanks again for the suggestion! // CharlieAnders (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of conflict in anonymous editors seems kinda defensive, and a bit harsh to accuse contributers of 'longterm patterns of harassment." 98.148.100.213 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses (Lquilter):

1. Anders' comments and contributions are and ought to be welcome; commenting here on what is desired for privacy is entirely appropriate, and is distinct from editing the subject's article.
2. Let's not mix up the various concerns with various pieces of material. As I see them,
   1. the concerns with the quote are undue weight to information of a sexual nature about the subject when she was a minor; and
   2. the concerns with the relationships (family and partner(s)) are the "outing" concerns, reflecting privacy issues.
3. Let's avoid all the suppositions about harassment, COI, and so forth. I see no reason why we ought not take people's words that they have no COI. I would strongly argue against any idea that one ought not edit any article on the basis of any acquaintanceship. That's far beyond WP:COI. COI's guidelines refer to promotional material. None of the edits here strike me as either promotional, harassment, transphobic, etc. So let's just let all that go and focus on a good faith disagreement in what is appropriately private or balanced.

--Lquilter (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing about undue weight: The concern isn't that this quotation was added to the article causing undue weight. The present BLP inquiry was posted because someone proposed on the talk page that this quote might be a good thing to add. I think that was good behavior and the right thing to do. Another editor felt that the quotation was so heinous under WP:BLP that it couldn't even be discussed on the talk page, apparently started a talk page edit war, and then brought the issue here. I find the assertion that this quote was that bad to be ridiculous and unsupportable. It may well be that the quotation is inappropriate for the article on the basis of undue weight, but I see no reason why editors couldn't have a mature and reasonable conversation about the idea on the article's talk page. Perhaps consensus will be that it shouldn't be added. But... instead... the discussion was prematurely terminated by starting an edit war and then taking it here. So, in terms of what was originally asked of BLP/N, "undue weight" is a bit of a red herring, is it not? The real question was, and is, "Is the mere discussion of this passage on the talk page unacceptable under BLP?" // ⌘macwhiz

I disagree with this characterisation, both of the history of this complaint, and the scope. Let me preface this by saying that it is hard for me to even construct an alternative narrative without breaching the "Assume Good Faith" principle, but really, at some point (and particularly at this point) there is a going to be a great deal of not assuming good faith, and a lot of dicta (good word, Lquilter) being thrown around that assumes that it isn't. For instance, there's COI as a general principle, and there's presuming a lack of good faith because of a presumed COI. Currently, Macwhiz's version of the story is that someone proposed a quote in perfect innocence, another editor went crazy, started an edit war over this quote because of its heinousness, and that's the end of the story. There's clearly an assumption of good faith *and* bad faith (or at least random craziness) in this. My view of the story is that there was an ongoing series of edits that seemed to create undue weight to one side of the article that involved posting a great deal of material about particular aspects that are *known* to be touchy in terms of BLP privacy. There was an ongoing discussion of those edits, both in Talk and in the edit log (as is often the case in BLP privacy cases). In the middle of this *discussion*, the person who was involved adding a great deal of material started adding large quotes into the discussion page. I know this may come as a shock to some, but a strategy that is used by those seeking to unbalance Wikipedia pieces *is* to seek to include that material in the Talk section. The concern was that attempts to unbalance the article were now disingenuously being used to include large pieces of text in the Talk area, too. (contd.)

The issue raised here was narrowly defined as whether this quote should be in Talk, but the context was a worry that this BLP article was being used in a way that the BLP additional processes are designed to protect against. I apologise if "pattern of harassment" was too strong, but what *I* see looking through the logs of this article is a pattern of unsupported assertion, challenged and removed, followed often by those statements returning backed either tendentiously with sources that don't quite fit the assertions, or with actually quite good sources. This happens a lot in Wikipedia article evolution, of course: that's how WP is supposed to work. But the choice of topic, and the attempt to place undue weight on particular topics in somebody's private life is an approach that is both compatible with this, and still of explicit concern when creating BLP articles (that's why we have presumptions of privacy, and why we have a lot of discussion about the level to which WP:HARM issues should influence BLP).

To give a further example: while we have been discussing this, there are now even more detailed descriptions of the subject's current gender status, added by the same editor, with [citation needed] tags in the main text. Given that we're already having a discussion about the dangers of overbalancing or coathanging this article, it seems disingenuous to be adding yet more content in this area, along with cheery encouragements by that editor to other editors protesting this overbalancing to contribute their own material.

To summarize: the concern is about overbalancing the article in favour of content concentrating on the person's current gender status family relationships and behaviour as a minor, as opposed to the notable facts, which are about the person as an author. The fear expressed by some editors was that this overbalancing was part of a deliberate pattern of stigmatizing, the evidence of which came from a long-term pattern of edits to this article and others. These are the arguments in favor of excising a long, irrelevant quote from the Talk page, because while its absence does not effect the debate going on there, its presence would certainly be invasive to privacy especially given this pattern. I would strongly encourage those who cannot understand how this could possibly be a controversial quote to sit down and look through the previous pattern of edits of this article (and connected edits) to try and understand the wider context.

My proposed compromise is to keep the quote excluded, but provide enough link and context to allow those to find the quote; to keep an eye on this page both for COI edits *and* for patterns of deliberate undue weighting, to revert to the 21:43, 8 September 2010 version of the main article (before this new rash of personal life additions); and to encourage all editors here to step away from the text box, and leave this article to others. --Dannyobrien (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and agree with, your point about the overarching pattern of behavior. However, you lost me at "invasive to privacy." There's no way that a quotation taken from an internationally-published book can cause an invasion of privacy; any loss of privacy occurred when the book was published ten years ago at the author's own hand. There may be other valid reasons for excluding the quote from the talk page, but in this case "it invades the author's privacy" isn't one of them. There's no expectation of privacy in a statement you've literally published to the world. I've yet to hear any persuasive, rational line of reasoning to change my opinion on that point. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and I felt uncomfortable using that terminology as I wrote it, because these are indeed public facts; of course. I don't know how to best describe my real concern which is that this action was an attempt to actually continue the pattern of editing behavior that seems so worrying in the main article into Talk itself. I guess the Noticeboard is here is about the closest you can get to Talk:Talk, and the only way to alert editors to pay attention to a wider pattern of unencyclopediac behaviour which may have ulterior motives, rather than to argue over particular line-edits which may not, on their own, seem problematic. Does that make sense? --Dannyobrien (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your goal, and I agree with you that this can be a problem on Wikipedia and that the edit pattern on this article is a bit questionable. In this case, though, I think it was a good faith edit combined with frustration on all sides. I think that sometimes, organic growth of a BLP can look a bit like undue weight, especially when the article is young, and it's a tough call whether it's malicious or just the result of building an article bit by bit. That's why discussing it—can we add this? How?—on talk pages is the right way to go, and I think we all have to be careful not to stifle that unnecessarily. It especially concerns me when something like "invasion of privacy" gets coatracked onto an issue like this where it so clearly doesn't belong—this board's supposed to be about preserving NPOV, and if we can't recognize when we're not being neutral ourselves... and it makes it harder to be taken seriously when a real invasion of privacy comes along.

I also think there's a lot of sensitivity about Ms. Anders' gender identity. I understand that GLBT folks don't have it easy, and I've no truck at all with bias or discrimination based on one's sexuality or gender identity. There's undoubtedly been that sort of thing creeping into this page, unfortunately. I don't think this particular case was so motivated. I think sometimes, people who face a lot of discrimination start seeing it where it doesn't exist, because they come to expect it after seeing it happen so often. That's understandable, but it's also a form of prejudice in and of itself. I'm concerned that's happening at this article, and I hope everyone can take a step back and trust each other a little bit more. A proposed edit might not be a good idea, but that doesn't mean it was a malicious one. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I think that we may be near a solution here. Here's what I suggest:

• The quote shouldn't go in the article at this time.
• It's reasonable and proper to discuss adding the quote in the future on the talk page. To avoid conflicts, I suggest that next time, someone who believes the quote is relevant and inspirational could add the quote (properly attributed and consistent with fair use) to their personal page, noting that it's a quote they personally find inspirational. They can then raise the issue of adding it in the article's talk page, and instead of quoting it there, they can refer people to their personal page: "There's this quote I find inspirational, it's on my page here->, I think we might add it to the article, what do you think?" Calm, constructive discussion can then follow.
• Ms. Anders has offered to supply leads on potential sources on the talk page, which is excellent all around.
• Other editors, preferably editors who are not acquaintances, co-workers, or employees of Ms. Anders, can use those sources to improve the article. It's conceivable (but by no means certain) that the controversial quote might not be "undue emphasis" after this work is done; that should be decided by consensus on the talk page before it's added.
• I hope that all involved with this article will take a deep breath, step back, and realize that each one of you wants to make this page better; you all mean well, it's just that you disagree on the methods. Stop fighting and find common ground! :)

Does that sound reasonable? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems eminently reasonable. So long as Anders' friends and colleagues remain dispassionate in their edits (no relying on their personal assessments of "prurience", "minor" works, or "creepiness") or better yet -- leave the editing to non-COI editors, then I imagine that this article can be pretty easily improved. Maybe Lizzard and some of the others can give their views of this solution. The worst outcome, of course, is for this debate to leave nothing changed and the old pattern of excising content that is unpopular with certain editors to resume. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above re: my quibble w/ bigdaddy1981's side comments (what we in the legal biz might call "dicta"). I'd also point out that Lizzard et al are not the only editors using over-excitable language or implications. Setting all that personal stuff aside, I think things are moving along & will continue to do so. --Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your criticism above, I'll not repeat it here as this debate is getting long and I don't want to needlessly add text. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just revised the entry, keeping in mind the concerns about personal information: specifically, the reference to LC's content is more general (now omitting mention of "early teens"). I added a section on Anders' activism, which I think is extremely important for a fitting entry. In a couple of places, I've added details that Charlie raised in WP discussions here -- I'm hoping the upcoming interviews that Macwhiz proposed will quickly get into print the items Charlie would like to see included... and then we can fill in those relevant citations! 76.169.140.29 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No details should be added until you have RS citations for them. It's a BLP; you can't stick stuff in there speculatively waiting for someone to fill in [citation needed]. Be patient! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nina Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Femipower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evil saltine (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Mainly a heads-up, since I hope the situation is largely resolved now. User:Femipower was adding large amounts of (in my opinion) heavily biased content, most of it referenced to various blogs, to the Nina Power article. This is nearly the only article Femipower has edited since creating her(?) account yesterday evening. During this time, three other users were revising or undoing her work as biased, inaccurate, and/or unreliably sourced. The last user to get involved (excluding me) was User:Evil Saltine, who reverted a number of Femipower's edits and gave her several warnings about BLP, reliable sources, and so on. After a while doing this, Evil Saltine asked for help on IRC; I looked at the situation with another admin, and we both agreed that the two of them were probably deserving of blocks for edit warring, although Femipower more so than Evil Saltine due to the longer period of edit warring. I've since blocked Femipower 24 hours for WP:3RR and WP:TE; Evil Saltine has blocked himself 24 hours for 3RR violations as well. Some more eyes on this article may help, especially once the blocks expire, but hopefully this is largely defused now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice the blog post ([13]) is still present. Doesn't WP:BLPSPS apply here? Evil saltine (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry that your formatting requirements are to complicated for this wikipedia user to easily comprehend. Subsequently this post is probably improperly formated. However, the content is important because it addresses potentially libelous assertations made in the bio page for Brooke Shields.

Six facts seem to be cited by reference note 17. Four of those facts appear to be untrue and at least two of the falsehoods appear to be potentially libelous.

According to the article referenced by note 17: (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/nude-photo-of-brooke-shields-does-not-tell-the-whole-story-518845/) 1. the photos did not appear in Playboy, 2. Brooke was not paid, and did not receive the $450 USD, 3. there is no evidence in the article to support the claim that Brooke posed nude at age 8, or 4. that she ever posed nude before age 10.

The nude photos taken at age 10 were published by Playboy Press in a book called "Sugar and Spice," and her mother was paid the $450.

http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tgleason/j385/Brooke.htm

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Short%20Playboy%20Incest%20Imagesf.pdf

It would also be nice to see some reference made regarding her court battles to gain control of the images that she was apparently coerced into making at age 10 in the Wikipedia bio.

It is my opinion that Brooke was coerced because in American society we believe that a minor or a subordinate is incapable of giving consent in sexual situations. Specifically in the case of a person being involved sexually with a superior in the workplace, coersion is assumed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.165.247 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• 'Tis gone. I checked the source. You're right. The facts stated were not supported by the source cited. The place to suggest your additions to the article is Talk:Brooke Shields. Uncle G (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Eva Angelina article, the fact that she is a "retired" actress is sourced to a Twitter statement. I removed the Twitter reference on the grounds that Twitter is not a reliable source. I was reverted on the grounds that it's allowed because it is supposedly her personal Twitter account (though there is no proof of that). When I clicked on the link, it turns out that the page that is sourcing the claim is not sourced, so I removed the link again, this time on the grounds that the Twitter page doesn't exist. I was reverted again, on the astonishing grounds that just because a Twitter account is closed doesn't mean we shouldn't still source BLP claims to it. So we now have a BLP that is sourced to a non-existant source. WTF? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I actually remember the source of the claim since I had originally checked the claim when it was inserted, and it was indeed her twitter. WP:SELFPUB is allowed under WP:BLP for when it belongs to the subject itself. She has since removed her twitter account upon retirement. Just because WP:LINKROT has occurred doesn't mean WP:V has not been satisfied. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So how is a Wikipedia reader, coming along and reading the article now, supposed to be able to verify the information now? Verifiability means that readers can check for themselves. It doesn't mean "It did say that once. Honest! Trust us! We're pseudonyms on a wiki. Would we lie about a living person's career to you?". Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Dead links do usually satisfy WP:V as the page usually becomes available on archive websites such as web.archive.org. Epbr123 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried it? I just tried the first one [14] no joy. mark nutley (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found that there seems to be a 1-year publishing lag on archive.org. I have no idea if it does archive twitter.com. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This brings to mind the to-and-fro over Amanda Bynes. Both "retirement" and "un-retirement" were sourced to Twitter posts that aren't where they were claimed to be. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed those sources per wp:v and asked on the talk page for actual reliable sources to be used instead, luckily the refs were not used for anything contentious mark nutley (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not positive that deleting the information is appropriate. WP:V says explicitly that information should not be deleted merely because the link is dead now. In this case, the citation may still be verifiable, if not immediately or trivially. It's also not controversial, so WP:BLP wouldn't seem to support an urgent deletion. The Library of Congress is archiving all public Tweets. It is possible that the tweet can be verified through the LoC. It doesn't appear that the archive is online yet, but there's no requirement that source verifiability must be done online. Perhaps someone wants to email the appropriate librarian at the LoC? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored it back pointing out that WP:LINKROT explains that dead links, which had fallen under WP:SELFPUB do not have to be deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweets (verified) are fine for limited personal details. But in this case with the link rot and no verification it is not a worthy citeation to support any claims, looking at it there are a few other twitterers claiming to be Eva. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I demur. Tweets are valid for nothing unless or until Twitter confirms the actual identity of the person involved. Collect (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely so. If it wasn't from a verified account—and Twitter does have such things—it definitely isn't a RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macwhiz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I added verified, although I disagree as to the specific meaning of verified in this situation, there are unverified twitter accounts that are clearly and indisputably the person in question, in fact quite a few stars are so clearly themselves as they do not bother to get the official verification but assert the verifiability through their personal tweets and pictures of themselves and so on. There are occasions where I would support an unverified account and I have added them myself (this is absolutely not one of those occasions). Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to comment that based on my personal experiences with the subject (since I have worked with her in the past and I am also friends with her former publicist), that the twitter account in question was clearly her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The specific tweets had been verified in the past when the account was still active. Does WP:V constantly require reverification at any time on demand and with convenience? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO with tweets being new and a weak Self published source and not as yet unarchived, in regards to BLP content if they are unable to be viewed they are worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I have removed the claims, they are presently uncited and valueless and as far as BLP goes removable, please do not replace them without consensus support here to include such personal detail so weakly supported. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• David Rovics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is a mess, and was even before another IP stepped in today to add such gems as this and this. Please keep an eye on it and help prune. I'm going to do what I can for now, but I have to get busy here shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There is a small edit war in Irina Shayk. It is the last revert [15], user have 3 reverts for this day -- user from Bashkir wants to see a bashkir town Sibay in this article. But his sources is not very reliable - [16] - this is a small (number of copies around 11k), local to Sibay newspaper. This article says, that it is an interview with "Irina", taken an 2008 and reprinted at 2010. But how the press in small russian town could even get the interview from top-model (#18 of sexiest models in the world, 2 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue at the 2008 with her)?

Also, place of birth and living place of parents and grandmothers is not connected with Irina's notability. `a5b (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Page was protected in ru:~. This user is from ru:~ too. `a5b (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bruce Blakeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article on Bruce Blakeman is currently semi protected //
• Maryertl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - We got a request at the Help desk to delete part of the article which, the editor comments, is libellous. The particular part being pointed out is well referenced, though to an outspoken news source (seems reliable; the newspaper claims it has won a few Pulitzers). Request appropriate action as I don't know exactly how to proceed. Warm regards// ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well well the fantastic The_Village_Voice Some people like it but imo it is not very good for anything controversial, has it been reported anywhere else? 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Try this. Just scroll down and you'll see some links all around. But no, I've not verified any link from this search. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Its coatracking titillating tabloid allegations of mob connections to some donations to a campaign from 1998 from truck companies in the run up to a present 2010 election, partisan attack better kept out of the BLP . Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The source of criticism on this page [17] is not reliable. Marta Lucía Ramírez is a former minister of defense, not a scholar. She should not be listed as a credible source for scholarly criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forresthylton (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed the above user. Also placed welcome messages for a bunch of other user talk pages, and semi-protected the article page, for 2 weeks. Other admins, feel free to change that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the request for help to revert the page to former date, after someone again inserted attacking material, not based on facts. I do not know how to do it myself. There was a consensus before to leave the version done by Slp1 on September 9th. I have another question: How and where to place the request to block editor Tao2911 from editing this page? Can someone block him, please. The problem has been going on for months and there is no resolution to it. Can someone help, please. It looks that Tao2911 started edit war again there...Spt51 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having problems whitewashing the page.Tao2911 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The language of last edits by Tao 2911 is not appropriate for Biography of Living person and it is not based on reality and sources provided. The attacking tone of this as well as many previous edits made by this person on that page shows clearly that there is an agenda and lack of objectivity. If you read article NYT you see that some information came from blogs and sources, which have been here decided as not reliable. All facts and wording were agreed by consensus before by many administrators on several boards, and last version edited by Slp1 on December 9th is closest to the facts, if it should be included at all. Please, revert to this version and please, take some actions so the same person, who does is again and again over last few months, is not inserting untrue and harmful information here anymore.Spt51 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that the wording "sexual abuse" is absolutely not acceptable in this case. It has not been used in any printed sources and there are no facts to it. Accusing a person of this may be considered illegal. Please, remove this immediately. Sorry, I do not know how to revert the article to a version from September 9th. Spt51 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, this query was posted on the article talk page with a {{helpme}}, and I thought that copying it here was likely to get the necessary assistance.  Chzz  ►  20:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a living person that has never been charged with anything at all related to these allegations, user Tao is constantly adding content that in the end results in an attack. Take the weakest claims you can and write it all in the most negative way and you have the situation. The whole content is valueless and is meaningless, close to gossip. If he had been charged I would think yea a small comment but what User:Tao2911 is creating makes the guy out to be a serious sexual violator and he hasn't even been charged with anything ever. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Tao2911's editing pattern isn't acceptable, and I think the statements that user tried to add to the article aren't really supported by the article.

However, the August 20, 2010 New York Times article does support the contention that Shimano acted in an ethically questionable manner where sexual liasons with his students were concerned. The Times is a reliable source. I know that there have been a ton of arguments over the Aitken papers, Tricycle, and other sources on BLP/N and elsewhere. In those arguments, a common refrain against permitting their use seems to be "not until a Reliable Source with Editorial Oversight publishes it." We now have a Reliable Source, with Editorial Oversight, conferring legitimacy upon at least some of those claims. It strikes me as disingenuous to say that the Times cannot be considered a reliable source because it refers to these other sources; I thought the whole point of the secondary-source policy was the idea that we trust and rely upon these secondary sources to properly vet their data. I don't say that shimanoarchive should now be a RS; I do think that the portion of that information published by the NYT, if cited to the NYT, is now reliably sourced.

That said, what the NYT published is a very limited claim, and the items that Tao2911 was adding go well beyond what the NYT now sources. It would be very difficult to come close to what that user posted using the NYT article. However, the fact that Shimano resigned from his own board after allegations of inappropriate relationships with his students, allegations that came from multiple sources, is notable and should be included in a neutral fashion. Likewise, I think the part of the article discussing the different viewpoints on sexual relations in Asian Buddhism as compared to America might even merit a sentence, if someone can think of an NPOV way to do it, in order to give appropriate context to the allegations. I think that while BLP/N admins should take appropriate action regarding Tao2911, they should make sure no one misunderstands it as an impeachment of the NYT. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert to the prior version per BLP. It is clear that Tao2911's edits do not have consensus per problems with verifiability and neutral point of view, which has been a longstanding pattern with this editor's edits. I personally think a topic ban is becoming increasingly necessary.

Macwhiz, I think you will see that the NYT article is used in the prior version; I agree it is a reliable source and can be used, just not for making claims that even the NYT couches with "reported" "alleged" kind of language. You might also find it interesting to read WP:LAUNDER about how we have to be careful of RSs laundering facts from unreliable ones. If there are tweaks to be made let's discuss them first, on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and I missed that in looking at the diffs. The version that was in place before Tao2911's edits appears to be neutral in tone and factually substantiated. I agree that his edits were neither. I understand the concern of laundered facts; my point was that spt1's initial post in this thread said that the NYT information "came from blogs and sources, which have been here decided as not reliable"; I don't think anyone wants a mistaken assumption that the NYT article is necessarily tainted because it mentions those sources. You and I are in perfect agreement about how it may be used in this article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to condense and summarize many sources reporting on abuses. Here is the terrifically inelegant Slp/Spt version read until I edited today:"Shimano has been the subject of allegations of sexual and financial improprieties.[8][9][10] In 1964, while living in Hawaii with Robert Aitken, there were misconduct allegations, which led to a rift with Aitken.[1][2][3] In New York, in 1975, 1979 and 1982 Shimano was accused of sexually exploiting emotionally vulnerable female students, as well as financial mismanagement; he denied the allegations.[11][12] The accusations resulted in departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[8][13][14] In July 2010 Eido Shimano and his wife resigned from the ZSS board of directors when a " recent inappropriate relationship" between Shimano and a female student was disclosed.[3][15][16] It was announced that Shimano would retire in April 2012, and in the interim would no longer take new students.[3][15] In September 2010 Eido Shimano sent the letter of apology to Sangha members and friends, in which he announced that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[17][18]"

Here is my edit: "Shimano has been dogged by persistent allegations of sexual and financial improprieties,[3][8][9][10] beginning in 1964 in Hawaii.[1][2][3] In New York, accusations of sexual abuse occurred during the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.[11][12][3] The accusations have resulted in the departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[8][13][14]

In July, 2010, a female student publicly revealed that she had been having a long term affair with Eido Shimano, which resulted in Shimano and his wife resigning from the ZSS board of directors.[3][15][16] In September, 2010, Shimano sent a letter to the ZSS community apologizing for his misdeeds, and announcing that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December, 2010.[17][18]"

As you can see, "In New York, in 1975, 1979 and 1982 Shimano was accused of sexually exploiting emotionally vulnerable female students, as well as financial mismanagement." This is clearly "sexual abuse" by simply another name - I don't know what Slp's complaint is about. He or Spt wrote that other version. The Times mentions more allegations that simply these specific years, including some subsequent. They mention Shimabno Archive, and ZSS spokesperson says the the board found much of that material credible and it led to action on their part. There is simply willful obtuseness going on here - that stems from bias. I don't know why I am being singled out when Spt51 has transparently been trying to whitewash the article for months, patrolling it and reversing any attempt to bring in up to date information.Tao2911 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that your version is highly POV e.g. "dogged" "misdeeds", and is also unverifiable e.g. "sexual abuse" (cf sexual exploited which is used by Tworkov here ). The other difference is that Spt55 seeks to minimize BLP problems rather than making them worse, and s/he always seeks to get consensus first, rather than, as you do, editing, having your edits reverted by two editors and protested about on the talkpage by others and then claiming that you magically have consensus. Please note that you are at risk of being blocked for WP:3RR (if nothing else) if you revert again.Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Spt51 has transparently been trying to whitewash the article for months, patrolling it and reversing any attempt to bring in up to date information." Tao2911, please do not make false accusations against me. Again this is not based on facts. I did not edit so called "allegation section" before, except one time only recently adding link to Tricycle to actually include up to date information! You can look at history and see what my edits were. Yes, I did argue the sources you were including in the past, because I knew there were not acceptable by Wiki rules. And you were also inserting citations which were false. There are many people who patrol this page exactly because of your actions there. They simply revert your edits and that happens after almost every edit you do. Today I did notice your edit after it was already reversed two times by other editor. And I knew your comment about your edit being a consensus version is not true! I was going to reverse it again myself, but do not know how, so I asked for help. I do not see you being honest in discussions and you very quickly accuse others. Maybe it is worth to look into this. What we all here are trying to do is to have encyclopedic true information. This is not a newspaper with all the revelations and rumors included immediately as they come, true, or false. And when it comes to biographies of living people rules are strict. Can you become objective and accept what was decided by consensus? Nobody is victimizing you here.Spt51 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To specifically address one part of Tao's claim that especially bugs me: "sexual abuse" is not the same thing as "sexual exploitation." The accusation is that Shimano had consensual sexual affairs that are seen in America as being inappropriate due to the teacher-student relationship, or possibly—in the latter cases—for some other reason that can't be determined from the reliable sources. I have not seen any allegations that Shimano forced himself upon anyone; the term sexual abuse requires an element of force by definition, and requires that the act be non-consensual. Absent any proof of either element, the term "sexual abuse" is beyond hyperbolic, it's dangerously inaccurate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right! And to the point. Because this discussion and inserting all sorts of allegations and sources into Shimano page has been going on for months I consulted professional people, friends I have, psychologist and lawyer, as I pointed out in Talk page there, and this is absolutely not acceptable, in some ways illegal. Thank you for adding this comment. I hope many more people with clarity will express same view here. Spt51 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Appear under assualt by folks who insist that they are named "coke" and that they are as evil as Standard Oil, that they provide money to "Non-think tanks" etc. [18] Using such factual sources as Frank Rich's editorials etc. The Koch Industries article then has specific charges included against the brothers, which I suggest is contrary to WP:BLP, though one person says that WP:BLP "does not apply to companies". [19] I think if the sentences refer to the brothers by name, and the source is specifically aimed at the individuals that there is not such an exemption <g>. [20] is specifically and absoutely about living indiciduals "There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it" "those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. " "That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today. " "The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll. " "As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial " "But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly. " "The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests. And surely Murdoch is snickering at those protesting the “ground zero mosque.” " all appear , to me, to not be a proper source for charges against the individuals per WP:BLP but rather fall into a broad category f editorial screed by Mr. Rich. Collect (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's late here so this is not a full reply to Collect's claims. If there is a more classic strawman argument than the one s/he makes, I have not seen one. None of the quotes he uses above are in the Wikipedia article, nor, to my knowledge, has anyone ever tried to insert them. The material he seems to object to is highly cited: to the Wall Street Journal, New York magazine, The New Yorker magazine, and this Sunday's op-ed column by Frank Rich in the NY Times. All of the material is highly relevant to an understanding of the biography of this man. Finally, as I mentioned on the article talk page, Collect is at 2RR already so please be aware of that. Arjuna (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of the correct pronunciation of "Koch". For other people using the same spelling, I have heard both "coke" and "coch"; in any event, my reading of his message above seems to imply a conspiracy to besmirch their name, which I find simply absurd. If Collect is certain that their name is not pronounced "coke", then s/he is welcome to correct that, with proper citation. (I'm not the one who added that material, FWIW.) In short, there is no conspiracy; it it is in error, then it should obviously be fixed. Arjuna (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is pronouced "Cook". I went to school with some Koch's. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean people affiliated with Koch Industries or just some random folks named Koch? Because some families pronounce the exact same name quite differently. — e. ripley\^talk 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean someone that is related (somewhat distantly but had the same name) to the Koch's that worked summers at one of their bulk stations driving truck. I have also heard people pronouce it "Caughch" (Caught with a "ch" instead of a "t"), but was told by the Koch's I knew that it was "Cook" Arzel (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding op-eds, per statements of opinion it can be considered reliable for statements from the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Truthsort (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely that Collect's post is mainly a collection of straw-man arguments. It's pretty pedantic to maintain that Rich's article can't be used for statements of fact (and as indicated it isn't a matter of the wikipedia article here asserting as fact Rich's own opinions). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly being used for "statements of fact" which were not clearly marked as an editorial opinion. And the "coke" bit was clearly intended to be derogatory - and repeatedly inserted to boot. WP:BLP must be zealously enforced if we are to obey the mandates from WMF. Collect (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And reverts taken to enforce BLP policy are not counted - this is a matter of policy, not of a "straw argument" that calling a person "coke" is contentious, etc. Collect (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you assert, without citing specific policies, that the reverts are to enforce BLP, but it is very unclear whether BLP-compliant sourcing has in fact been violated. The sources seem impeccable to me, so you need to clarify exactly how the New Yorker, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and other sources are not in fact acceptable. If they are, your reverts most certain do count towards the 3RR rule. Admins, your clarification on this matter would be much appreciated. Arjuna (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Truthsort, for linking to the policy statement on use of op-eds. It does seem reasonable to conclude that Rich should not be cited for these statements of fact that are the ones his piece was used for: "a conservative advocacy group that has close ties to the U.S. Tea Party movement that opposes much of U.S. President Barack Obama's policy and legislative agenda" and "The Koch brothers are major funders to the U.S. Tea Party movement". However, these are relatively trivial statements of fact that are backed by other (reliable) sources including the Wall Street Journal and New Yorker. Therefore, it would seem to make sense to delete the Rich reference but not the other sources, and then to cite additional material - differentiated as critique/opinion - from the Rich piece. This kind of solution would seem to meet BLP standards to a "t". Best, Arjuna (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And such tidbits as "underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups" are facts for a BLP? Collect (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, cause sometimes people don't get it unless you do. Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. I'm sure more reliable non-opinion sources could be found for some of these accusations. One or two from opinionated sources is enough generally speaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why all the fuzz about the Coke pronunciation. It has been there from 24 December 2008, long before the birth of the Tea Party movement. It was inserted there by 71.255.80.220 (talk · contribs) without any sourcing. Now that the article has come under scrutiny it is time to remove the vandalism. There is no reason to come to this this forum to complain about vandalism that happened two years ago. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the correct pronunciation for their name does appear to be "coke", like the soft drink. See YouTube video [[21]]. (Yes, I realize this is a partisan source, and no, it's not citable - I'm simply referencing it as evidence on how to pronounce their name, since I was uncertain myself.) It hardly matters how they pronounce it anyway, and finally I agree that the "coke" in the article should go - which it already has. Arjuna (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another video that may be a bit less POV from the The Rachel Maddow Show. I must admit that the Greenpeace propagandists you linked to are real professionals. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been following this pronunciation discussion so maybe I am missing the issue, but, in fact, there are plenty of sources for the "Coke" pronunciation. A few examples: Los Angeles Times, re Bill Koch (businessman): "Koch was probably in San Diego for a year before anyone knew whether his named was pronounced Cotch, Cock or Coke. For those who still don't know, it is Coke as in Koch is it."[22] Washington Post re David H. Koch: "To commemorate 100 years on the National Mall, the Museum of Natural History unveils its new David H. Koch (pronounced "coke") Hall of Human Origins."[23] Bloomberg BusinessWeek re Charles G. Koch: "Koch Industries, which Charles Koch (pronounced "coke") took over 38 years ago from his father, company founder Fred Koch, agreed . . . "[24] Associated Press (from 1998) re Fred C. Koch: "The Koch brothers' father, Fred C. Koch (pronounced "Coke") . . . " [25] I'm not really clear about why this should be contentious.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arxiloxos, good question! It was always a non-issue, but someone decided to try to make it one. Arjuna (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Decided? Vandalism, no matter how old, does not become right. There is no cite for the pronunciation, and WP has a guideline about pronunciations which should be followed. WP:Pronunciation is clear. Collect (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss Arxiloxos' refs above? Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Did that change the MOS on how pronounciations are presented? Collect (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Coke... does it make it vandalism if it isn't presented in the absolute proper format? No. It is COKE. If you don't like the presentation, fix it, but it is not vandalism. If that is the bone of contention, its wated time effort and space---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how this works exactly, I'm somewhat new here. The article above has citations that keep being put back in, but are causing trouble for the artist involved. True they may be, but the truth of the matter is that the information leads to threats against their person. How do I know? I am personal friends with them. I don't know if I'd consider the information libelous per se, but the information listed here just seems to perpetuate the amount of death threats and hate mail they get. What can I do to keep it from re-appearing?

Quaranj (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

These are statements that the subject of the article made to a weekly newspaper in one of America's major cities and to a national magazine. I understand and sympathize that her choice to do so turned out to be regrettable, but it seems to me that it's a bell that can't be un-rung. You say the statements are true, and it's backed up by multiple reliable secondary sources; that would estop any claim of libel, because libel is a false statement. Removing a verifiable, uncontested fact solely because it is inconvenient—even extremely inconvenient—for the subject seems to me to run counter to the principles of an encyclopedia. Consider WP:HARM, which notes that "Do no harm" was rejected as a principle for WP:BLP because it's incompatible with NPOV. WP:HARM has an inclusion test. Is the information already widely known? In this case, definitively yes; it has been widely published. Is it definitive and factual? Again, yes; you acknowledge it's a fact, and there are multiple reliable sources. Is it given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? You may have a case here depending upon how the fact is included in the article. Stating the bare fact in question may not give it sufficient due weight. However, reading the cited source, 1.8.7 feels that this fact has had a direct impact on her career, so the information itself could be given due weight in the article with proper context. Based on that test, I'd say that it's reasonable for this information to be included. Again, it's not that I'm not sympathetic; I think it's terrible that this person has threats against them because of this fact. However, she made the choice to widely publicize this information, and she is a public figure, so I don't think she has the right to ask that it be removed from a biography. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It also looks like there's a conflict of interest here. Quaranj's edit history seems to be mostly edits to the 1.8.7 page. On his talk page, he made the statement "Might as well remove them all then, because there is _no_ way she is posting here, that's specifically my job. If I don't do it, she wont either. I know her personally and have her fullest consent. If that is not enough, then Wikipedia will suffer. " apparently in reference to the person in question. It's making WP:TEND come to mind, for me. The idea that it's "his job" to edit Wikipedia on behalf of 1.8.7 troubles me. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just the sources and the material is good but the user persists in attempting to censor it - might require a block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP has just come along and reverted some of the text in this article [26] with an edit summary calling the deleted text libellous and mischievous. The IP has replaced the deleted text with what looks like promotional text, unsourced, quotes in caps, etc. Was the original stuff a BLP violation? Is the new stuff any better? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The cite says the expelled issue was in an appeal process and we don't seem to have the outcome and there is no mention in our text of the ongoing appeal, which is from 2008 so it must have been resolved by now? Off2riorob (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20080703141704321C677520

Hi, I'm sure this issue has arisen before: categorization of biography articles.

Following a series of edits made yeserday [27] please would you consider adding your thoughts on the relevant discussion here, thankyou. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I weighed in on this on the talk page. The question is whether or not an individual who admitted to, pleaded guilty to, was convicted of, and is not appealing the conviction for participating in the gang-rape of a 14-year-old and the subsequent murder of four people can be classified under Category:American mass murderers given that another member of his military unit actually pulled the trigger. My thought: To say otherwise, you'd find yourself arguing that Jim Jones wasn't a mass murderer either, as he neither prepared the poison drink nor poured it down people's throats. Not a BLP issue. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor on this article has three times in 24 hours reinserted materially that potentially violates BLP. The article subject is a Senate candidate; the material being inserted is a lengthy section on the trial of a person convicted for illegal steroid distribution; McMahon's only connection to the subject appears to be that he worked previously for a company she took control of after he had had already been fired (and convicted). Given no source even claims she was involved in any way, this appears to be a simple "smear by association" coatrack, as well as having WP:UNDUE concerns. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fell---a couple of things. 1) 3 times does not a violation make. It's the fourth time and only after notification to the party involved does it matter. 2) The page to report 3RR is WP:3rr. 3) People who are on this page are more likely to side with excluding controversial materials in light of the policy related to 3RR. 4) If you are going to report somebody do so in more specific terms: "an editor" and "potentially violates BLP" does not tell us much. Give us some links so that we have some idea as to WHOM and WHAT we are talking about.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff is [28] which has actually nothing specifically to do with the subject of the WP:BLP. Reverters eem not to understand BLP rules about adding tangential material into articles, and also to not understand Mr. Wales' position at [29] concerning political BLPs in specific. Collect (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 seems a tad obsessed here - with well over eight hundred edits on the BLP. Moreover he does not welcome anyone seeking NPOV, calling me, for example, "delusional" for thinking that where no other BLP of a politician has their "estimated wealth" in their infobox (even for John Kerry, that I am wrong to suggest that it does not belong in this article's infobox. Also that "tip off memo" to him is NPOV <g> whilst I suggest that term is certainly POV in a BLP. and so on. I have made a total of 12 edits on this BLP, but rather think other eyes are definitely needed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Collect has been aggressively deleting this page, disregarding any opposing arguments to his actions. Recently, the issue has been over inclusion of her net worth, which Collect has argued is not allowed because the subject, Linda McMahon, is political. User:Collect recently engaged in a lengthy argument with editors who supported inclusion of net worth into the page, and yesterday had the audacity to delete the net worth again, saying it has "no support" for its inclusion. That is outright disrespect and is a smack in the face of all the people that Collect has argued with pointlessly. See Talk:Linda McMahon for recent disputes, as well as the history of Linda McMahon to see the aggressive actions that Collect has taken in deleting much of this page.--Screwball23 talk 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never "deleted" the page, and my dozen ewdits compare with your over 800 edits there <g>. Meanwhile you have aggressively violated WP:NPA and WP:BLP on these pages. You asserted over and over that net worth is found in other political pages - and have yet to provide an actual example. And I do not consider removing net worth from the infobox as "deleting much of the page" either. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the both of you would benefit from taking a deep breath and walking away from this article for a while!

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus that the net worth should go in the Infobox; if anything, I'd say it looks like the weight of opinion is slightly on the side of not including it. Plus, given that this is a BLP, there is a need to err on the side of caution, which suggests to me: no clear consensus to include = leave it out.

There is clear consensus that it is relevant for discussion within the article, where it can be given proper context. I personally do not believe it belongs in the Infobox, because it comes from self-reported figures in a campaign filing and therefore is a self-published source; because it is not clear how the figure was derived and if it was derived in a way that could be accurately compared to other businesspeople with listed net worths; and because the given figure covers a range so broad as to be essentially useless. ("Wow! She's either pretty rich, or barely able to afford living in Greenwich!" Well, okay, I kid, but I have family in that part of Connecticut, and I don't kid that much... nonetheless, there's a big difference between $156m and $400m.)

I am surprised some admin hasn't locked you guys for edit-warring at this point; it's obvious you're not convincing each other, so you should be calling in outside help using the published procedures, and then abiding by the result. Instead, it looks like an edit war that's getting rather uncivil. From what I read on the talk page there today, I gotta say I'm skeptical that the processes would be followed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, last time Linda came up on this board, I was highly critical of Screw's edits. That being said, if the bone of contention here is the Net Worth of Linda, then I my inclination was to side with him. Linda may NOW be a politician, but she was known for decades as being part owner/CEO/whatever her "official" title may have been of the WWE. The general practice on WP, from what I can see, is that many (if not most) successful business people include their networth, but that politicians don't. The reasoning is obvious, because networth can become a POV issue. So the question becomes, how has WP handled notable bussiness people turned politicians in the past? So I did a little research. I looked up a number of other bussiness people turned politician and couldn;t find a single one that listed net worth. For example Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Herb Kohl, John Hickenlooper, Bill Foster (Illinois politician), George W. Bush, Darrell Issa, or [[Chris Lee (politician). But perhaps richest americans... might merit inclusion... nope most of the ones i looked at didn't include net worth. In summary, when dealing with politicians, the networth, even when exceeding that of Linda, was left off of the InfoBox... and when deaeling with business folks it was not consistent enough to say that her role as a business professional over rides that. Since she has taken a politiical career, and WP's conventions dealing with politicians is to leave NetWorth off, I have to side with Collect here. Inclusion would be POV and against the norms for politicians. Note, I actually spent over 2 hours investigating WP's practices related to this before commenting, and my conclusion differed from the position that I had entering this discussion. But I have to agree with MacWhiz... this is almost getting to the point where a subject ban might be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the point in adding a new section on Linda McMahon when there is one open right here on this page. It would have been appropriate to also list the multiple noticeboard discussions on this subject you have had previously. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First - I had not started a prior section here on this article. Second, the prior section was two weeks old - a point when it normally would have been archived. Indeed, this page was archived very frequently in the not too distant past. Third - might you tell me all those "multiple" BLP discussions I have had on this article? My concerns, shared by Jimbo, about political BLPs containing material which is UNDUE or misplaced, or unsourced or improperly sourced, is pretty clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do allegations that a person is homosexual belong in a BLP where the subject denies the allegations? [30] regards the section at issue. Collect (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. The film featured interviews with multiple men who claimed to have had sexual relations with Crist. One of the men in the film was Jason Wetherington, a Republican party staffer, who, three years earlier, was described to Bob Norman, a reporter at the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, as a man who had boasted of having sex with Crist, and who had named Bruce Carlton Jordan as Crist's longtime sex partner. Norman independently contacted Wetherington and Crist, who both denied the allegations. Of Jordan, Crist said, "I don't know who you are speaking about." However, Jordan's father told Norman that the two men were friends, "but I don't think he's seen Charlie in a while."

• - http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts

The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations.

• - http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/24/outrage/index.html
• - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/outrage-documentary-activ_n_192476.html
• - http://thehill.com/capital-living/24173-as-outrage-documentary-debuts-outing-is-deflating
• -http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause8-2009may08,0,6665296.story
• - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103832005
• - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08outr.html

Generally, no, but when the debate is sourced to the NYT and NPR, it's hard to assert it isn't covered in reliable sources. I'd be in favor of trimming the section by 1/3-1/2, since there's some COATRACKing re: the film going on in there. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, trimming of the add ons. Opps, the lots gone. edit summary propogation of rumors/allegations, regardless of citations, is WP:BLP violation . Where is that referenced from? Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the relevant part of BLP quoted in support of Arjuna909's removal of the whole section. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be used, Avoid gossip - Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject - It really is nothing more that cited gossip is it? There is as Jclemens says in such cases where the story is well cited and well known, keeping it out is close to censorship and troublesome as it is well known and widely reported it will likely be repeatedly reinserted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This material really seems like a clear-cut case of BLP violation. Yes, the story is out there, but so is the story that Obama is a Muslim or what have you - that doesn't make it any more compliant with guidlines, and so no amount of sourcing will make it so. My sense is that there are only two possible ways to handle this: 1. would be a separate article on "Rumors surrounding Crist" (akin to Barack Obama conspiracy theories), but that possible solution runs afoul of lots of other glitches and I don't recommend that at all either; 2. would be to mention that there have been X rumors, but that there is no hard evidence to support the allegations, and leave it at that. The rumor may or may not be true, but it is not for Wikipedia to propagate such allegations. Arjuna (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It does look a bit hollow so to speak, a man claims he slept with him and there was a documentary, there is not meat to it apart from the allegation, no comment from him, no actually story worthy of any or much reporting, seems less report worthy in that way than the similar story but imo with more meat on the bones regarding William Hague. There were allegations and press reports and his advisor resigned and the living subject made a big statement, where are the BLP differences, seems like an editorial judgment call. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Avoid gossip": the film Outrage presents the allegations as truth—it most certainly does not hedge bets or pull punches by using weasel words. Everything in the movie is portrayed as fact. Some men in the film each say Crist had sex with themselves. The film is not a tabloid shocker with weak or non-existent arguments, it is a documentary. Similarly, the earlier Bob Norman piece in the Palm Beach paper is not a gossip item. Norman takes his sources at their word but then follows up with his own investigation to make sure. Norman talked to Jason Wetherington at his parked car (where Wetherington confirmed his own homosexuality) and he talked to Crist over the phone. He spoke with Bruce Carlton Jordan's father about the friendship between Crist and Jordan. He did his own field work before writing the story. This isn't the sort of flashy gossip column item where somebody writes "In flagrante homo: a state governor whose name rhymes with..." etc. All of the material in the allegations section was put there because it "is reliable ... is being presented as true ... [and] is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also note that all of the other men mentioned in the documentary there is a mention albeit smaller mentions of the issue at their articles. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From this last comment of yours it seems your take on this section has moved more to the side of article inclusion rather than BLP violation and removal. I believe I have adequately rebutted the "avoid gossip" part of BLP, and with no other BLP concerns cited specifically from the guideline at WP:BLP, I am restoring the "Allegations" section to the Crist article. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, until consensus is agreed and discussion is over it is better kept out, personally I am for trimming as a minimum. I see the second comment as clear coatracking .. The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations... This is not actually about the subject but more abot tangential issues, this and its half a dozen citations imo do not belong and should be eliminated from the discussion. The gossip about his father is also of no value and can go.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaving just this simple comment .. In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations.http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts.. we could add another cite to accompany it, this is the only other citation there that actually has any content about Crist, so ...http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/04/24/outrage/index.html .. That Palm Beach news cite from 2006, owned by the village voice, I am in the uk but those village voice and the miami new times seem a bit fringe activist to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not enough. Your ultra-brief version has Crist denying allegations that are not stated. It fails to use the documentary film as a source for several men coming forward to say on camera that Crest had sex with them. It fails to discuss the 2006 Bob Norman piece and the answers Norman elicited. The only weak part of the section was the concluding sentence: "The film and the newspaper article led to media debates about Crist's sexual orientation, about a politician's right to privacy and the political ramifications of the allegations." That last sentence is a synthesis of sources, not a direct statement. It seemed to serve as the bucket into which a handful of similar sources were dumped.

The reason that the article has Crist saying "I don't know who you are speaking about" followed by Jordan's father saying Jordan and Crist had been friends is that, based on that and other factors, Norman is certain he caught Crist in a bald lie. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Salon source, Alex Koppelman, says this about Crist in the media:

"The person most reviewers have been focusing on is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was recently married—his engagement was announced right around the time when speculation was mounting that he could be chosen as John McCain's running mate. He was actually first outed back in 2006, by Bob Norman, a reporter for the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, who was also the first reporter to the story of former Rep. Mark Foley's sexuality, in 2003."

Koppelman gives credence to Norman's account and names Crist as having the most focus in film reviews. If our coverage of this allegation is not comparatively full and complete, we have failed to give it the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The addition I am proposing is plenty. A simple uninvolved comment, if you have a desired addition please present it and we can consider the options. I don't get much of your comments here about these other people, but none of it adds weight to the story. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have not followed the names in the piece, how can you judge the weight they may or may not add? What I propose is the full first paragraph without the skimpy second paragraph made of synthesis. From the top of this noticeboard section, that is. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its bla di bla, none of the extra content is of any actual value and actually distracts from the simple clear statement. IMO the stuff your attempting to include that amounts to, john harry and frank said they had sex with him is a violation and undue claims, it is more than enough to link to the documentary, we are not gay outing activists, its unproven and we are not going to list all the people that said they had sex with him and got paid to say that. I hadn't realized it was you that expanded the content only very recently, I had thought it was older, anyways, as it is recently added and disputed I can only suggest you understand that people are not happy with the expansion and accept the concise version. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to make people unhappy </sarcasm>. I thought we were writing a biographical entry in an encyclopedia covering all the major facts. This is a major fact, and Crist was the major focus not of the documentary but of the reviewers of the documentary, showing just how much Crist's homosexual liaisons have stirred up the media. It's notable, alright. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the concise version, imo it is plenty and people can follow the links for any further detail. If there are any objections to the addition please feel free to remove and continue discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your "concise version" is wrong in that it has Crist denying some allegation which is undefined. Has Crist made a statement denying the film's depiction of him since the film's release? If so, please show the reference. If we say that Crist is denying an allegation, we must say what that allegation is. What we have very solidly is Crist denying Bob Norman's question about "sex with a man" in 2006. We also have Crist shown in the 2009 film denying various things presented to him. Whatever it is that we say is being denied must first be defined. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not such a big deal as you assert, Crist denies the allegations all of them basically as content in the article that he is a closeted homosexual that votes against gays, simple, indisputable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it does not belong in a BLP, it is idle speculation and gossip mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment from someone watching the article since the WikiProject LGBT studies tag went on it a year ago. The allegations, or discussion of them, are well sourced enough that inclusion should not be controversial. I absolutely do not agree with the suggestion that the mention be shuffled off to a "controversy about XXXX" as those articles tend to be cruft magnets at best. At worst they provide a venue for more BLP/NPOV problems or are simply ghettoes for negative criticism. Crist specifically is the subject of speculation because a number of sources assert that republican support for him in 2008 was held back due to the possibility that he was a closeted homosexual. As for presentation, I think this merits at most 2 paragraphs and a sentence or clause in the lede. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I dread your presentation of such excessive unconfirmed claims, you want two paragraphs and a comment in the lede about the opinionated rumors that he might be homosexual. To be honest , your comment is against all I have worked towards here and as an Administrator I am appalled by your comment, you should hand in any claimed authority you assert you might have because you have lost any that you dreamt you might have in my opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate my strong opinion that this material is wholly inappropriate. Salacious but unproven allegations about something that is obviously as sensitive (to some people) as this should be handled especially carefully in a BLP article. Wikipedia should not be a party to the "outing" movement. I appreciate offtoriorob's effort to construct some watered-down version that is marginally more acceptable, but I'm not sure that's not like being "a little bit pregnant" (to use a double negative). When it comes to allegations about someone's personal life (and not simply their policy positions or public behavior) BLPs require a higher threshold than just "notability" and "reliably sourced". Arjuna (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One, I said "at most" two paragraphs. And two, describing the sourcing as limited to lurid allegations is inaccurate. If this was just the producers of Outrage making their statement, I would be among the first to assert that we should not devote space to the comments. But they are among those asserting claims about Crist's orientation and the nature of the discussion has moved beyond allegation and denial. As for the admin comments. Eh. I haven't used the bit in this discussion, I'm just speaking as a regular editor. Whatever feelings you imagine a hypothetical admin might have on the subject are pretty irrelevant to me. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself, your position is against all the BLP work I have ever done at wikipedia and I reject your position completely. What you are on about is also a mystery to me, lurid and whatever is nonsense. As an Administrator you never speak as a simple regular editor, if you want to do that then resign the claimed authority, and thanks for that. Your desire for two paragraphs and a mention in the lede is against all guidelines we have here regarding living people and for an Administrator to desire and support that is awful.Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protonk's notional two paragraphs would include new material about how allegations of homosexuality lost Crist the confidence of the Republican party resulting in him changing to Independent, which is why the material would take up more space than that being discussed at this time.

To Off2riorob, I don't believe the exact WP:BLP quote has yet been found, one pertaining to your complaint about the section. I believe that the argument about gossip has collapsed against the breadth of sources, and I have yet to see another BLP guideline brought forward to challenge the text. Determining how BLP affects the section is why we are here discussing the topic, so let's lay the BLP cites on the table. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find Blinkster's assertion that the gossip argument has "collapsed" to be laughable. A film made by the "outing" community is gossip; until there is dispositive evidence in a RS, this is all mere allegation about someone's private life. Full stop. Arjuna (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My copy of Webster's says that gossip is "rumor or report of an intimate nature." If we select just the "report" part, then yes, this is all gossip. We would normally "avoid gossip" as per BLP concerns but we would include it when the intimate information has become public, and the person involved is a public figure. Once the reports get as large as several national newspapers and a documentary film, they are past the point where we would "avoid" them—they are already out in the world, and we have a responsibility to report notable factors in the public figure's life. Every other politician target of the film Outrage has that fact mentioned in his Wikipedia article, and Crist was seen to be the main focus of reviewers of the film. We are wa-a-ay beyond trying to avoid gossip, it is hitting us in the face. We report it as responsibly as we can. Anything else is hiding the head in the sand. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just leaving a general comment not suggesting a specific set of claims in the article. For a long biography of 80-100k in readable text, an upper limit of two paragraphs covers a sma ll to medium size issue in the life of a person. Up to two paragraphs can also mean one paragraph or one sentence. The exact outcome will depend heavily on normal editing, UNDUE, and BLP. If the allegations are mentioned sufficient space must be given to qualify and contextualize them for a reader, hence the rather generous upper limit. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source by Bob Norman, following his 2006 outing of Crist: "Crist Denies Trysts II". In this followup article one week later, Norman describes a videotaped sworn testimony made by Dee Dee Hall in which she said that Bruce Carlton Jordan told her at a party he was in a sexual relationship with Crist. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to locate any reliable sources connecting the dots from allegations of gay sex to a loss of confidence within the Republican Party, leading to Crist taking a non-party-affiliated path in 2010. There are only blog posts by non-notables. I don't think Protonk's notional expansion of the allegations is going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have to say that my comment at the top wasn't some framework for specific line-by-line changes to the article. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything—I thought you struck upon an interesting angle, a mere suggestion, as it were, but I felt it was worth a good long look. I followed it around Google but it led me to a bunch of dead ends as far as RSs go. Oh well: I will be satisfied with the article describing the 2006 outing and the 2009 documentary targeting closeted and hypocritical politicians. However, I will be keeping an eye out for two things: a reliable source commenting on now-unaffiliated Crist's easing up on his former gay rights clamp-down positions, and a reliable source saying that the Republican party lost faith in Crist from the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Let us imagine that Kirby Dick made a film called Lol Cheezburger which focused on cat owning politicians who had supported laws restricting cat ownership. Let us further suppose that one of his subjects was a Republican politician named Barley Brist and such a mention generated comments from NPR, the NYT and the LA Times. Would it violate BLP to include mention of Brist's cat ownership in our biographical article on him, provided such a mention was given due weight, cited to impeccable sources and did not defame the subject? Protonk (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To say that I find that completely unconvincing is a massive understatement. Even to attempt to elucidate the stunningly obvious reasons why this analogy is spurious would be to inflict a grevious insult to editors' intelligence. Fail. Arjuna (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the part where you start "Would it violate" is some logical fallacy. No opinion on anything else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously an elected republican passing as straight or actually straight would feel accusations of homosexuality were damaging to their image and life. But we need to separate that concern from the panic which normally accompanies issues like this. Is that specific concern enough to justify excluding this information. Note I'm not equating the two nor arguing that an editor who agrees that our hypothetical Brist should be outed as a cat owner would have to accept some claim about Crist's homosexuality. Just introducing the thought in order to disambiguate the two "BLP issues" into a serious, real issue and a fake issue born of our cultures attitude toward homosexuality. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No analogy on the internet escapes the analogy police. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brist would never own a cat; he clearly is a dog owner, as can plainly be seen in the many articles about him and his new dog. LOL. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares if a politician has cats or dogs - they do care if he's gay, has been rumored to be gay for many years and discussions of his non-straightness have been made into a movie and discussed in national press. If the cat lobby can whip up hysteria over declawing laws then you might have a point. Instead we have the Republican party which has used gays (and abortion, immigration, guns et al) as a wedge issue for over fifty years with much success. Gays remain a hot topic of political battle to this day. Gay republicans are seen as hypocritical and many have lost their career when they have been outed in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.11.99 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They could join the Log Cabin... Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever happened to "verifiability, not truth"? It is verifiable that Crist has been the subject of persistent allegations regarding his sexual orientation. It is verifiable that Crist has denied these allegations as untrue. There is no reason for the exclusion of this verifiable information cited to reliable sources from his article. "Crist has been the subject of speculation regarding his sexual orientation" is not the same as saying "Crist is gay".
• To go off on a tangent, part of the problem is with how biographical articles tend to be constructed, especially for living people. They tend to be very compartmentalized, with sections like "early life", "career" and "personal life" instead of integrating the material. Thus a section like "Allegations of homosexuality" or whatever tends to appear more prominent than it is in a way that it would not be if the same information were integrated throughout the article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote earlier and the suggestion was to clean up Curley v. NAMBLA to address naming people as pedophiles concern which I did. Could you please look to see that it was helpful and still accurately reflects the main points of the case? I tried to just summarize what the various books and articles stated. On the other front the NAMBLA article still names a lot of people, some of them likely to be alive, as producing publications for the group and it's sourced to the court documents for the case which was dismissed. I would think since these men, guilty of ickyness or what have you, don't have articles about them that their names don't really add anything. On the Curley v. NAMBLA case I only supplied the names of the child-victim, the parents and the two convicted murderers. On the NAMBLA article the summary includes "has been defended by poet and free speech advocate Allen Ginsberg.[6] as well as author Samuel R. Delany.[7]" Ginsberg is dead but only supported the group as a free speech issue, Delany is alive and supports, I believe, a similar sentiment that sexuality issues even among teenagers can be researched and indeed may prove to be helpful to understanding a variety of personal and societal issues. By putting their names in the summary of NAMBLA article are we linking them to one of the most despised groups imaginable? Should their names be in the article at all? Cat clean (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Were you aware that Curley issues are being discussed at Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Skewed_discussion_of_Curley_v._NAMBLA? As suggested to you here and per WP:CONSENSUS the Talk page is the proper venue for these issues. Anyway, I went ahead and deleted the unsourced defendants per your valid BLP concerns--good catch. Lionel (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the other content to address the concerns about Samuel R. Delany, by alleging he supports pedophilia we distort what he actually said about his support for a group "like NAMBLA" and why. His quote actually goes a long way to understanding why anyone would support them at all. And that talkpage reference was to address that FAQ that was deleted by WP:CONSENSUS. Cat clean (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rich Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although this article is well sourced, it currently places far too much weight on any controversies, IMO. Nearly half the article is about how unpopular he is. Do you all agree? Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any value in the minuscule details of what are actually five minor violation issues (I haven't looked but they look like they could well be cut and copy also) in this section, I think the article would benefit by their removal. Just leaving the citation and the comment after there were five violations. I am getting nothing http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?URL=/templates/ArticleMultiMediaPopup.pbs&Date=20100223&ArtNo=100223022&Category=SPORTS06&ObjectClass=831&Params=Id=152428 this cite ? Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those paragraphs were unneeded per WP:UNDUE, not to mention just copy and pasted. I removed them. With those gone, it seems okay. He has had a lot of criticism, and the article reflects that, but I feel it's long enough that there aren't any other UNDUE issues. Grsz¹¹ 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that helps a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Certain editors are trying to include an article from the Guardian [31] which reads like an attack piece and contains numerous examples of thoroughly unpleasant, and potentially libellous material. In addition, the source which the article hinges on is a leaked e-mail, the use of which the subject himself most strongly objects to in the same article—"The whole thing is quite immoral - the stealing of private correspondence and making it public," protested Prof Scruton. I think that this reference should not be included because it is obviously contentious and potentially defamatory. Jprw (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been coverage of this particular controversy (and a reference to the Guardian story) in the article in question since October 2004. What has changed is that User:Jprw recently sought to delete all reference to the controversy. The essence of the story is that the Guardian revealed, through the use of a leaked email whose authenticity is not in question, that the subject of the article, a noted moral philosopher and public commentator, was in receipt of a monthly subvention from the tobacco industry, which he was seeking at the time to increase, in return for his help in placing comment pieces on issues of interest to the tobacco industry (some by himself) in leading newspapers. The philosopher's response (duly reported in the text recently deleted) was to deplore the leaking of his email and to assert that his links to the tobacco were in the public record. The story attracted significant interest and as (carefully) written up for Wikipedia seems to me to be relevant, balanced, and appropriately sourced. Was the original story "defamatory"? Well, even in the UK's notoriously plaintiff-friendly legal setting, the subject never sued..... Nandt1 (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The section seems OK, though a "controversies" section isn't much better than a "criticism" section, which is deprecated; integrating into the rest of the article somehow would be better. However the "No mob veto" paragraph is solely sourced to their website, so I would delete that unless there's more sourcing to show it's worth mentioning. PS whatever the immorality of the Guardian using a leaked email, it's surely exceeded by the immorality of what Scruton doesn't deny doing; and at least the former has a public interest defence. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a second view from an administrator? This material really seems to be problematic to say the least and is also creating a problem in terms of WP:WEIGHT, and I have to take issue with Nandt1's assertion that "The story attracted significant interest and as (carefully) written up for Wikipedia seems to me to be relevant, balanced, and appropriately sourced". It is none of these things. Jprw (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear how many administrators have to rule on this matter before Jprw will accept that the discussion of this matter (which has stood on Wikipedia for nearly six years) is a legitimate one. Two? Three? More? WP:WEIGHT is raised but seems a red herring in that we provided a shortened text, with no separate headline of its own, but any reference at all to the controversy gets deleted by Jprw (as has just happened yet again). Nandt1 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This story was very widely discussed at the time. See the coverage in the Independent[32], the British Medical Journal[33], the New York Times[34], the New Statesman[35] and many more. The issue was also noted by the World Health Organisation[36], by Action on Smoking and Health[37], and many more professional and lobbying orgnisations. This is a very significant incident in Scruton's life, and the coverage is certainly not undue. RolandR (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by that, the coverage is substantially understated - which may be part of the problem. If the issue had been decorated with more prominent sources (without necessarily being all that much longer, but perhaps a little), its significance would have been clearer and perhaps not challenged, or at least not removed wholesale. Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A second reviewer... Nandt1 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In view of the numerous further high-profile sources cited by RolandR above I accept that it is significant enough to be mentioned. What I would ask for is that the incident be sourced to one of RolandR's sources and not the Guardian article which felt uncomfortably close to being an attack piece. I hope that can be a sensible compromise. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Roger Scruton article was the subject of a report here just recently. That one dealt with Scruton's dealings with the tobacco industry. This one is about Scruton's comments about homosexuality. UserNandt1 has insisted on adding his own unsourced commentary on Scruton's views about homosexuality. I've tried to explain on the talk page that Wikipedia has policies against doing that sort of thing, and that we need to simply report things without adding our own commentary, but Nandt1 has persisted in adding his own interpretation and analysis, for example here. That edit makes it look as though Scruton has written an essay specifically about homosexuality - something he hasn't, to my knowledge, ever done. Scruton has written an essay ("Sexual morality and the liberal consensus") that deals essentially with liberal views on sexual morality; it argues that homosexual sex should be illegal, but homosexuality is only one of the subjects it mentions, so it's not really "about homosexuality". Nandt1's intention seems to be to make it look as though Scruton was repudiating that essay, but while he could have been doing that, it isn't at all clear that he was, since he didn't mention it by name in the interview Nandt1 added his commentary to. Nandt1's edit could inadvertently make it look as though Scruton was repudiating comments he made about homosexuality in the Daily Telegraph in 2007, but there's no sign that he has done that either.

The ongoing disputes at the article make it essential that more editors take an interest in it.

I should note that the administrator SlimVirgin has been involved with editing the article; she has actually argued in favor of including original research on the article's talk page. See her talk post here. SlimVirgin seems to feel that we must include original research or the article will somehow be "misleading": "...if we don't add the context, it sounds as though he's repudiating his more recent views too (e.g. the 2007 Telegraph views), which I think he is not. That's the problem: what we write will either be misleading or OR." I am very uncomfortable with that attitude, and would like others to comment on whether it is appropriate. UserVOBO (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this edit by SlimVirgin, which seems extremely dubious in BLP terms. UserVOBO (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misdescribing the situation, VOBO. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In what sense? A more specific comment would be more helpful here. We need to keep the article free from original research (such as our own speculation on/commentary on Scruton's statements about homosexuality) and BLP violations (such as inflammatory statements that he holds the view that "homophobia is understandable" - which was partly based on the source you used but went beyond what it actually said). That's why an edit like this, made by you, is problematic. Scruton was probably thinking of "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" in his Guardian interview, but you do not know that for a fact, and shouldn't have asserted that that was what he was doing. UserVOBO (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He has written one famous essay on sexuality, dated 1989. It became famous because in it he makes arguments about homosexuality that many people would find very objectionable, including that children should have feelings of revulsion instilled in them about it.

In a 2010 Guardian interview, he withdraws this: "I took the view that feeling repelled by something might have a justification ... And in that essay I experimented with the view that maybe something similar can be said about homosexuality. And I don't now agree with that ... (my bold)."

To argue that it's OR to make clear he was talking about his 1989 essay is to apply the NOR policy without commonsense. There is an NOR noticeboard you could ask instead of here, by the way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If making it clear that Scruton was referring to "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" was your objective, then your edits at the Scruton article haven't reached it. At the moment the article says, "In a Guardian interview in June 2010 Scruton said of his earlier essay..." - since that immediately follows a description of his 2007 Telegraph comments, readers might mistakenly conclude that he was retracting them rather than what he said in "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus."

Replacing "his earlier essay" with "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" would prevent that possible confusion, but it would make the statement even more obviously original research. I said on the talk page that I was prepared to leave some comment on his Guardian interview in the article, but that was in the spirit of compromise and out of a desire to avoid edit warring, not because I think it's the ideal solution. I'm concerned that we're not giving our readers the credit to assume that they can understand Scruton's comments without our unsourced attempt to explain them.

WP:NOR and WP:BLP issues are not separate from each other. If a BLP contains original research, then that is at least potentially a BLP problem. UserVOBO (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was you who objected to us saying the 1989 essay! That's why I changed it. I really don't know what you want here. The NOR policy is not supposed to be applied so rigidly that we daren't draw a single conclusion no matter how unavoidable. And it really is better to have these discussions on the talk page—starting a forest fire of posts in various places is time-consuming to respond to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing a clear piece of OR with a vague and possibly misleading piece of OR isn't really progress. What do I want? I'd ideally like to see the original research removed altogether. UserVOBO (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I must second SlimVirgin on this controversy. Scruton himself says directly that "in that essay" he experimented with arguments which he no longer stands behind. Various drafts of the lead-in to his quote, offered by SlimVirgin and myself and repeatedly challenged by UserVOBO, have noted that, in the quote in question, (1) he is referring back to an essay of his own. In some versions of the lead-in text (though not the current draft), we have also noted that (2) he has explicitly disavowed earlier views. I.e., our contantly rebuffed attempts to come up with an acceptable lead-in comprise variations on parapaphrases of the man's own words. (The only instances in which we went beyond his own words were one or two versions which explicitly identified the essay he was repudiating -- I have argued this is pretty self-evident, but I would accept it is not spelled out by him in so many words -- and that detail has been droped the current draft). But really, to try make this into a big story about "Original Research" verges on being baffling. Nandt1 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

VOBO, the essence of OR is twofold: it occurs (a) when something is entirely made up by a Wikipedian; and (b) when a Wikipedian goes beyond the sources in such a way that the sources, if asked, would say, "But that's not what I meant!" Neither of these things applies to this situation. We have to be allowed to join up sentences and explain context; otherwise our articles would just be lists of quotes. The key is to do it in a way that the sources would agree was true to their utterances, and that is clearly the case here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to readers: The above discussion is continued further at the Discussion Page for the article on Roger Scruton. Nandt1 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mirza Masroor Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Peaceworld111 has repeatedly removed well referenced section 'Friday Sermon of 30th Jan 09'.
Although I hope a compromise has been reached, Peaceworld111 has stated in talk section they don't wish to argue, thereby shutting off further discussion of the issue.

I can't say that I see what you see. It looks to me like Peaceworld111 is actually inviting you to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page; they just don't want to argue with you on, or about, your personal blog. Nothing wrong with that. The method Peaceworld111 used also seems to me to be consistent with BOLD, revert, discuss, at least at first. It looks to me like you stopped discussing before he did, which breaks the BRD cycle. You mentioned a compromise; how's that working out? (I've always liked the saying that in the best compromises, everyone walks away satisfied, but not happy...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Macwhiz,
In the article it has been edited by Peaceworld111 to 'With reference to the second Ahmadi Caliph's experiences with Bahai's'.
This comes across to me as implying that the experiences Mirza Masroor Ahmad spoke of are factual experiences, however, given that in the cited article Mirza Masroor states that a Baha'i explained away why Abdu'l-Baha got married twice when in reality as the wiki article on Abdul-Baha testifies He remained monogamous all His life, i feel it is extremely unlikely that such words were ever spoken.
Therefore i feel it would be more accurate to describe these experiences as 'alleged' experiences thereby avoiding giving the positive impression that all these experiences are factual.
Is it possible for me to either add the word 'alleged' (which Peaceworld111 is certain to immediately remove), or to keep the article neutral and in some other way raise doubt on these experiences, such as by adding a phrase along the lines of, 'The experiences referred to by Mirza Masroor Ahmad are not all verifiable in independant sources'?Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mary Ann Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since 2005, Wikipedia has reported that Mary Ann Jackson, an American former child actress, died in 2003. We have now received, at Ticket:2010091010009642, a prima facie credible message telling us that she is in fact still alive. The information about her death was not referenced to a reliable source, and I am unable to find a reliable source reporting the death (there are several websites carrying the same information about her death, such as IMDB, but they could well have copied from one another and/or from Wikipedia).

Accordingly, I have removed the information about her death. But I find it strange that we would have this sort of serious misinformation for so long in an article that has been edited so often including by veteran editors. I am therefore asking anybody who may be interested in the topic to help check if there is not indeed a reliable published source with relevant information about Mary Ann Jackson, and will also contact former editors of that article to comment here.  Sandstein  20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• That does sound weird, and it troubles me that a search of Google News doesn't return a single thing on her. If she died in 2003, I would think there would be at least one obituary available online. The claim was that she died December 17, 2003 in Los Angeles. There's an LA Times obit for Joe Cobb and J.R. Smith dated December 15, 2002, so it defies belief that Jackson would've died without commentary. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• What gives me pause is that several editors in good standing, independent of each other, added or altered specific details regarding the supposed death. [38] [39] [40] Skomorokh 22:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The last two of those three edits are just spacing and dash fixing. I don't see how either of them imply that the editors involved had any reason to verify the content they tweaked. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, both add specification about the cause of death (although arguably, the last may have been simple rewording). Skomorokh 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I can't find the article I saw at the time I put that she had died. I did see an article. I think it might have been in a California newspaper but it's been so many years. I remember the article had the details about her wearing '50s clothing. I was a fan of Our Gang and of Mary Ann's so I was sad to read about this and put the information in her bio. If I'd thought she was alive I wouldn't have done that. I'm very sorry. --JamesB3 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Eugene Michael Vazzana records her as having died in 1991:
  • Eugene Michael Vazzana (2001). "Jackson, Mary Ann". Silent film necrology (2nd ed.). McFarland. p. 265. ISBN 9780786410590.
• Everett Grant Jarvis also records her as dead in 1991, and buried in Lake View Cemetery, Cleveland, Ohio. Xe even gives the location of the plot:
  • Everett Grant Jarvis (1996). Final curtain: deaths of noted movie and TV personalities, 1912–1996 (8th ed.). Carol Publishing Group. p. 280.
• Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle G. That is ... weird. Would it be possible for you to mail me a scan of the respective pages, so that I can ask the person who wrote the e-mail to comment?  Sandstein  10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, for various reasons including the fact that I don't have the ability to scan books here. ☺ Vazzanna's biography says "(b. Los Angeles CA, 14 Jan 1923 – 1991 [68?], Los Angeles CA)" and Jarvis's table (one of several) reads "JACKSON, Mary Ann | 1991 | Lake View Cemetery, Cleveland, OH | Section 43, Lot 678". Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay. Thanks. Er, what should we do now? Technically I suppose this allows us to re-add the information about her death, but why 1991 rather than 2003? And if so, what do we tell the person who not only wrote to tell us that Mary Ann Jackson of "Our Gang" is alive, but even e-mailed us a current photograph of the lady?  Sandstein  21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that the anon who added the death notice to this article also added, at about the same time, an apparenly spurious death report to the article on another "Our Gang" actor, Harry Spear. [41] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • why 1991 rather than 2003? — I don't see how we can answer that. It's what the books say (those two, and the further books that I found but didn't cite because they acknowledge those two as their source), and presumably it's 1991 rather than 2003 because that's the correct year. If we could find the article that JamesB3 saw, we could compare it against the sources that we do have, and evaluate how diligent each source has been in terms of fact checking and so forth. But we don't have it. JamesB3 didn't properly record what it was at the time, doesn't now remember what it was, and I cannot turn anything up. I presume that I'm not the only one to have looked.

      Note that this means that we don't have a source for all of this content in that article, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Antonio_Inoki#Personal_life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article alleges personal and political corruption without any citation to sources. //  Mr JM  02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I have removed all the uncited contentious claims from the personal section. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Mr JM  14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this might be a problem, BLP-wise. This is a highly controversial organization, which has faced some legal issues. The article contains a long list (several lists in fact) of its officers and employees, a lot of them don't seem to be notable -- at least they are redlinks on WP. I think that being listed in the article might cause problems for some people, and anyway I don't see that listing that information contributes much to the article. Wolfview (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly dispute that this would "cause problems for some people" to be listed at the article. The organization is well respected, and includes a wide swathe of academics from varying points of view. -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Cirt. The listings presented are sourced, and are groups of people that would have no reasonable expectation of privacy where their membership in an organization like this is concerned. As members of a board of directors or advisory board, it's reasonable for them to presume that their membership would be public knowledge, and indeed the source for this information is the group itself. In this case, such a self-published source is perfectly acceptable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's kind of odd for an article on an organization to consist mostly of lists of people involved.Wolfview (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed the not wikipedia noteworthy leaving the ones notable enough for article, a link to the company website is more that enough for the others. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a major improvement.Wolfview (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)