Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No reliable sources in bio of clearly notable porn star
Line 394: Line 394:
:::Couldn't the quality of sources be improved? I don't like to see "Harry's Place", a deliberately provocative blog, quoted, and "Ynet news" is hardly better. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Couldn't the quality of sources be improved? I don't like to see "Harry's Place", a deliberately provocative blog, quoted, and "Ynet news" is hardly better. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
::::ynet news is the best of a bad bunch of sources that quote that particular statement. [[User:Dead-or-Red|Dead-or-Red]] ([[User talk:Dead-or-Red|talk]]) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::ynet news is the best of a bad bunch of sources that quote that particular statement. [[User:Dead-or-Red|Dead-or-Red]] ([[User talk:Dead-or-Red|talk]]) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

⚫
* * {{La|Alexandra Nice}} - She clearly qualifies under [[WP:PORNBIO]], or at least she would if anything beyond the AVN credentials were sourced to a reliable source. Nothing is. Every single assertion is sourced only by looking at the subject's IMDB entry or at the external link to one of Luke Ford's blogs. Neither is a reliable source for a BLP. I've made some edits. What next? [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
==[[Alexandra Nice]]==

⚫
* {{La|Alexandra Nice}} - She clearly qualifies under [[WP:PORNBIO]], or at least she would if anything beyond the AVN credentials were sourced to a reliable source. Nothing is. Every single assertion is sourced only by looking at the subject's IMDB entry or at the external link to one of Luke Ford's blogs. Neither is a reliable source for a BLP. I've made some edits. What next? [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:03, 15 September 2008

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Satar Jabar

    The use of the statement "It should be noted that dozens of other individuals were physically tortured, some to death. The treatment Jabar claims to have received was common practice at Abu Ghraib." is a perversion of what is referenced in the Newsweek Article.[1] . The article notes that, "The U.S. military is reviewing the deaths of 32 Iraqis in detention, many of them at Abu Ghraib."

    This article is not presented from a NPOV. - Myles58

    There are problems with neutral presentation, and with sourcing. Certainly there are problems with the writing ("It should be noted that..."). But it doesn't specifically say Dick Cheney tortured him, so probably there isn't a problem with blp. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bryant G. Wood

    Greetings from user Chronic2, a new editor, with my first edit having been on August 19 of this year (eight days ago).

    This is a complaint about editor PiCo. In short, my complaint is the following: in an article devoted to a living scientist, he consistently makes entries that have no proper citation, and then deletes as "irrelevant" and "tendentious" the entries of those who provide proper citations, but which might threaten his opinions. He also uses semantically loaded generalizations (again without citations or any proper documentation) in stating his views (opinions). He misuses the editing process by his numerous deletions of other editor's entries that conflict with his views, rather than presenting any factual information or citations to present his case.

    What follows is a history of how this has been done on the site for archaeologist Bryant G. Wood.

    In his first edit of this article, 13:47, 7 September 2007, in the passage "Dr. Wood received international attention for his research on ancient Jericho, which argued for the historicity of the Biblical account . . . ". PiCo inserted the word "unsuccessfully" after "argued." No citation was given for this sweeping generalization. This modification begs the question; the Wikipedia page is a place to present evidence for or against Dr. Wood's research, not to cast it all out with an unsubstantiated statement.

    In this same first edit, he introduced a new section, "Jericho." That a new section should be introduced here was appropriate, since Dr. Wood's research at Jericho is recognized internationally. However, the content of his entry was not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It offered no citations to support its claims, other than supplying the URLs of two websites at the end (more on this shortly). One of these websites is no longer in existence. Both websites were from the same general website (same author). I saw that a good portion of PiCo's entry was just copy-and-pasted from that site. This pasting included a quote from the journal/magazine Biblical Archaeology Review which stated that "He [Wood] presented four arguments to support his view. None of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny."

    Nothing is said here to indicate which issue of BAR, this statement was in, or who said it. Furthermore, no explanation follows of why Wood is wrong in whatever four arguments he produced. The original fault for this lies with the person who created the website that PiCo copied and pasted from, because that is the way it is in the Website. This is unacceptable in an editor. As you will know, it is against the Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons, which states, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced our poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

    The source from which PiCo copied-and-pasted is the web page of a person who writes on chronological and historical matters, but who does not publish in the journals that are devoted to this subject (I am cognizant of these journals). He has views that no published scholar that I know of accepts. His date for the Exodus, for example, is 2400 BC, which he gets by placing a missing 1000 years into the history of the world. It is from this far-out site that PiCo made his first entry into the discussion of the scholarship of Dr. Bryant Wood.

    PiCo was, however, entirely correct in adding a new section to the article, as he did, that deals with stratigraphic and radiocarbon (C-14) dating at Jericho, because this question has direct relevance to the ideas of Dr. Wood. A discussion of Wood's ideas should be presented to the reader so that an opinion can be formed on whether his research has any credibility. So there is no objection to PiCo's creating of this section, even though his entry was in violation of Wikipedia's policies about citations, unsubstantiated statements about a living person, and making sweeping generalizations that are not backed up by any facts.

    PiCo's next edit was on the same day, 13:51, 27 Sep 2007, in which he eliminated a Web link which had an article to Dr. Wood's research, providing as a comment, deleting a link which is full of info which is simply wrong. This is a double standard; PiCo's two links to the Web site that supported his opinions were left in, despite the many strange ideas that are contained in that Web site (Exodus in 2400 BC being only one of them). Two minutes later, at 13:53, he deleted another Web site that someone had put in as reviewing favorably Dr. Wood's ideas, supplying the comment "deleting another unreliable link - christiananswers is not very good at facts." As with all PiCo's activities, he uses his authority as an editor to make judgments about what is acceptable, instead of supplying any citations to relevant scholarship. Meanwhile links critical of Dr. Wood remained in the article.

    At 14:10, 7 September 2007, PiCo modified a statement about John Garstang, an archaeologist who also excavated at Jericho and whose dates agree with those given by Wood. The point of the modification was to state that Garstang derived his date from the Bible, an obvious attempt to discredit Garstang as a reputable archaeologist. As in all PiCo's edits, no citation was given for this change, and, as I demonstrated in an entry on 09:18, 25 August 28, the statement as modified by PiCo was factually incorrect. (PiCo then tried to get rid of my citation that showed the statement or opinion he had entered was not true.) If it had been true, it would have been relevant, because it would show that Garstang, and presumably Wood, were not basing their ideas on true scientific research, but on a prejudice in favor of the Bible. PiCo knew that his comment would discredit both Garstang and Wood. But the comment was not true, and the bias it introduced needed to be addressed, as I did some months after it had been entered.

    PiCo's next edit was at 14:05, 7 September 2007, in which he added one sentence to the lead paragraph of the article. Purpose of the sentence was to discredit Wood's scholarship. The sentence contains the statement that Wood's proposal for dating the fall of Jericho City IV was "unsustainable," a generalization for which no verification or citation was supplied here or anywhere else in the article. PiCo's opinions were now not just confined to his new "Jericho" section later in the article, but were put in place where they would immediately be seen by any reader opening the page.

    At 09:24, 8 September 2008, PiCo added a notability tag. I could surmise what the purpose of this was, but what is more important is that it seems to me inappropriate; Dr. Wood is an internationally recognized scholar with many publications to his credit, and an expert in the field of pottery types in the 2nd millennium BC. Why infer that he is not notable?

    In June 2008 there was a controversy with Harryjohnstanley, in which the latter removed the undocumented statements that PiCo had pasted in with his initial entry. Harryjohnstanley, however, was apparently not very skillful in explaining his reasons for deleting the unsubstantiated scholarship, and PiCo was able to convince a Wikipedia editor that Harryjohnstanley was biased. As I look at the edits, I see that Harryjohnstanleywas not good at presenting his case, and PiCo definitely knew how to use his Wikipedia skills to advantage, no matter how defective his scholarship was.

    At 18:33, 25 June 2008, user MyOlmec added some new information at the end of the "Jericho" section that PiCo had introduced in September 2007. This new information had proper citations, unlike PiCo's entries, and presented new information from scientific journals that supported Dr. Wood's research. It was therefore a needed counterbalance to the one-sided presentation in this section that PiCo had originally introduced to discredit Dr. Wood. MyOlmec's entry at 18:54 on the same day undid some of PiCo's sweeping, and always unsubstantiated, generalizations. MyOlmec's statements lack PiCo's sweeping generalizations; according to his user page, he is an academic whose training qualifies him to speak on the issues under discussion. He does not derive his ideas from a far-out Web page.

    This was too much for PiCo. On 1:43, 26 June 2008 he discarded MyOlmec's changes and put back in his semantically loaded generalizations. As always with PiCo, no proper citations were given for his opinions. But as we see, PiCo is very aggressive at editing anything that does not agree with those opinions. He deletes entries that follow Wikipedia guidelines in favor of his own statements that have repeatedly violated those guidelines.

    MyOlmec had some spunk. As an academician, he knew that what PiCo was doing was not good scholarship, and at 14:50, June 26 2008 he undid PiCo's revision of his (MyOlmec's) entries, commenting Undid PiCo's revision . . . more information is a good thing.

    At this point I realize the discussion has gotten long. I myself have gotten the same treatment from PiCo that MyOlmec and other participants have gotten, and if any information is desired on this more recent abuse of PiCo's misuse of the Wikipedia methods, they can be seen on the Discussion page of my userid, Chronic2. It is frustrating to try to enter information that is relevant to Dr. Wood's work, only to have anything and everything that is not antagonistic to that work labeled by PiCo as "irrelevant" or "tendentious", and deleted by him. Please read what I said in that discussion page about PiCo saying that anyone who updated his section on Jericho with newer information was introducing irrelevant material, whereas he himself was the one who introduced arguments based on stratigraphy and C-14 dating in an effort to discredit Dr. Wood; then when someone gives proper citations (never done by PiCo) and newer information (which he seems completely ignorant of and doesn't want to hear about), he uses his skills as an editor to challenge, intimidate, and delete.

    I hope that whoever reads this will evaluate our problems, not based on whether they think Bryant Wood's research is valid or not, but on a behavior pattern that is a great hindrance to the kind of free and unbiased entry of information that Wikipedia was designed to promote.

    This controversy is very current, with the latest exchanges being made today, 28 August. See the Bryant Wood discussion page for more details.

    Thanks for your time. I realize it has taken some time to explain the difficulties we have been having on this site. It has been very frustrating for me, as new to Wikipedia editing, to see this sort of intimidation going on.

    Chronic2 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your frustration, but you are complaining in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for issues that involve material that is either potentially scandalous or not suitable for public knowledge. It looks like your dispute is about the validity of Wood's research. If your opponent is behaving improperly, the place to complain about it is either Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, NPOV board is the place. But in the meantime I have removed one sentence of blatantly egregious OR, in which the article states without a source which of two disputed views is preferred. [14] I deliberately did not look to see who added it--regardless of other matters, such a sentence cannot stand. I also removed what seemed a totally unwarranted notability tag on the article, again without looking who placed it. He and his viws are clearly notable. DGG (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick skim shows this as a footnote "This is of course the point that Bietak makes and which is succintly expressed in the Science article cited above. The argument is just as germane to Jericho and Levantine sites as it is to the sites that Bietak has investigated in Egypt. Bietak, of course, is not willing to make such and adjustment.". Clear OR -- by the complainant here, who admits they are new. And the talk page is just a collection of complaints so I think I'll archive it, not sure what is best to do but it is pretty unreadable. Doug Weller (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnalexwood

    Johnalexwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a wider issue here with adding unsourced info to WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Adding unsourced material (birthdate, alleged name of individual's daughter) in a WP:BLP - without providing any cites to back up this info. Doesn't seem to be getting the hint from me so I would prefer it if someone else looked into this please. Might also be an issue with prior edits to other WP:BLP articles as well by this user. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article claims personal information about the individual, but all of the biographical information appears to be unsourced. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, the image used in the article is a blatant copyvio. I tagged it as such. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hossam Ramzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    [15] - Addition of categories that are not backed up by any sources anywhere in this article. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [16] - This talk page explanation is also quite troubling - I added the cat British Scientologist because it says he has lived in the UK since the 70s, just like Doug E Fresh, who has both the cats Barbadian and American Scientologist. - What? It says nothing of any sources or any way to back up this information, simply makes a circular reference to another Wikipedia article. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frank Laidlaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    [17] - Inserting categories not backed up by the article, which itself is wholly unsourced. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [18], [19] - Inserting categories not backed up by the article or sources in the article. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, he appears to be using the same Scientology sites in the referencing. Not reliable sources. He's been warned before, so I'm away to block for a short time to stop this abuse. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User adding speedy delete tags

    User 74.215.134.17 has placed CSD A7 tags on several established biography pages. 

    ‎

    here is a cut and paste of the contrib log with a list of the affected articles.

    20:12, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Lisa Love
    20:11, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Stephen Colletti ‎
    20:11, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Brody Jenner ‎
    20:10, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Lo Bosworth ‎
    20:09, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Heidi Montag ‎
    20:08, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Whitney Port
    20:08, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Audrina Patridge ‎
    20:07, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Lauren Conrad ‎

    All of the tags have been removed from the articles, however, this was most likely done as an act of pure vandalism. -Brougham96 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosalind Picard

    Can someone experienced in BLP enforcement take a look at the talk page of Rosalind Picard? She is a noted scientist whose article on her is being used as a coat rack to smear her name - or not. Someone needs to look at it from an unbiased point of view. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - I made a similar type of request here, about OR, which fixing one would solve the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Michael Jacobs

    Resolved

    Dr. Jacobs is a leading UFO researcher who has published four books. He is well known within the UFO community. His page David Michael Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was put up without his knowledge, but the information contained within most of it is well documented and referenced. A problem developed when an editor angie186 (talk · contribs) added information that was biased against Dr. Jacobs. The information is on a website [20] put up by a disgruntled former client of Dr. Jacobs and is nothing more than a vendetta against him. There are no other sources for this information and this person feels she can write anything against anyone without consequence. It's my believe that Angie186 is this woman herself. I have removed the information several times now, citing why it should be removed. Another editor agreed with my decision. However, this person keeps putting the information back up and now is saying I haven't given her any reasons (the reasons are still publically viewable on the talk page of the article). Is there any way to stop this person from putting the same unverifiable and libelous information back on the page? -- Fiona2211814 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page of information about Dr. Jacobs on Wikipedia is a valuable source of information about his work. For this reason, I made what I consider to be a relevant contribution to this page. It was also properly referenced. I referred to an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs himself speaking about the information that I provided. [21] The information is therefore factual, verifiable, and not libelous. * In regard to Fiona's derogatory statements about the owner of the website which published the audio clip, I do not consider that she has grounds for making such statements. However, the important point is that it is totally irrelevant. The issue at question is whether the source that I provided was reliable, and as it was an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs himself speaking about the information, it clearly is reliable * I do not think that it is appropriate for Fiona to make statements about who she thinks I am or am not, particularly in regard to the derogatory statements that she has made about the person who she thinks I am. I do not believe that it is appropriate behavior towards another editor. I have been consistently courteous to her throughout our exchanges over this issue, and I would appreciate the same courtesy shown to me as an editor in return. * I must also point out that I provided commentary on the discussion page in regard to all my changes to Fiona's edits. Fiona did not provide any commentary when she initially deleted my contribution. Another editor did this instead later. After having removed my contribution a second time, I suggested to Fiona on the discussion page that she raise the issue with Disputes Resolution before removing it a third time. However, she went ahead and removed it again. After that I left another message for her saying that I would not reinstate my contribution a third time, as I did not want to become engaged in an "edit war" with her, but that I would raise it with Disputes Resolution myself. It appears that she has now raised the matter here, so I will respond here instead. * Judging by Fiona's comments here, it appears that she may have some emotional investment in this issue. However, I must point out that although Dr. Jacobs is a well known UFO researcher, this does not mean that all information provided about his work has to be supportive of it. It is the nature of public research in this area to engender debate, and opposing positions. Anyone involved in this area of research is aware of this, and has to expect it. At times, people will put up information about a person of interest to another reader, and they will not agree with it. However, in a democratic forum such as Wikipedia, all people have a right to provide information. As long as that information is relevant to the topic, and has a reliable source, which my information does, then they should be allowed to do so. People should not try to suppress relevant information simply because they do not want it to be publicly known about. * If Fiona has an issue with this information, I suggest that she finds reliable sources that prove that the information that I provided is not accurate. If she can do that, then I will, of course, look at that. However, as I believe that the source that I have provided is very reliable, for the reasons stated above, I would like my contribution to the article concerned to be reinstated. -- Angie186 (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The audio tape in question up on the site referenced is full of edits that one can hear quite clearly. It's obvious that the person behind it wanted the public only to hear words said out of context and not the entire conversation. No effort on the site has been made to be fair and provide differing points of view. No effort has been made to fill in any part of the site except the derogatory remarks about Dr. Jacobs. Most of the other links on the site are not even active and have not been for over a year. The person who made the site quite obviously has an agenda against Dr. Jacobs, which any reader can see. I too have asked Angie to provide another source for the information besides this one site. The fact is, this site is not a reliable source at all. I can create a site right now that says I am really a talking frog. That doesn't make it true or reliable. The allegations made at this site should have verification other than one person's opinion. Opinion is fine, but it is not something that should be included in a site dedicated to referenced and reliable information. -- Fiona2211814 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fiona2211814, post a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a consensus determine whether www.ufoalienabductee.com is a reliable source. Once there is a determination at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, this should resolve your dispute and each of you may act according to that resolution. Suntag (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The two reliable source websites used in the article I recognize are pbs.org and salon.com. Much of the information is sourced to aliensecrets.com, bibliotecapleyades.net, bio.net, cassiopaea.org, crystalinks.com, csicop.org, esolibris.com, exopolitics.org, geocities.com, mail-archive.com, millennium-ark.net, mystae.com, qsl.net, rapimentialieni.org, rawilsonfans.com, scifi.com, theironskeptic.com, thetriangle.org, ufoabduction.com, ufocasebook.com, ufocongress.com, virtuallystrange.net, weirdload.com. Although I haven't looked into it further, the rest of the sources may fall into self published sources and questionable sources and generally the disfavored use of websites. Enforcement information is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources. A biography is not a presentation of the thoughts and writing of David Michael Jacobs as presented by David Michael Jacobs. A biography is a chronological account of the series of events making up a person's life as sourced to the reliable source writings of others who are not Dr. Jacobs. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually means print newspaper articles and print book, not websites. Suntag (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the biographical article should contain a chronological series of the events in Dr. Jacobs’ life, and I believe that the contribution that I made to this article fits that category. Dr. Jacobs’ thinks that he has been contacted by alien-human hybrids on instant messenger. That is an event in his life (it is not a theory that he has speculated on but is something that he believes is a factual event that happened to him), and it is also relevant to his work as a UFO researcher. It is entirely appropriate to have this information in his biography. His former research subject, Emma Woods, is in the process of publishing a transcript of a telephone conversation that she had with Dr. Jacobs in June 2007, in which he himself referred to the instant messaging conversations concerned as “these extremely important matters in my life” [22] * The audio clip in question has been edited to remove Dr. Jacobs’ former research subject’s voice in order to protect her identity. There has been no attempt to hide the edits, and a transcript has been provided with the audio clip which shows where each edit is. There is no evidence of any attempt to distort the meaning of what Dr. Jacobs said or to present it out of context. On the contrary, his former research subject has provided substantial background and supporting information in relation to the audio clip, to assist in putting it in context. * Fiona says “No effort on the site has been made to be fair and provide differing points of view.” While I do not agree with this, it is nevertheless not applicable to the audio clip concerned. The audio clip is simply of Dr. Jacobs speaking about what he believes happened to him. It is not a point of view, on which there can be differing opinions. It is simply Dr. Jacobs saying what he believes happened to him * Dr. Jacobs’ former research subject has also provided a link to Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster’s website, on which Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster provides additional confirmation that Dr. Jacobs believes that he has been contacted by alien-human hybrids on instant messenger. [23] * The instant messaging communications from the alien-human hybrids originated from Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster’s computer, and his former research subject stated her opinion that his webmaster probably wrote the hybrid communications herself as a hoax. This is not a “vendetta”. It is simply a sensible opinion that most people would agree with. (Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster has a statement at the top of her website in which she accuses his former research subject of libel. His former research subject has written a rebuttal to that statement. [24]) * Dr. Jacobs’ former research subject’s website is being constructed over time, and there is a notice on most of the pages explaining this. I have followed the website since it was put up, and there has been a substantial amount of other information published on it that does not relate to Dr. Jacobs. If Fiona has been following the website, which her comment suggests that she has, she will also know this, contrary to what she has said here. Recently the other information was removed along with some of the information relating to Dr. Jacobs, as the owner of the site has redesigned it. She has been putting the pages back up as they are converted to the new format. There is no evidence whatsoever that this maintenance work on her website means that his former research subject has an agenda against Dr. Jacobs. * His former research subject is publishing an account of her work with Dr. Jacobs, which obviously was not a good experience for her. However, she is simply stating what happened to her, backed by supporting documentation, and that is her right to do. The fact that Fiona appears to have an issue with this is not relevant to whether the audio clip of Dr. Jacobs speaking about the events is a reliable source. * I am not aware of any books or newspapers which have referred to this event in Dr. Jacobs’ life. It is a fairly recent event and it is not widely known about. However, this does not mean that it is not relevant to his biography. The Wikipedia guidelines say that "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." In the context of the situation, the audio clip is a reliable source because Dr. Jacobs talks himself about this event in his life. This is regardless of which website it is on. He himself says that this happened to him, and that is relevant to his biography as a UFO researcher. Angie186 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    Suntag, I will take it to the reliable sources board. Thank you. I also have not had the time to look into the other sources yet, but you are most likely right. They are questionable at best as well.

    Angie, you say the audio tape was edited to remove someone else speaking. First, how do I, as a listener know that? How do you? If you don't know this person, how can you trust that she only removed those parts? Second, what she said in that conversation could have a direct bearing on his responses. It's called context. How can I (or you) know how to interpret his words within the context of the conversation when there is no longer a conversation? I don't honestly believe this, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that she was prompting him to say some of these things. That is an extreme example of course, but I present it only to help you see why the context of the entire conversation - including what this woman says - is needed to form any opinions about the audio tape.

    As for the site only recently being empty of most content, that is a lie and you know it. This woman has been promising all of her experiences for over a year now and never filled in one. She has promised all kinds of scientific data, and only put in one tiny, small section. In fact, when looking at the site, one is hard pressed to know what she experienced at all, other than an ongoing argument with Dr. Jacobs.
    Fiona2211814 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiona, I do not appreciate you calling me a liar. I have found your attitude in our exchanges on this issue to be unnecessarily aggressive and offensive. Please observe the appropriate respect for other editors, even if you do not agree with them. * I am sorry but you are wrong about the other information on the website concerned. Dr. Jacobs' former research subject published many pages of material about the anomalous experiences of her relatives, about unexplained markings that she has had on her body, and presenting video clips of anomalies that she recorded. If you have been following her website, then you must have seen these pages yourself. Dr. Jacobs also published a substantial amount of material relating to her experiences on his own website in 2006. * However, I do not think that these issues are relevant. The fact is that Dr. Jacobs believes that he has been in communication with alien-human hybrids on instant messenger, he talks about this himself on the audio clip, and that is an event in his life that is appropriate to include in his biography as a UFO researcher. Angie186 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Angie, we'll have to agree to disagree about the site. The fact is, she has page after page of links that are not hooked up and never have been. But, beyond that, I am still curious to hear your response on the edited audio tape and how you get around the context problem? Perhaps if you explain to me how editing out half a conversation helps to clarify it, I could understand better. Thanks!
    Fiona2211814 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiona, I was just about to include a comment about this. Dr. Jacobs was reading sections of the transcript of the instant messaging conversation that he had with who he believes was an alien hybrid. It is not the full transcript of the instant messaging conversation, but just sections of it. It is not necessary to hear him read the entire transcript, or to hear the entire conversation that he had with his former research subject about it, to understand that he believes that a hybrid was communicating with him. No one was prompting him to make up false statements. He was reading from a transcript and it is clear that is what he was doing. Dr. Jacobs believes that hybrids have communicated with him on instant messaging. This is a life event of his that is appropriate to include in his biography. The audio clip is a reliable source, as it consists of Dr. Jacobs himself reading sections of the instant messaging transcript concerned. Angie186 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Angie, I understand your point that it is his voice. However, you state that, "No one was prompting him to make false statements." May I ask how you know this? This is my entire point - the source is not reliable. You, I, and any other reader can't possibly know this without the full context of the conversation - completely unedited. I'm not saying that should be put in public either as there is probably personal information in there because it was a phone conversation. But, as a source for an encyclopedia, it falls short. Furthermore, as Suntag pointed out, an encyclopedia is not Dr. Jacobs in his own words. That would be an autobiography. So, the mere fact that it IS his own words makes it a poor choice of a source as well. We're not debating whether it is true information or not - that's a completely different conversation. We're debating whether it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Can you see my point?
    Fiona2211814 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I'm concerned, this issue is resolved. According to user:Protonk on the page [25], the reference to the audio recording is not a reliable source, and the site itself should not be used.
    Fiona2211814 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, according to user:Protonk, if the audio clip is hosted on a personal website, such as the one it is on now, it is not a reliable source, but that “if National Public Radio, CNN or the New York times hosted that clip. It would be a lot harder to explicitly exclude it as a source in that case.” [26] I have accepted this. As the audio clip is currently hosted on a personal website I will not refer to it as a source. However, should the audio clip be hosted by a source considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, as in the examples given by Protonk, I will refer to it. Angie186 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gus Bilirakis article

    The author is slandering Congressman Bilirakis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.225.198 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just the usual sort of political vandalism, which nobody caught. I've fixed it, and verified the basic facts from Bilirakis's web page. I'll keep an eye on this article for a while to be sure it doesn't happen again. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mug shots

    I hope I'm posting in the right place and that this subject has not been discussed before, but I have a general complaint about the use of mug shots in the biographies of living people. I started a similar discussion at Talk:Lindsay_Lohan#mug_shot, but this really applies to all BLP articles. To sum up my point, I believe it is a violation of basic human dignity to have mug shots in a BLP, with the exception that some individuals may only be known for criminal activity. An even in the case of criminals, a mug shot does not - in any way - give the reader a better understanding of the actual crime that was committed. Mug shots are taken after-the-fact and serve little purpose in an encyclopedia. Irregardless of public domain, I believe there should be an addition to BLP policy to abstain from the use of mug shots unless there is a very specific rational for doing so. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I mostly agree, although I think my reasons are somewhat different. I think that the mug shot places undue weight upon something that could well be a minor event if taken into context of the person's entire life and career, and the crime, no matter how much publicity it attracts, is not the person's reason for notability. I think BLP doesn't quite accommodate this situation because if the crime is documented, and sourced and the image is free to use, the use of the image doesn't break any rules. On the other hand, I haven't seen a celebrity mugshot that hasn't made the article into which it is inserted, somewhat tawdry and sensationalised. I think that modern culture is evolving into something that doesn't care for such things as privacy or human dignity, but Wikipedia can reflect that change in attitude and provide commentary without being part of problem. Using questionable images without restraint simply because 'we can' would be contributing to the problem, in my opinion, and I would hope that we can maintain a higher standard than that. If a strong case can be made for the use of a particular image, and it can be proven to facilitate greater understanding, I'd be interested to hear the case. Criminals notable solely for their criminal actions are another story, and I think their mugshots are absolutely ok to use. Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree; with the same exception Rossrs reports. While some report of (minor) misbehaviour maybe useful on biography pages, an image taken just after an arrest (for e.g. drunk driving - most people don't look their best when drunk) will convey a very strong image that is placing undue weight on such an issue. Mug shots of well known criminals maybe useful (see e.g. Al Capone). So yes, I would support a ban on mugshots with the exception for persons well known for being a criminal. Arnoutf (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban goes too far. We could have a celebrity for whom we have many glamorous shots taken at premiers - these too are unrepresentative as they are taken at their best. Celebrity gets arrested for drink driving - what's the harm in a small mug-shot amidst several higher profile glamour images on the article. It is a question of balance.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that a complete ban goes too far, but there are probably very few instances where the use of a mugshot image is essential. Take a look at Mel Gibson - the lead image is a mugshot that says nothing about his work as a film actor or a director, and it's being used for two reasons - it's free and it's more recent than another of his red carpet photos. It's opportunistic because there are so few free images of him, but it doesn't represent his notability, and as an identifying image it's poor. A small mug-shot is never used in a minor or small way, in fact it seems always to make a point and to dominate the section in which it appears. "The harm" is that it doesn't create balance, but does the exact opposite by giving undue weight to an image that represents perhaps one day out of the life of the celebrity. They're notable as performers and in the rest of their lives project a particular image, which is maybe represented by one photograph here. At a premier "at their best" is exactly how they should be depicted. That's how they're notable. We're so used to seeing paparazzi images of celebrities going about their daily lives that we forget that is not what they're notable for and that is not what we should be reporting. They're notable as actors, singers, models, musicians, dancers etc. They're not notable as "woman going shopping without make-up" or "celebrity caught shirtless on a beach" or "immature actress with a driving violation". These are part of their lives, but not part of their notability and the mugshots are the same. So: 1 glamour image that represents 99.9% of their public life and 1 mugshot that represents 0.1% of their life is not a balance. (and of course I'm making up percentages to show the lack of balance). Also the way the images are used is usually not for education or information, but for sport and spectacle. Lindsay Lohan's mugshot gets splashed about everywhere not because we need to know what she looked like on the day of her arrest, but because we take a voyeuristic pleasure in her distress. Using it here isn't much different. Wikipedia's policies condone it because it's free, it's accurate and it's sourced, but it's not necessary. I'd be interested to see another high quality encyclopedia resorting to the use of mug-shots as part of their normal biographical reporting. Rossrs (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think requiring a specific rationale is reasonable, and an outright ban unreasonable. I have a hard time with all of the celebrity articles, because we tend to document their celebrity as opposed to the person. Lohan's article has approached gossip tabloid status at times, and still needs a major purge. That said, I think it's reasonable to include a mugshot when the legal scrape is significant, and sometimes that image actually does convey understanding. I question whether Lohan's legal scrape was significant, just as I question whether the details of her parade of boyfriends and girlfriends is significant.Kww (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kww - outright ban is too strict - but the voyeurism should be reigned in. Perhaps a Guideline is better then a policy.... Something like "A mugshot in a biography should only be used if the mugshot significantly contributes to notability of that person. A rationale why this mugshot contributes to the article should be given and achieve consensus before a mugshot is to placed." Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good approach. Rossrs (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely think a more general consensus about mugshots would be great. Right now it seems rather haphazard which BLPs include them and which don't. A specific rationale sounds like a good idea, related to the subject's level of criminal activity, and maybe the level of coverage it has received from notable reliable sources, as well as how much coverage is in the wikipedia article itself (ie, it would very likely be undue weight to include a mugshot if there's just a line or two about one drunk driving incident.) Inclusion might also depend on which other images are already in the article (ie: it makes a difference between if there are several flattering images already in the article to balanda a mugshot and the mugshot is the only image in the article.) I also think it makes a big difference if the mugshot is already widely published in the general media vs if it's something wikipedians have dug out of primary sources. Siawase (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I like Arnoutfs idea. Is anyone willing to give a shot at writing a full guideline? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, in order to avoid edit waring, I think mug shot images -again, regardless of public domain- should have similar guidelines to Wikipedia:NONFREE#Images. Specifically, that a mug shot will be deleted if a rational is not provided. That way, we don't have editors uploading mug shots on a regular basis and we can get rid of a number of mug shots already on wikipedia that place undue weight on the individual's criminal activity. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a good idea. When they are free images, whether used or not, we shouldn't be deleting them. Move the PD pictures to commons to avoid deleting them. For using them in articles, they should be treated like any other item in an article that has WP:UNDUE concerns - balance it to the rest of the article. If the arrest has no good place in the article because of WP:UNDUE concerns, then neither does the mug shot. I don't see any reason we need to add new policies/guidelines when the existing ones could do the job. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because as of right now current policies such as undue weight aren't doing the job. Editors want to fill article with pictures and are willing to ignore notability. Whether or not the images are appropriate has become irrelevant because they are free and the fact that there are no policies against public domain images is adding fuel to that fire. If there is a specific guideline addressing use of mug shots and other public domain images, it helps keeps notability in check and would be supported by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but its a lot more difficult to deal with this situation using existing guidelines alone - otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability does not limit article content, only the existence of the article itself. Whether or not the arrest or the mug shot was notable by itself is completely irrelevent in an article about a notable subject. WP:V and WP:UNDUE are the relevant policies for removing material from articles regarding subjects that pass WP:NOTE. If the subject is still alive, WP:BLP also applies. Creating another rule seems to place the interests of the article subject above the interests of the readers, appears to be a WP:CREEP problem, and serves to stifle discussion about potentially encyclopedic information. I could see adding specific language to WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP precluding the use of a mug shot in an infobox, or as the primary photo in an article, but not as its own guideline. And certainly not an outright ban. These pictures serve the interest of the encyclopedia and the readers in presenting complete coverage of the subjects of our articles. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we should not add a new guideline. I think mentioning the use of mugshots in UNDUE or BLP would serve the goal just fine. Arnoutf (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would anyone be willing to help me adjust current guidelines? Or where would I go to ask? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P._W._Bill_Bailey_III's page is essentially an advertisement for his consulting business

    Most of the information on that page cannot be verified. The references listed to support his alleged involvement with various products, but are merely description of said products. The bio was written by an editor involved in other non-NPOV articles. I would not be surprised if this is a paid job. See: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Professor_Hugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reference to him by name is in a MS Press release, where he is given as contact info for TypeHaus, which is listed as a company involved with TrueType fonts at large. But that does not support he claim made that he designed some the first fonts for the web! VasileGaburici (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've prodded it. Let's see if anyone objects to deletion.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flipping an image

    Hi, is it okay to create a mirror image of a picture of a living person, for use in a Wikipedia biography as the lead photo? See here. Thanks in advance for some guidance.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, it's all settled.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Biography of Adeli

    There was been constant vandalism on Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli webpage over the last few days. Is there any way of semi-protecting this page? Several IP's which probably hasthe same origin are inserting POV and making the page blank. Theunusualguest (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there has been a problem, and have semi-protected for a week.--Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramsey Kanaan

    Can someone please watch this page for defamation? There is a lot of unverified info and talkpage accusations thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.23.21 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious crap removed. Although the whole article is basically unverified.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin

    Sarah Palin became the presumptive nominee for vice president on the Republican ticket on Friday. Since then, it's logged thousands of edits, a good chunk of which have been reverted for various reasons. Unfortunately, most recently, it's become one big WP:BLP violation target due to a Daily Kos "diary" of completely unsourced (and thus far, unsourceable) allegations regarding her youngest child. The talk page has also become highly susceptible to becoming a forum for said fodder. Would appreciate additional eyes on the article and the talk page, and if the situation worsens, protection may need to be extended.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a real BLP issue. This article will have hundreds of eyes on it, vandalism will be reverted very quickly. It should not be protected for long periods, that violates being a wiki. She is too high profile for this to end up with unchecked vandalism or unsourced allegations remaining for more than seconds. Not really a concern for this noticeboard.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention." I have been watching the talk page and the article every few minutes, having to revert WP:BLP violations. Many are editing the article, seemingly not as many are closely watching it with any eye to WP:BLP. I'm not sure how this is "not a real BLP issue," but thanks for the help...   user:j    (aka justen)   21:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Countless BLP violations happened previously on the talk page, the semi-protection should be reinstated. Hobartimus (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not generally protect talk pages. That is where improvements to the article are discussed. Inappropriate talk page edits may be removed. As for the rumor in question, it has now been explicitly stated by numerous. The pregnancy refutes the rumor. BLP is satisfied. Edison2 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the one hand, the Washington Post has taken up the story.[27] However, they're reporting the rumors about Trig as just that: rumors. That part of the story does not belong in Palin's bio at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If most major newspapers and TV news channels are reporting the rumor as a notable rumor which led to the announcement of the daughter's being 5 months pregnant to debunk the rumor, then the rumor should be included. It would be polishing or spin-doctoring to leave it out. As a notable but de-bunked rumor, it discredits Palin's critics but in no way reflects ill on her. Edison2 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As of Sept 2, the situation has not improved, numerous editors, including Edison2, appear to be advancing ridiculous rationalizations that in the aggregate add up to a sliming of a fairly unknown candidate at precisely the time when many users are coming to WP to find out more about this individual. Invariably these arguments rationalize the inclusion of unfavourable information while excluding far more relevant information. (Her husbands DUI at the age of 22 or her daughter's boyfriend's ticket for fishing illegally is somehow relevant, but his professional snowmobile champion status is not). [Compare this with how WP editors handled the John Edwards Bio weeks after the National Enquirer had produced pictures and Fox News produced witnesses that another salacious rumor was actually true.] IMO, this article's editing is making a mockery of WP ideals and exposing WP to actionable libel.

    Other Examples: 1. removal of a reference to her veto of a bill that would have blocked rights for same sex couples because it "whitewashes" (the editor's own word choice) her stance on gay marriage (How does the fact that she vetoed a law deserve to be excluded merely because the editor questions whether her motives might be other than to protect same sex couples?)

    2. An idiotic discussion as to whether flying back while 7mo's pregnant (after consulting with a doctor) is somehow related to her youngest child's DS. (One editor goes so far as to claim that it is relevant because calling your doctor is not sufficiently cautious. (I guess they should have flown their Dr. in for a physical exam)) Why is this detail important enough to include, but not actual political stances?

    3. An ongoing attempt to interject details (and the campaign's announcement) of a non-public, 17 yr old minor's pregnancy with another non-public individual in order to "refute" a clearly libellous (and chronologically impossible) claim made by left wing partisans. Of course this is then used as the rationale for restating the rumor because it is somehow newsworthy.

    How about just sticking to the facts of Sarah Palin's career, family, and accomplishments without getting into the totally irrelevant, Jerry Springer details of whose pregnant with whose baby? How about simple repeating verifiable facts rather than gloating with glee every time some ridiculous claim gets repeated (not as news, but as a rumor) by a supposedly RS.

    4. The removal of language which is "biased" which is in fact accurate. (Palin has directly confronted several powerful members of her own party, resulting in indictments, resignations, and fines, but these achievements go unmentioned while editors simultaneously argue that phrases like "challenging her own party" smack of propaganda. (fine, but at least mention the incidents which at least appear to justify the phrase.)

    5. The uncritical parroting of claims made by Palin's critics without any mention of the possibility that several of these sources just may have an axe to grind. (Several of her own party's members, Troopergate?)--98.221.28.244 (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If we include her family's "accomplishments" (husband won snowmobiling championships) without including less flattering info the article becomes a puff piece like a Christmas letter or a campaign ad and lacks balance. Edison2 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk: John Michell (writer)

    In regard to Talk: John Michell (writer) , 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. I am not sure if this is the proper place to ask for help; another editor suggested the link to this page. Thanks for your time. SageMab (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk: John Michell (writer) - where to draw the line and how to remove infringing material

    Talk: John Michell (writer) (edit | [[Talk:Talk: John Michell (writer)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is some concern that some of the recent comments about the relationship of this author with the fascist Julius Evola, and comments about his property owning (with mentions of Rachmann) and a bit about Manson and the hippy culture. The most recent section, [28] shows these comments. Elsewhere another editor has commented that "WIki policy on BLP is very clear that poorly supported material such as the anonymous IP users allegations about Hitler, Julius Evola, Radical Traditionalism, Manson and so on should be immediately removed." and asked what the best way is to go about it. I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn. This diff [29] has an editor saying that it is "clear that he is a fascist". Should just that sentence be removed, the whole edit, nothing? Where does legitimate discussion about Michell's being a landlord and his relationship with Julius Evola start becoming a violation of BLP policy? Where do we start worrying about not-so-good sources on the discussion page? How do you excise something without almost vandalizing the discussion and making replies look odd? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLP:"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Remove whatever shouldn't be there. That is more important than preserving sense in a discussion. It's a violation if it says something about someone that isn't substantiated. Even seemingly innocuous things can have repercussions that we might not be aware of. Ty 11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that mechanically and rigidly applying this policy as Ty suggests would effectively stifle useful debate. There is a fine line between legitimate debate and problem editing. If we deleted any discussion that might be considered "negative, positive, or just questionable" then there would be no discussion, since virtually anything can be considered either "negative" or "positive". For example, an editor on the talk page in question asserted that Michell had published a book entitled The Hip Pocket Hitler, a compendium of quotations from Adolf. He suggested that this should be included. This suggestion was repeatedly removed from the talk page on grounds of BLP. Research by other editors later demonstrated that reliable sources confirm that Michell did indeed publish this book. There was then much discussion about whether or not this fact should be included. If proposals are simply deleted because a new editor does not actually footnote them on the talk page this will seriously damage the normal process of improving the article. The editor did not know how to find information about this publication. Other editors helped out by doing so. If the initially unsourced comment had simply been strangled in its cradle by shouting "BLP", then this information would, in effect, have been suppressed. The issue here is how much leeway should legitimately be allowed in order to ensure that BLP policy is not used as a POV pushing tool. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that Ty's view seems to be so extreme that it would not only stifle debate it would turn even talk pages into nothing more than quotations from sources "Even seemingly innocuous things can have repercussions that we might not be aware of." If Ty really means this then all discussion that is not word-for-word sourced should always be deleted. This question has repercussions for the application of policy overall if Ty's interpretation is to be construed as legitimate and adopted more widely. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about misrepresentation. I have made no comment about the book you mention. I have made a comment about living people being labelled as "fascist" and "scumbags". Actually, to that you can add being compared with a murderer and linked to Rachman, the exploitive slum landlord. In that circumstance, the seemingly innocuous remark that someone is a landlord, can have other implications. There's rather a lot of opinion on that talk page and not much to back it up, though of course I'm not saying that applies to everything there. Ty 02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no misrepresentation, since no one said that you removed the material about the Hitler book. I was, as a matter of fact, trying to address the central issue and its consequences for application of policy. You seem less interested in that than in dragging up specifics and using emotive language which can't be usefully discussed here without going into tedious detail. However, I would point out that statements like "being compared to a murderer" are almost meaningless. People can be "compared" in many ways. In this case the subject of the article co-wrote a book supporting the murderer. Also "fascist" is not just some meaningless insult. There are people whose political views can be legitimately described as such, so again it can be quite appropriate to discuss the use of the term. It depends on the circumstances. As for "scumbag", the only individual was labelled with this term was the said murderer, who has been dead for thirty years (he hacked a woman almost to death, then buried her alive, among other similar achievements). The word was then used with reference to a type of person, not to an individual.[30] So it seems that I am not the one misrepresenting the facts. It is certainly the case that one anonymous editor has been far too uninhibited in his statements, and Dougweller has tried to fairly describe the issues above. However, I honestly think your contributions are inflammatory, and do little to help to address either the specific issues of this article or the more general issue of application of policy. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It should perhaps be made clear that this issue is mainly confined to the talk page. A number of editors have been working on John Michell recently and, while SageMab is a minority of one in many ways, he is in the majority about this aspect. Unless much better support is found, no material suggesting that Michell has fascist sympathies is going to make its way into the article. (One possible exception: "radical traditionalism". Since Michell recently pulished a collection of short pieces called "Confessions of a radical traditionalist", it would indeed be appropriate to discuss what that means. I don't myself understand it very well at this point.) Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though talk pages are subject to BLP, the standard must necessarily be a little looser than on the article, because otherwise how are we to discuss whether or not something is in fact a violation of the BLP policy? DGG (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Red Diaper Baby

    Red Diaper Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP editor keeps adding insufficiently sourced, WP:ORish information about Barack Obama to this article. I've got it watchlisted, but when I'm not online I don't think the article gets enough traffic for the issue to be caught. This [31] was up for almost seven hours. I'm not sure if this technically belongs on this noticeboard, but it is about a living person. // Movingboxes (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Report the offending user for making repeated edits/reverts. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't just Obama that keeps being added - I've cleaned off six other unsourced names. I'm pretty sure the IPs involved are US based so sometimes stuff can be up for hours before I wipe it off. I've requested semi protection but can someone on western US time add it to their watchlist? Also this raises issues such as guilt by association and information not just on the person named but others as well; since naming someone on this involves naming one or more of their parents as communists, and they may also be alive. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added it to my watchlist -- I'm in California. This isn't such a high-profile article that a few hours delay in reverting is a major disaster, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta Looie, it's been semi protected, but only for 5 days ;( ϢereSpielChequers 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny Weidler

    Lidia Matticchio Bastianich

    There is constant personal political and ethnic opinion being expressed in this bio of a living person, as well erroneous information (Lidia is not friends with Christopher Walken, she started with PBS in 1998 not 2001, and so on). The town in which she lives is also constantly being inserted and is a violation of privacy.

    Possible WP:COATRACK in the making

    Can someone take a look at Gumball 3000 2007 Accident in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Gumball 3000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Especially the talk pages. There is an editor who seems to have some conflict regarding this and seems to want to soapbox about the person involved in a fatal accident (which led to a conviction). In the former article they are suggesting they will be trying to cover more about that person, which would appear to be a WP:COATRACK. I've tried to suggest that they seem too passionate about the issue and therefore possibly conflicted from an WP:NPOV point of view, but this hasn't be received. It may turn into a non-issue but it'd be useful to have a few more eyes. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncited material: Jan Hendrik Schön

    There is a lot of harmful uncited material in Jan Hendrik Schön. It may all be true - it is similar to other, cited, material. (Not that I personally have checked the quality of any the cites.) But under the circumstances, I think it should be trimmed back to the cited material only. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just put a few hours into this, and in the process discovered that the article had a more important problem: as written, it was a massive copyvio of Dan Agin's book Junk Science. I've tried to improve the situation, but it still needs work. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good spot. Is it worth burning it back to a stub? Ben Aveling 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    British olympic cyclists

    A number of articles have been under attack by a group of people adding uncited claims about members of the British cycling team using drugs to improve their performance. I have:

    1. Warned Pjotr Morgen (talk · contribs) for discussing the allegation on the talk page without a citation
    2. Blocked 141.201.155.141 (talk · contribs) for edit warring over the matter.
    3. Protected the article Chris Hoy.

    A number of other articles are being dragged into the periphery of this storm, including 2012 Summer Olympics and David Millar. Kbthompson (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John DiFronzo

    I have temporarily deleted this BLP, it is negative, and according to our current standards, it is grossly under-unsourced for the strengths of the allegations it appears to contain.

    Can someone review, and ensure it only contains verifiable material and claims, or is clear who cites them and on what authority, before restoring?

    FT2 (Talk | email) 10:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to confirm, Mr. DiFronzo is quite elderly but still alive (at least as of June 2007), so BLP does apply. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, he's "reputed to be a respected elder of the Chicago Outfit."
    A Google Books search reveals numerous sources, but it's going to take some real work to write a solid article with detailed inline citations. In the meantime, I'll try to put together a sourced stub when I get a chance. — Satori Son 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Momo Scylla

    Defamatory remarks are included in this footballer's profile, regarding the "Comet" shop incident and especially the libel regarding Scylla and Sandy Clark. They should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejink (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot find which article this is referring to. Could you please give us a link? — Satori Son 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be Momo Sylla. I've fixed the trouble (you could have done so yourself, Lejink), and I'll keep an eye on the article, which seems to be corrupted frequently. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deal W. Hudson

    Deal W. Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This was originally created an attack page. Editors removed the offending material, but the attack page keeps getting reverted back in. Hudson is a prominent political figure who did and said controversial things. A substantive NPOV article can be written, but the current article is a battleground with Hudson's attackers and supporters. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Sarah Palin

    Talk:Sarah Palin (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Sarah Palin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Comment request

    I'm on the fence about whether this post on the talk page is a BLP violation. Specifically, I'm concerned about the last sentence presupposing that evidence does exist. I'm confident that the post will be removed shortly (because I have faith in Wikipedians to act with class). I want to get an outside opinion before gently cautioning the editor about BLP. --Elliskev 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see it as a blp violation, just undue weight and poor choice of words. Though her public career is fair game, it still has to be reported fairly & I am not aware of any actual source that would justify "Rapegate" in the heading. DGG (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Sedlmayr murder

    As some people here probably know, the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required has now been going on for almost a month. The reason why I still keep it going is, that I am just shocked by the profound confusion about wp:blp. I cannot possible ask someone to read all of that discussion, but PLEASE, could someone with some experience about Biographies of living persons look at the last section and tell me whether I am right or wrong when I say that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist". Zara1709 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    it is irrelevant entirely whether or not it is sensationalist. One thing that is relevant is that enWikipedia is not censored, and is fortunately able to ignore German censorship legislation. Whether or not it is legal to publish this material in German after a person has served the sentence is no concern of ours. There's a good deal of content in Wikipedia that we couldnt publish in one or another country. All we care about with respect to German press regulation is copyvio. DGG (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mythomania and John McCain

    Someone added sourced material on John McCain to the article Mythomania. Mythomaia is itself uncited. I removed a section on pathological liar, since it had no references. However, the implication of the article is that John McCain has mythomania. I do not want to get into an edit war with another edit. However, there is no agreed upon definition of mythomaia and no evidence that John McCain engages in mythomania. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the unsourced sentence and the unreliably sourced sentence. I believe that makes it clearer that none of the remainder belongs in that article, and should be excised under WP:BLP. Who will do the honors? GRBerry 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking further, Merriam-Webster does include the word, so it isn't a neologism, and does have a ordinary English definition. I see a smattering of Google Scholar hits and enough Google Book hits that I wouldn't want to delete the article. But is there any reason to let the article have any example/trivia section? The talk page indicates that use of the page to take potshots at various people has been a problem for a long while. GRBerry 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm puzzled. Are there no admins watching this discussion, or watching Mythomania? Maybe there is some grand plan afoot to take care of the problem, but how can such statements as Sen. John McCain has been caught in a series of lies that clearly indicated that he is a pathological liar be allowed to sit and fester for more than a minute? What are all our WP:BLP, etc, rules for, if they are not enforced? --CliffC (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That information was original research and synth, and I've removed it as such. I don't know why you let it set there for this long, you could have removed it yourself. Celarnor Talk to me 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the article itself, someone can take it to AfD if they want; there really isn't much to say about it. Celarnor Talk to me 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, as a side note, the French version seems to be quite good; I'm not sure how to mark it for translation, but it looks like it could benefit. Celarnor Talk to me 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Celarnor. I was reluctant to remove that paragraph because I saw parts of it still under discussion above. --CliffC (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry for causing that misinterpretation, I wanted the material gone, but I also wanted more widespread participation. I've been too active in cleaning up garbage related to American politics lately, and feel more neutral editors need to get involved. The only thing I meant to disagree with Mattisse on was whether or not the article itself was viable. And even there I am not certain myself. GRBerry 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no feelings about the article itself. It can exist as far as I am concerned and I never meant to imply otherwise. I just do not want to see it misused. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Labeling political prisoners "criminals"

    User:Russavia labels living Russian scientists Valentin Danilov and Igor Sutyagin and activist Mikhail Trepashkin as "criminals": [33], [34], [35], and so on. All these people have been described as political prisoners by international human rights organizations that was mentioned here, for example. I tried to convince this user but could not [36]. I think this is serious, especially in light of recent ArbComm ruling. What do you think? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps this is relevant. There is a current discussion to remove the entire Category:Political prisoners - see here initiated by the same user. Yes, this is probably a WP:POINT on his part. He tries to experimentally prove that the category of political prisoners is "intrinsically POV" see this comment.Biophys (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained to you on my talk page, if Russian courts convicted them of criminal offences, then they are criminals. Just because a human rights organisation claims they are political prisoners, this does not change the fact that they were convicted on criminal charges in Russian courts, thereby making them criminals. You can't have one POV without the other I am afraid. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I suggest that you read the definition of a criminal. The political prisoner moniker may fit your anti-Russian POV, but you have clearly forgotten that we are WP:NPOV, this means he may be regarded as a political prisoner by one side of the equation, the other side says he is a criminal. What you are doing is WP:NOTADVOCATE, and that's a no-no. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In cases like this a more neutral wording can be found, a Russian .... who has been convicted of ... . for example. We use common sense. DGG (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These two Russian scientists (and criminal investigator Trepashkin too) were falsely accused and convicted of high treason although none of them had any access to state secrets and did not sign any forms that would oblige them to keep state secrets.Biophys (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Category:People convicted of treason ?Biophys (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, DGG. I guess this solves the problem. We need new and more specific category, something like "Russian scientists convicted of treason". That would be a very large category that also includes such people as Alexander Chayanov, Sergei Chetverikov, Pavel Florensky, Lev Gumilev, Sergey Korolyov, Sergei Kovalev and many many others.Biophys (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John C. Dvorak

    Refridgerator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make the following edits to Template:LA: [37] [38] I, and Kermit814 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have reverted the edit, and have both been met with accusations of vandalism and griefing by Refridgerator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    It seems to the only purpose of this is to deride Devorak. It's irrelevant to the section, a one off non-notable event, and the source (a twitter page) doesn't pass WP:RS. Refridgerator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refuses to discuss these concerns on either his talk page, or on the article's and instead continues to revert and spam vandalism warning templates. So, in an effort to avoid reverting this page for the rest of my life, I thought I should bring it up here. --Falcorian (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it took me a while to figure out what this complaint is about, let me explain in a way that might be a little more helpful to others. Refridgerator is absolutely determined that the John C. Dvorak article must include the sentence, "He reminds people to stay off his lawn". That's the gist of it. Isn't Wikipedia great? Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the links were clear, but thanks for making it more so. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is borderline idiotic. There's no BLP issue. It is just irrelevant. There's no reason that detail should be in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... But it's hard to make the other side see that. I suppose I should take it to 3R or ANB. --Falcorian (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick M. McCarthy

    I came across this article on vandal patrol and soon came to read it. The article has essentially no material relating to the subject, but appears to be about a specific Guantanamo incident. I have placed a {{coatrack}} template on it, but the article is anything but a biography: it serves only to tangentially talk about a specific incident, and, frankly, make the man look poor.

    Please tell me if I should be posting this to another board. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the BLP violation? Corvus cornixtalk 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this the right place for BLP-coatrack issues? The guidelines make it seem that it is. wp:blp lists wp:coatrack as a "relevant essay", and wp:coatrack states, "Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned." Note however that the article is currently at AfD, and it is something of forum-shopping to bring it here. Looie496 (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin 2

    My understanding of BLP policy is that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." Nevertheless a couple editors keep re-including a section in the article devoted exclusively to "Religious perspective on public and private life".[39] The section has been discussed exhaustively at the talk page, and the vast majority of editors have expressed opposition to this section, for various reasons that are not pertinent (e.g. redundancy, NPOV, summary style, et cetera). I provided diffs to the advocates for inclusion, showing that many many more editors are against inclusion, but they still insist that the section be included. The main talk page discussion is here. What to do?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another question: if there's a new section of an article about a living person, do we need consensus to remove it, or consensus to keep it included? I thought the latter.[40]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this fuss has died down for the time being. It may come back again, though, in which case "I'll be back."  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Naomi (porn star)

    This purports to be a biography of an (unidentified) person and if this were clearly the case I would have unilaterally deleted it already as poorly sourced (porn stars are not reliable sources for statements about themselves). In fact, it is in large part a description of a fictional character (complete with all the usual pornography industry cliches about a religious upbringing, love of anal sex etc.). The distinction, however, is blurred by the possible appending of some details of the actress' life.

    So, what to do? Delete, turn into a fictional character article or something else?

    CIreland (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Naomi is a real porn star who verifiably passes WP:PORNBIO. Adult Video News is considered a reputable publication in the porn trade. What an active porn actress says about her sex life should be taken with a grain of salt, but what Naomi said in the AVN interview is hardy contentious. The other stuff should be sourced better, but I don't see a serious BLP problem. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to put in caveats: "According to Naomi, in her interview with ..." Corvus cornixtalk 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lauren Booth

    This article has attracted quite a bit of negative attention since her trip to Gaza. I have made an effort to keep the article as npov as possible, however will break the 3rr if I continue. Can anyone else help in keeping the article from becomming an attack page? Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no 3RR violation when you're reverting vandalism and BLP violations. Corvus cornixtalk 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes that Dead-or-Red is reverting are not vandalism or BLP violations. They are merely a pov-push. Looie496 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :::I reject this accusation totally. Whatever happened to good faith? Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't the quality of sources be improved? I don't like to see "Harry's Place", a deliberately provocative blog, quoted, and "Ynet news" is hardly better. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ynet news is the best of a bad bunch of sources that quote that particular statement. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexandra Nice

    • Alexandra Nice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - She clearly qualifies under WP:PORNBIO, or at least she would if anything beyond the AVN credentials were sourced to a reliable source. Nothing is. Every single assertion is sourced only by looking at the subject's IMDB entry or at the external link to one of Luke Ford's blogs. Neither is a reliable source for a BLP. I've made some edits. What next? David in DC (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ "Beneath the Hoods". War in Iraq. Newsweek. 2006-07-19. Retrieved 2007-02-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=238664548"