Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonel (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 15 August 2007 (→‎[[Kim Rhodes]]: closing, resolved (unsourced items removed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    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:



    Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

    Category:BLP Check

    → In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC

    I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update on {{BLPC}}

    From template page: "Note - this used to use Category:BLP Check, but now shares {{blpdispute}}'s category of Category:Disputed biographies of living persons."   [ Update added here by Athaenara ✉ at 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ] [reply]

    Recent changes to BLPs

    A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced BLPs

    There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable BLP sources

    NNDB Notable Names Database

    Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007

    Jewish Virtual Library

    There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    f1fanatic

    This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    List of Scientologist celebrities (closed)

    Pashtun Mafia

    This article is about Pakistani/Afghani individuals and the criminal organisations, which includes drug-smuggling, they allegedly run. The article appears to contain orginal reseearch and is erratically sourced. It certainly doesn't comply with WP:A. Unfortunately it names many names. The main recent contributing editor has created a number of stubs in support of the main article, repeat similar allegations and, again, attribution is erratic. Several have already been deleted. Could someone with more time than I have today take a look please? The main article will take quite a lot of unpicking. ROGER TALK 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate some input on this as I have virtually no experience of dealing with this sort of issue. I know it's messy and not straightforward that's why I referred it here. --ROGER TALK 13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the unsourced names from Opium Mafia, which is where Pashtun Mafia redirects now. The article still needs closer inspection, but it's a start. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trevor Marshall

    Trevor Marshall Information was put in the Trevor Marshall wikipedia page and has been repeatedly removed. The text removed includes information from SEC reports, court documents, patent applications and the need for referencing of current material. How can this be stopped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzayner (talk • contribs)

    A look at the talk page reveals that the situation is much more complicated than that. There appears to be a long-standing argument over this gentleman's bio and the validity of his research. -Jmh123 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found at least one edit by Jzayner (talk · contribs) adding a negative claim about Marshall sourced from http://impnvestigator.chat.ru/, an anti-Marshall website. I think some editors need a better understanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. (But then, so do I.) I'm not going to be able to help out. CWC 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I am the subject of this bio. I am very uncomfortable about becoming directly involved in this dispute, but I have reviewed the WP:BLP and it gives clear guidance that I should do so, as the editor/vandal is making detailed and specific claims upon which only I have the underlying data. The claims of Jzayner are certainly intended to defame, and they cannot be allowed to stand. For example, an allegation has been made that the Foundation which I currently head was for some time operating without an IRS certification. In fact, the IRS certificate carries an effective date of 1 April 2004. Further there even seems to be some attempt to imply that I have said HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV does cause AIDS, and I have given scientific presentations detailing the manner in which the disease progresses. Although I can understand that the technical terminology used in molecular biology must be confusing to the average reader, I find it hard to believe that this editor is reading with an educated and unjaundiced eye (NPOV). WP:BLP says subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, and, unless the admins here disagree, I am prepared to do that in this case, as I did when the Nazi defacements were posted to my bio on 28 May 2007, complete with a picture of Hitler (why didn't the wiki bots pick up 'hitla.gif' as a problematic image upload?). Trevmar 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jzayner 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Responds: this is absurd.[reply]

    Mr. Marshall the State of California says Autoimmunity Research Inc. out of Thousand Oaks, CA did not receive tax-exempt status till Jan 2007. If this is inccorect you should take this up with them.

    What about cancer being caused by bacteria? Your patent application also says and I quote "This invention is a method of killing the stealthy intra-cellular bacteria which are key to the pathogenesis of both Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(s) (AIDS) and Cancers. It is currently believed that the disease(s) known as AIDS are caused by a virus, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). But much of the long-term (chronic) destruction of the immune system in AIDS is actually caused by tiny, stealthy, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The HIV virus weakens the immune system so that the stealthy bacteria can proliferate out-of-control, and the damage of AIDS is done just as much by these bacteria as by any virus. These very tiny L-form Cell-Wall-Deficient (CWD) antibiotic-resistant bacteria live within the cytoplasm of cells, including the phagocytic cells (e.g. monocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils and polymorphonuclear cells) of the immune system itself. The cellular proliferation in Cancer is catalysed the action of the same tiny L-form bacteria. They cause the cell nucleus to release mRNA signaling the Th1 cytokine cascade without the need for conventional signaling via, for example, CD4+ T-Lymphocytes. Some of these Cytokines and Chemokines, including, without limitation, Cellular Adhesion Molecule (CAM), create the environment which allows the cellular proliferation to start, and then allows the cancerous growth to gain a foothold in the body."

    There has never been any evidence that bacteria weaken the immune system in HIV. There has been no evidence that bacteria are involved in cancer. Mr. Marshall you should also know that mRNA is always released from the nucleus, that CAMs are not cytokines or chemokines.

    How come this edit is being related to obviously defamation with pictures of hitler? Take out the one sentence that cites an unauthritative source.

    This is not meant to defame you it is meant to provide people with a neutral point of view about you.


    My academic colleague, 2005 Nobel Laureate Barry Marshall, has linked bacteria with cancer pathogenesis. Barry and I have discussed each other's research on several occasions. You will find Barry's opinions at PMID:11991099 and PMID:15656929. But, at this point in time, none of this has anything to do with an encyclopedic bio, or with a NPOV. Trevmar 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    There being no apologies, in accordance with WP:BLP, here is how I intend to deal with the edits impugning my integrity, and the integrity of my research. On 7/13/2007, while I was out-of-town, chairing a workshop at the Metagenomics 2007 conference, the single purpose account Addiex (talk · contribs) defamed Trevor Marshall by falsely claiming the Murdoch Academic appointment was fraudulent. Simultaneously, Savisha (talk · contribs) began removing all mention of our research from WP:Sarcoidosis, including a citation to FDA approbation of our research. Savisha had previously nominated Trevor Marshall for Deletion on 12/10/2006. On 7/15/2006 Jzayner (talk · contribs) repeated the fraudulent appointment libel, without having checked the sources I suggested when I reverted the Addiex libel. Jzayner (talk · contribs) then engaged in a series of what another editor has identified as tendentious edits of Trevor Marshall. Resolution: WP:BLP is clear in stating that the libel should be removed from Trevor Marshall and Talk:Trevor Marshall. I will do that. Any further edits of Trevor Marshall by these accounts will be closely monitored for defamatory material. Further, I would welcome this BLP becoming even better sourced, and I would encourage the use of clearer language by the editors - as long as such actions are performed in good faith - Trevmar 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ADMINS PLEASE: Jzayner (talk · contribs) is still stalking Trevor Marshall and has today reverted the libellous edits which I (the living subject) removed from Talk:Trevor Marshall, in accordance with WP:BLP and the resolution described immediately above. I implemented that resolution on 20 July, after allowing plenty of time for a consensus to be formed here at the BLP Noticeboard. Jzayner (talk · contribs) has now repeated the identical libellous remarks at Talk:Trevor Marshall IN DEFIANCE OF THE RESOLUTION above.I don't have time to continually deal with this defamation, and I surely cannot be expected to sit back and let it continue. I trust Wikipedia has a procedure for making sure that this defamation will cease. Trevmar 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A copy of the Court Order which is apparently being violated in these incidents was sent by FAX to Wikipedia at (727)258-0207 on 7/27/07 after no response had been received to the order and the following text sent by email 7/26/07 to info-en-q@wikimedia.org: " .. Please can an admin revert Jzayner’s edit 146999825, and Jzayner’s reversion of 145957535, and stop these accounts from continuing to harass and libel? .. I note he posted yesterday on the Talk page of the bio: 'A court document is not considered credible information.' Attached is a final order and judgment for Contempt of Court on 143 counts of libel, many of them Internet postings, which is the 'court document' this editor is describing as 'not credible.' The judgment includes an order for the arrest of the individual who posted the libel which is subject of that judgment .. I am sorry to have to bother Wikipedia administration with this. It is taking up far too much of your time, and my time too. I felt that I needed to become involved, as I am the intended object of this harassment and defamation, not the Wikipedia editors who originally created the bio. Unfortunately they have also been having their integrity impugned .. " Trevmar 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    An email with a ticket number was received today from the Wikimedia Support Team. The Support Team should be able to help keep things running smoothly from now on. Thanks for your help. Trevmar 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Hudson (closed)

    Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

    I know this article has been here before. However, I think it has major problems as an "owned article". The most recent have been a controversy over how his education was funded, with the wrong information prefered by the "owners." It was also pointed out that the title itself is POV, and not at all standard for WP. It should say what he is, an author, not what he advocates. Steve Dufour 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked. It seems you are correct. The parts about him and taxi driving and his high school career seem to have been inserted just to make him look like a stereotypical fool; and don't have anything to do with his notibility. Also the article about his Icons book also was very biased. I know nothing about the book after hsaving read the article, but can follow links to a half dozen articles b people who didn't like it. Basejumper 15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've checked out some of the other articles in the creation/evolution area and many of them seem to have the same kinds of problems. Steve Dufour 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I bet. I haven't seen them, but it is probably the case. Unfortunately there is probably very little that can be done about it. The majority of editors in such articles will view such things as crackery, but even then, rather than simply explain the person, his history, his ideas, and then adding a short blurb about how his views are not in the mainstream and having links to articles about mainstream views of the things discussed; it seems necessary to them to soapbox and refute his every statement. The same is true in articles about religious minority groups. The articles are dominated by criticism. It's not supposed to be how it is, but it is impossable to convince people to do things properly. In this case, you can remove the taci thing and highschool bit on BLP grounds. They are potentially hurtful and don't add anything to the articleBasejumper 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Those facts are from Wells's own writings. I would just as soon leave them in, I don't think they do him any harm. They might even make him more interesting. A really strange thing about the article is that the section on his most successful book is mainly about the picture on the cover of the book, not the book itself. This is neither positive nor negative towards Wells, but when I have tried to remove it, explaining that I was trying to remove something to shorten an overlong article, it was put right back. (p.s. The article also goes into absurd detail on his college research papers.) Steve Dufour 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Icons article may need work, but there is nothing wrong with including basic biographic information about Wells such as his having dropped out of highschool which is information that would be included in any biographic article. For that matter, I'd be inclined to argue that being a highschool dropout and then getting a PhD is pretty impressive, not a smear at all. And Basejumper, I strongly suggest you actually read NPOV, especially the undue weight clause. Criticism should be included when it is relevant and should be given due weight. In the case of things like fringe science, pseudoscience and "religious minority groups" the vast majority of reliable sources are often critical or heavily discuss criticism, and so the appropriate weight includes a large amount of criticism. JoshuaZ 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    JoshuaZ is correct; if it's verifiable and relevant, then it needs to covered, period. FeloniousMonk 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for trying to help BJ. The article's owners seem to have circled their wagons in defense of it. Of course, as you mentioned, they are 100% sincere that they are doing the right thing; maybe even saving the world from the evils of intelligent design. Wishing everyone well. (p.s. I just checked out the article on chimpanzees, surely an important topic in the study of evolution, and it is much shorter than the one on Wells.) Steve Dufour 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the aricle on chimpanzees is too short, why don't you fix it? It seems a bit contradictory to bring one article in a noticeboard for attention, and then complain that the people who edit that article who came to discuss it aren't off editing some other article.--Prosfilaes 11:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know very much about them myself. My point in mentioning it is that anti-Creationism seems to be a hotter topic here on WP than evolution itself, which I think is much more interesting. Steve Dufour 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I rechecked the article on JW. The article is certainly biased to the point of the evolutionists who use wikipedia as a battleground in their onslaught on religion. I don't think the taxi driver and dropping out of high school statements are of concern if they are true which I don't know one way or the other and the same things are found in articles on people with high ranks in society. I still have concern over my previous points and ConfuciusOrnis and Orangemarlin's POV pushing. The ip was blocked by in the guise of being an open proxy (yeah right) last time so now the conversation can continue.

    The content in the article is still heavily biased and contrast what the references say. The legal threat JoshuaZ is alleging is just a warning to stop reverting to the slanderous and liable content as has been done again. It is hardly a legal threat any more than WP:BLP is. A number of these editors have been chronicly disruptive across the articles related to id and should follow the advice they like to dish out like JoshuaZ "noting" (pushing) affiliations and Orangemarlin on two occasion pushing his POV [22][23] out of spite (WP:POINT & [24]). The article is still used by its "owners" as a means to discredit which speaks volumes abouts Wells' real importance and the threat he poses. 196.207.32.37 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is now a problem with Wells's supporters trying to whitewash his AIDS denialism. Redddogg 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only evidence for his "AIDS denialism" is a petition he signed in 1996. There is no evidence that he did anything or expressed any opinions about the topic since then. Steve Dufour 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Prechter (closed)

    List of Skull and Bones members (closed)

    Michael Sessions (closed)

    Gregory Kingsley (closed)

    Kim Rhodes (closed)

    Dennis Rader

    Controversial and unsourced comments have made its way into the article. The article needs to be checked for sources, as it is in a extremely bad shape, and unsourced comments needs to be removed. Seeing the article is about a serial murderer, particular care is needed. Thanks. --DarkFalls talk 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm guessing most of the controversial statements can be traced to this link which is cited but not as a footnote. ←BenB4 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably is, but inline citations are probably needed instead of using external links, as the article is of a incredibly sensitive nature... --DarkFalls talk 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anne McCaffrey

    I am concerned about the candid, unposed snapshot of Ms McCaffrey currently used on her bio page. I consider it disrespectful to use one which displays an eminent, respected, highly successful, and much loved author in what may be discomfort and/or confusion. At very least, she is unaware that someone is taking her photo. Yes, she's getting old, but is that a reason to deprive her of her dignity? I first complained about the photo on the discussion page in January, 2006. It has not been changed, nor has anyone responded to my comment. I believe that a more appropriate photo should replace it. The one which appears at Fantastic Fiction http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/anne-mccaffrey/ is recent enough to be illustrative of her age, but in it she is groomed and poised.

    I seriously question whether she would approve the use of that snapshot, were she aware of it. I feel sure her agent would gladly supply or authorize a different photo. --Tygerbryght 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, we sure have a lot of such photos. Can you contact her agent and ask for another photo to be released under the GFDL or a commercial Creative Commons license? ←BenB4 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written requesting permission, and suggested either of two photos on her website, both candid. One is receiving the Lifetime Achievement award, the other is in her garden.--Tygerbryght 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Langham listed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders even though he was acquitted (closed)

    Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    User Kim Dabelstein Petersen continues to insert libelous material into this subject's biography, or to remove material that might render the libels less harmful. Note that one of the links that has been inserted in the subject's biography is to a libelous article that was later followed by a correction. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies to remove obviously libelous material, this link and any reference to it in the text should be deleted. It should also be a matter of policy that details of libel settlements should not appear in biographies.

    It is not clear that discussion of the subject's views on the single issue of climate change should be so prominent at the center of what is otherwise a straightforward biography of a public figure with a wide-ranging career. We recommend that to avoid future disputes the entire section on "Philosophy or political views" and all related links should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.230.46 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    This article had its history deleted last December for similar reasons. I'm not convinced that it's libelous to link to a libelous article, given the differing standards for libel in US and British courts. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the article is giving undue weight to Lord Monckton's views on global warming, and per biographies of living persons we really must err on the side of caution. Wholesale deletion of the aforementioned section may be avoidable--Monckton appears to be a prominent figure in the skeptical movement. On the other hand, the section represents a synthesis of his articles and counter-articles, which probably constitutes original research. Certainly things can't go on as they have. I would also suggest that both KimDabelsteinPeterson and the apparent representatives of Lord Monckton voluntarily refrain from editing the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful to know who "we" are in the phrase "We recommend that to avoid future disputes..." Is this Mr. Monckton's legal firm or other official representative? Raymond Arritt 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but i just noticed this one. The following quote is the main reason that i've reverted a couple of times - citing lack of references:
    He won £50,000 libel damages from The Guardian, a UK newspaper, in respect of an article by George Monbiot falsely claiming that he had incorrectly treated the Earth as a blackbody in his calculations. The Guardian was compelled to print a correction drafted by Lord Monckton (New Law Journal, June 2007).
    I've checked with Google and other resources - and i cannot find a single mention of such a lawsuit, which would have been highprofile - and would at least have been mentioned in the Guardian, i've also checked the New Law Journal (a strange place for this) and i can find no such mention in their reference for Jan-Jun 2007 [48] - nor that anyone has won anything. Currently this is libel against Mr. Monbiot - And should go.
    I've had no edits on the article - except to revert vandalism, and to keep out blatant POV statements.
    I also have to say, that despite complaining several times - Mr. Monckton (or his secretary - or whatever it is) has never substantiated what the complaints against the current article is. --Kim D. Petersen 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the issue that Mackesen alludes to, which was entirely unrelated, and deleted. There is also this one [49] [50]. --Kim D. Petersen 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Soap opera actress's home address and location linked to page (closed)

    Natascha Kampusch

    • Natascha Kampusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned about the level of hostility that seems to be apparent in the article and talk pages for this woman. It seems particularly inappropriate for an article about a crime victim. But I'm unsure how far to go in deleting/editing content and comments, especially since there are some prominent negative press articles. I would appreciate assistance/guidance from people more experienced with BLP. Thanks // SiobhanHansa 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article seems fine, now. The talk page I only skimmed. What are some of the specific concerns you have? ←BenB4 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Savage (commentator)

    [copied from WT:JIMBO ←BenB4 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

    Could you, or someone who monitors your talk page, come look at Michael Savage (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I know you left a message on the article's talk page some time back and removed some content. This article will always be somewhat contentious, but I worry that some of the content is unecessarily inflammatory. For example, One postcard mentions his "thought of inserting my camera's lens in your A-hole to photograph the walls of your rectum." I would truly like to see this article move to GA status, but I do not see any way it can in its current state. Ursasapien (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David Strathairn redux

    An editor is citing WP:BLP as a reason for persistently removing a website called "David Strathairn Online" from the external links section. This website is a "fansite" of the kind commonly included in link sections of celebrities. It contains no derogatory information. Can someone who follows this page please weigh in? --Mantanmoreland 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    it's a non-notable fansite and I have removed it. In regards to BLP - the issue might be a marginal one but I agree with the argument put forward on the talkpage of that article. --Fredrick day 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your basis for removing that site? It is a useful source of information on this actor. There is no policy against listing fan sites as links. --Mantanmoreland 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like a perfectly fine external link, with no BLP concerns at all. There were no actual BLP concerns raised on the article's talk page, either. It's fine. ←BenB4 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been removed by Mantanmoreland for reasons pertaining to WP:COPYRIGHT already pointed out by others and discussed on the talk page of the article; please see updated discussion on Talk:David Strathairn for the full discussion and also the discussion re: fansites in Wikipedia talk:External links#Fan sites addressed in this policy?[51]. BLP concerns involve the verifiability of fansites and their reliability; they are "self-published" sites and such sites are not generally allowed in biographies of living persons (as sources and/or as external links), unless the sites are official sites of the subject. These are content and quality of content matters as well as copyright infringement matters as they concern the content of biographies of living persons. External links are part of that content. Please consult WP:V and WP:V#Sources, particularly [[WP:#Self-published sources (online and paper)]], which do pertain to such articles that are biographies of living persons; that is why WP:BLP is cross-referenced there. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourcewatch

    Does SourceWatch meet the criteria for inclusion on BLP’s, even when used as an external link in BLP’s? I would say no, as it is an open source Wiki, but I would appreciate some feedback. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an open wiki. Certainly not a reliable source, but it seems to be okay for an WP:EL provided it has more info than the article would if it reached featured status. I don't see how it could be a BLP problem; what are your specific BLP concerns? ←BenB4 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I gathered from stalking your edit history that it's James Inhofe and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe -- I read that sourcewatch page, and although there's a lot of political criticism, I didn't see anything that was anywhere near libel or defamation. Is there something specific? People like to link politicians to all the political rating sites (on the left and right, I see pro-life and 2nd amendment ratings all over too.) ←BenB4 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an open wiki, it is not a reliable source for citing. As an External Link, it may be appropriate if, as already mentioned, it adds value to the article beyond what would already be in an article reaching Featured Article status. Considering that much of the content at SW originates from Wikipedia, I would think that the cases where it would be appropriate as an EL would be few and far between. In BLP articles, we have to be especially careful with sourcewatch, as they do not have a NPOV policy. - Crockspot 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Schrader

    Can someone please clean up this article, or delete it again as necessary. It is a contested expired prod. It is claimed he is notable, but the article is pretty smelly at the moment. ViridaeTalk 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted all the weird and possibly defamatory unsourced stuff. ←BenB4 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heritage Foundation (closed)

    Casey William Hardison (closed)

    Victoria Silvstedt

    Resolved
     – libel removed from talk page

    Although this is not usual to remove stuff from talk pages, I think that the talk page Talk:Victoria Silvstedt should be edited. What is allegated in this discussion is libelous by itself and should be removed, of course from the article, but also from the talk page. Hektor 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it's fairly usual and complete proper to remove libellious stuff from talk pages, both the BLP policy and arbitration decisions agree Nil Einne 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed all unsourced and poorly sourced negative commentry from both the article and the talk page per BLP. Check out the edit histories Nil Einne 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.Hektor 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be resolved now, so tagging resolved. If someone reverts Nil Einne, feel free to revert back citing WP:BLP. If it becomes a problem, remove the resolved template above, and ask for help here. - Crockspot 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Biography of Justice Nathan Hecht, Texas Supreme Court

    Please disregard my previous comment, which resulted from hitting "send" prematurely.

    I edited the article about Justice Nathan Hecht to make it objective. The existing text is quite unbalanced, both in tone and content. It primarily emphasizes Justice Hecht's brief national appearance as an advocate in favor of White House counsel Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. The length of this discussion, as well as discussion of its sequel in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, was quite out of proportion and was written in a way that reflected bias against Hecht. I hope that the revisions present a neutral bias.

    Justice Hecht has been a district and appellate court judge for decades, in which he authored hundreds of important cases. None of these are noted, while a brief media event is documented at length. This is bad policy in a biography.

    The Judicial Conduct Commission complaint was rather unceremoniously reversed by a special state court appellate panel that was appointed under the same special constitutional provision that created the Commission. Reiterating the allegations of what turned out to be baseless only reflects bias on the part of the biographer. I admire Justice Hecht, so if writing on my own I would wax eloquent as to his many achievements and contributions to Texas law. Obviously this would not be appropriate in a Wikipedia entry. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, I simply reduced the material--I hope--to a balanced summary of his career and an abbreviated summary of the Miers incident.

    I also eliminated all of the controverted cross references, whose inclusion suffers from the same defects as the text.

    My elimination of the references to Justice Hecht's appeal for funding of his defense costs was done for the same reasons. There is nothing out of the ordinary or unlawful about such a request. For example, does anyone doubt that governmental officials who are falsely accused should be compelled to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars from their own pockets? Justice Hecht has lived for decades on a meager judicial salary, and his style of life is spartan. He could never afford to pay for the kind of legal services required to defend himself against charges of this kind.

    However, if the ommitted matters must be mentioned in the biography, fairness would compel inclusion of thousands words necessary to add balance and counter the innuendo of the original text and references.

    The controversies featured in the bfor the same reasons as the attacks regarding the Miers event. Under these circumstances, keeping the biography balanced and of reasonable length suggests removal of most of the material altogether.

    If the material I edited out is allowed to go back in, I will need to clean up the slanted wording of the original text and also to add balance by supplementing the total biography by thousands of words,including case law references, quotations from the appellate court decision in Conduct Commission case, etc. I hope this will not become necessary.

    You should be aware that Justice Hecht continues to be subject to unremitting political attack, most recently in the form of litigation asserted by a plaintiff-lawyer group that is seeking to keep the supposed "ethical" issues alive through various frivolous lawsuits and legal complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barrister noir (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    This looks like innocent Wikipedia:Recentism to me, but editors have stepped in an apparently resolved the BLP issues. ←BenB4 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Kosmina

    This article is about a living person and it is poorly written, unreferenced and quite possibly damaging. The history seems to indicate a string of edits and reversions. I don't have the knowledge or time to tidy this up, but it needs to be done. Some of it quickly I think.Jim77742 02:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • An editor has stepped in to make some improvements. Let's see how it goes over the weekend. - Crockspot 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Chinese dissidents

    Resolved

    This article is entirely unsourced, but much of it is obvious. Removing the unsourced claims would simply delete the article. I don't object to the list, but someone familiar with this needs to take time to source it very carefully. 90% of these people are still alive and we are publishing they are subject to arrest in various jurisdictions because of their political beliefs. SchmuckyTheCat

    • The section header: To be dealt with "according to circumstances of the situation" does not indicate where that quote comes from either. This one needs a lot of help. Would it be appropriate to move the contents to the talk page, and move individuals back as they are sourced? - Crockspot 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Carlson (closed)

    Karla Homolka

    There have been repeated postings that Karla Homolka, a living person, has recently been involved in a relationship with a particular man who also has a Wikipedia article. These postings keep getting made despite being repeatedly deleted. I have also deleted the corresponding claim from the article about this particular man. There have been no reliable references posted to back this claim up.--Dash77 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be an Internet rumor, and I see that the Wikipedia article has been used as a source. This is a serious allegation. The page should be semi-protected at least. Have so requested on WP:RFP.--Mantanmoreland 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both articles have been semi-protected for a period of one week.--Mantanmoreland 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Khalid bin Mahfouz

    Khalid bin Mahfouz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The subject of the article has sued numerous times in response to allegations of terror financing. In 2004, wikipedia received legal contact about our article.

    I recently had a look at the article, and found that some portions of the article were unsourced or cited an unreliable source. I also found some cases where the article might not be of encyclopedic tone.

    I'm not as active with wikipedia these days as I wish I could be, so could someone with more spare time than me check that all of the statements made in the article (and mentions of him elsewhere in the encyclopedia) cite reliable sources, and that we aren't citing anything that has since been retracted?

    Thanks, Andjam 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A Mahfouz representative had at one point objected to portions of the article, it has been rebuilt several times since then. As with other controversial figures accused of funding terrorism the article appears unbalanced due to the relative scarcity of sources for fleshing out biographical detail in contrast to the abundance of documented allegations. However, I assure you that no source has been misrepresented. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Howard

    There's been a whole lot going on with this one, so anything I say right now would be out of date in 5 minutes. Suffice it to say that the guy is apparently very controversial in Australia, and a lot of stuff is getting put in which seems to violate undue weight or be very tangentially related to the person himself. It could certainly use some eyes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Jakobek

    Unsourced rumors of political corruption inserted into text. --221.114.141.220 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He does not seem notable enough for an article in the first place. He was only a city councilman. Steve Dufour 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks kind of ugly, but Jakobek was budget chief for 10 years - not exactly a random alderman. WilyD 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my mind about the article since the space given to the controversy has been reduced. I now think it's ok for WP.Steve Dufour 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Winter

    Can we say he's a freemason?

    There is a dispute over whether he is or is not a Freemason, and the statement's inclusion in the article.

    Either ComeOnBoro is telling the truth, or perhaps Winter would like to conceal the fact that he is a freemason.

    The published source: http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-12/p-41.php seems to be relatively trustworthy, and very much appears to be official publication from the Freemasons.

    Can anyone with more experience on such matters advise whether the statement should be included, on grounds that Wikipedia does not censor, or removed?  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The solution is to attribute to a source. It shouldn't be in the lead. I've cleaned up the page a little, though I question the WP:WEIGHT if the subject of the article disagrees with the claim. I leave that decision to other editors. THF 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it about footballers? I can't imagine another sport in which a referee is considered such an important figure. :-) Steve Dufour 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SCO-related parties

    I'm far from a fan of the SCO v. IBM litigation, but the articles relating to minor personages associated with the dispute have WEIGHT problems, and could use BLP scrutiny to ensure compliance there. I've prod'd Maureen O'Gara, whose article consists of complaints about her article about Pamela Jones. THF 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is removing my questions as a 'BLP' violation

    I posted the questions below to Crockspots administrator election and editor Tbeatty keeps removing it. What is the problem?

    More questions from Bmedley Sutler

    15. I saw on your home Wikipedia userpage that you are a member of a group called Conservative Underground, so I went there. It is a disturbing site with a lot of hate, against many groups but mostly Gays and Liberals, IMO. I looked at some of your posts. I fear that you maybe aren't right to be an administrator when you make homophobic claims like : "Pretty much any dude with "bear" in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass." Link. Could you explain that claim a little more? Isn't that pretty homophobic? And this one "I've noticed what seemed like an organized, or at least coincidentally coordinated, effort on Wikipedia to scrub any citations of Bill O'Reilly criticizing liberals. They pull every possible justification for it out of their asses, like "O'Reilly not a notable person", "spam links", "O'Reilly is not a reliable source, neither is Fox News.", etc. ad nauseum." Is that a canvassing? The O'Reilly Soros thing was one of your biggest battles Link Another thread called "Fags and Firearms" Link that you posted in is full of homophobic hate. Is that the sort of NPOV we need from an administrator? Will you keep posting homophobic hate there if you become an administrator? Is your possible homophobia the reason you have fighted so hard to keep claims of homosexuality from the Matt Drudge article? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Characterizing people as homophobic without a reliable source is a BLP violation as well as a personal attack. --Tbeatty 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Hicks

    The article has zero references, and has been tagged as such since Feb 11, 2007, but said he was an "alleged gang member" as well as the owner of a car used in a murder and incarcerated awaiting trial for another murder. I blanked the article, even though it was up for AFD, and even though some of the statements may be sourceable to news stories. This seems to be in accord with the WP:BLP policy to immediately remove unreferenced allegations of criminality. Edison 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Terry Gerin

    Terry Gerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there are a number of people, no need to name names, who do not believe that WP:BLP needs to apply to living subjects they are interested in. Please review the history of this article for details. Burntsauce 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attacks_by_Moe_Epsilon and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.onlineworldofwrestling.com. You still haven't proved you're right. Your blanking non-contentious material, which was not in violation of BLP. A BLP vio is when contentious material, good or bad, is written on an individual. Nothing you blanked was in violation, and you have proven in the past as Rodney Anoai and Warrior (wrestler) to make the same mistake. — Moe ε 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anna Svidersky

    The article concerns a murdered teenager and includes her present family amongst other people. This highly offensive edit summary [52] needs to be deleted and the editor who left it warned to refrain from such abusive language in future. Tyrenius 10:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ a b c http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/08/sports/fans09.php
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=151387021"