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 SineBot (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 9 December 2007 (Signing comment by 62.56.90.183 - "→‎Gerard Davis: new section"). 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:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Individual articles

    Richard Syron (closed)

    Please delete my biography from the Wikipedia

    Because of repeated vandalism that I have been prevented from correcting, my biography is continutally inaccurate and significantly misrepresents both me and my work.

    Therefore, I hereby request that my biography be deleted from the Wikipedia.

    Sincerely,

    Carl Hewitt —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonaKea (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want it to be deleted you will have to do it through an AFD. Oysterguitarist 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't differ that much from the short biography found here. —Ruud 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have your lawyer contact the WikiMedia Foundation. WAS 4.250 02:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for what you can do about factual errors in a biography about yourself. –panda 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikipedia harassment of Professor Hewitt has to stop

    The Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for harassing Professor Hewitt. Arthur Rubin took away his category as an American Logician. Then Ruud Koot deliberately insulted Professor Hewitt by taking away his Emeritus title and he changed the title of Hewitt's "Seminars, Publications, and Academic Biography" to "blog", which is (deliberately?) misleading. Also Ruud has been censoring those who attempted to protest his antics. First they called it the "Great Firewall of Ruud." But recently I have heard it referred to as "Ruud's Musharraf Strategy."

    The Wikipedia harassment of Professor Hewitt has to stop.--LittleSur 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article on Professor Hewitt is still being censored and the harassment has continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.33.196 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article on Professor Hewitt is still being censored and the harassment has continued.--WestNahant (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruud has continued the abuse, which is reminiscent of an incident in the history of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.--208.54.15.157 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Great Purge has begun! See

    and Ruud Koot’s latest edits to

    --63.249.108.250 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no objection, provided the articles on Actor model and his interpretation of concurrent computing are also deleted. (He's not a mathematical logician. I'm not qualified to decide if he's a philosophical logician.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ron Paul

    User:Vidor introduced into Ron Paul the statement that "Paul wrote" certain racist statements which Paul claims were written by someone else. When I reverted, Vidor made this same charge twice more on the Talk page. Believing that WP:BLP trumps WP:TALK, I added "alleged" the first time, deleted the claim from Vidor's comments (4 times) the second time, and gave Vidor a level-3 BLP warning (3 violations). OrangeMike, a helpful editor, restored Vidor's original (apparently violative) comments, but accepted my argument and let me remove them again. Now User:68.162.80.156 has appeared and restored Vidor's comments again twice, for which I gave the IP a level-2 and level-4 warning (it is clear the IP is familiar with me and the Paul page because it alludes to my outing sockpuppets of James Salsman). Still believing that WP:BLP trumps WP:TALK, I will proceed to delete Vidor's comments again. If the IP restores these comments, I believe it is ripe for block on that count. I believe its latest comments also make it ripe for temporary block as an obvious sockpuppet ("I'm editing from an IP because I feel like it and because Wikipedia policy permits me to do so"; no valid reason stated for the account's use by a clearly experienced editor; account used only for racism controversies). I would appreciate it if someone would (1) let me know if my interpretation of WP:BLP is correct; (2) see if checkuser can tie this account to another; (3) block the IP and/or main account if warranted. This narrative can be verified by consulting the IP's contributions and the Talk:Ron Paul history. John J. Bulten 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar case today. An IP adds unsourced opinions to Talk:Ron Paul hinting that Paul condones racism, sexism, and rape, I delete, longtime editor PhotoUploaded restores, I delete again. I deleted similar opinions from Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul, which was the IP's only other edit. I'm surprised that this question has gone unanswered. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior has stopped, so (2) and (3) can be ignored, but I would still appreciate either an answer or referral to a better place to ask the question. John J. Bulten 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. WP:BLP does trump WP:TALK. (That said, I suspect that rather than edit another user's comments as you did the first time, it is better to remove them in the first place and leave a note explaining why on the page. You might also supply alternative language for discourse, if there's a way to discuss the issue without violating BLP, if it is evident that the user has legitimate interest in the article and is not simply vandalizing, in the "X Celebrity is gay!" vein. :))
    In terms of your question about a better place to ask, it may be that your questions went unanswered because few of the volunteers on this board are likely to be authorized to do checkuser and so may have left your request to offer assistance where they could. In general, when I've asked for assistance and received none, I look for alternative venues where I can ask. Given your circumstances, I might have asked for a confirmation of my reading of policy at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, since no outside intervention is required there, and taken the actual intervention request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser, where it is more likely to be seen by an admin authorized to follow up.
    Sorry that no one offered an opinion on your question. I know how frustrating that can be, and I know that as you get moved up the queue the odds of receiving an answer at all diminish. I probably would not have seen your question myself if you had not been the most recent contributor when I checked my watchlist on first logging on. I hope my response is in some way helpful to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Wolfowitz‎

    Resolved

    Should a Wikinews interview interviewing a third party, who accuses the subject of—among other things—two extra-marital affairs be in the body of an article on the Wikinews template?

    I think that Wikinews interviews shouldn't even be allowed as external links in such case. It's hard to imagine that a interview like this would satisfy the requirements of WP:EL. On the prominent Wikinews template in the body of the article, it looks like a clear BLP/WEIGHT to me problem.

    Full disclosure: I have a very rocky past with user adding this article. He considers a lot of my recent activity harassment, but this is a good-faith BLP concern that I have about third-party Wikinews links in BLPs generally. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing good faith about this. Wikinews is a sister project of the Wikimedia foundation. In fact, links to the interviews are even Wikified and there are templates. All interviews are recorded and transcribed. They are all conducted with notable people on a subject. The interview in question is with Vanity Fair contributing editor Craig Unger, who is also a Fellow at New York University Law School, former editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine, former deputy editor of the New York Observer. He is a New York Times best-selling author, and is well aware of libel issues. He is a journalist of the highest degree. We include notable journalists and their research and insight on almost every article, whether it be Bob Woodward or William Kristol. Indeed, Craig Unger is cited as a source on the Dick Cheney article.
    The problem is that:
    1. Cool Hand Luke is harassing me and he has been for a few days because he was on the losing side of a contentious ArbCom where he represented User:THF in a dispute I had.
    2. Cool Hand Luke doesn't like what Unger says.
    All of Unger's statements are researched; indeed...the information is already found on other Wikipedia articles. One only has to look at Shaha Ali Riza to see. Luke's harassment, where he is seeking to suppress information he doesn't like in an effort to bother me, is becoming a problem. In fact, I could easily cite to Unger's book in these articles with ALL of the same information that is found on a sister project interview. And I could cite to the same sources Craig Unger cites. Instead, there is a box leading to an interview if people are curious. But it is all information that is already found on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good faith. I think BLP is an important policy, as my frequent participation on WT:BLP suggests. There does not seem to be any information about this first affair. To include this information we would normally have to say it's an op-ed or Unger's view. We shouldn't make irresponsible BLP claims, nor should we link to those claims without qualification.
    I'm not sure I have an opinion on Wolfowitz‎, but I think we should be careful including potentially defamatory links in all biographies. Cool Hand Luke 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. We link to articles that cover these things anyway. We aren't Craig Unger's fact checkers - Craig Unger is and he has sources and he is a very credible journalist. You are basically questioning someone who has written a book that is well-sourced, and that's great since it's selective. You are a known conservative on the project, so no need to be coy, and you simply don't like what Unger has written and said. But that is not a policy issue since he is a journalist who has his sources, and Wolfowitz's affairs aren't undocumented in other places.[14] [15], et. al. This really comes down to your politics, CHL. You are second-guessing a highly credible source, and what you are doing just boils down to musing. --David Shankbone 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I become a known conservative on the project? What do you know of my opinions? I think most conservatives are not exactly fond of Bush or Wolfowitz. Does this go toward commenting on the contributer? I really don't have a view. This is just not a reliable source nor an EL-compliant link from BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The "interview" is laced with David's POV, and he is the one edit warring to link it here. This raises many red flags for me, given that there seems to be a fast track from David's POV to the encyclopedia:

    • David puts on his "Wikinews" hat and interviews someone who agrees with his POV. He then steers the interview to reflect his own POV (I can point to several examples of this).
    • David "publishes" his interview on Wikinews.
    • David removes his "Wikinews" hat and put on his "Wikipedia editor" hat. He then links to his Wikinews article as a reliable reference on the BLP articles of those who were subject to criticism in the interview.

    Does anyone else have serious concerns about this fast-tracking of one editor's views into Wikipedia articles, especially BLP articles? Even if Wikinews is a reliable source (questionable), even if the interview were conducted with a neutral tone (it's not), should the author of the interview himself be adding links to it in BLP articles? ATren 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And now we have the other ArbCom warrior who is also adept at trolling my edits. Both CHL and ATren were on the losing side of an ArbCom, and now they are trolling my edits and work. I have not only interviewed liberals like Craig Unger, but conservatives like Evangelical Senator Sam Brownback and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, and I am going to be interviewing a third Republican Presidential candidate tomorrow. In fact, my interviews are all across the board, they are all transcribed, and if somebody doesn't like what one of those people say, they can talk to them. But this is exactly what Wikinews was designed to do by the Wikimedia Foundation; we just happen to have two people who left an ArbCom without the results they wanted harassing me now. --David Shankbone 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not call me a warrior and a troll. You are the one who harassed me for several weeks by bringing up a year-old conflict. Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a "warrior"? ATren 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the problem with Paul Wolfowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on Wikipedia or with an article on Wikinews? Please show diffs. In general, I do not believe Wikinews meets reliable source criteria (if Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, can Wikinews be considered so?), especially in any situation where the reporter on Wikinews is also the editor on Wikipedia. Thatcher131 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I see now. I'd like to see an example of a conservative Wikipedia editor interviewing a conservative author and then linking to the interview in an article about a liberal figure about whom the author has written. Thatcher131 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would in effect be like saying we can't link to Wikiquotes or Wikisource. And yes, I've interviewed conservatives as well. For instance, my interview with Senator Sam Brownback is linked to on the Traditional Marriage Movement. I'd be happy to link to articles criticizing liberals by conservatives, I just don't have one. --David Shankbone 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ATren: I don't generally see a problem with it. Interviews with a subject are sensible links from that subject. What I find problematic is using that subjects views about a third party to link that interview from third party articles. This is basically self-published commentary on BLPs, which has been discussed a lot on WT:V and WT:BLP recently. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We link to other Wikipedia articles all the time. Inter-wiki links, including to sister projects, are not verboten. Other Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, either, and contain commentary. Should we not include them, either? --David Shankbone 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I think such links are generally good, but they don't belong in third-party BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Journalists are used as sources throughout the Wolfowitz article, and this is no different. Aside from that, there is no reason not to include a recorded and transcribed interview with a source that is entirely incredible, just because Wikinews conducts it. Especially since that person is discussed at length. If you want to do a laudatory interview with Wolfowitz or someone at the AEI, then that should be included as well. I myself would be happy to conduct such an interview. --David Shankbone 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be happy with that. Dueling partisan links are not an encyclopedia. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia, not to praise or demean living people.
    Removal is not because Wikinews hosts it. If this were any other interview, we wound never include it in the body of the article as a sidebar. If we included it at all, it would be as an op-ed EL, and if Wolfowitz‎'s links were properly pruned, it wouldn't have a place there either. Enumerable similarly "expert" people have opinions about others. They are interviewed, post on their blogs, and even publish about it. We should not treat Wikinews differently in the case of third-party interviews. It fails WEIGHT & NPOV, RS, BLP, ect. Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are applying policy and guideline as if I took the entire interview and planted it within the article, and that's not the case. NPOV is not the issue here, and it does not fail WEIGHT (Wolfowoitz and The Office of Special Plans, and its development under Wolfowitz, are not minor issues); nor BLP nor RS. You cite policy and guideline without providing any reasoning - as it it's just obvious, and it's not. You're just wrong. --David Shankbone 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't David an accredited journalist, and Wikinews a valid source for linking to in general? I ask as I see that on the Reliable Source noticeboard, we endorse linking to sources that are penned or authored by people who are also Wikipedia editors, even if they are in some sort of conflict with them, such as User:Dking and his LaRouche website, which is generally all negative towards it's subject? Wouldn't the same standard be applicable here according to policy? I was specifically thinking of this discussion where the idea was endorsed, and that outside website by a journalist (Dking) is amazingly more negative overall than the odd comment in this Wikinews interview by the interview subject. • Lawrence Cohen 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes. User seems to have monumental COI issues.[16] I don't think this behavior should be held up as a model. Cool Hand Luke 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned it as I had David's page on my watchlist after working with him before, and I watch the sources board pretty reliably. It seems that precedent is accepted that journalists who have outside work are free to link sources related to them back into Wikipedia. Unless theres a policy against that, I don't know if I see a problem with David's linked Wikinews story. • Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of this sort of discussion is covered by William M. Connelly. I also note ATren was railing against him over some of these same issues, which were addressed there. --David Shankbone 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No no no. Wikinews is as unreliable as Wikipedia. Such an interview may be includable in the article about the person being interviewed, but third party references are clearly a violation of the spirit of the various rules in WP:V and WP:BLP regarding self-published sources. What editorial process/oversight stands between David Shankbone and the publishing of his interview? None that I am aware of. I would revert such an inclusion until the cows come home, and do so exempt from 3RR, per the BLP policy. - Crockspot 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikinews is not a reliable news source? Is Signpost? Why? [citation needed] • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews. • Lawrence Cohen 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I really have to explain this? It is fairly well spelled out in WP:V. Reliable sources have editorial oversight. They are also not wikis, which can be edited by anyone, and no assurance can be given that a reader will not get a page full of "POOP" when they load the source. Can you show me anywhere where Signpost is used as a reliable source in an article on information about a third party? - Crockspot 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked your question back to this discussion, since you failed to mention that your question is in the context of a BLP article, and third party commenting on a living subject, which makes a huge amount of difference. - Crockspot 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and thank you for that. David, Atren, Luke, and yourself all appear to be a bit too close to the Wolfowitz issue as semi-involved to having a possible COI stake in this case which is why I wanted to try to offer an outside view, and get more visibility on the case from the RS board. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that assumption of good faith, considering that I do not recall ever editing the Wolfowitz article, and have been a volunteer on this board since the day it was created. - Crockspot 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sincerely, no disrespect was meant. It was a bad turn of phrase on my part. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me to make sense to link when the interview is with the person directly. For example, on Craig Unger. Linking to general interviews that happen to talk about someone seems problematic not just from a BLP concern but also because they simply aren't the thrust of the interview and so the interview is only marginally related (if it were as an external link we would likely say no even without the BLP concern). JoshuaZ 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion then is that in general, Wikinews is a fine source, but not in this case? I'm just curious what the standard would be if CNN aired this interview, or Time Magazine printed it. Would it be acceptable then in this case to include on Wolfowitz? • Lawrence Cohen 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be attempting to draw a conclusion that is unrelated to the comment he made. He said nothing about the suitability of wikisource, he commented generally about interviews as sources. Interviews are generally to be treated as primary sources, since there is not usually a process of fact checking that goes on, other than to verify that the printed words are what came out of the interviewee's mouth. When the interviewee is commenting on a third party who is living, we get into a BLP issue, no matter where that interview was published. - Crockspot 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that is fair. I'm genuinely curious about the suitability though of Wikinews, and on BLPs especially. In regards to interviews, though, what if the interview subject is himself a reliable source or expert on a topic? I would imagine, for example, that any comments about George W. Bush made by Laura Bush in an interview would be perfectly fine to include at least under BLP in GWB's article. Likewise, an interview with an expert on a given person I imagine would be acceptable, as well. Or am I wrong? • Lawrence Cohen 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same question. --David Shankbone 19:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are probably several million possible permutations of hypothetical situations I could comment on. Let's stick to actual issues and situations. - Crockspot 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem here is using a third party to comment on a living person. The Wikinews aspect merely exasperates the problem because of the prominent and official-looking template. I posit we would never use such interviews, unqualified, for BLP information, but we should certainly not link to the article in a bold sidebar. Cool Hand Luke 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So BLP would prohibit passages such as, "In an interview, journalist and expert on New York Mafia, Mitch McSmith says, 'Johnny Jones is known for his ties to New York Mafia," if the interview is about some other topic, such as NASA, or specifically an interview about Mitch McSmith, it's forbidden? But at the same token, if Mitch McSmith writes in a book that Johnny Jones has gangster ties, we can use it as he's an expert? Does his expert status have a BLP clause because he made his statement in a different forum? That confuses me and doesn't seem to square with other notions of reliable sourcing, as it puts a big clause on there. It's like saying we can quote George Bush for calling the President of Iran the President of the Axis of Evil on a State of the Union, but we can't use that if Bush says it while giving an interview on the Today Show about his favorite Texas recipes. • Lawrence Cohen 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CHL: I think I see your point on this. However, I disagree with Crockspot's take on it, which appears to be unequivocal. If you could take off your fighting gloves, how would this affect the recent interview I published with the Dalai Lama's representative, where we specifically discuss the status of the 11th Panchen Lama, who disappeared when he was six years old because he was not the Chinese government's deigned religious leader? I put a "See also" on his page. Does this fail your criteria, or is it different? I'm asking in all good faith; I realize there is nuance here. --David Shankbone 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can make quotes with attribution, but this is not a notable attributed quote (which would be reported by other sources). It's not even classified as an opinion link, like the op-eds are. It should be a regular opinion link at the bottom of the page if included at all. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So Unger isn't an expert on Wolfowitz, having written a published book on the whole thing as a journalist? I thought the established precedent for DKing and Cberlet that I saw on the RS Noticeboard covered comments from experts on BLPs from various forums being fine sources. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, isn't an expertise exception to BLP—BLPs adhere to a higher standard. Second, writing a book about the Bush administration does not make all of ones remarks about a dozen living people automatically notable and deserving of a special sidebar. Books and political criticism is not rare, and an encyclopedia is not improved by prominently linking to the unverified off-the-cuff remarks which were fortunate enough to find their way to a Wikinews reporter's ears. Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the main issue is BLP? There is not an issue with the article on Office of Special Plans, then, since it's about the office and not a biography of a person? --David Shankbone 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      BLP applies to information anywhere on wikipedia, whether it is in a BLP article, a non-biography, a talk page, or in user space. But I'm sure you already know that. You wouldn't be trying to wikilawyer some kind of loophole here, would you? - Crockspot 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your bad faith question infers, but how would BLP be an issue on such an article? --David Shankbone 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Using it as a source of biographical information. A bare link is probably not against BLP, although it should be on-topic. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As an additional note (unless I'm misreading; there is a lot of information), the contentious information about Wolfowitz that Unger said in his interview with David, that some don't want to link from the article via Wikinews, is functionally in the Wolfowitz article already in the extensive coverage of his romantic relationship with that World Bank staffer, from various sources. It appears that David's Wikinews interview just has an affirmation of all that, and basically functions as a supplemental source. • Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong. In BLPs, no source (and no claim) is better than a poor source. All of his claims are not currently covered in the article, so I fail to see how it's confirming anything, but insofar that it acts as a confirmation, we should keep the reliable sources and dump the unreliable ones (including this interview of a third party). We can't use reliable sources to excuse unreliable ones. Cool Hand Luke 21:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unger is not an unreliable source. --David Shankbone 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unger is a person, not a source. Your interview with Unger is presumably a reliable account of Unger's views. The interview, however, is not a reliable source for biographical details about other living people. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it differ from the multiple journalists quoted in the section Paul_Wolfowitz#Wolfowitz.27s_relationship_with_Shaha_Riza? --David Shankbone 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sources has its own sidebar (the WEIGHT issue I mentioned), none of this is presented without qualifications. That is, they all have controversial or derogatory claims have sources and attribution, which makes their point of view clear. Finally, there's a measure of fact-checking that tends to make non-self-published sources more reliable for biographical details. Cool Hand Luke 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing, both The Telegraph and the Washington Post (the first two citations) have editors, and editorial policies that require that reporters talk to multiple sources, and lawyers who make sure that potentially libelous content is properly sourced and vetted. None of that applies here. It might apply if you were quoting from one of Unger's books, which presumably has gone through a similar process. Your interview might qualify if it was published in Mother Jones or Vanity Fair or The New Republic etc., where it also would have been subject to editorial review and oversight (although it still would be unacceptable to cite yourself and then edit war when questioned). But your unfiltered interview does not meet those standards. Thatcher131 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view is that this is not a BLP issue because the only fact that was being added was that Wikinews had an interview with Craig Unger who discussed a subject relevant to Paul Wolfowitz. That fact is undeniably true - such an interview is on Wikinews. The contents of the interview are a matter for Wikinews to debate. However, I would agree that it is probably inappropriate per external links policy to link the interview from Paul Wolfowitz, not because of the discussion of his private life, but for three separate reasons. Firstly Craig Unger is talking in fairly abstract terms about the administration and not in specific terms about what Paul Wolfowitz himself did. Secondly, he is known to be a high-profile critic of the Bush administration generally. Thirdly, Unger does not state his sources but simply says "My sources say ..." which does not allow for further checks on the basis of what he is saying. It would be legitimate to link this interview from Craig Unger's page but not, in my view, from the pages on the people he happens to mention in his interview. Sam Blacketer 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. David has linked his interview to 7 or 8 other articles. Thatcher131 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Unger is a super reliable source. Certainly his writings on October Surprise have stood the test of time, and remain a fine example of inves5igative journalism .... its not like he has a bone to pick or an axe to grind, and he certainly wouldn't stoop to the level of using any source, regardless of reliability, to bolster his work. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well said (if sarcastic). The notion that a partisan reporter's extemporaneous remarks are a reliable source for living people flies in the face of WP:BLP. Partisan books don't put a commentator above BLP. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't take that as sarcastic because on the Ari Ben-Menashe Unger specifically cautions, back in 1992, using him as a source. And just because you do not like a reporter's politics doesn't mean their information is inaccurate. --David Shankbone 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "claimed caution" after using him as a source for years ... what that about page A1 stories and page D15 retractions ...... Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because they're partisans who have written two books against the Bush administration doesn't mean all of their uttered claims are reliable. The burden in BLPs is on those who wish to demonstrate the source is reliable. There is no "expert" exception to primary self-published claims in BLPs, and even if there were, partisan books do not demonstrate expertise. Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a minute. This is as much OR as if David Shankbone had performed the interview and just added it direct to the Wikipedia article. Posting it first in Wikinews doesn't change the OR violation one iota. Corvus cornix 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OR isn't allowed on Wikipedia, but it allowed on a sister project. The OR policy states that WP is not to be used for OR - but that doesn't mean that OR, as evidenced with many other editors, is disallowed to make it on here, especially since it's the words of a notable person (as opposed to a study, etc.) --David Shankbone 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with CoolHandLuke and Thatcher131. This is inappropriate. It's not as if there is any shortage of journalists, even journalists at major papers, with strong opinions about Paul Wolfowitz, we have many better sources than this, which smacks of original research. In this interview, Unger is speaking off the cuff, he is using his memory, he isn't checking his sources for every statement he makes. We can cite his books, if Unger wrote an article, we can cite that, because then he probably is checking every sentence is in the right place, but this interview can really only be cited for Unger's views on Wolfowitz. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree as well and have withdrawn support of including it. --David Shankbone 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm coming late to this discussion, but I agree that we shouldn't link to a Wikinews interview in an article on a 3rd party. I'd set the same standard for self-published interviews. While we may assume that the interviewee actually said what's attributed to him or her, we can't be sure that the 3rd party has been made aware of the comments or has been given an opportunity to set the record straight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has reinserted links to the article by quoting it as reference, which I still question. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Megan Meier

    This is more of a heads-up. The subject is a 13-year-old driven to suicide by a MySpace boyfriend, who was a hoax perpetrated by an adult neighbor (being ironically overprotective of her own daughter). This woman has not been named in any reliable source at this time, but has been outed by blogs. It was in the article, but I removed it, as the footnoted source was either a) the original newspaper article which carefully avoided naming her and her husband, or b) the gossip blog Jezebel.com. There will almost certainly be attempts by anons and maybe editors to reinsert the information. There are no criminal charges against this person, nor any civil suit. The article remains full of blog sources, but it has hit the wire services in the last day or so. I hope that some BLP patrollers will add it to their watchlists. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's on my watchlist, and I have also created a google news alert for the story. If any blog sources are used to name the family who did this terrible deed, I will remove the information. The first instant that a newspaper actually mentions the name, I will insert it. Jeffpw (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Meier. Also, the blogs were not acceptable sources. • Lawrence Cohen 11:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That article needs to be deleted. Hope it does: a person does not become notable just become the person kills herself. 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    On the other hand the idea of becoming the subject of a WP bio could deter people from doing it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oversighting is probably in order, even after deletion. - Crockspot (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Feh, I see the nom was withdrawn. Unfortunate. It should be deleted and oversighted anyway. - Crockspot (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was renamed earlier to Megan Meier suicide controversy after notability was established. Just posting again to ask that a couple of people watchlist it. It is semi-protected right now, but you never know what might creep into the talk page. • Lawrence Cohen 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2006 Bilderberg Meeting

    I've redirected this to Bilderberg Group, and protected the redirect, because of inadequate citation. Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though prisonplanet.com is considered by some editors as unreliable source, this case appears to me different. Alex Jones was on site for the Bilderberg meeting, and the images of the guest list look authentic. So what you are suggesting here is that an eye witness account is an unreliable source.
    The participant list for 2005 has a different source, or do you consider all sources regarding this topic unreliable, because the Bilderberg Group itself has no spokesperson? --Lord Chao (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Prisonplanet.com is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of its operator. A reliable source would be the Washington Post, the BBC, or maybe the organization itself. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Coco Fusco

    Coco Fusco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was most certainly written by Fusco herself, and has no sourcing whatsoever.

    Regina_Russell

    The "Discussion" session seems to have gotten carried away with two folks exchanging various opinions that have gotten to the edge of personal attacks between two individuals. Does not appear to really fit into a Wikipedia page as much as it would a BLOG on MySpace or another fansite dedicated to Ms. Russell. Would like to get a call from this group as to whether all the "Identity" topic currently in the "Discussions" area should be removed. The article itself is fine and Ms. Russell herself has posted updates to it on occasion. The only area of concern is the current discussion discussing her background and the exchange of opinions. Thanks in advance. UnitedNut — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedNut (talk • contribs) 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    Christopher Tookey

    Johnny Sutton

    There has been an extended edit war here, as a single editor running at least three accounts has been POV pushing in such a manner as to clearly violate WP:BLP. If anyone wants to take a look at it, likely needs to be blocked again. Last time the block lasted one week, I would recommend a longer duration this time, as the material is rather static. Brimba 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Firoz Kassam

    Resolved

    Several mildly defamatory remarks, probably not NPOV. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed unsourced material as per WP:BLP. Will add to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Helena Wolińska-Brus

    I cleaned this article from BLP problems in the past. It to be edging towards a being a problem again. changes since my cleanup. I am worried that one statement goes to far right now, but I am not certain were the line is on this. Others eyes, please check out.--BirgitteSB 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ellen Pompeo & Chris Ivery

    An anon user has been inserting that Chris Ivery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a convicted felon and also has also put the information at his wives article, Ellen Pompeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Originally no sources were included so it was a simple matter of removal. However, the anon has now found a source but it's Star (magazine). Is this a proper source for the material? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Star as a reliable source? Bloody hell. Revert it. Supermarket tabloids are never considered reliable sources for controversial and negative material. If it's really an issue then he can find a better source than that. Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason to put it in the wife's article - whether or not he was a convicted felon, it has no relevance to her and is guilt by association. FCYTravis (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Course not. Gave a biog4, block on sight if it happens again. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I forgot all about this. When I checked I found that all the sources were tabloids. Should have been The Morning Star. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina Watson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Watson

    Was going to "speedy" the article as was Pigman due to violations of BLP, not on the subject, but on the husband. Looking for confirmation that this would be appropriate in this situation. (Looking at the AfD, it's 100% delete w/ 4 opinions). SkierRMH (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alison took action on this. I should have trusted my first instinct and done it myself. Love her summary: "Utterly unsourced / POV-laden / massive BLP nightmare" Fits the article to a T. Pigman☿ 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Kurtz

    I believe this article is written to be intentionally biased and portray the subject as a victim, which serves the subjects political, professioanal and personal agenda.

    I have made several attempts to add a simple reference to sworn depositions, by Edith Balas, and Joan Maier, in a 1998 Federal Court case, US District Court, Case number: 2:98-CV-01516, Pittsburgh, PA, on discrimination. Edith Balas and Joan Maier were not part of the lawsuit, but were witnesses for the plaintiff. Steve Kurtz was not part of the lawsuit, but was a witness for the defendant. The depositions reveal valuable historical information about Kurtz.

    Edith Balas is an Auschwitz survivor, and was part of a small art history department, that Steve Kurtz joined as a faculty member, in 1995. In her deposition, she describes her experiences with him, which contradict the articles POV, and Steve Kurtz as an innocent victim. Joan Maier, in her deposition, supports the statements by Edith Balas.

    This is not an active case, and there is no agenda, other than to offer readers access to information which is not biased towards painting Kurtz as an innocent victim. The reference does not contain the subject of the lawsuit, nor is it's subject being discussed here.

    The editor, FreshAcconci, repeatedly removed my entries. He cited shifting WP rules, on why they should be removed. When I then, only tried to post the reference to the case, under the "see also" heading, it too was deleted.

    Later, when I defended my entry in the discussion section, I inadvertantly made a reference to my identity. I later removed this reference, because I had previously received physical threats during the lawsuit in Pittsburgh. I emailed Fresh Acconnci offline, and asked him to keep these edits out, because it put me in harms way. He ignired this request, and then, immediately added the edits back in, and used them to insight further accusations towards me. Finally, after several attempts to reason with him, he agreed to remove them. But within minutes, another editor, also involved in the arts, removed a complete entry I made on the discussion page, and then later, addded the reference to my identity back in, in another edit.

    The efforts these 2 editors have made to keep out the reference to the 1998 deposition of Edith Balas, has been very aggressive. They say it is because they wish to keep the article neutral, but in truth, by only including information which supports one view of Kurtz as a "victim", they have created a biased article to serve their agenda.

    They are both colleagues of Kurtz, as they work in or participate in his profession. They have something to gain professionally by maintaining the article in this light. I am not in the arts professionally, and have nothing to gain or lose, by adding this reference.

    It is not derogatory to add the reference. It does however allow the readers access to a legal document, that offers more information about Kurtz and his history, which does not paint him with a singular brush.

    I am not trying to provide a new analysis on Kurtz. I am only wishing to add this reference into the article, as it is a primary source on him.

    Thanks,

    From FCYTravis

    67.170.116.209 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

    You must immediately refrain from any attempts at inserting the information, as you have an irreconcilable conflict of interest on the issue. In keeping with your wish for privacy, I have redacted my previous posting, which contains a diff in which you admit the conflict of interest, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously demand privacy while pretending to be a disinterested party - which you are not. If you again insert the information, you will be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My Reply to FCYTravis

    I do not have a conflict of interest with Steve Kurtz. This is an incorrect accusation, based on no legitimate facts. WP allows for direct observation. As I mentioned before, I worked with Steve Kurtz in the past, and observed the depostions in question. This is no more of a conflict of interest than anyone else currently working with him, or working in his field who will gain by supporting his agenda, or someone who shares his political agenda and wishes to see it maintained. I think it is pertinant to include the reference to the testimony of Edith Balas. It is a legitimate primary source. I would like to add it to the See Also section. I have been stopped from doing this. I believe there is an active bias on the part of the editors involved in this article, to not allow other information in which does not support their agenda. This is against WP policy. Other2 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other[reply]

    Once again, you cannot have it both ways. You have admitted your conflict of interest in the issue at hand. If you wish the specific conflict to be kept private, you will refrain from involving yourself in the article in question. You cannot keep inserting it and simultaneously demand that users refrain from discussing your potential self-interest in inserting it. FCYTravis (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My Reply-- You are using circular logic, in order to convey a false premise. There ALREADY has been a discussion of my possible self-interest, and there is no legitimate claim. What about your self-interest? How can you block me from adding a citation, to a legitmate historical public document: the sworn legal testimony of Edith Balas. This has nothing to do with me. It is from a case long ago closed, and settled. The premise of the case has no relation to Steve Kurtz and should not be included. But the depositon of Edith does. And again, what is your background? Where do you work, in what field? Where did you go to school? How do we know you are a neutral editor? 67.170.116.209 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

    I will say it one more time. If you insist on pressing this issue, then you may not make any claim to "privacy" as to the matter of the lawsuit. You have admitted your own potential bias here, and you may not continue to edit the subject behind the shield of "privacy." Either cease editing the article, or I shall cease giving you the courtesy of not spelling out the true extent of this matter. There is a clear question as to why you may want to insert unsubstantiated and potentially irrelevant statements from a legal deposition into the biography of a living person.
    I am happy to make clear the fact that I am entirely non-involved in the case and do not personally know any of the parties. FCYTravis (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You talk as though you have some other interest than you have stated. In any case, it is a moot point, as I believe it is more meaningfiul what detail you and others want kept out of this documement. I will not attempt to add anything further to the article, as I said earlier. I believe as it appears in other sources it will make the omission here seem meaningful.67.170.116.209 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

    Aron Tendler

    Article about a Rabbi who has been accused of sexual impropriety. He has not been charged or convicted, there are just rumors reported in the press. This seems an obvious BLP violation to me, but perhaps I am misreading the situation. Another set of eyes would be appreciated. It is currently up for deletion, and I expressed my concerns there; nobody listened, and I think it will be kept. I would thus like it to meet Wikipedia guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is much more broad and discusses his 30 year history as a prominent rabbi in the LA area. The rumors about Tendler are many, yet none of these rumors are mentioned in the article. His early and forced resignation is mentioned and three major and reliable press sources who printed allegations about him, are referenced. The article merely says that the allegations have been made in the press, it expressly does not quote the allegations as anything other than that. And that is fine for wikipedia, since if three publications have printed something wikipedia can reference that. The rumors about him are summarized by Luke Ford here, but that does not belong in wikipedia as Ford is not sufficiently reliable.Lobojo (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had removed the material I felt was in violation, and Lobojo has reinstated it. I will not revert, but would appreciate it if disinterested parties could evaluate the article with respect to BLP policy. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the key word here is "rumors" - we should be very reluctant to include such material in biographies of living people. The accusations have not been widely reported and nothing seems to have been proved against this person. Therefore, per WP:BLP, I do not think the material its present state is appropriate and I have removed it. I suggest talkpage discussion to agree an appropriate level of sourcing for the accusations if they are to be reported. My instinct however is that these should be left out until those rumors are confirmed to be true. WjBscribe 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Have not been widely reported" Erm, yeah. Except in the New York Post, The Jewish Week and the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. We must be careful not to censor wikipedia unless there is a need to, and if there is no need for these publications there is no need here either. Lobojo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you have the links to those sources? • Lawrence Cohen 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there were all referenced explicitly in the old version of the article. Lobojo (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Until they are confimed to be true", this logic would stop wikipedia from writing anything about ongoing legal cases. This is not thank God, anything like wikipedia policy, indeed it is the opposite of policy. Lobojo (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing legal cases are rather different to rumours. Feel free to add sourced discussion of any proceedings being brought against Tendler. WjBscribe 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The refs provided are also not complete, so it is at this time not possible to verify them. Indeed, the New York Post ref doesn't even mention the paper in the reference. Other refs don't include the writers or page numbers. I could go on about the formatting of them, but this isn't WP:FAR. Here is the version Lobojo feels is fully sourced. Jeffpw (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need page numbers in a newspaper cite, you merely need enough to be able to find the article. There is a typo where the words "New York Post" are missing, I would change it, but I cant since it is an old version. Lobojo (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources are "Tendler Resigns Under Cloud, Amy Klein, Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, March 7, 2006", the second one is "Rabbi Expelled From Shul, JEANE MacINTOSH and DAVID HAFETZ, New York Post, March 1, 2006" and the third pertinent one is "Rabbi Tendler Suspended From Monsey Synagogue, Jewish Week (NY), March 1, 2006" Perfect sourcing. Lobojo (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:REF:References for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online. How did you find the articles, by the way? If you did a Lexis search, you should provide a link to the preview of it; ditto for an archive search. Just saying. Jeffpw (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats suprising I stand corrected. It is not practical to probide page numbers since my versions are from online libraries to which I have access. You will find all three artilces copied many times all over google though. I cant provide links to previews as this stuff is behind firewalls etc. Lobojo (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lobojo, you must provide references to where you actually found them, firewalls or not. Some people will have access and can check if needed. And if you did go through Lexis or similar service, they usually give the page numbers. DGG (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone that wants to check more than enough information is provided. How can I provide a link to an intranet? How can I say where without disclosing my identitiy? Lobojo (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I should opine that these citation technicalities are not BLP issues. There's enough information here to verify the sources. However: we are supposed to name the referenced source. I doubt that this is an insular intranet service. You could just name the database source like Lexisnexis, Factiva, Newsbank, Proquest, or whatever (although many of these include page numbers anyway). URLs are not required, just sources. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP issue is the repetition of rumors. The fact that the runors could not be verified just added to the trouble. Jeffpw (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Unindent) And the user is now readding the disputed content, and engaging in personal attacks on the discussion page. <sigh> Jeffpw (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh, no that is a completle misrepresentation, Jeff has continued to the revert the page in the face of two editors, and has reverted the corrections that HE himself requested to the sourced. Lobojo (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. IZAK (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article is now deleted. Can an admin courtesy blank this discussion, as happened to the Afd discussion? Jeffpw (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans Köchler

    • Hans Köchler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - BLP concerns. I made an edit some time ago, without realising that an edit war was in progress. Article now protected, but I suspect in the wrong version. Prominent international lawyer and philosopher; SPA warring to put unsourced claims of links with Gaddafi in the lead, possibly prompted by subject's acting as UN observer at the Lockerbie trial. Unprotection, blocks, editing, and watchlisting suggested. // Relata refero (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've removed it - the link is broken and there's no source for the claim of "ties to" Gaddafi. "Ties to" is classic weasel wording intended to create guilt by association. FCYTravis (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Joseph Schlessinger

    There may be some BLP issues here. Subject is accused of sexual harassment and perjury and an edit war seems to be in progress between two users ("Truther truther" and "Letsnotlie") that both have made edits on Wikipedia exclusively to this article. No third person has edited this article, either. These two users accuse each other of being the protagonists in the sexual harassment case. (In edit summaries, there is no discussion at all on the talk page). I stumbled upon this by accident and don't know the subject, but somebody who knows about these kinds of things should urgently have a look at what is going on here. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is fishy. I've deleted one image of an alleged court report as unverifiable original research violating BLP. But the whole section here needs checked and possibly removed. No time just now. Other clued eyes appreciated. And watchlist.-Docg 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unhappy with this also; most of the references are from blogs. Naturally, I have removed those, as blog references absolutely cannot be used in such a context. But there are still some reliable sources,including the Chronicle of Higher Education. Unfortunately a few f even these are cited only indirectly via blogs, but the original sources should be findable easily enough. I have not yet checked to see to what extent the quotes in the article are proven by the remaining sources. But I have doubts about using the quotes, rather than the news reports-- sourced or not--especially as the accusations were settled out of court, thus there will not be an actual court verdict to cite. If any uninvolved party concurs with me and removes them, I would certainly not object.
    Additionally, a paragraph about a patent case in which his testimony was involved contained selective quotations, although sourced reliably from the verdict. I adjusted them to more appropriate emphasis. DGG (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) I see Docg has just commented them out. DGG (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Truther truther and Letsnotlie are at it again, adding/deleting info on the sexual harassment and patent lawsuits. --Crusio (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I a,m taking this off my watch list. There have been 17 edits today, 8 by Letsnotlie and 7 by Truther truther. Not being an admin, there's not much I can do about this, but I hope somebody will put a stop to it. I think both of these editors should be blocked and the article overhauled by an experienced editor with an eye for BLP issues. Just my 2 cents. --Crusio 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A new editor has popped up, Hillhealth, who reverts edits from Truther truther and may well be a sockpuppet of Letsnotlie. --Crusio 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fully protected the page for a week and commented out the sexual harassment section because of the obvious BLP concerns. Let's hope our little warriors use the opportunity to talk things out. — Coren (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Coren! Hope you'll also keep an eye on the Schlessinger talk page now.... Cheers, --Crusio 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug Ose (closed)

    Khaleel Mohammed

    Many users are inserting content that says Khaleel Mohammed believes some Muslim scholars "demonize Jews".[19] The source for this is apparently FrontPage mag.

    In October I raised this issue here, citing BLP concerns in particular. The consensus was that the Front Page mag was an inappropriate source.

    Some users, however, think that WP:RS and WP:BLP don't apply because the article is regarding "criticism".Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the BLP issue in this case. If he said it, it can be used. Is there any dispute as to whether he said it or not? FCYTravis (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "If he said it, it can be used." The question is did he say it? Or rather, do we take FrontPage's word that Khaleel Mohammed said XYZ? The consensus was that no, we can't simply trust FrontPage as it isn't a reliable source. Note, that I did some searching, and found no other sources for the interview except for front page.Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be a reliable source for BLP issues like gossip, scandal and whatnot, but it may be a reliable source for reporting what a person said at a conference. Is the idea that he even said it, disputed? FCYTravis (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FrontPage, according to a discussion at RS/N, should not be used as the sole source for a controversial statement of fact, such as that "X said controvesial thing Y". Relata refero (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is a stretch, Khaleel has written on the subject of the demonization of the jews previously. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then quote that previous piece, if notable. Relata refero (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that the statement is controversial. It would be a stretch if he said something that could technically violate BLP, but the statement that he believes that muslim scholars have demonized jews is well documented and quoting him saying what he's said in the past should not raise any red flags. This is a case of a biased editor seeking a friendly forum to gain a "club" to beat her POV into an article she does not like over the apparently consensus of the rest of the editors of said article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. The point is that if alternative sources are available, an unreliable one should not be used; in the case of disputed information or quotes from a living person, an unreliable one should never be used. There's really no discussion here. Its a non-issue if he frequently makes the same point; if he doesn't, you can't use the source anyway. Relata refero (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that BLP is clear that it is only negative or libelous quotes that require exceptional sourcing. This is pretty much par for the course. Mohammed's written books on the subject of the demonization of the Jews. This quote does not seem exceptional in any way. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP says 'contentious'. This is contentious, or this thread wouldn't be here. If he's written a book and it is notable, cite that instead. Relata refero (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One could equally state that it's a case of a neutral editor seeking a neutral forum to gain attention to beat POV out of an article dominated by an apparent clique of editors of said article who don't like Wikipedia policies. <eleland/talkedits> 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, it only took you seven hours to show up Eleland, you feeling ok? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Bellinghaus

    70.181.230.51 (talk · contribs) has repeated insertion of unsourced controversial material, despite a warning that this will lead to being blocked. I've reverted the material again.[20] This is a long term problem with this article with different user names. Tyrenius (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlisted - block and semiprotect at next sign of problems. Others should watch too.--Docg 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    April Eden

     Done April Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I stumbled on to this article where the subject was apparently quite upset about personal info being revealed and mistaken. See contribs for 76.168.243.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is from several weeks ago but I thought maybe a notice here would be a good idea regardless (I've little experience with WP:BLP and thought maybe speedy deletion and/or WP:OVERSIGHT may be in order given the nature of the complaints). The subject appears to be below the notability threshold anyway so I've brought to WP:AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD was bound to delete this anyway - and given someone is upset I see no point in waiting. Deleted as an A7 with a bit of IAR compassion thrown in.--Docg 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I thought someone might come to that conclusion, hence why I brought it here. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to !vote delete also. The person, if their career keeps up the way it has, will be notable enough in a year or two I'd imagine. I tried to find good sources here, but drew blanks despite being a TV personality and published author. • Lawrence Cohen 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel DeBourg

     Done Possibly entirely accurate and uncontroversial, but contains absolutely no references and so currently fails tests of verifiability and no original research. Ros0709 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is marked as needing sourcing, as it is not negative, it is not a BLP issue. Nothing for us to do here.--Docg 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Thornton

     Done

    This article is autobiographical, created by its own subject and aggressively defended; he has repeatedly blanked the discussion page removing NPOV/autobiography tags, and edited under several user names/IPs. The page doesn't seem to meet the criteria for BLP or even "notable" person status. 71.218.185.244 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Being handled at afd. Nothing to do here.--Docg 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Windmann (closed)

    Frank LaGrotta

    The article of Frank LaGrotta mentions criminal charges, but the only reference given is an article in the "Beaver County Times". I have done a Google search and find several references to this event, but most are on blogs and such and I don't know the journals that come up. Perhaps someone who knows more about this kind of things could have a look at this article to see whether this accusation is properly phrased and referenced. thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement removed. The rule of BLP is "if in doubt - remove it". --Docg 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Statement is back, with a marginally better source. Not sure here, eyes please.--Docg 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with a better source, it's still undue weight for such a short article on an individual's life. Accordingly, I cut it. --Jkp212 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As the creator of the article, I'd like to let you all know: the "marginally better source" is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the premier newspaper of Pittsburgh and two-time Pulitzer recipient. It's rather unfair to a reputable smaller newspaper like the Beaver County Times to brand it an unreliable source, but the Post-Gazette is most definitely a leading paper nationwide. Nyttend 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how reliable the source is if the one incident takes up the majority of the BLP article. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, nor a collection of controversy. The article should be written as if it's part of an encyclopedia, and give a thoughtful bio of the subject, not a collection of controversy. --Jkp212 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the fact that the questioned text is approximately 24% of the article — hardly a majority — this is a biography of a public figure: he's been a state representative for twenty years. According to WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I've presented two reliable published sources, including one of the most important newspapers in the United States. This is notable and well-documented by being mentioned in multiple such sources, and I daresay that criminal charges against someone are relevant to that person himself. Nyttend 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the mention of it, but only if it is proportionate to his life as a whole. It seems that the article was created BECAUSE of the incident. Right now, even if it's 25% of the article (which it's not), it's too much.. One-time criminal charges do not make a man. Again, this is not a newspaper.--Jkp212 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly a major event in the subject's life. I've reviewed an archive of newspapers and the subject is mentioned in almost 200 articles. However he was the subject of only a few prior to his indictment. We can't exclude it if it's based on reliable sources, which it is, and is presented neutrally, which it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [removing indent] Yes, I created the article after seeing the newspaper report. However, I don't create articles on every alleged criminal that's in the newspaper; it's only because I knew that he was notable, being a state legislator. In short: the newspaper article alerted me to his very existence and provided enough biographical information (see the intro and the first main section) to have an article and prove notability by WP:BIO for politicians. Nyttend 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    perhaps then, a more thoughtful and detailed article on the subject's life should be written first, before inserting the negative incident? Then it would not be undue weight.. --Jkp212 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add what you like, but please don't delete sourced, neutral material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are clearly trying to make a point here since I have deleted controversial material that you would like included in another BLP. In both cases, it is not my responsibility to write a longer, thorough article that does not violate BLP. If someone else decides to write a more thoughtful and detailed article on the subject's life, and the negative content doesn't have undue weight, then I would remove my objection. --Jkp212 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't assume bad faith. Regarding "weight", I think you don't understand our policies. There is no policy that calls for deleting sourced, neutral information because insufficient other information is present in an article. I don't know which policy you are thinking of. Can you link to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP Undue Weight states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. " This is particularly true with BLP.--Jkp212 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why most of the article, even before you began editing it dealt with matters altogether unrelated to the criminal charges. Look at the size of the article: your edits have an average size of 1561 bytes versus a pre-Jkp size of 2055 bytes — what we're talking about is less than ¼ of the article, and it's likely the part that makes him most prominent. If this is undue weight, we'd probably best cut down the E. Howard Hunt article, because it too has a huge percentage of text related to criminal matters. Nyttend 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that the article was created as a result of his criminal charges. Certainly the timing of the article seems to suggest it. I thought that a biographical article should focus more on the substance of the subject's life, and not be created as a result of negative news items. He has only been charged, not convicted. Many things could change, and yet right now (by your calculations) it is 24% of his bio. --Jkp212 04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nyttend: Such a stub definitively suffers from WP:UNDUE when that material is there, in particular as it has not been yet decided that the person is guilty of anything, the source is only about an arraignment. Wait until the case is closed, and then we can report whatever needs to be reported. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So we can't mention it at all? Go chop the robbery section from O. J. Simpson and nominate the robbery article for deletion a second time. Note that the first nomination ended up "keep" despite opposition for the same reasons that LaGrotta's criminal charges are being deleted; and surely if an entire article is considered appropriate and not undue for him, surely two sentences aren't too much for this man. G. V. Loganathan was created because of his death in the Virginia Tech massacre, but it was kept in an AFD because he was notable enough to pass anyway. We can see on that principle that the reason for creating the article doesn't need to affect the article itself, as you seem to think that it does. If we delete all negative information on undue-weight grounds, we're giving undue weight to other matters. Nyttend 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OJ's criminal cases have been the subject of continued and overwhelming international media attention for many years. In other words, for a great deal of his life he has been in the media spotlight for this reason in an exceptional and unusually notable way. This man's bio is a stub, and these charges are very different. How can you use the OJ case as precedent for much less notable subjects whose wiki presence is a tiny stub? --Jkp212 05:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the article is not a stub if the criminal charges are not presented. Secondly, it's the point: his robbery case isn't closed, but we still have a notable and worthy article on it. The principle is the same, and censorship of the material is equally bad, even though Simpson's case is more serious and deserves either as much or more carefulness. Think of it: it completely passes the BLP concerns and all others. See what BLP says? "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." This is only an allegation, but not proven. If it be true of the greater, it is true of the lesser. And remember: Wikipedia is not paper, so you can always expand the article to decrease the proportion of space devoted to the charges. Nyttend 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to the extensive press coverage of this "non-notable" event, there are now several articles about the subject in reliable sources. Our article could be three times as long without a strain. Could Nyttend perhaps do the work and build it into a well-rounded biograohy? I can supplement the effort with older citations from ProQuest. That would address the weight issue. Also, this is indictment is apparently part of a large investigation that may see more indictments. If that's the case then we may find it best to have an article on the investigation/scandal, rather than repeating many details in individual bios. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, NYTTEND, why don't you build it into a much longer, thoughtful bio, and then the article will not suffer from WP:UNDUE by including the charges...But i think it should not be allowed to be 1/3 of the article or anywhere close... --Jkp212 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well...there are several ways to expand the article. One is to add unsourced information, which is not correct; I have therefore removed Jkp's change, as it violates WP:BLP. I don't have much of any sources here that aren't available online, except for local resources such as the local newspaper, the Beaver County Times, which people here seem to think is an unacceptable resource — I disagree, but if people are going to complain I'm not going to bother placing information from it. As far as other resources, they're online, and anyone can add that, including Jkp or Will Beback; I'm busy currently with county templates and less concerned with expanding an article on an apparently corrupt politician. Anyway, I'm not attempting to repeat many details; it's only two sentences saying what happened to him and what the attorney general said. Nyttend 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of people described as Maoists

    • List of people described as Maoists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This "article" consists solely of a list of about two dozen names, not a single one of which has any source or reference whatsoever. It's a blatant violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Furthermore, since a few of the people on the list are still alive and might well object to being described as "Maoists," it's also a violation of WP:BLP. All the unsourced entries should be removed, and, since the article would then be empty, the article itself should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 11:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blanked the list (which has been tagged as uncited for a year) and prodded it; I doubt it would get speedied. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone deproded and restored the uncited list. I nuked per BLP.--Docg 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering he people on the list, who were apparently all very clearly very much self-declared maoists and proud of it, as shown by the WP articles, it should have been sourced not deleted. Not my subject, but if anyone wants to do it, I'd support deletion review, which is the proper remedy for over-extensive BLP concern. The BLP policy was not meant for article like this. We have real problems to work on.DGG (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC) DGG (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at a couple of the extant articles of people formerly on that list. From the existing articles, there is no evidence that neither Amiri Baraka nor Fred Hampton, to name two I checked, could be described as "Maoist." Several other names on the list didn't even have associated articles. No list is better than a broken, incorrect list. If this is going to be restarted, it must be scrupulously sourced. Even the very description of the page - "admirers of Mao Zedong" is broken. "Admiring" Mao doesn't make someone a Maoist. FCYTravis (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, article was useless, and would have to be re-written from scratch to avoid BLP issues. If anyone wants to write a new article with sources, it should not be speedy deleted. They're free to write it: no need to DRV. Cool Hand Luke 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy to undelete this if anyone is offering to immediately go through it, rewrite it, and ensure it only has referenced entries to self-described Maoists.--Docg 11:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reid Stowe

    Wikipedia can be exposed to libel through talk page histories, no? If so, I think this is a case of that. Gory details:

    On September 27, this article was visited by 74.0.20.180 who inserted this material:

    After eight hours and change, and eighteen versions through edits by eight anonymous editors, the article reached this state:

    When a new anonymous editor, 96.232.22.251 deleted the malicious material, drawing the attention of recent change patroller, ArielGold. This editor was involved in dealing with a number of questionable edits by anonymous and registered participants over the next few hours; she then requested page protection, which administrator Alison granted. Immediate case closed.

    However, it occured to me (belatedly, this morning) that this pretty libelous stuff is still visible in the edit histories. Should it not be blocked even there? There are two issues, libel against Reid Stowe, and statements being, possibly falsely, attributed to Suzanne Bowling. Please review, and accept my apologies for not reporting it sooner; In case it matters, I'm a frequent contributor to this article, and often find myself being a policy wonk on the talk pages. Gosgood (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really possible. The edit history is complicated and it isn't easy to see which revisions could be removed without distorting the history for GFDL purposes.--Docg 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Oversight for the procedure, if you think it is really necessary. DGG (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Doc, David (DGG, I recall meeting you at the NYC Meetup last August. Hope all is well). I don't know about 'necessary.' I'm not an attorney, and I'm certainly not a counsellor for Wikimedia Foundation, so my opinion is moot. Reid Stowe is certainly aware of the article; he links to it at the expedition web site, and may even be aware of the spate of vandalism and that Suzanna Bowling's allegations, originally posted at Sailing Anarchy in 2006 are now mirrored in the article history pages. I understand that Mr Stowe and Ms Bowling had a business and personal relationship that soured, and she was quite angry for a time, so it is plausible that she authored the list (I don't know that for a fact), and I have no idea if she still stands by it. I do feel the urge to raise this to the attention of people who do counsel for Wikimedia Foundation; if this post suffices, fine. If there are other steps I should take, let me know. Thank you for your responses, and take care. Gosgood 14:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Sun

    Nick Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Either the same person, or a series of IP editors, keep adding rubbish to the article on Nick Sun. I'm not sure if some of what's still there is also garbage, but certainly the additions are a sorry litany of lame attempts at humour, rounded up with the news that he has died of AIDS. I would usually say it's just a simple case of vandalism, but the fact it seems to be coming from a number of places and is persistent makes it a bit more unusual. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Looks like simple vqandalism.--Docg 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trent Lott

    Trent Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are unsubstantiated rumors floating across the Internet about reasons as to why Lott is resigning, which are repeatedly making their way into the Trent Lott article. I've removed the most recent version, but more eyes are needed. Corvus cornixtalk 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Stengel

    Resolved
     – sprotection and removal of offending material

    Atrios is trying to make a point at Richard Stengel. Could someone check this out? I need to leave now. Haukur (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Have fixed, tagged, and applied for semi-protection. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Section removed. Although Time is cited - there is no independent secondary attestation offered.--Docg 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Section has been re-written, tagged as current event, and article semi-ed for three days. Page will still get traffic, but at least we've got a good start on a responsible approach. Good eyes, Haukur. BusterD (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys. Haukur (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this on Richard Stengel rather than on Time Magazine or elsewhere? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandalism occurred in the Richard Stengel pagespace, and Haukur was the first to mention the Atrios satirical comparison made on the blog concerning what Atrios felt was Stengel's inconsistent weasel-wording. Immediately after that post on Eschaton, some very creative anonymous editor created this, Atrios used the vandalism to promote his satire, and some ip fun occurred in the wake. Quick eyes by Haukurth facilitated prevention of more mischief (which is ideally how we work around here). I'm sure this won't go away soon; the many Eschaton readers and contributors may choose to ring this bell from time to time. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Amadou Cisse

    Resolved

    There is a politician named Amadou Cisse, but I think there should be a separate page for the 29 year old University of Chicago graduate student of the same name, who was shot and killed in an apparent robbery near campus on November 19. There has been a lot of coverage of the shooting in the Chicago press, but I am not sure how to add a new article that shares a name with an existing article. This is a link to one story about it: [[21]] Haglundt (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hesitant to create an article on him due to WP:BLP1E (and believe me, I'm sympathetic, I'm a UChicago student myself). We could disambiguate to create a new article though. Perhaps Amadou Cisse (student). We would then add a "hat" on the politician's article, which would inform readers of this alternative meaning. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me.Haglundt (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wayne-Allen-Geis

    Resolved

    Article looks like a speedy to me, but they've hung a hang-on on it. Whole darned thing looks like one massive BLP violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also the version of User:Aniracrellim I just blanked! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, I'm stripping sources that violate policy. We'll see what's left after that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted the whole shebang. None of it makes clear why the person is encyclopedic, and the rest is about how evil he is. If there's an article to be written about this person, what was there was not it. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the best choice. :) It was looking pretty clearly to come down to a curiosity story about Ramtha testifying against this guy. I hadn't found any credible evidence linking the man in the rape case to the studio. I didn't find anything about an outcome to the case. I strongly doubt that the user is going to be able to come up with sufficient notability to establish this article, although the few reliable sources documenting Ramtha's involvement might make their way into Ramtha or JZ Knight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diane Dodds

    Resolved
     – Poorly sourced material removed / Page semi-protected

    The following Information is most incorrect and needs to be removed immediately "Diane Dodds, (nee Al-Khaibari) is a Councillor in West Belfast for the Democratic Unionist Party. She was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At the age of four she fled to Northern Ireland with her mother, after her mother was accused of adultery in her homeland. Her mother became impressed with Ian Paisley's conservative rhetoric and converted to the Free Presbyterian faith soon after their arrival." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.50.134 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to this, at least the first sentence is accurate. Can you expand on your objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't find any evidence that the Saudi Arabia and adultery information is true. It has been taken out now and should remain so until a reliable source is provided. --Slp1 (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The following information is incorrect and should be removed from the site.
    (nee Al-Khaibari)[citation needed] is a Councillor in West Belfast for the Democratic Unionist Party. She was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia[citation needed]. At the age of four she fled to Northern Ireland with her mother, after her mother was accused of adultery in her homeland[citation needed]. Her mother became impressed with Ian Paisley's conservative rhetoric and converted to the Free Presbyterian faith soon after their arrival[citation needed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.50.134 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has been removed again and the poster warned. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR and BLP violation at Cabo Wabo

    A single purpose editor has now added the same contentious claim four times [22] [23] [24] [25] in less than 24 hours on the Cabo Wabo article (why is it always in such unlikely places) that a certain Noel E. Vestri designed the company logo for an MTV contest. This comes despite my edit summaries [26] [27] [28] and warning [29] urging the user not to do so.

    The material seems innocuous enough but on further investigation it is not. A little investigation reveals that Vestri appears to be a real graphic designer [30], who claimed on a blog that he designed the logo and that Sammy Hagar and his former Van Halen band members "screwed" him in some way over the logo design.[31]/] However, the information is unsourced in the article, and I could find no reliable source anywhere on the web that established either fact. In fact, I cannot even tell for sure what the dispute is all about. Presumably he didn't get paid properly or the logo was used for some purpose other than it was commissioned for. That happens all the time if you're a graphic designer and it is a sore point. It is very suspicious that an IP account editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia is edit warring over the same obscure, contentious fact. This is not the kind of thing one would know or discover randomly on the Web. I surmise that the editor is somehow connected to the events, or otherwise has an axe to grind (sorry, pun).

    Anyway, I would appreciate if someone could take a look and consider either semi-protecting the article (it has been more than six months since any IP editor contributed a useful edit) or a short term block of the user for 3RR and BLP. I am at 3RR myself on this and don't want to step over the line even if BLP sort of says I can. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have also reverted three times now in just 6 minutes and the contentious text is already back again. Can n admin perhaps block this user and/or protect the article? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reversions 5 through 8.[32] [33] [34] [35]. Wikidemo (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabitha Lupien's age

    Canadianactress and dancer, Tabitha Lupien, has a Wikipedia article. However, in the introductory paragraph there is a sentance stating that she was born in 1990 (makinger her 17 years old). However, she is actually 19 and was born in 1988. You cannot edit the introduction, but that is the wrong information and needs to be changed! 24.36.202.63 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there is no source that I am able to locate for her birth year, I've simply deleted any reference to it from the article. If you have a source for the 1988 year, feel free to put it in (note that firsthand knowledge doesn't count as a source). As for it being impossible to edit the introduction, that's actually a misconception: you just need to click "edit this page" at the top of the article to edit the entire article, introduction included (there's also a slightly more complex way to edit just the introduction, but never mind that). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, thank-you! Actually I do have a source that states her birth year. her myspace page (open to the public) says that she is 19 years old as of this summer, making her birth year 1988, I've also met her.24.36.202.63 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Using a subject's Myspace page as a source for this probably doesn't meet the reliable sources requirement (see, specifically, WP:SELFPUB). That said, I'm not certain enough about that to delete it from the article if added - somebody else may well do so, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, well, thank-you! I've found websites that say both birth years, so I won't post anything just in case. Thanks for everything!! 24.36.202.63 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a self-published source could be cited as saying that the subject has stated her own age to be 19; it is possibly insufficient to say definitively that that IS her age. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that normally such a source would be sufficient to assert it as truth (if a newspaper prints a subject's age in a story, odds are they just got it from the subject without any fact-checking anyway); in this case, though, since there seems to be some disagreement about her age, I think we probably need something more reliable to settle the question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough; what a newspaper cares about wrt things like that is not being sue-able; if the subject agrees and the fact is otherwise unimportant and uncontroversial, they'll accept their word for it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frances Lynn

    • Frances Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned that this article has been almost entirely been edited by a user sharing the same name as the article topic. However I am also surprised that the journalist, Frances Lynn, would create such a technically poor article. This may thus be something entirely different, such as impersonation. Please review. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might consider listing this at WP:COIN. Corvus cornixtalk 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oddly I am not wholly sure that this is a conflict of interest, simply because a good journalist would not have produced such an execrable article. Hence my posting it here on the basis that those visiting this noticeboard have more experience in looking at a biog and the creator and making a judgment call over this type of thing. Starting too many wikihares running can be counterproductive. Fiddle Faddle 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JC Chasez

    I'm concerned about the future of this article. It seems that User:Jcfanatic is constantly removing sourced information about Chasez's adoption. I'm not sure if this person is actually related to Chasez or is just a diehard fan, but the statement is well-referenced by an article in which Chasez himself states that he is adopted. I've tried contacting the user several times, but the user does not seem to ever look at their talk page. Is there any way we can stop this user from removing important, factual information from this article? --MgCupcake (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I have left the editor a modified template warning against blanking content, merging Template:Uw-delete and Template:Uw-delete2, since the first one seems inappropriate given the history (these deletions are obviously not accidental) and the second one doesn't explain the proper procedure for discussing changes. If he continues to blank content without responding, you might want to proceed with the blanking templates Template:Uw-delete3 and Template:Uw-delete4 prior to registering a report on the user's activity at the board for administrator intervention against vandalism. Disruptive editing of Wikipedia can lead to a block. You can read more about addressing this kind of activity at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Meanwhile, I've added the article to my watchlist as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Thanks! --MgCupcake (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert J. Sawyer

    The bio post on Robert J. Sawyer is well written, but reads like a press release from his agent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

    Yes, {{sofixit}}.--Docg 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Emily Sander

    Emily Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is some reverting going back and forth about what is, and what isn't acceptable under BLP policy. A (few) extra set of experienced eye(s) wouldn't hurt the matter. Martijn Hoekstra 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions
    1/ As this person is dead, I am not sure this still falls under BLP....
    2/ Is Wikipedia going to have an article about each murder victim being reported upon by the media?
    --Crusio 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The subject is dead, the alledged killer is not.
    2. I don't know. Martijn Hoekstra 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd shoot this thing. But it will survive AfD, so leave it.--Docg 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently dead people are covered under BLP. This has always been true, and in addition Template:Recent death (since Phil's edit on November 15th, just clarified by me) sends people here. Chick Bowen 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, it is covered under BLP all right. I'm just not sure what we're supposed to do under BLP.--Docg 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just watch it for now, I think. The AfD didn't last long. . . Chick Bowen 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Supergrass

    Semiprotected both for 2 weeks.--Docg 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The stuff is now cropping up on the talkpages of these articles..... --Crusio 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd II None, Hoo-Bangin' Records, Crips and more

    Just by reading the user's talk page, it can be seen he does not care about the guidelines, policies and warnings that I and other users gave him. I also have warned him over the edit summary and seems that he doesn't care or just ignore me.
    The proofs can be seen here: 2nd II None, Crips, Hoo-Bangin' Records, Bloods, Jim Jones (rapper), The Black Wall Street Records. There are more but I think this is enough to start. The information is difamatory when it's not cited with a source.
    I personally think, that in case a temporary block, this user won't stop adding this type of information. He did not paid attention to my and other users' warnings.--Tasc0 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. If he continues to edit in this way, without useful contributions or attention to warnings, I'm quite ready to indef block him. This is not a useful editor at the moment - but let's hope he gets the message.--Docg 22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds decent. Yes, let's hope he gets the message.--Tasc0 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mitt Romney (closed)

    Evel Kneivel (Image)

    Please read the description of the Image:At Home With Evel Knievel.jpg SagredoDiscussione? 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The description page had been vandalized before it was uploaded to Commons; vandalism has now been removed. Shell babelfish 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking care of that. The Evel_Knievel#Early_life section should probably have a good going over, too. I went to college in Butte for a couple of years, and know all/most of it might very well be true, but it might also be myth. (Butte was a wild, wild place in its heyday!) Many would consider it defamatory, and there's almost no references. I heard the "Awful Knofel" story from a teacher in roughly 1969. But did "Awful Knofel" ever actually exist? Probably this should come out. - "It is rumored that Knievel bought his first bike after breaking into the safe of the Butte courthouse." There is a bit of a bio at [36] click on "the man." Also some at [37]. This might become contentious, there's probably some number of Butte natives who "just know" that it's all true and take pride in it! SagredoDiscussione? 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Yarrow

    A issue determined editor continues to insert possibly contentious (and definitely too prominent for the scope of article) material regarding Yarrow's arrest many years ago. --Jkp212 07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How is it contentious? It looks to be well-cited, and Yarrow himself doesn't seem to dispute any of the facts in the article. As for prominence, I think it's given as little prominence as it reasonably could be without leaving out salient facts. About the only things I can see that could be taken out are the details of the incident; however, taking out those details would probably lead most readers to conclude that Yarrow's offense was more egregious than it actually was. I'm not sure I see your problem here. Sarcasticidealist 07:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is well-known for both episodes, which are thoroughly sourced. Rather than shortening them Jkp212 deleted the material outright.[38] I restored both and trimmed one of the incidents and he just deleted them both again.[39] I'm also concerned that he doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The man has had a long career that has spanned decades. This is one episode that happened many many years ago, not too much information is known about it, and yarrow has made it clear in interviews about the subject that not all the facts are known, and he prefers that people not focus on this one incident. A man's whole life should not be judged by one arrest many years ago. If the article on Yarrow were MUCH longer, and the arrest was mentioned in one sentence, then MAYBE it would not violate BLP and undue weight. And yes, I believe the editors who have included the info are biased and POV based on their edit history...By the way, the subject is not that "well-known for both episodes" as commented above. In doing a google search on Peter Yarrow, one of the episodes relating to his walking into a home when he was tired (which is not relevant to subject's life AT ALL) does not come up on the first few pages, and the other episode is noted in only 1 link. So, if WIKI were to include the episodes, it would be the primary vehicle for the spread of these outdated incidents. --Jkp212 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more than an arrest, he was convicted and sentenced to three years. He received a presidential pardon. You don't think any of that is worth mentioning in his biography? But the theft of his guitar is more important? I don't think that's a correct view. These two incidents were, in fact, widely reported. He had to cancel an event recentlybecause of of concerns about the morals charge, so it's still a topic of concern to some and isn't "outdated". I'm sure he wished it never happened, but it did. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the guitar is not that important. Perhaps it should be excluded. I'm just concerned that there is a BLP problem with giving undue weight to a negative incident that happened long ago. In other words, it jumps out of the article as a prominent thing, and a man's whole life should not be judged by one incident many years ago.--Jkp212 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If "weight" is a problem with reporting of an incident then the answer isn't to delete all mention of it. Instead you should trim the material to give it proper weight. Would you please restore the amterial and edit it for proper weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the material removed (not all) was entirely unsourced. It certainly must not be replaced unless it is.--Docg 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced material should not be added, and should be removed where found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (removing indent) My thought is that if the article on Yarrow were MUCH longer, and the arrest was mentioned in one sentence, then MAYBE it would not violate BLP and undue weight. However, I don't see the article turning into a much longer piece, and until it does, I think the negative incident should remain out. --Jkp212 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't think a felony and a presidential pardon are worth mentioning? I have to disagree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show a sourced article that says it was a felony? This was an isolated incident from many years ago, and I believe it should only be reincluded if the article on Yarrow were MUCH longer, and the arrest was mentioned in one sentence. Then perhaps it would not violate BLP concerns and undue weight...--Jkp212 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, here is Yarrow himself saying it was a felony: "Peter Yarrow's Idealism Arrive". He also describes how the incident has followed him in his life. While it happened years ago so did many things that are mentioned in the article. Biographies typically include incidents from throughout the subjects' lives, not just what's happened recently. There is no rule in BLP or elsewhere that says neutral, sourced material referencing an event may be removed entirely because of "weight". If you know of such a policy please quote the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly notable. If you think there is undue weight given by mentioning it, the solution is not to cut it, but to add to the rest of the info. Aleta 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP Undue Weight states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. " This is particularly true with BLP.--Jkp212 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a viewpoint, it is an incident. We should "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". That does not include totally removing all mention of a felony conviction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right, it's not a view point, and WP:UNDUE states that it "applies to more than just viewpoints" and includes "verifiable and sourced" material. My feeling is that the weight of this incident in the subject's overall life is extremely small, especially since it happened so many years ago. So unless there is a MUCH longer article, there will be undue weight in including it. Remember the mantra of BLP is "Do no harm." By including this incident, in this way, WP becomes the primary vehicle for spreading the incident. I believe that is doing harm to the living subject. --Jkp212 18:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the "it happened so many years ago" argument: do you think we should remove all reference to things that happened many years ago? He received his presidential pardon in 1981- Are events from before that period too old to mention? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are negative incidents that don't have much bearing on the subject's life as a whole, and they are given major weight in a biographical piece, then yes I would not mention them. It's better to "do no harm. "--Jkp212 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    `This sounds too much like only report what's good about someone. That is not a way to build an accurate, credible encyclopedia. By all means, add to the information about everything else in his life. A felony conviction and presidential pardon, though, are definitely noteworthy. Aleta 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remove my WP:UNDUE objection after someone else expands the article to the point where this one incident is not given undue weight. --Jkp212 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, there is still NO RELIABLE SOURCE that says he was convicted of a felony. His interview seems to suggest that it was perceived as a felony in his locale, or perhaps that he was initially charged as such.. Please find a reliable source that says he was convicted of a felony. --Jkp212 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He was sentenced to serve three years. Misdemeanors have sentences of under one year. See felony. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was sentenced to 3 months. And, regardless, it's not true that misdemeanors always have sentences of under 1 year. Have you found any RELIABLE SOURCE that says he was convicted of a felony? --Jkp212 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this page quotes Yarrow's saying it was a felony in Washington (but would not have been elsewhere). Aleta 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a reliable source, and besides which, he does NOT say he was convicted of a felony. He seems to say that the charges were perceived as such in his locale, or perhaps that he was charged in such a way. It does not say anywhere that he was convicted of a felony. Also, his sentence was 3 months. Please find a reliable source that says he was convicted of a felony. --Jkp212 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He served three months. He was sentenced to one to three years. See Some musical careers survive, even thrive, despite sex charges, by Dave Tianen, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleta (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't say that he was convicted of a felony.. Regardless, it does say that the episode is a tiny one for his life, and has been nearly completely forgetten, so unless this WP article is expanded considerably, mention of the incident would still violate undue weight.. --Jkp212 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't understand Jkp's concept of weight. How is a felony conviction and a presidential pardon less important than a single performance at a private wedding? And so on down the line. How can we expand the article if we can't include material less important than the conviction and pardon? If we remove everything that's less important than his conviction we'll have shorter, poorer article. If we remove only negative material while keeping even trivial positive material then we've grossly violated NPOV too. Negative material doesn't necessarily result in a negative article. For example, many people have humble beginnings, or may have been involved in drugs or alcoholism early in life, but have triumphed over their problems. Indeed, Yarrow is now an advocate for children. That's all the more impressive considering his past conviction, IMO. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideally the article would be comprised of thoughtful and substantive info on the subject's life, and while it's true that perhaps some other trivial info on the subject might be better off deleted because of undue weight, it is absolutely true that a one-time negative incident many years ago should not be included unless the article is much longer and the incident does not stand out as a major part of his life. In other words, BLP policy emphasizes that we must be more sensitive to the living subject on these types of issues. --Jkp212 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you offer some examples of incidents in Yarrow's life that are more important than his conviction and pardon that aren't included on the article now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure: his concerts, his recordings and influence on american culture, his musical collaborations, his influence on the art of folk music, his charity work, his relationship to his religion, his family, etc, etc, etc.... --Jkp212 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. I see you've expressed an interest in writing about music, so this would be a terrific place to start. The subject deserves a well-rounded article that includes all his notable activities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While there's certainly room for improving the article, deleting important sourced information presented neutrally isn't the best place to start. I'm going to add a short mention of the conviction and pardon. I won't add back the WDC incident, which is just odd but not really significant. There's plenty of room to add a discography etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not add the negative incident UNTIL the article is long enough to where the negative incident will not violate undue weight. Any mention of that incident now would violate UW, and thus BLP policy. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has been discussed on this noticeboard for several days and several editors agree that the incident is noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Those same editors agreed that there should be more content to support the mention of this negative incident that you want included. Please wait until there is enough content so that this one incident in the subject's life does not have undue weight.. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any editor favoring cutting sourced material entirely, except you. Who are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have favored adding additional info, which I think would be a good idea. Until the article is thorough enough for this one incident not have have undue weight, I will continue to object, per the very clear policies favoring "do no harm" when there is any question. Why are you so adamant that this negative episode be included, and stick out when the article is so short and could cause harm to the living subject?--Jkp212 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We all favor adding additional information. You are the only one who demands that verifiable, neutral info be deleted. You are welcome to continue objecting, just please don't keep deleting. Here's what the article said before:
    • In 1970 he pleaded guilty to charges of "immoral and improper liberties" with a 14-year-old girl. In August 1969, the girl and her 17-year-old sister had gone to Yarrow's hotel room to seek his autograph following a concert by Peter, Paul and Mary at Washington's Carter Barron Amphitheatre. Yarrow answered the door naked and made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse. Yarrow served three months of a one- to three-year prison sentence and was pardoned by President Carter in 1981. The singer has acknowledged the incident as "the most terrible mistake I have ever made."(ref)http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Yarrow_Peter.html(/ref)
    To accomodate your concerns about weight, here's a shorter version:
    • In 1970 he pleaded guilty to charges of "immoral and improper liberties" with a 14-year-old girl. Yarrow served three months of a one- to three-year prison sentence and was pardoned by President Carter in 1981.
    That's half as long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I rarely participate in these discussions, but the claim that any mention at all constitutes undue weight strikes me as sophistry. - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read carefully: I have not said that any mention at all constitutes undue weight. I said that with the article as it is now (length, completeness, etc) it will constitute undue weight. AFTER the article is expanded considerably, I have no problem with a brief mention.. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's go ahead and add the brief mention. As the article grows we can add more. There's no support for simply deleting the material outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The support is in the policies.. AFTER the article is expanded considerably, I have no problem with a brief mention... BLP sensitivity trumps your desire to mention a negative incident many years ago. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of the policies does not trump the interpretation of everyone else. You brought the issue to this noticeboard for input, and you received input that the material should not be deleted outright. Despite that input you keep insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong. And you keep deleting the material. Please don't overrule the community input which you sought. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello? I have not said that it should be deleted outright...AFTER the article is expanded considerably, I have no problem with a brief mention...I brought it to this noticeboard, b/c there were BLP violations and this is a forum to post those violations.. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the article should be expanded then do so. This discussion had reached a conclusion and continuing it doesn't further the project. No one here thinks there is a violation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problem expanding the article, and will do so in time. After I expand the article (or if another editor does it sooner), then the undue weight will not be as much of an issue as it is now.. Until that time, please do not plug in the one-time negative incident from many years ago. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again you've deleted the material, even though no one here agrees with you. There is no BLP violation, and so there's no exemption from 3RR. Continued removal of sourced, neutral material is disruptive. You haven't made a single positive contribution to the project, and instead have pursued a position which you hold alone. You keep saying the article should be expanded - so why aren't you expanding it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I happen to believe that protecting BLP's against those determined to see negative incidents overtake the totality of an individual's biography is a constructive act. I have no problem expanding the article, and will do so in time. After I expand the article (or if another editor does it sooner), then the undue weight will not be as much of an issue as it is now.. Until that time, please do not plug in the one-time negative incident from many years ago. Thank you.--Jkp212 (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of compromise I'm willing to wait a week to allow the article to be expanded further. I've added a few items and you have indicated some items that you can add. Next week is soon enough to restore the well-sourced, neutral account of an important incident in the subject's life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We should probably take it to dispute resolution, because I do not believe we should set a deadline to include what I consider to be a BLP violation.. Whenever the article is considerably longer, and the one sentence doesn't stick out, then the undue weight will not be as much of an issue as it is now... But until that time (1 week, 2 weeks, whenever), I think we should err on the side of doing no harm to the living subject.. However, if you disagree, then let's please request dispute resolution. Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is part of dispute resolution. You are ignoring the feedback you've received here. Rather than actually resolving the dispute by enlarging the article (or accepting consensus) you are devoting your time to maintaining the dispute by arguing and reverting. If you want to take this to a different venue that's fine, but I doubt the outcome will be any different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There hasn't been much feedback. Instead, it was a dialogue between the two editors who disagree. I plan to enlarge the article, in time, or perhaps someone else will.. But until that time (1 week, 2 weeks, whenever), I think we should err on the side of doing no harm to the living subject If you disagree, would you request arbitration for us, or would you like me to? Thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Of the feedback you've received, can you point to any that agrees with you that the material should be deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one of the editors said that some of the material removed was entirely unsourced or poorly sourced, and It certainly must not be replaced unless it is. You subsequently added poorly sourced material. Another editor agreed that it made sense to add more content.. Other than that, there was just the two of us disagreeing.. I think we should err on the side of doing no harm to the living subject If you disagree, would you request arbitration for us, or would you like me to? Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The conviction and pardon are well-sourced. This isn't suitable for an ArbCom case. They deal exclusively with behavioral issues. The next step in dispute resolution would be a request for comment, WP:RFC. I'll prepare one this evening. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is: Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon. If you've never participated in an RfC you may want to read about them at WP:RFC. It's principally intended to gather comments from previously uninvolved editors. You can post a comment too if you want. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Foxy Brown

    Commons

    I raised a BLP concern on Commons at Commons:C:VP#Drunks. I seem to have been roundly ignored. Someone else may wish to take up the fight, preferably before we find ourselves with a lawsuit. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a BLP hawk, but a lawsuit here is unlikely. Very unlikely. I can't get worked up over this.--Docg 13:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Historical pederastic couples, again

    Historical pederastic couples went through some heated, multi-editor, multi-admin turmoil last month. At the end of the 20th and 21st centuries section, look: There are now several unsourced claims of pederastic relationships with children whose first and last names and sometimes their picture is given. These children are almost certain to still be alive. Why does User:Haiduc insist on including such BLP violations?

    I'm not touching it because I saw what happened last time. I hope someone with more BLP experience will please trim the contemporary listings. 209.17.131.233 15:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody provide diffs to identify what's wrong? - Jehochman Talk 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's all of the entries in Historical pederastic couples#20th and 21st centuries where the identified child might still be alive, of which I would say there are several. Biochem67 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And in general, there are huge amounts of unsourced allegations in there. (And the issue of classifying non-sexual friendships as 'pederasty') Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I copied this back from the archives, as the article is still filled with boys who could easily still be alive. 85.140.206.170 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. anonymous IP, your concern seems utterly misplaced. Those whose photos appear in the article are either dead, or are noted for the relationship they had. There is no BLP violation in the article that I can see. Jeffpw 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Davoli, though a public figure, needs more better sourcing for the relationship if the picture is to remain. and how about the names -- you responded only about the pictures. DGG (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Public Information Research/ Daniel Brandt

    I object to the article on Public Information Research. It is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid accountability for the defamatory and privacy-invading statements that were once in the article on Daniel Brandt.

    1. Brandt is mentioned 14 times in the PIR article, which is still a "stub."

    2. The Daniel_Brandt article was redirected to the PIR article after 14 AfDs, causing the PIR article to rank first in a search for "daniel brandt" without the quotation marks, on Google, Yahoo, and Live. This redirect must be deleted.

    3. The PIR article is incompetent. The Wikipedia-Watch section is self-referential and should not exist. The Yahoo-Watch section shouldn't exist because that site is essentially parked, and has been that way for three years. An important site, cia-on-campus.org, has existed for almost seven years, and is missing from the article entirely. The section on NameBase in the article is so incompetent that it may as well not even be in the article, despite the fact that NameBase has existed for 20 years.

    4. A section that was inserted by Chip Berlet in the original Brandt article, has been resurrected in the PIR article. This is now in the first paragraph of the PIR article, in a slightly milder form, having been inserted recently by an apparent sockpuppet of Berlet. Chip Berlet has been at war with Brandt since 1991.

    5. Brandt attempted to comment on the talk page in August and again in November, in an effort to improve the PIR article. His comments were deleted.

    6. Despite prior efforts to get User:Daniel_Brandt and User_talk:Daniel_Brandt deleted entirely, these pages still exist. There are defamatory statements on User_talk:Daniel_Brandt.

    I will attempt to file this as an ArbCom case if the situation hasn't improved within 30 days, because it involves the behavior of various editors and administrators over a period of more than two years, who have been acting in bad faith in an effort to diss me. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.232 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User and usertalk pages deleted and salted by me - there's no reason for them to exist, and legitimate reason for the request.--Docg 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that helps a little bit. Now the paragraph on this page should be deleted. Not only is it obsolete, but it contains a false statement. I never "provided assurances to the Community he would no longer violate policy or attempt to have his bio removed from Wikipedia." Since that statement is false, and it also implies that my word is unreliable, it is libelous. This page is indexed by all the search engines. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.232 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All personal allegations removed, without prejudice.--Docg 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to be fixed now? --h2g2bob (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand why everytime Daniel Brandt has a temper tantrum someone goes and does his dirty work by removing all legitimate criticims of Brandt and PIR from Wikipedia. Is this a real encyclopedia or not?--Cberlet 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What tantrum, what legitimate criticisms have been removed? I see neither and I'm simply treating him like I would any other BLP subject, which is what we ought to have done from the start. That's not "dirty work" - unlike quite a few things that we've done.--Docg 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The section on Wikipedia Watch should go back into Public Information Research. Brandt's discussion of alleged Wikipedia plagiarism (see [40]) made it into the Associated Press, unquestionably a reliable source. *** Crotalus *** 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shocking, it's almost like Cberlet doesn't have an ulterior agenda here. --arkalochori |talk| 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Evel Knievel (closed)

    Possible violations of BLP/Jimmy Johnson (American football coach)

    I don't know enough about this subject but all sorts of statements are being made about the article's subject with no reference sources. I believe Jimmy Johnson is still living. Mattisse 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Offending material removed.--Docg 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Saeb Erekat

    One user is determined to add "controversies" or "criticisms" to this page in a manner which overwhelms the article and appears to side with the critics. The edits invariably begin with a small amount of factual information, then inject a large amount of commentary from Israeli partisans. (The subject is a prominent Palestinian politician & negotiator.) None of the sources provided are actually about Saeb Erekat specifically, rather, they are news or editorial pieces which simply mention him - thus, I find it difficult to understand the relevance to Erekat's notability as a whole. It's a little like adding all of the controversies of the first Bush administration to our biography of Ari Fleischer.

    What's worse, recently the same user has decided to add an additional "controversy" section consisting of one news article which mentions Erekat passingly in the context of quoting the official P.A. position, two editorials from the American Jewish community which (surprise) condemn him, and one blog posting by a Campus Watch - approved Israeli. In other words, it's looking more and more like a smear job. <eleland/talkedits> 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jón Þór Birgisson

    A somewhat heated argument cum revert war about one word. Should this person be described as "gay" or "openly gay"? Haukur 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Independent_Media_Center#Assaults_on_Indymedia_journalists

    The photo and caption constitute both an attack on a minor living person, and original research. This should be removed urgently as a police officer is both identified and described in a libelous and pseudo-scientific fashion. Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence that the description is an accurate portrayal of even the general facts. Lobojo 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's libelous at all to describe a photograph with a police officer's clearly-raised-to-strike baton as... a photograph of a police officer raising his baton. FCYTravis 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It obviously is. Look at what you just wrote - don't you see now that this is OR in any case? Lobojo 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like OR to me. If it's so obvious, isn't any description superfluous anyway? Cool Hand Luke 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. A photo caption accurately describing what a photograph depicts is not superfluous nor is it original research. The photo depicts a police officer wielding a baton, with the baton drawn back in a clearly threatening posture aimed at the camera. We do not need to conduct "original research" to determine this. FCYTravis 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The baton is behind his head. I can't tell where it's "aimed." If it's something I can't confirm by examining the sources, it's synthesis at minimum. Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is what it said it would be fine, but not relevant to the article at the same time. It reads A Greek riot policeman aiming a reversed baton at an Indymedia photographer. Who says that this controversial (and potentially libelous) statement is correct? Where is the verifiable and reliable source that stands this fact up? Where is the source that says "baton behind the head" means "about to strike a photographer", this is all humbug. Lobojo 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need a source to tell us that it's a baton behind his head. The photograph does that for us. We don't need a source to tell us that an Indymedia photographer is taking the photograph - that is supplied by the photographer. The photographer for Indymedia is a reliable source for the purposes of his photograph. We don't need a source to tell us that a picture of the World Trade Center attacks is depicting an aircraft flying into a building. FCYTravis 20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indymedia is not a reliable source for anything on wikipedia. Yes we do need a source to tell us who is taking the photograph, we don't need a source to tell us "baton behind his head" but we DO need a source to tell us what that means. We need multiple sources wo tell us that this image is valid and that it depicts what it claims to depict. An indymedist has no more credibility that a random protester who puts up a video of a police charge on Youtube. Lobojo 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is wielding the baton in the direction of the photographer who is standing behind the camera. That is self-evident from the photograph. Your bias is clearly showing here. FCYTravis 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The new wording is no better, this is completely unverified. It is simply taking the word of some random guy on indymedia that the image depicts what he claims it to depict. Can anyone say where this image was taken from? It could have been taken from 200 meters away for all anyone knows. And still the other problems remain. Lobojo 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious NOR violation, but this noticeboard is not here for this purpose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its all tied up together, since the OR is being used to violate BLP on the policeman. Lobojo 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no violation of the BLP policy here. A photograph shows a police officer wielding a baton in the direction of a photographer. The police officer can have no expectation of privacy, as he is in a public place. FCYTravis 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Privacy does not come into it. Depictions of non-notable people on wikipedia need to be sources impeccably especially where some controversy is involved. Lobojo 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The caption has been corrected with factual information as well as the provenance of the photo for attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh no it has not. It still insinuates that the the baton is being wielded at the photographer. I will change it to a languague that can be supported by the facts that can be established without sources. Lobojo 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Spinocerebellar ataxia: Not sure this is the right place

    Resolved
     – BLP tags removed

    Talk:Spinocerebellar ataxia has a BLP tag. The page is about a disease. I'm not sure that it needs a BLP tag, but I didn't want to remove it without checking in. If you think that a BLP tag is inappropriate in this instance, would you please remove the tag? Thanks, WhatamIdoing 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an identical issue at Spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita, so whatever is decided about the first page should apply to this one as well. WhatamIdoing 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that tags are there because the articles mention specific living people with these diseases. BLP applies even if the article isn't primarily about the person. Aleta 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ysaye Maria Barnwell

    This article is being edited by User:Ymbarnwell. I'm not sure if this user actually is Dr. Barnwell and therefore needs to be told about WP:Autobiography, or if it is just someone using her name. I suspect the former, but can't prove it. What should be done here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleta (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post a notice at WP:COI/N. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do... thanks! Aleta 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Huckabee

    Due to the sensitivity of BLP with regard to a U.S. presidential candidate, we need to be very cautious and make sure we're presenting the material in the most neutral way. My concerns are with the controversy section and issues with WP:BLP particularly regarding BLP criticism, NPOV article structure, and NPOV undue weight. When looking at the table of contents, the controversy overwhelms the article and gives undue weight to headers that do not reflect important areas to the subject's notability in comparison with the rest of the article structure. I've asked for an RFC, but no one has commented. Due to the upcoming primaries for the U.S. presidential candidates, I think it is greatly important that we address this. The article instantly presents a negative view of Mike Huckabee. Morphh (talk) 21:49, 03 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Cantor

    Resolved
     – Page sprotected

    Can someone look at Nancy Cantor? Anon added an attack on the article subject, as follows:

    Cantor is rapidly becoming known as the Chancellor under whose stewardship the Syracuse University Athletics Department has gone from National Greatness to total obscurity. Cantor has presided over the disintegration of the football program, and complete elimination of the 90 year-old University Men's & Women's Swimming & Diving teams, a move which has sparked National Outrage from coast to coast.

    Two links are given, the first to a USA Today sports report, the second to the site of the campaign to save the swimming and diving teams. Neither supports the staements made in the article, although I think the first (from USA Today) would be a WP:RS for the statements it does contain. The other clearly isn't independent. I've been unreverted, the first time with the edit summary These references are just fine, the second time with NO - YOU ARE A CENSOR & THIS IS FACTUAL - I TAKE THIS UNIVERSITY SERIOUSLY.

    I'm not going to pursue this discussion/edit war, so I'd be grateful if someone else would take a look. AndyJones 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the comments are not substantiated by the references given and have removed them again, and will warn the IP. Slp1 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has recurred. I have requested page protection.Slp1 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ward Connerly

    User 131.247.152.4 inserted a category lable at the bottom of the article that may be regarded as a derogatory lable about living person. Possible liable.

    [41]

    I reverted it.

    --Redandready 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Tapscott

    The subject ran for mayor of Edmonton, Alberta in 1977, while he was studying at the University of Alberta. He ran as a far-left candidate in large part to confront another candidate, Eddie Keehn, whose platform was pretty heavily homophobic. He never had any designs on winning, and finished fifth of seven candidates (behind four heavyweights, all of whom served as mayor of Edmonton at one time or another). The article currently says the following: "While earning his Master's of Education at the University of Alberta, he ran for mayor of Edmonton in the 1977 municipal election, finishing fifth of seven candidates." This information is cited. Several IPs on the talk page, and the subject in an e-mail to me, have expressed the opinion that this mayoral run was a minor affair that doesn't warrant mentioning in the article. The subject also expressed some concern that by including only the currently-included information, context is being omitted and he is made to look like a loser (my words, not his). Does WP:BLP require that we remove the mention of his mayoral run, leave it as is, provide additional context, or something else entirely? Sarcasticidealist 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If the cites establish his motivation for running, insert the reasoning (maybe with language similar to what you use above). I see no reason to delete it entirely; it's not something the typical grad student does. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiley Protocol and T. S. Wiley

    • Wiley Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – potential BLP issues complicated by COI issues on all sides, involving Neil Raden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—who I was told is Wiley's husband—and another editor, Debv (talk · contribs)—who I now see is somehow involved off-Wiki. I was asked by a third editor a few days ago to look at this article in terms of sourcing, and I don't believe there's any admin on board. It appears that Raden understands the COI issues and is not editing the articles, rather discussing on the talk page. I found issues of undue weight and non-reliable sources in the articles, with self-published sources favored and reliably-sourced criticism excluded; the only reliable sources I could find were critical. I removed text sourced to non-RS, left advice about the use of reliable sources, and unwatched, thinking the editor who had asked me to look in there would continue to oversee the page (he hasn't). I just returned to check in and found some potential BLP issues on the talk page, with accusations that living people and published professionals are lying and stealing. I couldn't figure out how to elegantly exercise the BLP violations and personal attacks, so I deleted the entire exchange.[42] I'd like an admin to keep an eye on the issue, and review my deletion of their entire exchange. What is left after my deletion is at Talk:Wiley Protocol#Criticism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will an admin please look at this page, or should I take this to WP:ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One more time. I am not an admin, and no admin has yet helped, although I first posted here on the 4th. Is this page dead since Crockspot is no longer around? Shall I post to AN/I instead? Is anyone going to look at the AGF and NPA issues, the BLP violations, and threats being made on these articles and on my talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip Reese

    He died this morning; there's been a steady stream of petty vandalism since. Request semiprotection. PhGustaf 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    O'Fallon, Missouri and Dardenne Prairie, Missouri - 38.115.2.114

    This anon posted the addresses of Lori Drew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/38.115.2.114

    I told him that it was a violation of BLP. I reverted his edits. WhisperToMe 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted his edits from the history.--Docg 09:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Megan Meier suicide controversy

    Can one of the admins from this board watch Megan Meier suicide controversy, and in particular its talk page? There is a need for someone familiar with BLP rules to dispassionately explain how these rules are usually applied. Things seem to be drifting in the direction of editors asking that certain kinds of sourced edits not be made because of how it will make editors feel, which seems to me an inappropriate argument. News stories say what they say and sources are either reliably sourced or not. It seems to me that that should be the basis of the discussion. Also, "See also" items are being similarly handled: editors are insisting that some comparisons not be made even when reliable sources (i.e. major media) have made them.

    I am a mostly uninvolved party. My edits to the entry have only involved additions to "See also." On the talk page, I have attempted to clarify what I understand to be BLP policies based on my past experience. This has provoked a strong emotional reaction from User:Jeeny who seems to feel that those who do not respect her feelings about how the entry should be edited are making her party to harassment of the Drew family.

    Can someone please help sort this out? Thanks. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information, the editor seems to be quite right that a link to a map of the Drews' house is inappropriate. It's difficult to address other concerns, since they are not specified. I agree with you that articles are not written so as to avoid discomfort in editors. I'm unsure what other edits are causing her concern, but will address this point at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly anything attempting to make it possible to locate the Drew family is a BLP violation, but User:Jeeny seems to be casting her net a lot more broadly, at least as far as I can tell from her remarks. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's difficult to say until she responds at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Address of victim, and perpetrator

    Please read this section on the article talk page and weigh in, if I've overstepped my bounds. I've removed a source and passage that essentially gives driving directions to the home address of a crime victim, and their perpetrator. Lawrence Cohen 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already weighed in on the page (though not on this edit), but for the record I support your interpretation of BLP in this regards. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of pertinent content from page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Horsley

    The subject or PR rep of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Horsley) is continuously removing material, quotes or review references which paint the artist in a negative light. These actions are reducing the veracity and reliability of the Wikipedia article on Sebastian Horsley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.13.114 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this the material to which you're referring? If so, I doubt that its removal is a BLP issue so much as it is a content dispute. That's a rather large quote presented without any real context as to its purpose in the article. If that is the issue, it should probably be addressed on a talk page, as recommended as the first step at dispute resolution. If your concerns are more widespread, could you be more specific? I don't see a pattern in the revision history of that article suggestive of conflict of interest editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed O'Loughlin

    An IP editor is crusading against this Australian news reporter. While the partisan criticisms against him seem notable enough, the editor insists on overwhelming the article and siding with the critics. <eleland/talkedits> 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is now semi-protected until December 13. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Konrad Dannenberg

    A 95 year old retired NASA rocket scientist, Konrad Dannenberg who is a former member of Wernher von Braun's German rocket team, has been libeled on Wikipedia due to recent edits of his his page. This new material contains highly inflammatory accusations of him being either a current Nazi or a person with Nazi sympathies. The material referenced for these charges is extremely biased and of a tabloid quality using arguments of guilt by association. Mr Dannenberg's only political ambitions are to promote space travel where he operates a space camp teaching children to about rockets. His only association with Lyndon LaRouche was in the collaboration of articles of a scientific nature explaining his role in sending men to the moon. The one person I am aware of who he collaborated in that organization is Jewish so claims of Dannenberg (or LaRouche for that matter) being a Nazi are less than credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NASA399 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Coffin

    The Peter Coffin biography is entirely inconsistent with the one featuring on his New York gallery. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coffin_(artist)

    With: http://andrewkreps.com/coffinBio.html

    Date and place of birth, education, biography section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite right you are. I'm looking it over to see how I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done my best to restore order in that article, although there is one section that is disputable that I tagged for improvement rather than remove. The article seems to have been subjected to some questionable editing in October of this year, when single purpose account Nico Tepreff first "corrected it" to allege that the artist was born in 1912 in Nebraska, transferring his college to Kentucky, and then decided he was born in 1963 and attended college in Germany. I've watchlisted the article myself, but if you see questionable information inserted without reliable sources, please feel free to revert it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiffany Pollard

    As of 11:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I found a questionable/dubious statement concerning this person [43], the objectionable content is under the "other appearances" section. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to start to remove the unsourced/questionably sourced material, and there is alot of it. Also removed the youtube and blog stuff. This bio could probably use a full NUKE and rewrite but maybe can be reworked as is? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brenda Shaffer

    I'm not sure that the latest edits [44] and some prior ones are in line with WP:BLP requirements. Independent review is required. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That diff you posted seems to be for a different article. Could you clarify the issue? Thanks. FCYTravis (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apoologies. The correct diff is this series of edits: [45] Also, the article needs a general review of compliance with blp requirements. Grandmaster (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophie Fiennes

    A new editor Violeto is making extensive edits to the article on Sophie Fiennes. The user has not contributed to any other article. It looks to me like a perfectly good article is being reduced to something less good. Many things are deleted, others added (without sources). I have asked the editor to explain the edits, but all I get is "more concise, relevent & accurate biography" (sic). I have reverted a few times, but as I do not really know anything about the subject of this article, I hesitate to do more, because the edits may be legitimate and also I do not want to unduly harass a newbie. I would therefore appreciate if somebody else could have a look at this, too. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying to copy edit but the article needs major help. The wording is very "flowery" with no sourcing. Help :) --Tom 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pete Doherty's controversies

    I would like to report this whole article which is a link to the main Pete Doherty biography article. All the article consists of is tabloid driven, negative personal information on Doherty. My question is Pete Doherty's controversies suitable for a so-called neutral biographical article? Sue Wallace (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, creating a 27-kilobyte page listing every single time a person with a 30-kilobyte biography has ever been arrested or been in the tabloids is right out. That's pretty much the definition of sensationalism and undue weight. I have redirected the page to Pete Doherty so that any suitable content that should be merged back into the main bio, can be. After that, it should be deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense prevails. Many thanks. Sue Wallace (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional eyes on this would be appreciated. FCYTravis (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No point, on the controversies article itself, it shouldn't exist. I redirected it to Doherty's main article just now (I saw you had left it oddly blanked). Lawrence Cohen 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not delete the page rather than redirect it? Apart from talk pages, there are no links to it. It's not a likely search.--TJRC (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to assume good faith that we can work to merge certain content from the forked article back into the main biography. Some mention of his extensive legal history/drug abuse is warranted; just not an entire day-by-day accounting. FCYTravis (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've only just found this - I thought there wasn't much support for FCYTravis' change given only one other person had been involved in the discussion on the talk page - shouldn't this be linked on that talk page? Kirkburn (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth_Kucinich

    There are a group of people that continue to add speculative information regard Elizabeth Kucinich regarding her tongue peircing. Not to mention that I believe it fails BLP issues in general for giving undue weight towards what is nothing more than a triva fashion statement. I ask for some guidance regarding this issue as I keep removing because I feel it violates BLP and general rules regarding undue weight not least of which it is purely speculative in its phrasing. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The paragraph is not speculative. It currently reads as follows:

    She has a tongue piercing. When asked if she would remove it in the event that she became first lady, Kucinich replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so.[2]

    Footnote [2] provides a source, an article published in The Independent, a recognized British newspaper, at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3174387.ece, which reads in pertinent part:

    But her tongue stud was exactly the thing that the interviewer wanted to focus on. Would Elizabeth take it out, she asked, if she became First Lady? "It's been there 10 years, it's part of me now," Mrs Kucinich replied with as much grace as she could muster. Could she give the audience a peek, came the follow-up question. "No I can't," she answered flatly.

    --TJRC (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is speculative, it is dicussing future events and has no context within the scope of the article in general. Arzel (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this even a separate article? I don't see any reason why it couldn't be merged with the article on Dennis Kucinich. I don't see any separate notability here. *** Crotalus *** 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would actually agree, but... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Kucinich --TJRC (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:CRYSTAL - Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With due respect, Arzel, I think you're misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. The phrase you're quoting means, for example, that we shouldn't have articles on movies that might get made, or on elections that might happen, or what have you. Having articles on people in which we include sourced speculation on some element of their futures is fine (see, for example, the couple of dozen articles on U.S. senators in which we report on speculation surrounding whether they'll run for President). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernie Ward

    Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

    This article has a BLP tag on it. Considering the article is clearly about the murder of two people, isn't it kinda sick to put such a tag on the article? TheUncleBob (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an appropriate tag. The article is also about the five arrested and/or indicted suspects. Articles on a subject like this are potentially fertile ground for libel, so the warning is apt. -- TJRC (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think I may be the person who put that tag on there, and it was precisely for that reason. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I asked on the article's talk page, do we then need to put the BLP tag on the Wal-Mart article, since it talks about quite a few living people (say, Lee Scott and Tom Coughlin)? Or the article on the 2006 definition of planet which deals with many of the individuals involved with defining of the term "planet"... Where do we draw the line on articles that need the BLP tag? I'd say that (guestimate) 95% of the articles here contain "biographical material about living persons" in some fashion or another - do we need to go around putting BLP tags on every article that mentions the name of a living person? TheUncleBob (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the articles on Wal-Mart, definitions of planets, or other topics include discussions of individuals who are suspected of major felonies, those articles should also have the tag, too. -- TJRC (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be fair, Tom Coughlin (Wal-Mart) has had his share of legal trouble. Anywhoo, the "rules" for a BLP tag do not stipulate that the articles have to contain "biographical material about living persons with felonies"...TheUncleBob (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, of course not. That's an example of a circumstance where the article is likely to attract defamatory edits, that's all. -- TJRC (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may quote the BLP tag:

    This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

    This article had a lot of poorly sourced and ultimately incorrect information about the actions of the suspects in it at one point. It's been quite contentious as well, since many people thought the information should be included until proven false. That's not the way things work here. Obviously, the article is titled Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, but we have to make sure that we keep any possibly libelous material about the suspects out of the article. The tag isn't there as an insult or to show disrespect to the victims in any way, it is there to protect the encyclopedia and to make people aware about what can and cannot be put into the article. Again, this is in no way meant to demean or disrespect the victims, but contributors must be made aware of the policy. AniMate 06:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jane Goodall (Tanzanian hostage incident section)

    Please see the talk page of this article for full discussion of this article's BLP violation Someone has added this section with the insinuation that Goodall was to blame for US hostages being taken by rebel militia. The ONLY source asserting that Goodall was to blame is *a reader's letter* in a magazine where it is clear that the letterwriter is merely speculating and has no actual familiarity about the incident apart from the magazines article about the incident (where Goodall only featured marginally and is not blamed for anything). The magazine editors emphasize that the article ( nor the actual hostages who were released and interviewed) does NOT say anything like what the letter writer speculates about. The person adding this section is using this single dubious letterwriter's speculation to suggest that there was a major widely-discussed controversy about Goodall's "responsibility" for hostages being taken. The person is also stalling, claiming that there must be other references out there proving the "controversy" but coming up with none. The current section is supposedly "NPOV" but actually still makes insinuating statements that suggest that Goodall was negligent and irresponsible for this incident (presumably the section-adder thinks that Goodall should have tried to fend off the rebel soldier attack with her bare hands and/or personally paid and handled the negotiation fo the half a million dollars ransom instead of the US government.... I am assuming good faith here). Please can an admin enforce BLP here. The discussion on the article talk page shows that the main editors involved are not understanding BLP and its importance properly. thanks 207.151.226.48 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Entry: George Latimer, Mayor of St Paul MN

    Resolved

    In checking the bio for St Paul Mayor "George Latimer" I noticed that the hyperlink at the bottom of the entry for the preceding Mayor "Lawrence Cohen" leads one to the American screenwriter "Lawrence Cohen" and not the American politician and former Mayor Lawrence Cohen. I would change it myself but I am new to Wikipedia and just learning. LAWinans —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAWinans (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is correct now but another set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks for the note, --Tom 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerard Davis

    Joke entry. Needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.90.183 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=176693265"