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 Kendrick7 (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 27 June 2008 (→‎Fred Singer - Item 2: WP:SOAP). 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.

    How to handle unsourced BLPs - a question in June '08

    I regularly come across biographies which aren't appropriate sourced, if sources are used at all, and I think it's time to revisit discussions about what to do in such situations. I only discovered the 'delete in 5 days' tag recently, and would like to apply it regularly to such articles, so I'm coming here to see if there is / might be consensus for such tagging? (perhaps this is common practice?).

    Two examples from my 'random button' browsing today are Tareq_Aakef and Myriam_Fares - in both cases there are unsourced claims that should probably be removed (in the former the reference to a dispute in the 'personality' paragraph, and in the later, the information about who she's rumoured to be dating) - but that's only the start of the issue really, because (for example) I can't be at all sure whether the first sentence in Tareq's article concerning the belly dancer is fair and neutral, a sly dig, a bit of a 'puff piece', or somehow really insulting to someone with local knowledge.

    Is tagging for deletion in 5 days a good idea / acceptable? thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't be active in BLPs for at least a little while, but would still like some feedback on the above - is it ok to nominate unsourced biographies for deletion with the rationale that they have no sources? (I feel pretty sure that this is a fairly straight forward question, because I have a nagging feeling that I should know the answer!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, absolutely - though if it seems like an obviously valid bio simply lacking sources, a 5-minute Google search for a basic source wouldn't hurt your case. FCYTravis (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    that's one of my the key things that I'm trying to think through at the mo... I don't think there should be responsibility on the part of the person suggesting deletion to provide sources - at least I think that's what I don't think! Totally agree that if someone is prepared to source them at all, then that's great - but if they aren't (and remember that they've been sitting online being read, in some cases for quite a while) - then I think they should probably be deleted. Am I right in thinking that if the tag remains there for 5 days, then a passing admin will probably just delete the article? - it could always then be re-created (hopefully with sources!) at any time... Privatemusings (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, in general I agree, but if we're talking about an article on, say, a Congressman (I should hope that none of those are unsourced, of course!), then I think doing a two-second Google search is in keeping with good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. If someone runs across an obviously valid article that simply lacks a source, then I think that person does more to help the encyclopedia by spending three minutes to Google and add a source than by spending 10 seconds to tag and move on. If you know the article is good, why not fix it while you're at it? It's good etiquette. FCYTravis (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Individual articles

    CJLL_Wright

    Recently, an editor on the Cahokia has made inappropriate edits and comments about my concerns with recently added information. The editor (Doug) added a comment about ancient native American burials and the vertical finger bones as being evidence of buried alive in Mound 72. My concern is that this claim is stated as a speculation in Young's book and is not supported by any data in the Mound 72 study by Fowler of the archaeological remains in the Burial mound. My discussion on the talk pages stated that without supporting evidence in Mound 72 book, the suggestion of Young is unsupported evidence that falls into sensationalism, misinformation, speculation, and even racial bias. CJLL is making the accusation that my comments are attempting to call the author a racist, however, this could not be farther from the truth. I have not ever stated anything of that sort. These claims are entirely CJLL and Dougs misinterpretation of the topic. Hopefully this clears up the issue entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJLL_Wright#Cahokia Marburg72 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a complete misinterpretation of the situation. There is no 'Young's book' at all, although Marburg72 keeps referring to the book in question as by Young and the quote at issue by Young. The book in question is Cahokia, the Great Native American Metropoliswritten by Melvin Fowler, the "dean" of Cahokia archaeologists, and Biloine Whiting Young and published by the University of Illinois Press. Young is a professional author who helped Fowler tell the story of the Cahokia mounds. The book is written after the publication by Fowler and others of the excavations there. In it there is a suggestion that some bodies buried at Cahokia show indications of being buried alive. There is no indication of who wrote the passage, but Marburg72 continually refers to the book as 'Young's book' and claims that Young wrote the quote I cited.. On the Cahokia mound talk page Marburg72 says that the book is not scholarly and "is entirely about petty arguments and opinions. If its not fringe, it falls into wp:soap category." He also used the (now deleted phrase) "before spreading unsupported falsehoods".[14]
    He specifically says "The view that a vertical fingerbones equates to sacrifice or burial alive is a highly speculative, inaccurate and even racist against Amerindians." This statement seems pretty clearly aimed at the authors of the quote. As for his accusations of racist bias against me and the authors, I cannot see how a suggestion that centuries ago some Native Americans were buried alive can be considered racist in a real life context in which far worse atrocities have been committed by white Europeans in the last few years.
    I was not going to bring this up officially, but now Marburg72 has come here, he has done the same thing about the work of another living author, David Oestreicher. Oestreicher has written several articles showing the Walam Olum to be a hoax, eg ale of a Hoax, in The Algonquian Spirit, edited by Brian Swann. University of Nebraska Press. He reported that a poet who had written a modern translation now agrees with Oestreicher that it is a hoax. On Talk:Walam Olum responds to this saying "Oestreicher apparently has an itch to discredit anything associated with remote intellect concerning Amerindians." and "you really think Napora would confess that his lifes work was wasted after based on an article by a detractor? Your authors claim/decision to write that he communicated with Napora is not a trustworthy claim considering his long and determined effort to be a detractor to the document." and "if Verifyable references in your view are Oest. saying that Napora read his article and then confessed that his entire work was wrong, then you should take a look at the scientific method - that sort of claim is evident to the most casual observer that he was fanning his own sail". In the context it appeared to me that Marburg72 was implicitly accusing Oestreicher of lying about having a direct communication with Napora in which Napora acknowledged that the Walam Olum is a hoax. Doug Weller (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug should have attempted to read what I wrote, not what he thinks that I said before commenting. See initial comment. These claims are entirely CJLL and Dougs misinterpretation of the topic. Hopefully this clears up the issue entirely. Marburg72 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't add anything further by way of background explanation, I think Doug has covered it. I will note however that the only part of this that concerns BLP are potentially defamatory comments made by Marburg72, directed against several living scholars and authors.
    At the crux of Marburg72's complaint here is my removal of two comments he had recently made on a talk page that (IMO) accused a named author as (a) writing falsehoods and (b) racism.
    I also note that some 8-9 months earlier Marburg72 had made some article edits and talk page comments that amounted to accusing the archaeologists directing excavations at Cahokia/Monks Mound of illegal activity. Those edits were actually noticed and read by some of those 'real-world' folks M72 had accused, and they responded with their concerns on-wiki (see here and here). Fortunately they seem to have been placated (eghere) by the removal of the accusations from the article text, although M72's comments remain on the talk pgs.
    Frankly I would welcome comments/examination by a previously uninvolved party here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you are attempting to change the subject, Digging into a mound without a permit is a state crime; unauthorized digging into an Indian grave is a federal crime; destroying part of a World Heritage Site is an outrage. See Wotangng Ikche Volume 15 issue 51 for the complete story of the Monks Mound fiasco. See illinois law 20ILCS 3420 for a complete explanation of the legalities of excavation of over 30.000 cubic feet out of the sides of Monks Mound with Backhoes with no permit.
    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=372&ChapAct=20%A0ILCS%A03420/&ChapterID=5&ChapterName=EXECUTIVE+BRANCH&ActName=Illinois+State+Agency+Historic+Resources+Preservation+Act.
    "Adverse effect" means: (1) destruction or alteration of all or part of an historic resource;
    See also the Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act (Illinois Comp. Stat. Ann. 20 ILCS 3440/0:01, et seq.). yes, Monks mound ::::contains and contained burials - both native and historical. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), ::::P.L. 101-601. What part of this law do you not understand? Marburg72 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Marburg72, I am quite aware that excavating or otherwise disturbing a designated site without the requisite permissions in place is a serious matter, and an offense (depending on jurisdiction and nature of the disturbance). That is precisely the point here. A charge of conducting such an improper excavation would, if substantiated, be highly damaging to an archaeologist's career. Allegations of incompetence or carelessness likewise. Hence, potentially defamatory.
    It is you who sought to use wikipedia's pages to level such a charge (that the 2007 Monks Mound excavations/slump repairs were improperly conducted and "illegal"), based on nothing more it would seem than your own opinion and apparent incomplete grasp of the situation.
    Your allegations have been countered here point-by-point by one of those you accused, and it's evident from this account of the Illinois Archaeological Society's 51st ann. conf. where the matter was discussed, that you were quite misinformed about the legal status of the excavation. To quote from that record, "[Paula Cross, IHPA's Superintendent of Historic Sites] noted that IHPA’s slump stabilization plan was carefully worked out over a period of several years. This observation was well documented in the Saturday morning presentations as was the need for such a plan. Secondly, she observed that no “permitting” requirements had been violated and that in fact “permitting” did not apply to government agencies working on government land. Instead there is a protocol of “approval” that is required and that IHPA was very careful to comply with the protocol." And further, "It does appear that the geotechnic run-up to the ultimate choice of strategy of repair was well crafted. Also after the hoe work was completed, the hand work and data collection proceeded in accordance with IHPA published standards."
    Your allegations of improper and illegal activities are not substantiated by the record, nor by any actual fact or finding of illegal or improper behaviour, as ruled by some competent authority. Even if you were a legal expert in this area (and I don't think that you are), and even if you were physically present at the time (which I gather you may have been), your own personal interpretation of what the relevant laws did or did not require in this instance is completely irrelevant and provides no basis to make such charges, or use wikipedia's pages to promote such allegations and pursue whatever personal agenda you have. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And in fact, he was temporarily blocked for his behavior. [15]. Doug Weller (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too keen about this either [16] -- I don't think editors should be making what appear to be accusations of criminal activity on Wikipedia. This stuff ends up on the web too easily, the Cahokia stuff did [17] Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [unindent] You again failed to mention the fact that a Cahokia Committee was installed after this destruction of the Mound expressly against the agreement of the State "historic preservation" superintendent - because of the lack of communication with site mangament and the Master Management Plan. As the IAS stated "From my perspective, there was an obvious miscommunication regarding the importance of intergroup communication." You also failed to mention "At the Saturday morning paper session there was some further discussion of the Cahokia Committee. While Paula Cross did not contribute, Fellows Mark Esarey and John Kelly were pressed very hard by colleagues bearing concerns over the slump stabilization strategy and methodology. On balance, Kelly noted that if we, or anybody, wanted to know what was happening at Cahokia, we should join the Cahokia Museum Society. However, the IAS’s discussions and issues are with IHPA and not the project contractor and it is not clear whether this was an agency position statement or a personal, visceral response. Actually, as nearly as I could determine, IHPA really did not directly respond to questions and thoughts regarding re-establishing the Cahokia Committee. Questions were somehow just re-directed and thereby avoided. " Seems as though you ignore the fact also that "The operational or field decisions regarding control over the activity of the hoe operator and how much and which of the undisturbed mound fill to remove remained glossed with the assertion that, “We had someone there all of the time keeping an eye on the mechanical excavation.” The response to the question of whether this was at times only Dr. Kidder’s graduate student volunteer was, “Yes.” " This means no archaeologists were on site when the backhoe operator proceeded to tear out over 30,000 cubic feet from the largest remaining Ancient Indian Mound in the USA. It is apparent that you do not understand this topic or the Walam Olum or the Mound 72 issue and your presentation of the issue is entirely false and uninformed. This was not a "win" for the IHPA.Marburg72 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Marburg72 had already posted the above comment to another talk page, to save any further tedium I will just put in a link to my response at the other page.
    Marburg72 should also realise that this is a noticeboard meant only for review of BLP-related actions on wikipedia, not a place to air opinion. The only question of relevance to this board ('interest' is probably stretching it), is whether or not I, Marburg72 or someone else involved has acted in a manner disrespectful of our BLP policies. So far, no-one has questioned or criticised my actions in removing a couple of potentially defamatory statements. On the other hand, there have been several editors who have identified comments left by Marburg72 —on numerous occasions and across several talk pages— as concerning, potentially defamatory and contravening BLP. Including, importantly, a couple of the actual people who were the subject of your allegations. Doesn't this imbalance of response suggest something to you, about the relative merits of your claims? --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CJLL's creation of "Defamatory statements" apparently are only his and dougs misinterpretation of the information presented on the talk pages. If this is the only relevant question on this board, clearly, Doug and CJLL need to discontinue misinterpreting information and making false accustation about my statements. Clearly, their opinions are based on their personal bias and fall into the Battle category on wikipiedia. These editors should take their battles elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. the wikipedia guidelines state: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not "insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." Doug and CJLL have repeatedly made statements that are not in line with this policy. These editors are disruptive and insulting by removing wikilinks, reliable sources, and by continually making accusations of my statements that I did not say. Marburg72 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit to removing duplicated Wikilinks and links to simple nouns like 'art' and 'poetry' and 'anger'. I don't agree that personal web pages or anonymous genealogical are the scholarly sources you think they are. I don't think the four other active editors on Walam Olum that disagree with you are the disruptive ones. Can we drop this? I have no idea why you are discussing wikilinks, reliable sources, etc on this page Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Williamson

    There appears to be a campaign to smear Bishop Williamson. His “views” which are carefully selected from a website take up most of the article space – even though his views have never received “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources” as per Wikipedia policy.

    Compare the length of this article to that of Williamson's immediate colleagues: Bishops Antonio de Castro Meyer, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Alfonso de Galarreta. All of them were elevated at the same time, yet this article is 12 times longer than any of theirs. It's even 50% longer than that of Marcel Lefebvre, who is far more notable than Williamson.

    The subject is notable for being a schismatic bishop. He is not known, in detail, for his views and this article should not be a mirror of his blog. His views that haven't attracted attention in reliable sources shouldn't be given attention. Williamson is not notable for his views. To quote policy: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable” and “editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability”

    There were numerous uncited claims (e.g. "Williamson is generally regarded as the most openly critical of the Vatican"), unreliable sources (e.g. a youtube clip!) and sources that cannot be used (e.g. The Catholic Herald "interview", to quote Wikipedia policy "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source"). Some of these have been removed, yet a recording by Crusaderforsweden on YouTube is still seen as a reliable third-party source and an apparent interview with AngelQueen.org (a primary source) is being used even though it has not been referenced by a reliable secondary source – as per policy.

    It is questionable as to whether this article should exist at all. "Articles about people notable only for one event" may well be applicable. Bishop Williamson is only notable for one event, as the policy says: "Cover the event, not the person".

    I have asked user:Lima to cite “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" demonstrating that the views/letters are worthy of notice and they can go in. this he has failed to do, yet he continues to revert to his version. PaulSoms (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the person is notable for a series of actions, not just a single event. However I agree that the lengthy account of his views was inappropriate. Only those views that have been mentioned in reliable, 3rd party sources should be regarded as notable enough to include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, remove blog stuff per WP:SOAP. -- Kendrick7talk 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There isn't enough reliable sources to support such a lengthy account. Keep reverting to the proper version and go for a block if he persists in his behavior. Celarnor Talk to me 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Gray

    See Talk:William M. Gray#Section removed.

    The article is about a scientist known for (1) hurricane predictions, (2) denying global warming. Apparently, he boasted in April that he would wager a substantial amount of money that the earth will actually be cooler in 8-10 years. The contentious section is about bloggers—including at least one editor on Wikipedia editing the BLP with apparent COI—who would like to take him up on his offer. The blogger also paid for a print ad in a college newspaper, which he believes (and explicitly says on his blog) can count as a reliable source. I believe that a paid ad is still SPS and that such ex parte and self-published sources are not appropriate in a BLP. Comments? Cool Hand Luke 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you. As I have argued in that same article regarding similar issues with a different editor, WP:SPS which are of a negative nature are clearly inappropriate. I eventually raised the issue with the maintainers of WP:BLP to seek clarification on just this type of material. This seems to be an on-going problem on this particular page as you know. --GoRight (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Connolley

    I am trying to add some criticism to WMCs BLP since it has none. The item I have chosen can be found in this edit [18]. I chose to quote the material verbatum from the article for a couple of reasons, (1) it is fairly short and to the point, and (2) the sentiments were articulated and reported by someone other than myself. Paraphrasing leaves the edit open to accusations of POV pushing on my part. In this case I am merely including material from a WP:RS, The New Yorker, and in fact this same source is already referenced elsewhere in the BLP.

    User:R. Baley has deleted my contribution and threatened to block me (see User_talk:R._Baley#Mr._Connolley.27s_Bio and User_talk:GoRight#POV_pushing_and_BLP_vio) if I add the material, or in fact any criticism of WMC regardless of the quality of the sources, so I have thus far refrained from adding it back in.

    I understand that William Connolley is a respected administrator here on Wikipedia but that should not make him immune from criticism when it has been reported in a WP:RS.

    Should The New Yorker be considered WP:RS for a BLP, and if so is my verbatum quote somehow inappropriate? I don't believe that my edit violates WP:BLP as User:R. Baley claims but refuses to specifically say which part and why.

    Comments? --GoRight (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be correct. That article is being selectively quoted to paint the subject in the best possible light. -- Kendrick7talk 06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I take that back, after reading the passage a few more times. I think the point is that another editor was able to complain so loudly that he got Connelly put on parole, despite actually being in the wrong. (Our gloss of the source could be better, though.) -- Kendrick7talk 06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance. I like the version as it stands now, [19]. I agree that your rewrite presents the material in a much more balanced manner and I am satisfied with the outcome if the regulars don't revert it. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Singer

    This BLP has been a perenial source of questionable additions from his critics here at Wikipedia. So much so that this observation has now made its way into a WP:RS at the National Post. I want to add the following material, see [20] which summarizes the content of the article accurately and succinctly.

    My purpose is to let the reader know of public concerns over the material listed there to keep it in perspective. I think it hard to argue that an article from a prominent source that basically states that the material on Singe's BLP is inaccurate, and intentionally so, is inappropriate for inclusion on the man's BLP.

    As you can see here, [21] and User_talk:GoRight#Solomon.27s_article_on_the_Singer_article, User:R. Baley has now threatened to block me if I even mention WMC (who happens to be the subject of the article cited), in any way and any where.

    Should this material be blocked from the page as User:R. Baley and User:Raul654 wish?

    Comments? --GoRight (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fair to call this navel gazing. The source is really about the editing behaviour of William Connolley, and would in some form be proper in WMC's bio, but the material is tangential to the bio of Singer himself, since it has nothing properly to do with him. -- Kendrick7talk 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Singer's opinion on William M. Connolley would have to be demonstrated to be WEIGHTy by a secondary source, so it fails as BLP source on Connolley. That means we should exclude it from Connolley's article, and probably shouldn't include it in Singer's either (BLP applies everywhere). If third-party reporting picked up and covered Singer's remarks, it might be worth including, but Wikipedia biographies are not campaign platforms for the subjects to have their remarks preserved. Cool Hand Luke 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an Op-Ed published in a newspaper, not a blog, and so has undergone editorial oversight. As such I'd give it more weight than the typical WP:SOAP. I thought my edit was OK.[22] -- Kendrick7talk 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like your approach to the Solomon Op/Ed. As you say, it has undergone editorial oversight. Some of the regulars, however, seem to want it gone. I have done my best to defend it but I am at the point that I can no longer save it on my own. There is active discussion related to your change at Talk:William_Connolley#WP:REDFLAG if you want to join in. --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Lamb (actor)

    IP editor, using a dynamic IP address, so far:

    92.8.139.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.41.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.186.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.115.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Has edited the article and changed nationality from British to English. No citation is provided, instead he insists that the IMDB page on the article in question is sufficient justification. The "source" in question merely confirms birthplace but does not confirm nationality. He started to edit war over this change, then started to follow me around posting comments on my talk page and my friend's talk page labelling me as a vandal. His IP is dynamic so any reply on his talk page he doesn't seem to get. I'll admit my initial edit summaries may not have entirely help but since I tried to provide an edit summary highlighting the need for a source, instead he insists that my reversions are vandalism and the IMDB page is sufficient. I can't see the point in edit warring over something so trivial so I gave it a few days and then reverted again. He was back almost immediately with a revert

    I initially posted this as a vandalism alert due to the edit war and to AN/I because of him following me to other pages. They suggested dispute resolution and so here I am.

    His edits are quite possibly correct and I am not disputing content per se but I'm at a loss as to how to get this guy to understand the need for sources. Has also edited Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor) and Bruce Mackinnon, with the same changes. Justin talk 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum, editor has reverted changes once more, ignoring edit summary, comments on talk page, comments on article talk page and a mirror on AN/I. Justin talk 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's get this straight - you have edit warred after reverting my good faith and accurate edits. You also fail to mention that you "wiki-stalked" me first. Your edits prove this. You didn't like me added (accurately) England to "HMS Cardiff (D108)" you therefore followed and reverted my other edits.

    92.12.29.14 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the only comment I intend to make by way of reply. An edit by this IP editor came up on an article that a friend was involved with in getting to FA status (HMS Cardiff (D108)) and was on the front page for a day. It's on my watchlist and so when the article was changed for the detriment I followed up on this editors other edits as is my practise. I generally find that vandals will edit multiple articles and I've often found and reverted vandalism in that way. That is not to say the edits in this case were vandalism or made out of bad faith, I was simply following up to be thorough. By no means all edits by this editor were problematic, I only edited those where sources were not provided to back up the edits. This is not wikistalking. However, since then this IP editor has followed me on my own talk page, a friends talk page, various noticeboards accusing me of edit-warring and vandalism and is clearly ignoring the comments I have left as to the reasons for my actions. This is wikistalking. When I mentioned WP:3RR in one page he accuses me of edit-warring, I mention his following me around as wikistalking and now he's accusing me of wikistalking. To be honest I'm completely bemused by the whole business. Justin talk 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Bentley

    I think the other reference source looks very much like an advocacy group, and I wouldn't count them as entirely reliable or neutral; I also don't see them showing up in discussions by major media. There may be some links there to similar stories printed in mainstream media, however, and that is worth investigating. I suspect this entire section needs to go until and unless better reference sources can be found. Other opinions? Risker (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also a letter-for-letter copy of this [23]. I think it should go immediately, as a copyvio if nothing else.--Slp1 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken it out as a copyright violation. Thanks for that catch. GRBerry 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact this is a reliable source for (though much shorter version) of this incident. [24]--Slp1 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We are having a problem with this article that People seem to be whitewashing the Man and the Event and anything that is brings him out in a bad light is being suppressed. It is clearly bias as even sites such as Microsoft have a contrversy section and this is one of the most contreversial events going on in chrisitiandom at the moment. I did not mean to do a copyright violation! If you look at the article most of the articles are from the same sources! --DeltadomDeltadom (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    J. Michael Bailey complications with COI(ish) editor

    An editor Jokestress (talk · contribs), self-identified as Andrea James, is demanding that I not mention her past off-Wiki actions on the talk page of a Wikipedia article that relates directly to these actions.

    Related articles:

    The facts are these:

    1. Andrea James is a transsexual activist (and a film producer, screenwriter, and actress, among other things) who was (is?) a principal figure in a politically motivated campaign against J. Michael Bailey.
    2. Bailey published a "popular science"-style book in 2003 that is, in part, about a concept of MtF transsexualism which James finds extremely offensive. James is not alone in her dislike for this book, which is believed by many activists to be politically dangerous and marginalizing for transsexuals.
    3. In addition to normal activist "noisemaking", the campaign against Bailey involved a number of legal and academic allegations, from practicing medicine without a license (for writing a letter to a sex-reassignment surgeon, without pay) to claims that interviewing people for his book was legally regulated IRB-controlled research (as opposed to journalistic research, which is a free-speech right).
    4. One of James' actions during this time was to copy photographs of Bailey's children from his website and to post them on her own website with "satirical" captions. The pictures were taken when the children were in elementary school and middle school. The captions James placed under the children's photgraphs included statements such as "Prostitute" and "Is this girl a cock-starved exhibitionist?" and "There are two types of children in the Bailey household: Type 1, who have been sodomized by their father, or Type 2, who have not".

    None of these facts are disputed and all of them are verifiable. Specifically, James does not deny having written these things: she openly acknowledges both the writing and her intention for them to be offensive, calling them "deliberately offensive satire". James claims to have apologized privately to the children, which would tend to indicate that she thought her actions were wrong. However, the Bailey children do not appear to agree with this assertion,[25] and in public, James steadily defends her right to publish "deliberately offensive" innuendo against Bailey's family as 'legitimate public discourse'.

    Not only does James not dispute the bare facts, but all of these facts, along with the sources that support them, are well-known to the regular editors of these articles. Many of them are included and properly sourced in the Wikipedia articles.

    Leaving entirely aside the question of legally protected free speech for a minute, I would like to point out to anyone whose blood might be reaching the boiling point, that James behavior towards the children has been roundly denounced inside and outside the TS community: See for example a blog posting by transsexual activist Julia Serano, who passionately hates Bailey's book but still writes (specifically about this incident involving James), "I am against personal attacks, particularly ones that involve someone's children" and "I don't think Bailey or his children should be personally harassed" and "She [James] was wrong to bring his kids into it".


    The current situation is this:

    It will not surprise any regular editor to hear that J. Michael Bailey and associated articles are difficult to keep even approximately neutral. It's a polarizing issue. It would be difficult even if one of the principal participants in the campaign wasn't vigilantly defending her interest in all of these articles. I started a talk page discussion on two recent changes that I thought were unjustified. My concerns for the second (and smaller) issue have been satisfied (but see Can of worms).

    The as-yet unresolved issue was the unexplained deletion of a direct quotation by a "pro-Bailey" person, properly sourced to a New York Times article. The quotation deals with the chilling effect on free speech that (might/could/has: Pick your POV) resulted from the anti-Bailey campaign. (After all, would any normal parent publish a book, knowing that it was likely to result in the publication of "satirical" statements about you raping your children?)

    The quotation was deleted in the course of a bunch of other changes. The deleting editor doesn't mind it being restored, but he thought it would be best to include the next quotation in the NYT article as well, from an anti-Bailey person: "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author..." for balance.

    The undisputed fact is that at least one of the principal actors in this campaign launched an obscene personal attack against some people whose only "crime" was being the children of a man that James hates. I am convinced that the typical reader of this encyclopedia, as well as a majority of TS folk, will not think that James' "satirical" obscenities and innuendo constitutes "fair comment on a book and an author," and I said as much on the talk page. I did not name Andrea James as having done this, but I'm sure that every regular editor would have known exactly what situation I had in mind, even if Jokestress had not promptly posted to remind them.

    Jokestress is unhappy with my view of her actions and has repeatedly demanded that I strike out about half of my initial reply, on the grounds of WP:BLP.

    I state plainly that I despise Andrea James' past behavior and that I am not impressed with Jokestress's demand that references to well-documented and repeatedly admitted publications be removed: If you are going to publish deliberately offensive statements about children (and their mother, and their father, and the woman that their father was dating [the parents are divorced]), and to insist that you have a free-speech right to do so, and even to gloat in the same talk page discussion about the irony of pulling a statement in the father's book out of context, so that it obscenely disparages his young son, then IMO you have no room to complain when your well-documented choice is used as an example of "overstepping the boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author".

    I have no particular interest in respecting the tender feelings of a person who once valued the feelings of two innocent children very lightly indeed. However, I have been accused of BLP violations for not conforming to Jokestress' personal POV about her actions. I would welcome the advice of any uninvolved, independent editor on making my comments conform with WP:BLP, assuming that other editors believe that mentioning of these documented facts actually transgresses WP:BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (who apologizes for inflicting such a long section on readers of this page)[reply]

    This editor claims I "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape," which is an outrageous and baseless claim that violates WP:NPA, WP:BLP and probably a dozen other policies about disruptive editing and attacking other editors. I have asked her to strike through it, and she seems to think that's not necessary. This editor has a long running problem with me personally that includes adding misinformation and then insulting me when I requested corrections and then removing evidence of those earlier attacks. Further, I find the entire entry above laced with all kinds of passive-aggressive insults and incivility that have no place on Wikipedia. I have tried to remain civil throughout these repeated slurs, but this latest accusation simply is beyond the pale. Jokestress (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, please that the incestuous child rape isn't likely to be a complaint here, since a father sodomizing his own underaged child is always incest and always child rape. The problem is likely the word accused. There are more definitions of the word accuse than merely whether the work, considered as a whole, rises to the legal standard required for libel per se. I am not a lawyer, and it should be perfectly obvious that I do not make use this word according to the limited definition given in law -- at least as obvious as Andrea James' claim that her reprehensible treatment of these children is protected free speech. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Five years later, you are obviously still very wound up about this (which was the point of that exercise, of course). However, that does not excuse you from your obligations on Wikipedia to avoid personal attacks. You are exactly right that the word "accused" is the problem here, as I noted in my requests on your talk page to strike through that allegation. That is a serious allegation that has no basis in fact, and I am requesting once again that you strike through it and stop making that claim, as it is patently false and malicious. What I wrote five years ago is absolutely protected speech and fair comment; what you have written is not, and it has no place on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). It is an allegation that has only ever come from you, and I am asking you yet again to retract it. Jokestress (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Geier

    Long-standing issues of WP:COATRACKing this bio and introduction of blog sources at this article (it has been going on for years), having to do with Thiomersal controversy and autism. The article was recently protected for a while, but as soon as protection is removed, same resumes. I've tried to clean it up many times, but redlinked new accounts keep appearing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Jokestress edits of BLP on Kenneth Zucker

    I am a colleague of Kenneth Zucker, and I am concerned that Jokestress/Andrea James has written a biographical page on Zucker. Jokestress/Andrea James has previously written the following letter to Zucker's hospital regarding Zucker (and others), thus becoming an actor in the events. Despite the rights she has to express her opinions off-wiki, it does not seem appropriate for her to be involved in writing the BLP's of the people once she had involved herself in their lives, such as by contacting their employers.

    http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/letter_to_consultant_brought_in_to_clean_up_camh_clarke_institute/ —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be worthwhile to have another editor review the new article, but the conflict of interest you express concern about would be better aired at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Are there any specific concerns about the article, as the primary issue from this board's perspective will be the sourcing, balance, and accuracy of the article? Reviewing, a history merge from Kenneth J. Zucker to Kenneth Zucker may be worth doing, but there is no clear copy paste merge here to absolutely require it. GRBerry 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted the above note on COIN. My main concern is with the great imbalance of the article, which exaggerates the prominance of issues relevant to Jokestress' sociopolitical views relative to Zucker's overall career, selectively quotes other authors in ways that serve Jokestress' long-standing efforts to discredit Zucker rather than fairly represent his actual views (Jokestress/Andrea James' many statements about Zucker are available on her personal webapge at www.tsroadmap.com by searching for "Zucker" or his hospital, "CAMH"), and understates Zucker's own statements to the contrary.
    —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the author of the original article, Kenneth J Zucker, I would like to point out that the controversy surrounding Zucker's methodology is a large part of his cultural relevance. I had never heard of Zucker until the piece by Spiegel aired on NPR. Cstaffa (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not at all saying there should be no article or that he has no cultural relevance; I am saying I believe it is is terribly inappropriate for the article to be edited by someone (Jokestress) who has also taken it upon herself to write letters to Zucker's employers disparaging him.
    —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Begging your pardon, I was replying to your claim of imbalance. I do not at all agree that the article exaggerates the prominence of the controversy surrounding Zucker's GID therapy. Cstaffa (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry for my misinterpretation, and you are, of course, free to your opinion regarding what constitutes balanced. (Of course, if one's knowledge of a scientist's curriculum vita is based on a radio broadcast that covered only a single aspect of it, then one would be hard pressed to know what balanced would look like.) Nonetheless, my point is about whether it is appropriate for a BLP to be written by someone who has also sent disparaging letters to the employer of article's subject. My opinion is "no."
    —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Take the counter example- suppose an editor had written a complimentary letter to a subject's employer, or a fan letter to the subject himself. Would we say that the editor shouldn't edit the biography? I don't think we would, so long as the editor follows the rules. We don't require that editors be neutral, only their edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can recommend only that you read Jokestress' string of edits: Together with editing the Zucker page, she has included large edits about Zucker on the conversion therapy page attempting to cast Zucker (falsely) as a reparative/conversion therapist. Specifically, Jokestress has made edits to expand the definition of "conversion therapy" (poorly sourced to the report of an activist group) so that Zucker suddenly counts as a conversion therapist. (She has done this following the American Psychiatric Association's (correct) statement that Zucker does not do reparative/conversion therapy; so Jokestress is now revising the WP definition to make the reverse seem true.) One would be hard-pressed to refer to her edits as neutral.
    —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't appear to be a BLP issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Scientologists

    Is the Church of Scientology a reliable source for who can be listed as a Scientologist. Please visit Talk:List of Scientologists, if you have an opinion (I prefer to keep all discussion on the talk page, if possible). --Rob (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Glenn McGee

    Two edits are posted from IP address 72.224.19.243, in Schnectady, New York, by an anonymous poster. Rather than ask this person to provide their identity through any other method available within the context of remedies for false or misleading statements made on the web, and since there are perhaps three people in all of Schenectady, New York who could have written this post who are within the 72.224.19.243 domain/subdomain, I would ask please that the person making this false edit identify him or herself. - Glenn McGee

    The edits involved [26] are based on this source. It does not strike me as particularly problematic. The article appears to need a major rewrite, with NPOV a concern. Additionally, the article as a whole has manual of style issues. Can an other editor with knowledge of the field take a review. GRBerry 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a quick mop and broom to it, converting to inline refs and the like; but it's only a start. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, McGee has taken to removing requests for citations, with angry summaries saying that it is an insult to require verifiability of what "everybody knows" (in his field, I would guess). I don't want to get into an edit war with the guy (assuming that it is in fact he), but he's got a pretty bad case of WP:OWN here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon was, among other things, trying to remove perfectly reasonable statements of his editorship of journals, and so one--they can when seriously challenged be cited from the journal home pages, & I will do so to remove all doubt, but when baseless objections are made to material such as this, there is reason to doubt that the challenges to material are made in good faith. I see nothing much wrong with the tone of the article as it stands, but I'll add some of the things usual in scientist bio articles, such as key papers & reviews of his books. DGG (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From the article he seems to be only notable for one thing, being fired from his job. I will tag it a non-notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Leslie (television presenter)

    There seems to be a content dispute regarding removal of material (which is well-sourced but to the detriment of the subject of the article) going on at John Leslie (television presenter). I'm not at all experienced in the BLP issues, but I thought this might be the place to report it. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest addition is sourced to the BBC, which is fine. The paragraph before lacks in-line citations. They should be easy to track down. BBC, ITN, Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent are all appropriate sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Will Smith

    I took out a paragraph which was about someone allegedly blackmailing Mr. Smith and his wife. The purpose seemed to be to suggest that there must be some secret that they were trying to hide. I think putting that kind of thing in a BLP is kind of against the spirit of what a WP bio should be, even if there is not exactly a rule against it. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It didn't seem to reflect badly on the article subject in any way. The issue is whether E! is a good enough source for such a statement. I would say not, because it seems to be tabloid in its type of coverage. If the issue it mentioned did turn out to be a noteworthy news story then it should be possible to find coverage in more serious news sources. If there is no such coverage, then it is not worth noting in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The paragraph has not been put back so maybe there is no problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin

    There seems to be a concerted effort to keep properly sourced, but not flattering material from the above referenced biography. The material was removed repeatedly without reason then the page semi-protected. The material is not mine but seems to be well sourced. Could someone more knowlegable of proper procedures review the talk page, check the listed sources, and at least add to the discussion if not remedy the situation?

    66.230.106.220 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)David Adamson66.230.106.220 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it the comparison with Chavez that you are talking about? If so, it is cited to Newsweek and would seem to be an appropriate addition, on condition that it is properly worded. Pulling together various comparisons to Chavez from different sources could be original research and therefore unsuitable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree and thats why I jumped in to the editing but the editors who dont seem to want to allow the material have protected the page. Is there someway or someone who can resolve the issue and clear off the protection or re-post the cited material? Again, I am very new to this and it is almost to the point of "really not worth it" to continue when I really have no "dog in the fight." I like the idea of wikipedia but this was my first venture into the process adn it has been frustrating. 209.112.186.4 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)David Adamson[reply]

    I've requested the page be unprotected. Protection by an involved admin seems a little overboard. -- Kendrick7talk 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Verne Troyer

    TMZ, a gossip online site, has reported that there exists a sex tape of the above person (best known as Mini-Me from Austin Powers). I've been reverting the addition because it is a controversial statement by a non-reliable source. Several newspaper's blogs have started reporting on the TMZ allegations (with no independent confirmation) and now are being used as sources. I would like assistance in monitoring this page for the use of reliable sources. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't belong until there's confirmation that the tape is actually of Troyer - the veracity is as yet unconfirmed by any reliable source. FCYTravis (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian has reported on this (G2, "We watched Mini-Me's sex tape so you don't have to", by Marina Hyde, "Lost in Showbiz", on page 2). As well as the print edition, it also appears in the website's blog section:
    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/lostinshowbiz/2008/06/we_watched_minimes_sex_tape_so.html
    Ho hum. So this is what I get for my 80p! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Hannity

    I am concerned that the following is within the article.

    • Journalist Max Blumenthal, son of former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in a June 2005 article published in The Nation, claimed that Hannity's radio show provided a regular forum for the rants of white supremacist Hal Turner and that their relationship extended to an off-air friendship from 1998 to 2000.[10] While the relationship claims were seconded by Turner in a posting on his personal blog, they were denied by Hannity and by the program director at WABC, Phil Boyce, who disputed the factual accuracy of many of the allegations.[11]

    My primary concern is that reference "The Nation" ref relies on two sources, Hal Turner (and his blog site) and Daryle Jenkins of One People's Project (which is most likely not a reliable source.) Google searching has provided no additional published articles which quality as reliable sources regarding this issue, and as it stands it basically reads as Turner's word against Hannity. It has been stated by a few editors that it raises WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN. Being that Hannity is wellknown there should be additional sources which discuss this issue, but there are not. Additionally, this is a pretty exceptional claim, and if so there should be substantial reliable sources which discuss the incident less it be a case of WP:UNDUE Editors which have objected to the material have stated a desire for additional reliable sources. Editors in favor have stated that "The Nation" is a reliable source which is verifiable and that is all that is needed. Indeed "The Nation" is a reliable source, and it is verifiable that Turner made these statements, however, does his word reach the level which would validate inclusion? Are the allegations of a couple of people enough to include contencious material which Hannity has already denied? I believe that RS News Organizations may also cover this because it is an opinion piece being used as a statement of fact. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A cursory examination of Google News Archives doesn't have much to go on, either. The Blumenthal piece shows up, but most of the other references are from News Hounds, whose motto is We watch Fox so you don't have to. There are also some hits for Infoshop News, whose motto is anarchist news, opinion and much more. Finally, there's one hit from ALM Research that strikes me as fairly reliable, but the article is about a libel suit by Cynthia McKinney's lawsuit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and only mentions in passing that Turner is an associate of Hannity's. Putting my rather strong dislike for Fox News and Sean Hannity aside, none of these sources seems very good. Personally, I think it's pretty likely they're correct, but I'd feel much more comfortable if this was discussed in some unbiased, non-opinion based sources. AniMate 04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    HI Ani! What do you think about Blumenthal's The Nation article? Docku (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parts of this are well-reported. It's verifiable with multiple sources that Turner promotes what has been called "message of hate". It's also widely reported that he was a frequent caller to Hannity's program. So the only matter at issue is whether Hannity spoke to Turner off the air. A reliable source (The Nation) reports that Turner says they did speak. A blog, Huffington Post, reports that Hannity denies even knowing who Turner is.[27] Another blog says that the program director left a denial in a comment on the blog.[28] The Blumenthal piece in The Nation is a higher-grade source than the blogs. Denials by 3rd-parties in blog comments are not suitable sources. I think that so long as we attribute the claims the material is suitable. While the denial is poorly-sourced, there's some benefit to including it for the sake of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? The Nation Op-Ed on Turner's Blog site is more reliable than the denial by Hannity and his program director on another Blog site? Arzel (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The editorial in the Nation is not Blumenthal's opinion but him repeating information gleaned from One People's Project. Since The Nation is a biased source (for a conservative BLP article : they bill themselves as left/liberal) that means the only sources for this controversial material in a BLP are: a biased editorial based on information from an unusable source, blogs and forums. I don't think that's enough to include the material. --PTR (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a valid argument. BBC reporters reporting from Afghanistan sometimes have sources who are some poor Afghans. Are we going to question BBC report because of that??? We accept that as good information because we know BBC wouldnt report all the information they receive. Now, What about FOX news channel. Well, everyone knows that it is right leaning organisation but it doesnt mean that they report false news, and if they do, it will be detrimental to their reputaion. The point is right leaning or left leaning magazines, newspaper or news organisations which are also considered reliable sources may give more importance to or omit reports to suit their position. They dont report false information. If they do, they shouldnt be called reliable sources. Let us not confuse left leaning and right leaning with reliability. Docku (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to rehash the overly long discussion on the Hannity talk page, I'm just going to make two points: First, this is not an "editorial", it is a regular article from a reliable source. It is only an "editorial" in the minds of some editors who oppose using the RS. Two, do we typically dissect the sources of articles from a RS like this? Do we even know what the sources are? Most sources are not identified and yet we accept the material when it comes from an RS, and we should do no different in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We should dissect them for a BLP. I would expect to do the same if a National Review editorial was the only source of controversial information someone was trying to include in [Al Franken]. The sources for something like this should be mainstream and multiple; not relying on one source that was listed in the index under columns, was written by a Media Matters Fellow, was web only (not in the print version), uses two blogs as it's sources and is in the Fox News Network section of The Nation, which is politically left. The goal of getting it right is worth some time to make sure that controversial inclusions are well sourced. --PTR (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we should take the time to get it right, then we shouldn't repeat misconceptions like the fact that this is listed under "columns", when as I pointed out the talk page, the phrase "column left" is appended only to Robert Scheer's article. Also, the fact that it is web only is immaterial and I'm not sure why you bring it up. Innuendos about the writer's background are also immaterial. We aren't running opposition research here. We're deciding how to employ a reliable source, when all some editors appear interested in is creating and fabricating all sorts of fallacious reasons to slur a source that is perfectly acceptable according to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are small headings under different sections and it appears to me that the items under the column left heading are all in that category. The fact that it is web only makes it more likely that it's an editorial and not an article that they would have used in their print media. I made no innuendos about the writer's background - in his bio on The Nation page it lists that he is a Media Matters Fellow. I don't know what you consider slurs. I mentioned that they are left/liberal. The have that on their web page. All I said was the use of this as the sole source for a conservative's BLP is not adequate and that multiple main stream sources were necessary. --PTR (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you follow the links for the different articles, you will see that Scheer's article is labeled "Column Left" at the top of the article and Blumenthal's is not. It's pretty clear that this means "Column Left" is the name of Scheer's regular feature or that it is part of a series called "Column Left", while Blumenthal's is not. Your point about the web-only material meaning it is an editorial is only speculation and we shouldn't use such speculation when evaluating sources for BLPs. The writer's background is pretty irrelevant. MMfA and The Nation are both progressive, there is nothing unusual about a journalist working for both institutions, nor should we use that as an indication to speculate that a writer is less reliable because of it. The key question, which everyone is furiously trying to dance around, is this: is The Nation a reliable source? It is, so the material is acceptable to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blumenthal's piece is also not listed as an article and is in the Fox News Network section which primarily editorials about Fox News. It is written in editorial fashion using blogs as sources and representing one side only while at the end making editorial comments. The writer's background on an editorial is relevant. I'm not saying he is unrealiable or making any slurs on his character. I would expect an editorial to be written from the viewpoint of the writer. And the main question is not is The Nation a reliable source but: Is one non mainstream source, which is possibly an editorial, from a politically opposite source adequate for controversial material in a BLP. As it says in [WP:RS} How reliable a source is depends on context. --PTR (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. It is so tiring to argue with people who dont want to stick to the points and policies which matter to this discussion. I guess we should take it to WP:Mediation or WP:Arbitration. Docku (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN? Why don't you look at that? As an admin you should have a good knowledge of WP policies, yet you have yet to make a single comment regarding these two important policies. Arzel (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I only have so much time and energy. Perhaps if I didn't have to spend so much time discussing bullshit accusations like calling a magazine article a "blog" then I would have time to discuss those policies in depth. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference here is that it is clearly stated in the article that the source for "The Nation" article is a blog. Now if blogs like the one used in "The Nation" article are not suitable as a primary source, then why would an article that simply restates the blog be a reliable source? Seems to me that the policy of WP:RS is being used word for word, but the spirit of the policy is being tossed aside. In any case if this was an issue there should be several additional RS's that could be used, and I don't understand why superceding policies of WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN are being ignored by some. What is the point of even having there policies if they are to be ignored? Arzel (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Arzel on the above. I should state that I have been involved with the Hannity article in the past (starting in March or April of this year); I came there a neutral party, and I still regard myself as such. (I also ended up with the biographies of several other conservative media personalities on my watchlist at the same time, and I've unfortunately learned that critics of the people involved love to coatrack these bios with poorly-sourced "controversies".) I am the person who drafted the wording above (I did so to effect a compromise between warring parties) but I am still very uncomfortable with its inclusion. I researched this extensively, and everything seems to trace back to the word of a fringe racist figure (Hal Turner), which was picked up and amplified by Hannity's detractors. (A look into the article history will show that this claim has come and gone multiple times as different editors focus their attention on the article.) My research into commentary by the The Nation (the reliable source listed for this info) shows that they have engaged in polemical attacks against conservative figures in the past, particularly in editorial columns. I don't think we should keep this claim - particularly in a biography on Hannity, a prominent media figure who could cause damage to Wikipedia should he regard this as libel. I would support inclusion of the claim if more reliable sourcing could be found for the claim - but for now, the information should go. Kelly hi! 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am wondering what changed Kelly's mind as he(she) admitted that he(she) (I guess Gemaliel was also involved in the compromised and balanced edit) was the one who presented the current version. FYI, It is not wikipedia policy to analyse the intentions and background of how informations land up in reliable sources. Our duty is to write what is reported in reliable sources. It is not about conservatism or liberalism, it is about reliable source. It is not a good idea to let ones affiliation to one ideology interfere with editorial process here. Docku (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What changed it was that I continued to research the issue after I drafted the compromise wording to end the edit war. I can't find any credible source to establish the claimed relationship between Hannity and Turner, aside from Turner himself. I initially took the The Nation as being an unquestioned reliable source, but the more I looked, the more I realized that were likely pushing a particular point of view about Hannity, and other conservatives, that could not be regarded as neutral. Just my opinion, but it appears others share that opinion. (And I will declaim for the public record right now that I myself an decidedly not a conservative - except when it come to compliance with WP:BLP.) If this claimed relationship is really notable, it should be easy to find another source to back it up - if not, I sincerely believe it should go. Kelly hi! 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, The Nation is an unquestionable reliable source. Docku (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated above, that is questioned in this case. This is a perfect example of the situation described in WP:REDFLAG. It's appropriate to demand a high-quality source for this claim. Given Hannity's high profile in the media, I find it pretty suspicious that no other reliable source has mentioned this claimed association. Kelly hi! 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence from the reliable source satisfying WP:VERI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR far outweighs that it can not be disqualified by your suggested policies. Docku (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my previous reply again. The answer is there. Docku (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly not a blog, and even if it were, it would be irrelevant as it is from an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what is bothersome. A perceived disregard and condemnation for a procedure the subject initiated himself. Docku (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would want to remind the neutral observers here to have a look at the edit histories of the parties involved in the discussion. If a pattern adhering to WP:SPA can be ascertained from this edit history, it can explain some of the unusual argumental behaviours witnessed here. Docku (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm sure my pattern of editing on articles related to porn stars and other problematic BLP articles can be used to discredit what I'm saying (especially my DYK on Ashley Alexandra Dupre), by demonstrating that I'm some kind of Republican bible-thumper. Docku, please - focus your effort on finding sources to support your claim. Kelly hi! 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral people here will probably confine themselves to commenting on the BLP issues. If you have concerns about an editing pattern then you should take it up in another forum, e.g. a user RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

    Is is acceptable to use a blog comment by a scientist that is sharply critical of a minor (no WP article) signatory to the petition and also cite a throwaway line in the same blog comment that makes an accusation against another signatory? The reference is no. 32 in the article, blog by PZ Myers. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PZ is a great guy, and I love his blog, but his rhetorical comment about one of the signatories of a petition, in the context of the article, is insignificant. His efficient demolition of a blog posting by Egnor is of some interest, but we shouldn't be recording exchanges confined (as this one is) to the blogosphere. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Lara Logan

    • Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Lara Logan is a war correspondant for CBS news. Given her recent appearance on the Daily Show and (I think) recent promotion at CBS -combined with her views on American media coverage of the war in Iraq, I suspect she will be the target of a defamation campaign. I have reverted a recent attempt to include allegations of a sexual nature attributed to the New York Post (with the serious title, "News Babe's Iraqi Tryst"). This biography might need a few eyes on it. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gordon Kerr

    Grateful if someone could take a look at this, the sourcing is dubious and the allegations are quite significant.

    Thanks

    ALR (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Chris Heimerdinger

    • Chris Heimerdinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Chris Heimerdinger is a novelist noted for his success in the LDS community. His Wikipedia page is being policed by a user who insists that all changes go through him so he can check their accuracy with Heimerdinger. I accidentally embroiled myself in this controversy; I think it's time that some outside editors came in and read the talk page and help decide what the appropriate course of action is. Thanks. Thmazing (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hip Hop Galaxy

    I see that a number of articles are utilizing HipHopGalaxy.com as a source for biographical information. I don't feel this source is reliable. Is there a way to check against this?? JBsupreme (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Singer - Item 2

    Fred Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a minor edit war starting up on this page.

    It is over the verifiability of this reference, [29]. I suppose the issue likewise applies to this reference and the material it supports as well:

    "More on the Moons of Mars". Singer, S. F., Astronautics, February 1960. American Astronautical Society. Page 16

    I would appreciate the assistance of an independent admin to stop the warring and to insure that this material is removed until it has been shown to be WP:V by those who wish to add it, per Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material we know specifically "Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy", and per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not forum-shop. You've already been pointed at the place to find the source, and the previous verification discussion on the talk page. Which can be found here: Talk:Fred_Singer#Moons_of_Mars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter whether is verifiable, it violates WP:SOAP unless there is a secondary source attesting to notability. -- Kendrick7talk 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=222155408"