Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive127

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Clifford Vaughs

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

In 1969, Clifford Vaughs and Lew Irwin were awarded by the Associated Press California, "Best Documentary" for "Berkely Third World or Third Reich". Special award for "The Most Creative Presentation of the News" for "Credibility Gap". Vaughs and Irwin formed VIP (Vaughs/Irwin Productions) and produced the shows at KRLA radio, Pasadena California. "Credibility Gap" went into syndication.

You can start a Wikipedia article about him if you would like. Here's a good source of information about Vaughs: HE JOURNEYED ON CIVIL RIGHTS PATH, NOW HE ROAMS STREETS by Don Melvin, Orlando Sentinel (August 1, 1988).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

J. Patrick Capps

I am the subject of this article, and while I am flattered someone thinks enough of me to create a wikipedia page, I am concerned it might detract from my work. I will request that my page be deleted as soon as possible.J. Patrick Capps Monday, June 20, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.33.174 (talk • contribs)

Article deleted on 25 June 2011.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernesto J. Cordero

1) In the level of PERSONAL LIFE it appears that he dropped out the Ph. D. in Economics. This is false, his current status is all but dissertation (ABD)

2) Controversy: His net earnings are not 200,000 pesos. The correct info is 145, 000 pesos. [1]

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8.[2]

Someone's already removed the controversy section including earnings information. Likewise, completion of PhD. courses has already been indicated in the article (instead of dropping out).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko

Her article lacks a date of birth, and there's no right-hand sidebar of vital statistics as all other biographic articles seem to have. Given that an international court has just convicted her, surely her approximate age has been stated *somewhere* ?

The article has said "born 1946" since last year (2010), in the first sentence. The source is a New York Times article which says: "Pauline Nyiramasuhuko was born in 1946 amid lush banana groves and green, misty valleys." So, the approximate age is 65.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edward A. McCabe

Resolved

– improved and updated - AFD was speedy keep

I was doing some research into the Eisenhower administration and looked up one of his top advisors, Edward A. McCabe. He is listed as a living person and I found what I believe to be his Obituary from October 4, 2008 in the Washington Post with a guest book. A number of the comments lead me to believe that this is same person who is listed as still living. Here is a link to this obituary:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=edward-a-mccabe&pid=118479593&fhid=2167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoodnik (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha. What a silly nomination. Fences&Windows 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He was dead for three years without any care or interest at all - no one is interested , his notability is actually zero. If it wasn't for this report he would still be alive according to wikipedia. Its not silly at all - Its a shame that wikipedia had him as living for three years after he died. - his family and friends didn't even bother reading his article here - the reason that occurred is because he is actually of such low notability that no one was bothered at all - such as this is what happens when users create biographies of low notability subjects - no one bothers or is interested to update them. I will nominate all such low notable people for deletion simply to protect them. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's argument against this article is bizarre. He thinks that this article about a notable political figure in the 1950s and 1960s should be deleted because no one until now improved a stub and added the fact that he is dead. Well, that fact and many more have been added to what was, but is no longer, a stub. Stubs on notable but somewhat obscure topics are OK, but expanded articles are better. It is now an informative article, but Off2riorob now thinks it should be deleted. He thinks that if this person is notable, someone before Fences and Windows should have improved the article, but is not satisfied by the improvements that Fences and Windows has made. Please remember, Off2riorb, that 99.9% of the world's population are not Wikipedia editors, but billions of people use our encyclopedias in many languages - millions every day. Shortcomings in an existing article is not evidence that the topic is not notable, but instead is only an additional piece of evidence that this encyclopedia is a work in progress. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, go ahead improve it , great, but loudly asserting how fantastically notable when he is dead for years before anyone even notices is also bizarre. The stub looked like this when I nominated it, barely edited in a couple of years - a dead person that was of little interest it was not even added to the article after over two years - this encyclopedia is a work in progress - is not an excuse to host poorly written factually false content about low notability people. If nominating it for deletion is what it takes to get it improved then I am happy. - As a side issue - I also sometimes wonder when articles are improved with the intention of keeping it if that desire is a NPOV energy to expand such low notability subjects, such energy imo creates and attempts to assert notability at all costs in a effort to keep keep at all costs - in the article in the lede - it says he was a staffer and then adds as though a notable thing "and the founding chairman of the student loans organization Sallie Mae" but McCabe is not mentioned at all in the Sallie Mae article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Notable" is our criterion here, Off2riorob, not "fantastically notable", whatever that means. You could propose to have a bot written that would delete the one million Wikipedia articles that are least often viewed, because all those articles could be considered "low notability" as if that notion had any credibility with more than a handful of people here. Don't congratulate yourself for your AfD nomination, because it was a new user called Anoodnik who motivated improvement of this article, not you. Your AfD nomination resulted only in consternation rather than improvement of the encyclopedia. Yes, we had a weak stub before, but someone genuinely interested in senior staffers of the Eisenhower administration, an editor called Anoodnik, brought the shortcomings in that article to our attention. Because of that input and especially the work done by Fences and Windows, we now have a vastly better article. You continue to demean this man's notability despite the fact that the New York Times wrote about him with his name in headlines, and half a century later, the Washington Post assigned a staff writer to compose a detailed and respectful obituary. This wasn't a paid, family-submitted obituary - it was genuine journalistic coverage that described the many ways that he was notable. You think that failure of relatives to update a stub is evidence that he wasn't notable. Hogwash. This man was 92 years old and suffering from dementia when he died. Wikipedia wasn't even thought of when he was at the top of his game. As for the fact that he isn't mentioned in the current version of our article about Sallie Mae, perhaps you might consider researching the early history of that organization and improving that section of the article. The fact that he isn't mentioned there is utterly irrelevant, but you could add a description of his role in the founding, now that the references have been handed on a platter. Your comments here are far more a reflection on your editing here than on the notability of Edward A. McCabe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone that no one notices dies is not very notable, that is just a basic reality. You think its great now its improved and don't care that he was alive here for three years after his death and I do care about that - imo its a shame on the project caused by keeping at all costs all sorts of low notable people. I am glad the article has been improved - that is reflective of my contributions here, I want high quality articles not false data, personally I think you should get of my back about it, you appear to have been on at me since the Adam Levine discussion above - are you upset about that? If not stop making a mountain out of a molehill and let it drop. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the Edward A. McCabe AfD as a "keep", Off2riorob. It was a good decision and I appreciate it. We've disagreed about two unrelated things this week, but there is no connection. I am not upset about the Adam Levine discussion. I think everyone agrees that he shouldn't be categorized as Jewish, since he clearly isn't Jewish. We just disagreed about the secondary issue of how to characterize his Jewish ancestry. So, I am willing to let both matters drop, and look forward to the next opportunity to agree with you as opposed to disagreeing with you. I don't hold grudges and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for those comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Petkoff

I have a Wiki editor who will not allow me to make changes to a page that I contribute to. The requested changes to the Wiki page have been made, and noted, and still this editor will not allow the page to stand corrected. Could I please ask someone to address this? I believe this editor has a personal agenda that is not allowing for an updated article. Thank you for your help. Cwands (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been advised not to blank maintenance templates on articles, particularly as you largely, or exclusively, edit articles of close relatives and display a very apparent COI when doing so. Stop playing dumb. Your last post on this noticeboard elicited this repsonse, not only supporting the maintenance templates on the article but, quite rightly, suggesting a new one, "like resume" which I have added. You have in no way addressed the issues in question and with your evident COI are patently incapable of doing so. There is no basis for your accusation that there is a personal agenda to my actions so don't bandy it around. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the Wiki editor who seems to have a bias for my contributions to the article for Robert Petkoff. I was asked by an editor in the Living Persons Template noticeboard to revise the article to less of a CV format and I have done so. Again, I have to ask that someone else other than Doddy Wuid address this issue. Cwands (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into the details here, would you like help building this page as a proper encyclopedia article? You've done a much better job of assembling sources here than on your last attempt. I've made some very minor changes to the page so far. The subject clearly meets our notability guides, and if it's going to stay, it needs some cleanup. Could I help? BusterD (talk)

Buster D: Thank you so much for your offer to help. Please advise any changes and I will be more than happy to revise this article. I really do want to adhere to Wiki's protocol - just please let me know what needs to go or stay and I will be happy to edit. Thanks again. Cwands (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion section on the talk page. I've provided some links which will provide guidance on how we can improve the papespace to stay within Wikpedia's policies, guidelines and common practice. I encourage others to help keep eyes on the space, and feel invited to help source and cleanup this COI/BLP issue. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also a copyvio issue. BusterD (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've stubified the article except for sources and bare intro, transferred the whole lot over to my sandboxspace, and User:Cwands is extracting sources so we can format them properly. Then we can write the entire piece as an encyclopedic biography of a notable and durable stage performer. For the record, I was one editor who endorsed deletion of this editor's previous BLP/COI creation. In this case, I'm satisfied with the sources I'm finding on my own, so my impulse is to improve the space as opposed to bite the newbie. Maybe I'm naive. Every once in a while, we get a new editor who may make meaningful contributions on their own. This user has been totally honest about mistakes, so I figure, let's help. Honest persistent people can become useful wikipedians. BusterD (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Avner Greif

My name is Avner Greif and I am writing to report an abuse of the Wikipedia entry bearing my name.

I request that the recent addition, cited below, will be removed. It is a self-serving, attention grabbing, and inaccurate discussion of my work and opinions. I propose that access to this entry will be restricted.

As a background, I am a professor of economic history at Stanford University and I work on the relations between institutions, culture, and economic and political outcomes. I have a BA in Economic and History of the Jewish People, a Master in Economic and History of the Jewish People and a Phd in Economics. I have been publishing since 1989 and my work has more than 6,000 citations in Google Scholars and more than 1,000 citations in professional publications (based on the Web of Knowledge).

The paragraph in dispute is offensive. Particularly offensive is the statement “Boldizzoni argues that Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy has little to do with medieval history but is in fact a neoconservative narrative which owes its success to the revival of the cultural conflict after September 11, 2001.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avner_Greif#cite_note-4>[5].”

This is Boldizzoni’s opinion of my political views and it is vacuous. My comparative work on trade in Europe and the Middle East was published from 1989 to 1996, long before Sept. 11 and it was only summarized in my 2006 book. I have never wrote or spoke in a neo-conservative outlet or been a member of a related organization. Moreover, this statement casts doubt on my professional integrity by arguing that my scholarship is biased by political views.

The rest of the paragraph discusses two critics of my works. No explanation is provided to why out of the thousands of studies that discuss or cite my work, these two particular ones should be discussed at length if at all. This discussion amounts to no more than abuse of Wikipedia to promote these two particular works.

Boldizzoni’s book as published on June, 2011 and I had never heard about this scholar before. According to Google Scholar, he was publishing since 2004 but has only 8 citations. I searched his book (using Amazon’s content search) and found only 9 reference to my work in the text (and 3 in the bibliography). The book has more than 200 pages and its ‘critic’ is mediocre. E.g., alleging to find some referencing mistake in a 500 pages book with hundreds of references. The claim in Wikipedia “no familiarity with the primary sources” ignores that my research was based on hundreds of documents written in Latin and Judeo-Arabic.

I object, on similar ground, to the discussion of Edwards and Ogilvie. Their 2008 paper has focus on evaluating my work but my response has been so devastating to their claim that they completely revised their position in a paper with the same name in 2009 (see http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/camcamdae/0928.htm). The 2010 version of their paper (which I will be happy to send you) does not even cite the 2008 version. I don’t see why Wikipedia should refer to a paper that its authors no longer cite.

I will be happy to further elaborate on these issues if it would be helpful but I do hope you will eliminate this abuse of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours, Avner Greif

This addition is the following. (Redacted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.55.83 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That material has been removed from the article per WP:BLP and the article has been semi-protected. – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed it from this page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanjay Chandra

Several of the edits to this page in the last few days have included defamatory unsourced or poorly sourced content. Other new editors have reacted by adding positive but still poorly sourced content that probably violates WP:NPOV. Some additional eyes on this page would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks VQuakr, for providing a link. Many others are forgetting this :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and its on my watchlist. Let's see what we can do to keep in proper shape. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Freda Payne and Scherrie Payne

Most reliable sources give the birth year of Freda Payne as 1945. All sources agree that she is the older sister of Scherrie Payne, and all sources give Scherrie's year of birth as 1944. It's been pointed out that there seems to be some inconsistency here. What is the best way of resolving this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the 1945 birth date is in error, as I just found three solid sources that say it is 1942. These sources I feel are more reliable that the ones used in the article so I feel confident in making the switch. But others may disagree so we can just start a BRD cycle if that is the case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good - assuming your sources don't just reflect older versions of the WP page... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

and hmmm.... Do three versions of the same bio, from the same publisher, really count as three sources? Just asking. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. They're different works with different (but overlapping, of course) content published in different years. One or three, either way, I've found their stuff to be first rate sources. Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not so much that 1945 is an "error" - it probably is - but that many normally reliable sources - here, here, and at Whitburn, Joel (1996). Top R&B/Hip-Hop Singles: 1942-1995. Record Research. p. 342., state 1945. So, there is a difference between reliable sources, with the more prevalent date of 1945 being much less likely than the less prevalent, but probably correct, date of 1942. Can we just "choose" 1942 as being more likely to be correct, even though a majority of sources give a different year? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that a reference [3] added today verifying that Scherrie IS her sister, states that Scherrie, born 1944, is her 'youngest' sister'?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would agree that we can't arbitrarily pick one to go with. But given the evidence that the sister born in 1944 is the younger one and that in my opinion the 1942 sources are higher quality than the 1945 sources, I think we can make this call. But again, that's just my take on it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Straus, voice over artist

Hi Wiki BLP peeps:

I'm voice over artist, Jessica Straus. I love that my co-workers, and obviously, some of my well-meaning fans have been organizing and updating my Wiki page for me. I think Wiki is great and I love the support and information it provides. However, the Internet does not always have the correct information on what VO credits I've done and what I haven't done, so fans sometimes post credits that are incorrect. I finally had time to update my Wiki credits...And wanted to post most of my credits so there was no more confusion. However, I forgot to log in when I was editing in August 4, 2011, and now there is a "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tag on my first entry. Sorry, that I wasn't logged in on the first one as "loudmouthpro," but the credits I was deleting were not mine. Incorrect credits cause confusion, especially at Anime conventions.

In any case, my corrections and additions on August 4th & 5th are still visible to me, but not to the general public. How can I get my recent corrections and additions to show up when people look me up on Wiki?

Additionally, I have no idea who has control of my page edits as they have never contacted me to verify the credits. And I can't figure out how to contact them. I have to say your general instructions on the Wiki site are a little confusing...for us with everyday but not brilliant technical/Internet skills. Should I request to be in charge of the page to avoid further confusion? Please advise. And, please let me know to when my recent August 4th & 5th, 2011 posts will be seen. Thanks! Jessica Straus - loudmouthpro (wiki user name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudmouthpro (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You are welcome to comment and assist in development of your article - preferably by posting here or on the article talkpage, editing it yourself is seen as a conflict of interest - serious violations of facts or vandal additions you are welcome to remove on sight. What we need to improve the article desired are WP:RS reliable support for additions and for the current content. Looking at the article - I have seen voice over people not to be really talked about and reported about in independent reliable reports about you - do you know any articles we can use to improve your article? Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has given you some excellent advice, Loudmouthpro. I've made some similar comments on your talk page. By the way, you can't "request to be in charge of the page to avoid further confusion" because no single person is in charge of any Wikipedia page - any page can be edited by any user in good standing, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Please read about the concept we call ownership of an article, which is not allowed here. Any valid edits that you make to any article will show up almost immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ray Lewis

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs) on 03:14, 17 May 2011.

Looks like this has been taken care of.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik (3)

In his 1,500 page manifesto Anders Behring Breivik apparently mentioned, quoted, or in other ways cited a fairly large number of individuals. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wikipedia editors are now adding that information to some of their biographies (typically authors who have been critical of Islam or Islamism), in what appears to be an attempt at guilt by association. Here are some examples:[5][6][7][8]. Sometimes this information is even added to the article's lede (e.g. [9]][10][11]). It seems to me that this is a pretty clear violation of WP:BLP, and I thought it would be good to discuss this as a systemic issue, rather than debating it on each article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think we have to go as far as WP:BLP, just simple logic suffices to keep the information out. The fact that Breivik, in his massive personal tome, chose to talk about one subject or another, does not mean that Breivik should be mentioned on the articles of those subjects. For instance, if Breivik happened to include in his manifesto a few pages talking about why he thinks that McDonald's is a model corporation, would we include the info there? If he noted that he wrote much of it while staying in New South Wales, would we include that in the NSW article? Of course not. By that logic, every time any "famous" person mentioned anything in a book, then we would include that information in that page. Basically, putting Breivik on those pages is arguing that Breivik's opinions somehow meet WP:DUE on the subjects in question, which they obviously do not. Now, if, for example, we were to learn that Breivik trained with some famous anti-Muslim group, then that might (just might, depending on all the details) belong on that group's page. But not his random opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It clearly appears as guilt by association - this living person was mentioned by a mass murderer - its only notable about the author - Breivik. I looked at a couple and removed them - I left one because the subject has commented about the fact that he was mentioned - he said that Breivik also mentioned President Obahma. Robert_Spencer_(author)#2011_Norway_attacks - really even though he has legitimized it in some small way by responding to the fact, I still want to remove it as negative coatracking in a BLP Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens when people decide that Breveik is notable on his own, outside of the event he created. A slippery slope we should never have started down.Griswaldo (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Though I should add that the coming years will not be kind to people like Robert Spencer in this regard. In a year or two you'll have scholarship that ties Breveik to his sources in a way that is much more meaningful, and I will not personally object to those sources being used at that time.Griswaldo (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these passing mentions by Breivik in his manifesto should be removed from other articles. However, I disagree with Griswaldo's good faith opinion that this problem is due to the fact that we have a separate article on Breivik. Nothing would prevent ill-advised editing of this sort even if Breivik didn't have his own article and was discussed only in a subsection of the article about the murders and bombing. BLP concerns don't go away when a person is described in a larger article rather than an article titled with a person's name. Let's face it, Breivik is and forever will be notable, and we have BLP issues to deal with wherever he (or anyone else controversial) is discussed in this encyclopedia. That's an ongoing problem that won't go away, but which can be managed through the normal editing process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a ~~easy~~ credit for someone that creates - Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik - although they would have to put up with the possible disruption it might cause.Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Been done several times already; not notable for now; 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, A European Declaration of Independence, 2083, A European Declaration of Independence, etc. Chzz ► 09:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The same phenomenon seems to be going on in Anders_Behring_Breivik#2083:_A_European_Declaration_of_Independence. I'm minded to wipe the lot of them, living or dead. With so many cited in 1500 pages, mentioning any is arguably a breach of POV, even if BLP doesn't come into it. Views? --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy the slippery slope argument because this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, so, if you don't like it, be WP:BOLD. Of course, also get reverted.

The recentism-is-bad crowd, of which I am a wayward sheep, needs to stop blaming recenticism for all the ills surrounding recent event articles, and also needs to stop looking at every recent event as the same. As the guy who started the article in question, who defended it in AfD successfully, got an admin reversed for trying the old "redirect-full protection" trick (which is a much more serious breach of the rules than a debatable BLP1E vio - one dis-empowers editors in a finite fashion, the other can be reverted by process), and hence in part responsible for the article existence, I just knew by seeing how this played out in the news this guy was wiki notable. Such is not always the case with perps notable for a single event, but I just knew this kid was special - because when his name was released I knew the world's media who had screamed AL QAEDA to the top of their lungs had gotten it wrong, and when the media gets it wrong, it make sures to put whoever cl0wnd them under a microscope. So, lets be careful not to blame the existence of the article for the POV-pushing ways of a few sock/meatpuppets doin it wrong...

The presence of Jayjg here reminds me that stuff (such as sourced guilt by association, WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE issues, using wikipeida notability to mean that a person is suddenly allowed to expertly speak about any topic, and all the other niceties Jayjg -and others here- correctly identify that this child murderer's manifesto's is being misused for) also happen in very old topics. Such as the entire WP:ARBPIA area (in which recentism is also a problem, but not even the main one). So, slippery slope argument is not very convincing, and is in fact as reductio as those who think that Breivik is all of the sudden a reliable source on Zionism, the anti-Islamic right (or McDonald's!). I am on the record for stating that in the entire BLP on Breivik, at most a short sentence, but preferably a few words, suffice to address his relationship with Zionism. I think the guilt-by-association charge is fair, and there is no reason to believe that his Zionism is much more related to the actually important and central stuff of his Islamophobia. Saying he is a Zionist is not a slur, is a self-claim, but using that self-claim in an OR fashion to vandalize unrelated articles shouldn't be tolerated. Nor should drive-by "see also" includes be accepted. However, as to Jayjg's diffs, this is also guilt by association. A careful examination reveals that not all diffs are created equal. [12] is sourced and in a pre-existing section, in which associations are made in the same fashion as that with Brievik. One cannot pick and choose who agrees with oneself, and unfortunately for Ms. Ali, Breivik did agree with her - so I think that is not a bad faith edit, but one subject to article consensus and editing. Likewise, but weaker because of the context it is placed in the article, with [13]. However [14] and specially [15] are obvious drive-by, and shouldn't be allowed. I mean, "See also" inclusions are a classic way to establish guilt by association and a loophole to OR we somehow refuse to close.

Adding to the lede, however, I see no reason why, both in the actual article, and in the abstract. Brievik is notable, but he is not notable as an admirer or commentator on people, he is notable as a political militant who attacked civilians and children inspired by a set of politics. I think it is fair to state his interest on a given influence if sourced verifiably and subject to consensus. But drive-by behavior is another matter, as is giving undue weight, in particular in a BLP to inclusions that open the door to guilt by association.

I say we stop making the perfect the enemy of the good, and let the case-by-case consensus decide who is notable and who is not. I also say hunt down and block those who are vandalizing unrelated articles with Breivik's crap. --Cerejota (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear why prominent reliable sources discussing this issue are being rejected as reliable sources - for example the New York Times[16] and in Norwayt itself among others Dagbladet[17]. Reference to the possible contributory role of the Counterjihadi internauts is not "drive by behaviour". It's a matter already in the public domain. Opbeith (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

note - I also removed the see also Anders Behring Breivik from Geert Wilders BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As a followup to Griswaldo's point, if there is scholarly literature regarding someone related to this point, then I wouldn't object to it being mentioned in his/her biography. For that matter, if there was consistent discussion on the topic spanning more than a few days or weeks, then that might provide relevant material. But when we're talking about a WP:BLP, and it's just the fact that someone was mentioned or quoted a few times in a 1,500 page manifesto, then I become quite concerned. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Pundits and other political commentators, especially those who find people like Robert Spencer distasteful, will of course jump on this kind of thing make commentary about it for political reasons. News organizations will also include the information, but that does not make it particularly meaningful yet. Another reason why we really ought to exercise more patience and discretion here when it comes to news events and living people.Griswaldo (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We should probably keep an eye on Special:WhatLinksHere/Anders_Behring_Breivik. Morrissey is on there, for gosh sakes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone so far as to claim that inserting this information into biographies of living people is such a clear violation of BLP that it meets the 3RR exemption, on the article Srđa Trifković. We'll see, I guess, what happens there. Appreciate advice from others if you think I'm going too far. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted a lot of the mentions I found on that list in other BLPs and in other non-BLP entries. I have also questioned some others. For instance Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami seems not to be notable at all, but for the fact that someone supposedly representing this group, if it even exists, claimed responsibility for Breveik's actions early on before the perp had been identified. What links to Breveik should be continually monitored as Peregrine suggests.Griswaldo (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some attention to No true Scotsman would also be welcome in the related BLP fallout here. People are insisting on inserting an example of Bill O'Reilly's claim that Breveik is not a Christian into the article.Griswaldo (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that I wish that some of you would consider is the possibility that the side effect from the "get the Big Bad POV pushers and BLP violators" mentality is that it's spreading the problem. I know from experience that many of these editors, who are rather inexperienced with our policy and culture, will simply move to other articles (or create new ones, usually as forks)when they receive significant resistance. I'm not actually trying to blame shift here, and I'm not trying to justify the bad content or bad editor behavior; I'm simply attempting to point out that sometimes a carrot works as well as a stick. Keeping the stick around, in your back pocket, is fine. However, these are motivated people who find themselves looking at our editing interface... giving them some guidance on a good direction to take helps them, helps the encyclopedia, and over the long run likely leads to less work for you, to those of you who feel the need to police this. Regardless, fear not. In a month or two, after the hubub has died down, myself and others who are part of "the cleanup crew" will be able to get in and... well, clean up (if there's anything left to clean, which there usually isn't).

— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You have simply not dealt with the issue that the political and philosophical influences on Breivik are discussed in serious reporting in reliable sources. This discussion appears to be focused on the idea that relevant public debate should not be mentioned in a Wikipedia article when it reflects unfavourably on the article's subject. Opbeith (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody out there in the real world has actually "dealt with the issue that the political and philosophical influences on Breveikk" in a meaningful way yet period. Right now we have news organizations simply reporting on the people mentioned in his manifesto and people with political axes to grind opining about it. You need to wait for some quality sources, and when that happens they need to be discussing the other individuals directly. In other words if someone is writing about Robert Spencer and thinks it is meaningful to discuss how he influenced Breveik then you have a source that says that this is a notable aspect of Robert Spencer's legacy as opposed to simply identifying the fact that some criminal quoted him several times in an online manifesto. Now, I happen to believe that just that type of thing will happen in a matter of time, but until it does (and after it does) please respect BLP. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be paying too close attention to the real world. Here's Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen in the NYT again on the subject of the Counterjihad squad http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/Gaarder-Eriksen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Gaarder&st=cse. In Matthew Taylor's article at The Guardian he reports Paul Ray of Lionheart, who was involved with EDL before arguing with them: "said it appeared Breivik had drawn inspiration from some of his ideas and writings. "It's really pointing at us. All these things he's been talking about are linked to us," he said. "It's like he's created this whole thing around us." (adding that Ray said he condemned wholeheartedly what had happened and offered his deepest sympathies to Norway and the relatives of the dead, but that he did believe Islam was a threat to Europe)."http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/norway-paul-ray-lionheart-blog And here's Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post: [18] Jewish Daily Forward quotes the Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman as saying "Breivik was clearly influenced by an ideological movement both in the United States and Europe that is rousing public fear by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith," noting in his statement that the ADL has reported previously on Spencer and Geller’s anti-Muslim agitation. Doug Saunders's "‘Eurabia’ opponents scramble for distance from anti-Muslim murderer" in The Globe and Mail: "Frequently cited, quoted and praised in his manifesto are such figures as Bruce Bawer, author of the bestseller While Europe Slept; Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Muslim provocateur and leader of his country’s anti-immigration Freedom Party; Mark Steyn, the Canadian columnist and author of America Alone: The End of the World As we Know it; the British columnist Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan; Gisele Littman, the author (under the pseudonym Bat Ye’or) of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis; and the anti-immigration blogs Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch. None of these authors have advocated violence. But their warnings of impending Islamic takeover – a concept that is widely dismissed as implausible in conventional scholarly and political circles – sometimes carry an urgency that might seem to invite angry responses. ... she (Littman / Bat Ye'or) warned that her ideas, and those of fellow authors and leaders on the anti-Muslim right, could continue to have violent repercussions if Mr. Breivik proves influential. “I’m afraid that this is something that other people will imitate.”"[19] None of these reliable sources appear to be hesitating like Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I might add to Opbeith's comments that these authors may claim that they "don't advocate violence against Muslims", but when you carefully scrutinize their rhetoric, you can easily find they do in fact justify specific acts of violence, whether it be the invasion of Gaza by the Israeli military, or the defense of the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, or the violent boarding of the Gaza Flotilla. Furthermore, their comment boards are filled with such rhetoric, despite the fact that they claim to moderate the comments. I might also add that these authors are routinely advocating other measures which while not exactly violent, are nonetheless extreme: not only opposing immigration by Muslims, but also the forcible deportation of Muslims, the denial of American Muslims US military service, supporting a Constitutional proviso to limit mosque-building, much less comments about how the only moderate Muslim is one who denounces the faith.

In response to Griswaldo, the Robert Spencer article currently says "In a manifesto which denounced multiculturalism and declared Islam to be a threat to the West, Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the July 22, 2011, massacre of 77 people in Norway, quoted Spencer 64 times." Nothing more is added. Does reporting this statement a form of a fact, with nothing added to it necessarily constitute an guilt by association in and of itself? How so? I'm not convinced. By that standard, we might also ask if the mention of Spencer's influence by the late Paul Weyrich also constitutes an Association fallacy? I encourage you (and anyone else) to respond to the [Noticeboard] regarding Spencer below, and elaborate on this rationale. Jemiljan (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no "serious scholarly focus on Breivik" is debatable. There is no book or peer-reviewed journal articles, but this is because of the recent nature of the event, but Brievik's politics are not new, they have been addressed extensively in partisan and non-partisan sources, and their are recognized experts on these topics who are capable of making serious scholarly commentary on the issue. Decrying partisan sources for *just* being partisan is something that Jayjg has opposed in the past (see for example New antisemitism), so I am surprised he agrees with this opposition. Again, we are making the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to deal with the sources we have *right now* and stop crystal balling. When more reliable sources emerge, we can then fix it, but there is incredible interest on this topic and the web of related topics around it, and we must be fair to our readers. If all we have are short articles in reliable sources, then we go with that. Later when fixing up for GA, we can move forward differently. Is not that hard, really.

As to Jayjg's position on the different edits, I am have no opinion either away *except* that the issue she raises should be raised in discussion in each of those articles - and that there are no systemic BLP issues here. Guilt-by-association is a pervasive and very old political technique from any perspective, and the way to solve it is by conscientious editing, not noticeboarding. I already showed that Jayjg lumped together diffs that showed different kinds of edits - that is different problems or points of contention - yet he claimed incorrectly they were the same. One I think was a valid BLP noticeboard issue - the driveby see also in Geert Wilders, but the three others are clearly not a matter for noticeboard attention. Put bluntly, Jayjg is forum shopping. I hope he chooses to engage the editors of those articles directly and raise the issues there, rather than going behind their backs to a noticeboard.--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, and these should be handled on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the Robert Spencer (author) article, I do think that the argument that Jayjg herself made above applies, as Spencer has been very public in addressing the matter. I am also supportive of mentioning both the criticisms and responses in a concise manner. I would appreciate your input on the Spencer discussion board.Jemiljan (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, rather than "forum shopping", I've brought a systemic BLP issue to exactly one forum, the correct one (WP:BLPN), and most BLP regulars agree with me that it's a BLP issue. This is not "going behind the backs" of anyone, but exactly the correct procedure. Please do not post any more inaccurate ad hominem nonsense here, and instead focus on the issue, about which a consensus that disagrees with you appears to have developed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? Opbeith (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The one that Qwyrxian, Off2riorob, Griswaldo, Ohms law, Cullen328, Dweller, Chzz and I agree with, and with which you apparently disagree. I don't count Cerejota's vote, because it was just irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem nonsense, nor do I count Jemiljan's, because he's an extremely inexperienced editor who merely wants to tie Brevik to Robert Spencer (author). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the consensus of the people who agree with you. Opbeith (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the consensus of uninvolved editors in this section. Did I miss someone? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, Jayjg , I believe that you are being a bit hasty judging my intentions. As to whether I am an "extremely inexperienced" editor, so what? I have yet to see you address my point. The fact is, I have edited the one page in question for several years now, and have worked with other editors to build consensus and revamp it after flagrant edit wars and even vandalism. While my activity may be limited in scope in comparison to yours, you have no right to assume that your opinion is superior on such an account.

To be clear, I only specifically was discussing the issue vis a vis one page alone: Robert Spencer (author). It is for this reason, that I think the point made by Cerejota that a case-by-case judgement rather than a sweeping one is in order.

Despite your assertion, my intention in this specific case is not simply to "tie Spencer to Breivik" alone, as I have made it very clear that I want to include Spencer's mention of Spencer's own very public responses, which Off2riorob alluded to above. Spencer in particular has now conducted interviews and comments in third-party WP:RS sources as is noted. Would you care to address this fact, rather than simply generalize and discount the dissenters to your self-proclaimed rather sweeping "consensus"? Specifically, would you kindly address whether or not if the person in question has in fact publicly addressed the issue, as Spencer has, then does it remain in the realm of an Association fallacy? I don't believe so, and for this reason, I would like to see this very specific facet of this issue addressed, before you proclaim some sort of fiat.Jemiljan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Add me. Within a week there is no possible way that anything reliable can be sourced about this event other than the bare facts of the case itself. The jottings of the perpetrator reflect on the perpetrator alone. John lilburne (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You've just dismissed the references I've provided as if they weren't even there. Surely it's invalid to build a consensus based on unwillingness to consider evidence material to the discussion. And this incident didn't happen out of nowhere. The fostering of anti-Islam sentiment by the counterjihadists has been a concern for a long time, partly for the very reason that it was believed likely to encourage action by someone like Breivik - hardly surprising that people have offered legitimate comments so quickly. Please, read the references and then, if you will, join the consensus. Opbeith (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

....and yet when one of the persons named responds publicly to the matter in a reliably sourced interview and discusses this issue? How is that not a bare fact? It seems to me that in those specific instances, it automatically extends beyond the mere "jottings of the perpetrator" reflecting upon himself alone.Jemiljan (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And? Commenting that X says that Y is a load of balls is simply adding to a false controversy. Breivik apparently terms himself a Christian, and no matter how many prelates one get to deny that it is, one won't get to add Breivik to the Benedict XVI article. Others say he's some sort of liberal and no matter how many Democrats one gets to say that he isn't doesn't allow someone to add Breivik BLP articles of Democrats. John lilburne (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

John, Spencer has now not only responded via his blog, but is the subject of four separate interviews: on the BBC (starting at the 8-minute mark), on Michael Coren's show, and with Alan Colmes, and on the Frank Wuco show on Fox News. Were you to review them for yourself, I believe that you would find his comments go well beyond "x says y is a load of balls", and in consideration of this extensive coverage. Heck, I am even willing to add to any mention of this the Town Hall article that specifically defends Spencer.

Does mention of Spencer's repeated and lengthy responses on the matter simply add to a "false controversy"? How so? More to the point, how is this specific format in violation of WP:BLP? Does a careful, succinct, reporting of this specific scenario still constitute an Association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP? How so?Jemiljan (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this rather more forcefully, as individuals who claim there is a consensus are deleting edits without responding to talk page arguments. It's simply not good enough to dismiss reference to this public discussion out of hand as an attempt to establish "guilt by association" and ignore the evidence.

Discussion of the influences claimed by Breivik has been the subject of reporting by reliable sources. The role of the counterjihad movement in promoting anti-Islamic sentiment on the internet and in public debate generally has previously been noted and, not surprisingly now that a number of the more prominent members of the group have been claimed by Breivik as ideological influences, the media in Norway and the US are discussing the group's contribution to the climate of anti-Muslim opinion which allegedly motivated him.

I'm happy to concede to legitimate arguments. I have not reverted off2riobob's deletion of a direct quote from Srdja Trifkovic from 2083 because although it's clearly apposite I understand the argument that 2083 is currently considered a primary source and Trifkovic is notionally another person being quoted who is not the author (I do reject the reference to "soapboxing"). But discussion of the counterjihad influences and Trifkovic's own "herohood" is not the casual "guilt by association" it's glibly dismissed as. Trifkovic is identified by Dagbladet as one of Breivik's heroes and ideological "role models"[20] - language issues discussed at the Talk page. His membership of the counterjihad movement is well documented and their role in fostering the climate of anti-Muslim hatred and influencing Breivik has been publicly discussed (and referenced by me above - apart I think from the Scott Shane article at NYT[21]). Trifkovic does not have claim to special consideration as a presumptively innocent party in the area of inciting anti-Muslim feeling. earlier this year the Canadian Government refused him entry to Canada under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act because of his role as spokesperson for the 1992-1995 Bosnian Serb government, a position he held throughout the period in which they were systematically killing Bosnian Muslims, including at Srebrenica. (When he was refused admission Trifkovic's appeal to his associates to lobby the Canadian government for a reversal of their decision was circulated amongst counterjihadist group members.) Please deal with the argument that this is not a case of insinuated guilt, it's reporting of a serious issue relating to a subject which Wikipedia should not take it upon itself to censor. Until serious consideration has been given to that issue it's spurious to suggest that a consensus has been achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opbeith (talk • contribs)

Great, let's put this "more forcefully". Uninvolved editors, including Qwyrxian, Off2riorob, Griswaldo, Ohms law, Cullen328, Dweller, Chzz and John lilburne, indicate that adding this material is inappropriate and a BLP issue. Involved editors, including User:Cerejota (who has been extensively editing the Anders Behring Breivik article), User:Jemiljan (who mostly edits the Robert Spencer (author) article from a negative perspective), and User:Opbeith (you), who has extensively edited the Srđa Trifković article primarily from a negative perspective), disagree. So yeah, consensus pretty much has been achieved, and it's "spurious" to suggest otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg , please allow me to clarify: I am not advocating that mention of Brievik's quotations be inserted into each and every article concerning those he has quoted. For the most part, I am with you on this. Where I disagree is when and if the person in question has in fact responded publicly to the incident. If so, then is a brief, carefully worded passage mentioning this incident is in violation of WP:BLP? How so? Your comments about the extent to which I am "involved", or that you think my edits are "negative" are moot and don't address this valid point. Please address this specific point in a cogent fashion. Jemiljan (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jemiljan, the BLP issues have been made quite clear, "in a cogent fashion", by many editors above, including me. Feel free to review those comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, perhaps I am wrong, but where has you or anyone else specifically addressed my point about inclusion when and if the person in question has responded? I'm sorry, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see any attempt by you to address this specific point. Simply telling me that it is based on a "consensus" that doesn't clearly address this specific situation in any meaningful fashion strikes me as circular reasoning, not a cogent discussion. The only editors I see addressing this point are Off2riorob (whose position is more nuanced), and John lilburne. So allow me to reiterate my question again: if the person quoted has actively engaged in an ensuing public discussion on a matter in reliable, third-party sources (and not just in passing as John lilburne alluded to) repeatedly and at length, is a very concise mention of this, followed by references to said responses (plural) in violation of WP:BLP? How so?

Again do note that I am not advocating mentioning Brievik on each and every article of the people he's quoted by virtue of that fact alone, I am fully in agreement with all of the other editors on this matter. Yet what I am referring to clearly goes beyond this by virtue of the fact that Spencer in particular has now given four separate public interviews on the matter (see my reply to John lilburne above for specific references). in view of the fact that Spencer has not only addressed Breivik's quotations, but also criticized the media frenzy, one of the "uninvolved" editors you've cited as supporting this "consensus", namely Qwyrxian, has now agreed with me on the Talk:Robert_Spencer_(author) page. The same "uninvolved" editor has suggested, and I have agreed, that such a mention must be brief, no more than two sentences, and be very carefully worded, to maintain WP:NPOV. So once again, please explain how in consideration of the fact that the person quoted has responded repeatedly and at length, and if the proposed wording is very concise and to the point, how that would be an association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP.

Jayjg, my understanding of you saying that I have edited the Srda Trifkovic article "from a negative perspective" is that you deprecate my inclusion of information that reflects disfavourably on the subject. I came across the article as saying almost nothing negative about him. If you examine his CV, you might see that it's not unreasonable to include information about his work as a spokesman for and advisor to war criminals and a more recent career as a member of a group propounding extremist views about ethnic and religious minorities. The absence of negative information is not neutrality. You also seem to suggest that "involvement" as you describe it and "knowledge of a subject" as I describe it suffices to disqualify an opinion. But that's by the by. The important thing is that you suggest that my "editing from a negative perspective" means that the evidence I have offered is ipso facto irrelevant. That's what I would like you to justify, a little bit less flippantly. Opbeith (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you believe you were editing the Srđa Trifković article from a negative perspective for a good reason - that has no impact on my point regarding the views of uninvolved editors vs. involved editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Jayjg, editors with knowledge of the topic, who conceivably have read much more sources and hence have a concrete sense of what the WP:V and WP:RS issues are, take a nuanced view on the topics. What is so surprising about this? This is nothing new in wikipedia. Real discussions happen in article talk, not noticeboards unless there are clear cut BLP vios, which there aren't any (unless you count the see also driveby which has been reverted.

Also, Jayjg, this is not a vote - its is a discussion, and you claiming it is a vote is hilarious funny. If anything I said is seen as an ad hominem I sincerely apologize, and would gladly strikethrough anything you feel offend by, but I did a careful review of my words and I can't see were I didn't focus on content positions. I haven't called you names or called your views invalid - simply unconvincing or contradictory. This is normal human discourse to express disagreement, not ad hominem - I am puzzled by your equating disagreement with a personal attack as it makes no sense, one can disagree without attacking the person at all. However you have indeed attacked me and other editors rather than our positions on content. I would have hoped that the community's harsh reaction to your previous bad behavior in this and other respects would have allowed you to reflect on the negative aspects of your contributions, rather than use your many positive contributions as a stick with which to beat newbies (such as you do above) and divert discussions from what they should be focused upon, which is content. --Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, most of your comment was again ad hominem nonsense, which doesn't really fool anyone. Stop talking about me, and start talking about the issue at hand. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll just add my voice to the long list of uninvolved editors here who see that it's a clear BLP violation to devote space in a bio to say that ABB wrote something positive about the subject. Yes, it's sourced that ABB said this, but it's not in any way apparent that the info is notable when understanding the person (e.g. Bruce Bawer), and it certainly serves to defame. We can't do this.

I'd also like to point out that some of you are making this way too much of a personal issue. (Cerejota, for instance, has mentioned Jayjg more than ABB in discussion above.) The issue at hand is, should "ABB liked this guy" be in a BLP?, and it's clear to everyone uninvolved that it shouldn't. If you instead want to criticize individual editors, then I guess if that's your thing, you're going to do it... but it doesn't advance the issue at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is also whether when the person quoted publicly responds, not merely in passing, but conducts a number of interviews on the matter.

I mentioned Jayjg because he is the one raising the points - I would like to know when did saying "So-and-So is wrong." is a personal attack? To focus on the content, I find it significant that only those who disagree with the position that there is a blacket issue here are providing arguments based on the actual content. For example, I clearly examined the diffs provided "By the One We Shall Not Mention Unless There Are Declarations of Ad Hominem Attacks", and argued that while some were clearly bad edits under BLP, others were not - and further more that these are issues that should be addressed not by "uninvolved" editors, but by editors involve din the editing itself. Pointing out an attempt at forum shopping is entirely legitimate and related to the quality of the content. --Cerejota (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'm really trying to take your opinions seriously here. But you're not talking about adding ABB material into articles anymore; you're talking about an editor you don't like, and your "One We Shall Not Mention" name is frankly childish. You continue to call this BLP issue "forum-shopping", even though this is the only forum I see being used, and that has been pointed out to you already. I can't tell what you're trying to gain here, besides complain about Jayjg... and I don't see how that has anything to do with inserting defamatory material into BLPs. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My two cents - I think I like Jemiljan's logic. Spencer is primarily notable for Islamic criticism, hatred, opposition (whatever you want to call it); thus it seems reasonable that ABB, who is notable for the/a same/similar thing, citing Spenser is relevant to his notability. I appreciate the "guilt by association argument" and I think it would apply if Spencer's and ABB's notability were entirely different (e.g. Davidelah's example here of Al-Qaeda associating with Noam Chomsky).

Furthermore, I don't see consensus for exclusion established here. I think the onus is really on the "excluders" to demonstrate that what the New York Times thought was notable is in fact not notable. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick, here's a better comparison. Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber. His manifesto references the ideas of Eric Hoffer and Jacques Ellul directly but you'll find no reference to Kaczynski in their entries. Why is that? Consider this from another angle entirely. Ellul and Hoffer are notable for their ideas, but Kaczynski is not notable for his ideas, but for his murderous acts. Likewise people like Robert Spencer are notable for their ideas (however despicable those ideas are), while Breveik is not. He's notable for his murderous acts. Doing what you and others are proposing is to artificially suggest a causal connection between specific ideas espoused by others and the murderous acts of these individuals. That's the problem here. I don't see us doing this in other examples like the Unabomber, and I don't think we should start doing it now.Griswaldo (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo - I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I can say that ABB's notability (i.e. a terrorist against Islam) and Spencer's notability (i.e. a writer/activist against Islam) are fundamentally similar. Ted Kaczynski was a notable terrorist trying to bring down the industrial-technological system. Were either Eric Hoffer or Jacques Ellul notable for arguing for the take down of the industrial-technological system? I know Hoffer wasn't. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Breveik is not notable for being "against Islam." He's notable for shooting a bunch of native Norwegians, mostly children and for bombing a building that killed a handful more of the same. He claims to be doing this because of X, Y and Z, and references several sources in establishing the supposed reality X, Y and Z. That is not far from the Unabomber who was notable for killing three people. He claimed to be doing that because of X, Y and Z and referenced several sources in establishing the supposed reality of X, Y and Z. Robert Spencer may be against Islam but he has never advocated doing what Breveik did, and again it is the doing that Breveik is notable for.Griswaldo (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

re Breveik is not notable for being "against Islam." - Really? Google testing Breivik with either Islam or shooting seems to bring up a similar number of hits. It would seem to me that Breveik's stance on Islam is noted almost as often as his act of terror. Honestly, I think this is probably true for most people you might call "terrorists". They become as deeply associated with their cause as with their actual action. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick, honestly that was a mistake in my choice of words. What I meant was that he is not notable "because of" being against Islam. Yes his xenophobia and islamophobia are now a big part of the personality that news sources are reporting on. Of course he claims to have committed his crimes because of his hatred and clearly that is important. But I never meant to claim otherwise. The unabomber's views of technology and advanced industrial society are also part of his notability at this point.Griswaldo (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith has provided some interesting sources above: Jostein Gaarder in the New York Times [22], a Guardian article about an English right-wing nutcase [23], and a Washington Post opinion piece on Breivik's manifesto. While I agree with Jostein Gaarder and generally think just as poorly of anti-Islam crusaders as I think of pro-Islam holy warriors (and am thus perhaps not neutral here), I do not think this is sufficient to meet the standard of WP:DUE and WP:BLP for inclusion in BLP articles. These sources are about Breivik, his crime and his motivations. They are not about the respective people, and I agree with Griswaldo that there is no evidence yet that Breivik is in any way relevant to these various people. Hans Adler 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I don't mean to plug this again, but I honestly believe that for some of the people mentioned in the manifesto this incident may become a relevant part of their narratives and reflected as such in scholarship and other quality sources. I just don't see anything remotely like that right now.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So what you guys are saying is that articles about ABB that mention Spencer, don't mean that ABB is notable to Spencer. What you want is an article about Spencer that mentions ABB? This seems like a sorta artificial goal post. The fact is, we have an RS that has noted the association; hence, the association is verifiable & notable. In terms of WP:DUE, Spencer isn't really a hugely notable character to begin with; hence, mentioning minor associations like these wouldn't seem to violate WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not an artificial goal post at all. If John Doe celebrity is obsessed with pokemons it might be entirely notable to mention that in his entry but not in the pokemon entry. Consider what we would have to do on articles about intellectuals or academics if we mentioned all the people who claim them as an influence in their articles. Do you want to start rewriting Karl Marx, Plato, and Charles Darwin to reflect all the notable individuals who claim them as an influence? A reference source is not a place to make novel claims, or to make novel imputations of what is or is not meaningful. If sources that are actually about the subject at hand do not mention a connection to someone or something else neither do we.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What if John Doe celebrity was of sufficient notability to make mention on the Pokemon entry WP:DUE? Imagine if Barrack Obama loved pokemon. Would that not be worth mentioning on the Pokemon article? NickCT (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that would not be worth mentioning in the Pokemon article unless it fits into the narrative somewhere (as opposed to: someone creates a coat rack for including that factoid). In fact, this is the kind of trivia that regularly gets removed from articles, especially when someone tries to get them through the GA or FA process. Most people understand this once it has been explained, and we need the flexibility to occasionally mention relatively irrelevant facts to give an article depth. This is why we don't have more explicit rules against such trivia. Writing an encyclopedia requires common sense. Hans Adler 18:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh damn, my take on this was what if ABB watched the Simpsons, citing them as a major influence, and ate a lot of Oreo cookies too? Heck, the Pokémon aren't even European (cue another major "repel the invaders" frenzy). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

-

Griswaldo, and Hans I understand your rationale and I agree that insertion of mention of Brievik is generally an association fallacy. Yet what I think that most here fail to appreciate it that in Spencer's specific case, he has four public interviews that he has conducted where he has commented not only on the quotations, but on the media frenzy, in RS third-party sources. In view of the fact that Spencer has not only addressed Breivik's quotations, but also criticized the media frenzy, one of the "uninvolved" editors above, Qwyrxian, has now agreed with me on the Talk:Robert_Spencer_(author) page. They have suggested, and I have agreed, that such a mention must be brief, no more than two sentences, and be very carefully worded, to maintain WP:NPOV.

So once again, please explain how in consideration of the fact that the person quoted has responded repeatedly and at length, and if the proposed wording is very concise and to the point, how that would still constitute an association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP.What I am proposing is not simply mention of Breivik, but also a concisely worded response. Please address my point about this, and see my reply above to John lilburne with specific references to those interviews. I just think that this entire discussion is focused on Breivik's quotation alone and fails to adequately address the specific scenario when the person in question has responded, in multiple forms and at considerable lengthJemiljan (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK lets get to the bottom of this. Why do you think that adding anything concerning Breivik would be be an encyclopaedic addition to the Spencer biography? What is the imperative for the addition? What would the insertion add to our knowledge about Spencer and whatever it is he does? John lilburne (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave a rationale in my reply to you further above, John. Please review it and then demonstrate how what is proposed would constitute a violation of WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have NOT given any rationale that I can see. What you have said is that he has given a number of interviews where he said that commentary about him in relation to an insane gunman and bomber is bollocks. Currently what seems to be proposed is: On 22/07/2011, in Norway, 77 people (mostly kids) were killed by a madman, 3000 miles away in the US some blame the killings on their political opponents - "if only they had been nicer the madman wouldn't have killed". One of those blamed says he never wrote anything that would justify anyone to go kill a bunch of kids. What does that give us with regards to the blamed one's biography, how does it advance our understanding of him or whatever it is he does? John lilburne (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I also clearly mentioned Spencer commented not only on Breivik, but his comments on the handling of the story in the media. This is not simply " commentary about him in relation to an insane gunman". It is also clearly an opportunity to mention Spencer's defense of himself, if it isn't obvious enough. Furthermore, the exaggerated hypothetical wording you employ is nothing remotely close to what has been discussed so far in tone and tenor here, among several editors, which is clearly far more limited and NPOV than what you outlined.

Again, please review the point made by "uninvolved" editor Qwyrxian, who has supported the consensus here, but finds my point a compelling enough exception to comment and agree on it. Specifically, you should address whether the specific proposed wording constitutes an association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP policies, when formatted as suggested (as that is clearly the underpinning of the consensus here), rather than elaborate an imagined hypothetical that lacks WP:AGF.Jemiljan (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not address the concern. BLPs do not generally document every interview that the subject makes. We don't add an entry every time some author is interviewed when their book being made into a film, we document the book and we document film. We don't document every post match interview a sports person makes, we document the match (perhaps). What makes these Spencer interviews so important that you want to abandoned usual practice? John lilburne (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

John, you cannot compare the Norway shooting to a sports match. The event has global reach and Spencer is mentioned in this association in many reliable news articles.[24] People read his article here on Wikipedia to find out his opinion and his defense. The event affects his life, and preventing the information from being added to his article could be considered just as harmful as the opposite. The silence of Wikipedia reminds me of the silence of the communist media over some events back in the 1980s. The whole civilized world was informed, only communists pretended that nothing happens. Perhaps it's a bit far-fetched, but it's my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent} People^[who?] read his article here on Wikipedia to find out his opinion and his defense.^{[citation needed]} opinion and defence about what exactly? And what would motivate people to come here in 5 years time to read about it anyway? This is why we think there are BLP concerns. There is no guarantee that, left alonne, anyone other than detractors are going to recall this brouhaha in 5 years time, thus entries like this will likely be the only extant record, which as of today is for all we can tell is simply polemic. Tell us how this differs from the similar Brouhaha last year that was associating Palin with the mass killer in Tucson? John lilburne (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell you what would motivate people to come here in 5 years time to read about it, I'm not Nostradamus. I know very little about Palin and the mass killer in Tucson, so I can't compare. Let's get back to Spencer's article. The information is relevant today and it is quite possible that it will be even more relevant in 5 years time. Yet we pretend that nothing happens and sweep Spencer's reaction to Anders_Behring_Breivik#Responses_from_those_mentioned, despite the fact that there's a possibility to compile a brief and neutral mention also in the Spencer's article. I agree, it is quite a harmless solution and I can accept that. I'm not a detractor, I don't want to insert defamatory claims to the articles, I'm just asking. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you should be able to! This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not the office water cooler, and as such the information presented here should have lasting value, we should be able to foresee the beyond the immediate news agenda. We can quite easily see why Breivik will be important in 5 years time, it is not clear at all as to why his mention of Spencer, or the interviews that Spencer makes today will be in any way relevant to the Spencer biography. In most likelihood they won't be, but if it becomes obvious that they relevant we can add them in then. There is no deadline. John lilburne (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Vejvančický, and you are absolutely correct to dispute John's false analogy comparing this incident with a sporting match. I'm willing to bet some good money on the belief that even Robert Spencer would agree that finding out a a violent criminal, who has just killed a bunch of kids, has cited and quoted his work multiple times in a manifesto, is pretty extraordinary occurrence in his life. He has written as much, after all. What I am suggesting is in fact very much analogous to Palin's responding to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, which very much is included on Palin's WP bio. Jodie Foster's bio contains a similar brief passage about John F. Hinckley Jr's shooting of President Reagan.

Were the passage written in such a way so as to implicate Palin directly in the Giffords shooting, that would definitely be unacceptable, but it clearly doesn't. It describes the incident in brief, and documents Palin's several responses, and includes a brief quote of her denouncing the attack. So it seems that John's reference to Palin, and his appeal to consequences about "abandoning usual practice" conveniently overlooks that very similarly- worded passage in addition to other WP:BLP entries. A cursory search of the archives reveals that there was a similarly contentious debate over mention of the Gifford's shooting in Palin's entry on both the discussion page and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and a consensus was clearly obtained regarding the current wording. I think this provides an acceptable model, and would ask dissenters to specifically describe how the wording that is under discussion violates WP:BLP standards, when similar passages are found in other WP:BLP articles. John, until now, you've not specifically addressed this. Your questioning of my intentions and dismissive stance regarding the "value" the passage clearly doesn't even begin to address the proposed wording. So please, answer this question, and if it's in the affirmative, then be prepared to support your argument.Jemiljan (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Palin article is 1000s of words long and yes I missed that there was still some stuff relating to the Gifford shooting in there the Spencer article is much shorter. Still there is far less than once there was, where it did attempt to directly implicate. And yes this is only NOT equivalent to interviews with sports players, precisely because a load of kids were murdered. What the passage in Palin and the proposal here do is to implicate the events with the person. By making an association between the the murder of the kids and Spencer via Breivik's writings, however you write the passage you make that connection. John lilburne (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How does the present passage in the Palin article, which is brief, clear, and carefully worded NPOV statement "implicate" her? The wording was clearly debated extensively, and was achieved by consensus over time. My proposal here is clearly not to "implicate the person", quite the contrary, and the proposed wording reflects that style. In order to form a valid critique, you must address the proposed wording.Jemiljan (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It associates her campaign of some months earlier with the actions of a mad gunman. There is no connection between the two events, except via polemical point scoring. All of which is amusing and serves her right, but which has no business being on a page that purports to be NPOV. Really is there anyone out there with two working brain cells that actually thinks there was a real connection? In the context of American politics one would never be able to remove it, but it does not mean that it is in any way balanced. A truly NPOV would conclude that it didn't belong. John lilburne (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It does? How so? It also clearly and unambiguously includes a very sternly-worded defense. Admittedly, I don't like the poll results tacked onto the end of that passage, but if you take that away, I'm having a hard time seeing any "implication" you insist is there. If you're going to persuade me, you have to address the exact wording and analyze the tone. A blanket statement about a particular passage being POV isn't a cogent analysis.

In the wake of the January 8, 2011 shooting of Rep. Giffords, Palin faced criticism for her SarahPAC website's inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin responded to the criticism of the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially equating the accusations of her role in the shooting to a "blood libel".

Ok, so where is the "connection" made in this specific wording? Does a casual reader really come away with the impression that "Palin made him do it"? Hardly! The first part mentions the shooting in passing, and describes the criticism that Palin faced for something her campaign undeniably did. The second sentence mentions only criticism of the graphic, nothing more. The tone of the passage is very unambiguous.

WP:BLP biographies should in general take into consideration when a person responds to a controversial incident- especially when they are implicated by others, even when there is no connection whatsoever- and specifically does so in a high-profile fashion and more than just in passing. That is precisely what Palin did, and also Spencer. they have been uninvolved, but the moment that they start responding to it publicly, then they have involved themselves. The wording of such passages should avoid any and all implications, but simply record the event and the response, preferably a brief quote, supplied by a third-party reliable source.Jemiljan (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the more egregious insertions of Breivik are now out, but this is a splendid example of how some people ignore WP:BLP to insert irrelevant contentious claims into biographies. Collect (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin and Jodie Foster? Arguing in favor of this by using other BLPs is an invalid argument. Truthsort (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Truthsort, I was clearly making a perfectly valid analogy regarding the specific style of those others entries, which are brief, to the point, and in no way attempts to directly implicate the person referred to. In Palin's case, the entry contains a response as I have proposed, and has been debated extensively debated and achieved through consensus. Hence my analogy is valid, and constitutes a valid argument. It's also pretty obvious that made no attempt to draw a connection with Palin and Foster! Rather than reflexively deny the validity of my argument, you need to show how such careful wording is in clear violation of WP:BLP policies.Jemiljan (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Break

Seems Fjordman and Melanie Philips are now exempt from WP:BLP? Tbe desire to connect this man with everyone mentioned in his rantings is getting absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how others feel about this, but I think that Fjordman is, and should be, excluded from WP:BLP for a very obvious reason. We do not know who Fjordman is, or that Fjordman is even a person. Melanie Philips is, of course, clearly a living person.Griswaldo (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the section from the Phillips entry again and suggested to the editor wishing to retain it that he best take up the issue on the talk page instead.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree Griswaldo on this. BLP exists to keep the wiki from being used to attack living people in ways that are egregiously libelous to them, and as a consequence, the project. A pseudonym can, for all we care be a collective pseudonym and hence shouldn't enjoy the same protections as a named individual. It should be treated basically as book would. However, BLP protections are not just for the article about the person, but mentions of the person elsewhere, and articles on pseudonyms are ripe for the inclussion of speculation about identities etc. Those items are indeed BLP protected. --Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: one editor (who had never previously edited in the article ever) made precisely two edits to Eurabia -- for the single purpose of reverting me <g>. Then had the interesting view expressed at [25] implying that I had not discussed the issue <+g>. His words were :

I reverted your edit on Eurabia because he was motivated by the concept of a growing Eurabia, wrote a manifesto on the subject, and was deeply influenced by the idea to the point of performing a terrorist act. I still have not seen a rebuttal from you rationalizing why you were against his inclusion on the page. However, I see you took the liberty of venting your frustration with Jimbo Wales.

Feel quite free to examine my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernest C. Brace

Ernest C. Brace He was "Dismissed from the Naval Service." The source for the Wikipedia article, apparently an article printed in the Arizona Republic is erroneous. Brace retained all his benefits, and security clearances. Within the year he was back at Marine Corps Schools, Quantico, VA. to demonstrate an advanced helicopter stabilization project, aimed at the proposed Light Attack Helicopter project under consideration by DoD at that time. For a concise report on Ernest C. Brace see "Honor Bound" The History of American POWs in Southeast Asia 1961-1975. a Department of Defense publication.

On October 17, 2010 Ernest C. Brace was inducted into the Oregon Aviation Hall of Honor in Mcminnville, Oregon. In the same month he, along with several other Continental Air Service, (Bird and Son) pilots, were acknowledged in a ceremony at CIA Headquarters as having flown for the CIA during the Vietnam War. CIA Press Release October 21, 2010 (Unclassified) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecbrace (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Checking NYT article - the NYT uses the term "punitively discharged" so article emended. [26] Collect (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good source as well. Looks like "dismissed" might be a better word than "discharged". Yobol (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs, Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks

In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer in the 2011 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller and cited her "Atlas Shrugs" blog. The truth of this can be found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/ Ms. Geller responded to media accounts here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/media-assassins.html This fact was removed from this entry because "one nut-caseadmirer has nothing to do with her biography." But the fact that Charles Manson and his murderous followers were motivated by a misinterpretation of a Beatles song is included in the entry for Helter Skelter. In addition, Jody Foster's Wikipedia entry notes that John Hinckley, Jr. became obsessed with Foster after repeatedly watching the film Taxi Driver and that Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan to impress her. Is it not equally significant and noteworthy that the man who detonated a bomb in the capital of Norway and killed scores of people specifically cited Ms. Geller's blog in the manifesto that he published to explain his actions? Mr JM 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because Breivik cites all sorts of people in his rambling and contradictory manifesto. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. Those examples are ones where the two have become linked over time and in a way that is itself notable. Such links are not notable at this time between Breveik and any of the people he quotes.Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ABB praised Geller in a few lines of his huge manifesto. Reliable sources show this is true. But unlike the Helter Skelter and Jody Foster examples, no reliable sources have shown that this manifesto is significant in understanding Geller. That's why we can't include this in a BLP. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is notable and worth including. This exact same discussion is being had above for Robert Spencer. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anders_Behring_Breivik_.283.29. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is notable only in the BIO of Breivik. His motivations in his article only - do not coatrack the mass murdering of people in the BLP's of uninvolved living people. I read that the mass murdering has been said by his lawyer to be insane, although this is likely not an official position I imaginer tests are underway, resulting in attempting to add to peoples BLP articles that a mass murderer that was said to be insane by his lawyer said he did it because of (add all the names her} - such addition to a BLP of as person completely involved is undue completely and has nothing to do with anyones BLP other than the mass murderer that has been commented as insane by his lawyer.... Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob I agree with you in general on this, but would note that in Spencer's specific case, he has responded at length on several occasions, including 4 separate media interviews. Is a brief mention of the incident that is inclusive of Spencer's criticism of Breivik as well as the general media response a form of coatrack? How so?Jemiljan (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

With a rewrite perhaps - to remove any weight towards the subjects association or a cause and effect assertion. Personally - a possibly insane person mentions a living person and that living person is asked by the press about it and they say that crazy person is nothing to do with me - seem reasonable to me - its only notable about the claimed to be crazy mass murderer not about the person mentioned its a undue position to add it to the innocent persons BLP..... If a subject uses the association to gain audience time and to make multiple interviews about it then their may likely be a case for inclusion of some detail, however imo the focus should clearly be on the content about the subject and not the mass murderer. Any addition like this to Gellers BLP is clearly undue - Geller and her "Atlas Shrugs" blog were praised by the mass murderer Breveik. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! I am in full agreement with you here. When and if a subject is implicated in an event or controversy, and responds to it publicly in a high-profile fashion and more than in passing, then WP:BLP entries should be able to accommodate a passage that summarizes the event and includes a response by the subject from a third-party reliable source. It should be no more than a couple of sentences- even if they conduct multiple interviews like Spencer has, one can simply cite the interviews, not discuss them.

I think that a reasonable analogy can be found in the passage regarding Sarah Palin's response to the Giffords shooting [[27]] There was a very extensive debate over this issue on these noticeboards, as well as her talk page. The wording was clearly achieved through a consensus. Also note the passage about John F. Hinckley in the entry on Jodie Foster. Neither passage implicates the subject, or is overly undue (although I don't like the addition of the poll numbers on Sarah Palin's passage, it is in a section on her public image). It seems to me that such events should have a well-developed stated policy so as to manage the response of editors.

There is already an earlier thread on this topic above. I think this hsould be discusse din the respective article, not on this forum, unless there is controversy in the specific article. However, in this case we cannot ignor ethe fact that WP:ABOUTSELF directly addressed the question, and we should include both this item (and her response) and of course this jewel: in which she says stuff like "Utoya Island is a Communist/Socialist campground, and they clearly had a pro-Islamic agenda. That is not guilt by association, that is WP:ABOUTSELF. Once notable, as Jimbo Wales himself discovered, you cannot put that cat once in the bag and anything that can be sourced about you that is relevant to your notability (and subjected to consensus) is included. Again, my position is that this be discussed in the article, but we cannot ignore WP:ABOUTSELF in the case of this particular issue. Again, nuance and consensus in each article - rather than a systemic approach - is needed. --Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, we either delete Pamela Geller, or anything controversial, provocative, or otherwise cringe inducing she self-publishes in the blog that made her notable on the first place is subject to inclusion in the article about her under WP:ABOUTSELF. Lets be unequivocally clear here, there are *no BLP issues* in doing so, because she has not refrained from the topic herself, and hence there is no presumption of injury to her reputation or standing as they are her own words - which is why we have BLP protection. Of course, being subject to inclusion is not the same as "we must include", bu thats an issue of consensus, not BLP. If we treat this as a BLP issue, we are essentially saying that Wikipedia has a responsibility to protect people from themselves, and that is well beyond all of the spirit and letter of our reason to exist to be even seriously argued.--Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

aBOUT SELF - yes - if Geller said the summer cammp was a liberal pro islam location then it will get reported in independant sources and we can add it - that Geller said the summer camp was a ...bla bla. - if its reported and asserts as notable not as a soapboxing personal blog comment - Geller blogs a lot of stuff, unless its reported independently we should be careful to republish it - Gellers claim that the summer camp participants are muslim lovin liberals is not about herself but accusations about others and fails self pub. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, lastly I hope, I do agree that any simplified "guilt by association" link or mention would be unacceptable. It has to be a NPOV presentation of Geller's reaction to criticism leveled at her, and of her reaction to the 2011 Norway attacks - which goes well beyond Breivik simply mentioning her in his diatribe.--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Geller's response has been reported and discussed by Ada Serwer's article here, and it seems better written in comparison to others, as he clearly doesn't try and imply that "Geller made him Breivik it" from the outset. It focuses on Geller's comments about the camp, as well as her comments about the features of the attendees. Is this the sort of reference that can be used as a WP:RS source? What do you think?Jemiljan (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure prospect.org blogs are RS or not, but I would say the nature of the article is something that wouldn't violate OR or BLP protections.--Cerejota (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

IMIOWPAG - (in my interpretation of wikipedia policies and guidelines) Adam Serwer's prospect blogs are not reliable sources for BLP articles, or even perhaps any articles apart from his own BLP when/if he gets one. I didn't see any statement of editorial control or oversight in regard to the blogs on the website - his blogs are used in only one wikipedia BLP article and imo that should be removed from the Robert Spencer BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Serwer has published in print on other venues, so it's possible he may produce something along those lines in the near futureJemiljan (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Reporting repeated reinstatements by users Alex Bakharev and Deepdish7 of poorly sourced, potentially libelous information. The subject of this BLP, Boris Berezovsky, had three successful libel suits in London over the information, which has been reinstated into the article (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=442582893). The material in question contains wrongful accusations of Mr Berezobsky of criminal activities including murder, threats of violence and financing terrorists. This is a serious matter, which should be addressed immediately.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User Kolokol1 repeatedly deletes well sourced (with links to widely recognized newspapers such as Forbes magazine) material, including even whole sections of the page. After he performs his edits half of the page is normally gone, which has been contributed by many people on the board. He comes up with absurd and unfounded accusations of antisemitism to former Forbes Russia general editor and a very well known person Paul Klebnikov. When actually he never mentioned the nationality of Boris Berezovsky at all in his writings. Will keep restoring the original version which corresponds to NPOV. Hope Wikipedia interferes and stops vandalism by user [[Kolokol1] Deepdish7 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

- Reinsertion of potentially libelous material has occurred three times within the period of 24 hours. User deepdish7 is threatening to keep reinserting the contentious text (see above). This is happening notwithstanding the fact that over the past few years British courts three times have ruled for Mr. Berezovsky in his libel actions over the very same allegations that are made here.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

- - A few months after the article in Forbes was published, Berezovsky sued the magazine for libel (in February 1997) in British court. In 2003 the court ruled that Forbes remove ONLY ONE statement from the article, as it didn't have enough evidence to support the claim that Berezovsky arranged murder of famous anchorman and TV producer Vlad Listyev.^[1] The court didn't order Forbes to remove the rest of the article from the website nor acknowledge that all data contained in it was false, nor forced Forbes to pay a compensation, that Berezovsky wanted when filing his claim. The article is still available online on the Forbes website (with exception of one above mentioned statement).^[2] Some media sources controlled by Berezovsky though, such as Kommersant magazine, reported, that Forbes "lost the case" and "completely retracted their claims against Berezovsky" which actually never happened. Berezovsky NEVER contested in court the book "Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the looting of Russia" that Klebnikov published in 2000, which was a very extended version of the article.Deepdish7 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - Repeating defamatory statements on this noticeboard, which you just did, is against the rules. Regarding Forbes, this is what it has said in its retraction: "(1) it was not the magazine's intention to state that Berezovsky was responsible for the murder of Listiev, only that he had been included in an inconclusive police investigation of the crime; (2) there is no evidence that Berezovsky was responsible for this or any other murder; (3) in light of the English court's ruling, it was wrong to characterize Berezovsky as a mafia boss". The retraction is an admission of wrongdoing. It testifies for poor sourcing and potentially libelous character of your text too. That Berezovsky did not sue Klebnikov, after his lies have been exposed once, was his choice. He still may choose to sue others who keep repeating those lies--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - Vandalism that you're executing on Berezovsky's article is far more against Wikipedia's rules. I already answered to you, that Forbes agreed to retract ONLY ONE claim related to Berezovsky arranging Listyev's (or someone else's) murder, whereas other accusations against Berezovsky remained in place. It does not testify libelous character of the text but simply the fact that Forbes didn't manage to gather enough evidence to prove this particular accusation, still other accusations were well supported and this is why the court didn't award Berezovsky victory over them. The court DID NOT order newspaper to remove the article, despite Berezovsky was asking for it in its claim. The fact that the court allowed Forbes to leave the article on the website with other accusations confirms that the court did not accept claim by Berezovsky but only agreed on it to a very small extent. And in general, article is simply peanuts comparing to the book in terms of number of accusations and evidence gathered against Berezovsky. So he simply decided not to sue Klebnikov because he had no chances to win the case in court Deepdish7. Even if you don't like certain sections of the page, such as Fridman claiming that Berezovsky personally threatened him, you can supply a link to court decision under the same section. You have no right to delete whole sections of the article instead and do not conform to Wiki rules when you do that, so we'll keep cleaning your destructive job and restoring information in the article (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard." I have removed the potentilally libelous allegations twice and have edited the text in accordance with the stated WP policy and I have duly reported the issue. I am reluctant to continue this game of removal and reinsertion and will let the potentially libelous version of the article stand to give Wikipedia a chance to review and resolve this potentially precarious situation--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides Klebnikov's allegations, which were retracted by Forbes, the contested text repeats slanderous allegations by Friedman, and by Russian media related to Litvinenko murder. Both were found libelous in British courts--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in using Forbes magazine and particular Paul Klebnikov's articles as a reference. Even as allegations they are quite notable allegations. Obviously we should separate proven facts (I guess only a criminal court has an authority to prove criminal allegations against living people) and allegations. I have tried to improve the article a little bit but maybe the Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/new is a better starting place. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Duncan James

Duncan James (boyband singer) is currently listed as bisexual and has many attending LGBT cats. It is not notable to his public life, though no doubt the tabloids would think otherwise. As far as I know, he is not a LGBT advocate or anything. The only mention in the article is that he occasionally likes to have flings with men. I removed the information as it had been sourced by a deadlink and didn't meet WP:BLPCAT or WP:EGRS. Another editor challenged this, added another working cite and states my edit was vandalism. Would you say that James' sexual status and cats should be removed? Ta. Span (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To echo the conversation going on above re Luke Evans - with Duncan James we have a BLP of a bloke who happens to be bisexual. This is entirely unnotable but has RS sources confirming his sexuality. To my eyes, this BLP should not be subject to LGBT tags nor mention the fact that he likes to have flings with blokes. As with religion preferences, this stuff has no place in an article. Thoughts please. Span (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

His coming out as bisexual is every bit as relevant to the article as his former relationship with his babymama. If the latter is not a BLP concern then neither is the former. It's one line, sourced to independent reliable sources and it is not damaging to him in any way (and even if it were he's the one who gave the interview). Leave it. William Bradshaw (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen French

This article has been the subject of an amount of unverified changes recently culminating in 2 attempts to blank the page. The author of this two blankings says he is the page subject (see this diff to my user page). It would be appear that rather than vandalism this user has real concerns but keeps adding unverified (unverifiable?) information making in one case possibly defamatory statements about witnesses in a court case (removed by me in this diff). Perhaps administrator intervention is needed to address those concerns but also to prevent defaming others? NtheP (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a little confused, because the present state of the article after West.andrew.g quite properly reverting his blanking, is a mix of self-serving positive statements about him, some attributed only to his statements at interviews with him, and negative material, which might either reflect negative views based on his earlier activities, or his later self-glorification of them. The overall tone is not encyclopedic and it needs a thorough rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyes, please

We could use some eyes on Peggy Kleinplatz, ideally from people who have no idea at all who this professor is. She contacted a notable Wikipedian to have serious errors (like calling her a mere lecturer when she's actually a full, tenured professor) fixed in her BLP. As a result, he's been insulted on multiple pages by activists for sexual minorities for "belittling" the subject (by giving her correct, and much higher, job title at her request?) and even had one admin declare that he's topic banned (which WP:BAN says that no individual admin is permitted to do).

It would be great if we could get this page on several other people's watchlists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, the notable Wikipedian is User:James Cantor, and the admin who seems to have purportedly topic-banned him from the Kleinplatz article did so here. I'll leave notes for these two editors at their talk pages, pointing here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I left the notes. The admin is User:JzG (Guy), and this edit by the admin seems peculiar; the edit summary purports to criticize belittlement of Kleinplatz, while the actual edit demoted her from full professor to a lesser status. I guess we'll wait and see if JzG and James Cantor can shed some light on this odd situation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert on my userpage.

Yes, you are correct, Anythingyouwant. JzG/Guy's is ruling against me is somehow for "belittling" Kleinplatz, when I actually had indicated that she had attained higher rank. Moreover, all the changes I made included clear RS's for them.

This is actually the second time JzG/Guy issued a topic ban against me without justification: In the AN/I discussion that followed that time (archived here), the other editors repeatedly faulted his judgment when it came to me:

"Admin User:DGG however seems to think that the block was unjustified" -- Tijfo098
"Frankly, I thought the block was also unjustified." -- Atama
"I do not see grounds" -- Collect

There are more examples, but I think the point is clear.

— James Cantor (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess you/we could use some clarification from Guy about whether he still considers you banned from the BLP in question, and if so why. Article content may be influenced by whether you are able to edit the article and/or its talk page or not. It says at the top of this Noticeboard, "Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases." The subject of this particular article seems to have an injury that prevents typing, and has designated you as an agent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for this but I'd like to add that the most disturbing aspect of this whole exchange for me was the email that bittergrey sent to Kleinplatz. This type of behaviour if tolerated inclines me to leave wikipedia as it indicates a very troubling tendency to escalate the stakes by making serious allegations about someone's behaviour to a colleague. I think that this could have had very serious repercussions if Kleinplatz had chosen or was inclined to react differently. Certainly, if I had received such an email stating that someone working in my field was defaming me in a public forum I can't say that I would have retained my cool. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

EMails Between BLP Subject and Wikipedia (not pilfered & not marked confidential)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

________________________________________
From: Peggy Kleinplatz [kleinpla@uottawa.ca]
Sent: August 4, 2011 9:51 PM
To: info-en-q@wikimedia.org
Cc: James Cantor
Subject: Problem in an article about me

Dear Editors,

I have just received the email message below which includes links for

your information. I did not know if it was legitimate so I am

contacting you directly. The message from "Grey" asks if I had

contacted Dr. James Cantor to ask him to make edits to the Wikipedia

page about me. Yes, I did contact him. There had been errors of fact

about me in the existing article. For example, I was listed as an

Associate Professor whereas I am actually a full Professor.

I have a permanent hand injury which makes all computer use

prohibitively painful for me. Dr. Cantor was willing to fix the

errors as a favour to me. Please allow his edits to stand, with my

appreciation. His edits in no way "belittle" me. There is no conflict

of interest.

Sincerely,

Peggy J. Kleinplatz, Ph.D.

Professor

Faculty of Medicine

and

Clinical Professor

School of Psychology

University of Ottawa

>From: grey <bittergrey@infantilism.org>

>To: kleinpla@uottawa.ca

>Subject: Are you requesting edits to your Wikipedia page?

>

>Dear Dr. Kleinplatz,

>

>Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping to check something.

>

>Recently, James Cantor has made some edits to your biography on

>Wikipedia[1]. He has a long history of using Wikipedia to promote

>his own interests and those of his colleagues, as well as to demote

>competitors and competing views. Another editor quickly reverted

>the changes, noting that "The changes appear to belittle the

>subject. The editor has a [conflict of interest] in this area."

>

>James Cantor is claiming that you called him and requested those

>changes[2]. Given what he has tried to pull in the past on

>Wikipedia, few trust him. I was hoping to check with you and find

>out the truth.

>

>Sincerely,

>~Grey

>

>[1]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggy_Kleinplatz&action=historysubmit&diff=443065468&oldid=428041914

>[2]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peggy_Kleinplatz&diff=443077415&oldid=443070535

(Posted by FiachraByrne, signed above[28].BitterGrey (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

I'd like to ask everyone to note that NONE of the multiple copies of this email, posted to Wikipedia in multiple locations, were posted by me. (@FiachraByrne, if the email really contained "serious allegations", you shouldn't have posted it here per the red text right up there on the top of the page. Feel free to retract your comment or delete the copy of the email you added.) BitterGrey (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

James Cantor has a self-evident conflict of interest. He does not deny this. He does deny that it's any kind of problem him editing articles on people in his field whose work impacts on his. He is wrong about that. The edits I reverted were subtle POV-pushing (like adding non-academic aims of a prize given to the subject, which waters down the academic purpose for which it was granted). James Cantor's talk page and our article on him point out why he should not be editing an article on this particular subject. I informed the arbitration committee of what I did at the time because I know from long experience that when someone who has strong opinions considered controversial by the LGBT community, as Cantor does and his colleague and co-author Ray Blanchard even more so, then there will be scrutiny and there may well be drama. James Cantor can minimise drama and possible reputational damage by not editing biographies where he has a conflict of interest. Nobody's best interests are served by having someone editing such biographies, however flattered we might be to have a "Notable Wikipedian". We have a way of doing all this that is open and above board: the talk page. That's the way forward. Do not set up hostages to fortune, itreally is not a god idea at any level. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Guy, is Cantor now banned (by you) from making edits to the Kleinplatz article, or not? Some clarity here would be helpful, please. Can an admin impose a topic ban as long as the admin pops an email to ArbCom, or must ArbCom respond? By the way, I have never heard of Cantor, and couldn't care less if he's notable rather than anonymous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, Guy's statement is not a page ban, but a topic ban: "I will remind you not to make edits to WP:BLP articles on people in your field....I will not warn you again."[29] It is not clear to me how valid that might be; input would be appreciated.— James Cantor (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's invalid: BAN specifies that topic bans may be handed down by "the community" and by ArbCom (including individual admins applying ArbCom's discretionary sanctions). See the part that runs, "individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans." There's no "except if you're JzG, in which case you can topic-ban anybody you want" exception. However, JzG has a long history of unorthodox interpretations of such policies, so I would not be surprised a failure to comply with his made-up rule would result in a block anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I presume JC's edits you are criticising are those you reverted here [30]. Problem is, none of those seem to relate to 'adding non-academic aims of a prize given to the subject, which waters down the academic purpose for which it was granted'.

Instead it involved 1) Removal of the B.A. (Honours) and also the year of her Ph.D. 2) Changing associate professorship to full professorship. 3) Changing of capitalisation for 'excellence'. 4) Changing of the claim dysparenunia was medicilising women's bodies (to only something she wrote on). 5) Removal of what she was allegedly currently teaching (which was unsourced and as with the associate professorship probably something true at one time but perhaps no longer) 5) Extending or modifying the terms for some of her career timeline and reordering them to follow chronological order (from a random order before then).

He also changed the description of one thing she did from 'Coordinator of External Practicum/Internship Setting, Sexual and Couples Therapy Training' to 'Director of Sexual and Couples Therapy Training, University of Ottawa' but I don't see how that was 'adding non-academic aims of a prize given to the subject, which waters down the academic purpose for which it was granted' since it isn't a prize. In any case, presuming accurate, it seems a better description since frankly being director sounds better then being a coordinator and more importantly the first one is fairly unclear on what it's referring to and doesn't even say it's at the UoO.

In other words, these edits seem to be good not bad, even if it may have been best for someone other then JC to make them. The only thing I can really see a question mark over is the removal of the claim dyspareunia was criticised by PK as medicilising women's bodies, but it may be accurate. The other minor issues are the lack of sources (but it's not like these were removed) and the removal of the B.A. (Honours) which IMHO is a fair editor's call.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For clarity when you say none of the copies were posted by you, are you saying they you didn't send the email? Or are you saying you did send the email, but you aren't the one who included it here and elsewhere? If it's the later I don't think that has to be stated, it seem clear it's either from someone with access to the foundation address, JC or PK or someone they sent it to. More importantly, bear in mind that since JC is the one the allegations concern, if JC want to post it or allow other to post it, it seems to me that overides the expectations of the red text if they understand and accept the implications of what they're doing. Although it may still questionsble posting a private email without the permission of both parties. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am quoted above, and my position still holds. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I too agree that the action by JzG was mistaken; it was a constructive edit. But it's easy to make an error is this confused field--I made one myself, getting confused about who it was that had changed it to associate professor.

I am really concerned about the placement of this letter on Wikipedia for two reasons: first, it cannot be posted without the agreement of the two parties in question It is arguable that Dr. K agrees to the positing of the second letter, for she certainly seems to have intended it for publication, and since it contained a copy of the first, that she agrees to positing it also. JC obviously agrees to the posting of both letters, since he posted them on his talk p.. That leaves only BG, with respect to the first letter, who, judging from the above, objects to the posting. I think there is no choice but to have the letter removed from both places.

Second, it is not incorrect to contact the subject of an article to verify facts in the article about them. To do so while accusing another editor is off-wiki harassment. When off-wiki harassment is related to an on-wiki disputed, it's the same as on wiki harassment. The letter must be removed, but it was evidently sent, unless the sender denies it. I'm too involved in this to take the direct action required personally, & I'm not sure I have the right to anywhere, as some of it relates to what was private correspondence. In an attempt to act equally and equitably with respect to everyone, I have proposed by email separately to the parties that they refrain from every using each others names, WP or RL, on Wikipedia, and keep off each others talk pages. One of the parities has not agreed, and I therefore can no longer attempt to personally deal with this. This is an admin noticeboard, and possibly as suitable as ANI, so I invite comments on how to handle this fairly to all parties. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Although there have certainly been sincere comments, if there was a message that I violated any specific policy, I have missed it. As is known publicly, I work in a forensic department with both medical and legal documents flying in and out of the door all day, every day. From my point of view, an editor sent an email without any request for confidentiality, and Dr. K. neither offered nor agreed to keep any such communications private. The same is true for all portions of the communication Dr. K. sent me. Now, even if there is no policy violation, I appreciate entirely that reasonable people can disagree over this. If it the general feeling that the latter portion be removed, I have no opposition.— James Cantor (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Guy's actions against James Cantor do not match up with the behavioral guideline at WP:COI. Cantor should be allowed to edit any article at all if such edits hold strictly to WP:NPOV. NPOV is the crux of COI—if his edits are neutral, reliably sourced and verifiable then they should stand. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@bittergrey: I'm not sure that you can expect a reasonable entitlement to privacy when harassing another editor via email. The recipient of your message first instigated the process of distribution and it appears to me that it was her right to do so. In regard to the "red text", that clearly applies to postings which can be regarded as potentially libellous are defamatory. As Cantor has himself publicised your exchange with Kleinplatz I don’t think that my publication of it here has any relevant legal implications. Kleinplatz’s somewhat sarcastic response to your letter, including forwarding it on to Cantor, clearly indicates that she did not regard your insinuations about his behaviour as credible in any case.

I do find it interesting, however, that you have not addressed the question as to whether it was reasonable or appropriate to make such allegations about Cantor in a letter to a colleague of his. Perhaps this kind of response is typical behaviour on your part and thus unremarkable? Should people in edit conflicts expect responses of this nature from you? Do you see any problem with the email that you sent to Kleinplatz?

It is incredible to me that you would do this when verifying the content of the article and the relevance of Cantor’s contribution, which should have been everyone’s proper object, could have been achieved with a minimum of effort. It took me about 60 seconds. Instead we all end up wasting our time on these types of processes to manage the behaviour of adults who should frankly know better. It is hard to retain good faith in the intentions of editors when they behave in this manner. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, are you aware that supporters on one side of this debate are making threats to keep multiple editors on other side of the debate silent (eg. [31])? Were it otherwise, I would be happy to offer a defense. You are only reading one side of this story.

By the way, the story starts here. BitterGrey (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey, as far as I can ascertain DGG's block was prompted by a comment from that user on the Peggy Kleinplatz talk page which had clear BLP violations in regard to Cantor. Under the circumstances and in the interest of avoiding a further escalation that would seem to have been an appropriate and measured response.

You're direction to the 'beginning' of this controversy on Wikipedia is actually instructive. Reading the diffs of Cantor's contribution there it is clear to me that the response which it engendered was based upon a total misreading of his text and a total oversensitivity to both Cantor's COI (which should only become relevant where contributions give evidence of POV) and aspects of his professional associations and positions within his own field. Read properly, his edits improved that section of the article. They did not constitute an attempt to denigrate the subject; rather he introduced improved context and precision. The response this elicited was frankly fantastic.

Also, you haven't addressed my question in regard to your email.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that there's an obvious elephant in the room here. Just about every significant editor of the series of articles that have formed the heart of this and related conflicts has a serious COI through personal or professional investment. This obviously relates to a particularly rancorous conflict with origins off-wiki in regard to the nature of "transgenderism" (correct term?). While not directly relevant to this dispute I would like to state for the record that in my opinion some researchers in this field have a greater responsibility to the subjects of their research than they have thus far demonstrated. At times the invocation of the precepts of "science" is merely a device for not taking responsibility for the real effects of one's popular and public pronouncements in the wider social sphere. Equally, there are minimum ethical standards that their opponents should abide by in their response. It is clear that such standards have not always been maintained.

Wikipedia now has an issue of governance in managing this conflict. It is not clear to me that appropriate structures to manage such a conflict exist. I think a permanent solution based on agreement with all relevant parties should now be proposed.

This is my proposal

1 Identify all significant editors involved in this ongoing dispute

2 Identify all topics, categories and pages relevant to this dispute

3 Subject to their agreement to participate in this proposal the following conditions would apply to all identified editors

4 The end of all topic or page bans for these editors whether prescribed or voluntary

5 On the identified pages all editors may contribute to the content of articles under the following conditions

(a) That all talk page or editorial comments are directed only at the content of articles

(b) That no claims of bad faith, COI or bias made against other editors on the identified pages

(c) That no ad hominem attacks are made against other editors on the identified pages

(d) That all contributions by these editors on the identified pages are referenced according to the best available sources

(e) That all contributors represent positions and persons to whom they are or are assumed to be opposed in a fair and reasonable manner

(f) That all contributions are directed solely at the improvement of articles and not to advance "vandettas" or personal positions

6 The arbitration committee or a subcommittee of uninvolved administrators should monitor that these conditions are adhered to and that they should judge this and be seen to judge this in a reasonable and fair way

7 That failure to adhere to these conditions by any editor should result in a one month site ban and a six month ban from all the identified topics, pages and categories. Subsequent bans should be significantly lengthier.

8 That trivial or nuisance reporting of infractions to the committee by the identified or other editors of this agreement should result in a one month topic or site ban as appropriate

I'm not sure that this would work but I would like to see a permanent solution that would end this misdirection of resources and energies away from the improvement of the encyclopedia.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to make everyone aware that there are larger issues lurking out there, and you may want to start a new section about them. But this section is about the Kleinplatz BLP, and whether an admin has mistakenly topic-banned an editor from this article (by assuming he had ArbCom approval when all he did was send ArbCom an email).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but the problem requires a more systemic solution. Otherwise we'll be back here again in the near future.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

just a reminder that I am no longer acting in an admin role on this issue or with respect to the people involved. My previous statements were operative at the time, but now should be taken as advice only, as my opinion of what the people involved ought to do, which is stay away from each other. There is just one point under current discussion, on which I now have a definite opinion that someone has done something unequivocally wrong by Wikipedia standards: BG's letter to Prof.K. I'd see no need for further action about it, though, if she were to accept that she not have written in that manner, but just sent a neutral request for information. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. The admin (Guy) and the editor (Cantor) should agree to stop interacting with each other, though each can continue editing the Kleinplatz BLP separately if done in compliance with Wikipedia rules. And BitterGrey should acknowledge that the email should have been neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DGG, does "My previous statements...should be taken as advice only" mean that the "bans" you arbitrarily and unilateraly levied against Jokestress[32], myself([33] and email), and maybe others, are no longer "bans"?

Of course, this far into the discussion, whether any of us can or can't write anything is academic: After some four thousand words, opinions have already formed.

However, Jokestress has made quite a nice figure, clearly illustrating androphilia and gynephilia. Getting from the initial starting point to where we are now took some discussion, but we did it. (Well, Jokestress did much of the work. I just provided some thoughts.) When she asked me to add it to the androphilia and gynephilia article, I thought it was just a mere courtesy at first. Then I became aware that you had banned her from editing any and all articles, and a complete ban was being threatened[34].... because, as was shown in the previous BLP/N issue, she wrote something that turned out to be true and well-supported. BitterGrey (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Buddhists

There are living people in this article with no sourcing that they are, indeed, Buddhists. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:BLPCAT, they should be: I'd suggest that the 'Buddhist practitioners notable in other fields' section is probably likely to be the most problematic. Probably the best thing to do initially is to post a comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism pointing out that this needs sorting out - the project seems quite active, and it might be over-hasty to remove unsourced entries. Policy would seem clear though: for living persons, inclusion in lists, categories, infobox fields etc by faith requires self-assertion. Actually, at this point, I expect someone to step in and point out that 'Buddhism isn't always regarded as a faith' - still, it will make a change from arguing about which other arbitrary categories we can shoe-horn people into...— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

I agree with AndyTheGrump here. It makes no difference whether it is a "faith" or a "practice" or a "spiritual path". We need a reliable source that says the person self-identifies as a Buddhist. It could be a reliable interview, report of a speech by that person, autobiographical writings, their own website, or something else as solid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq

This article is biased, apparently for ideological reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.9.120.242 (talk • contribs)

in which direction do you consider it biased? It would seem to me that people from conservative islam would read it as supporting their own negative views of him, and people from the liberal side would read it as supporting their positive ones. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:John Hagee

Gross BLP violation at Talk:John Hagee by Special:Contributions/12.133.53.195. This is the only edit by this IP address. This is the revision ID http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Hagee&oldid=390619731. The problems being that the poster ~~violates BLP on Hagee,~~ threatens the President and insults the Koran, all in one post. The post is nine months old. I will revert it, but the edit needs to be deleted. Safiel (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold on this a moment, looks like another user involved as well. Safiel (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the most egregious part (the BLP violation against Hagee) was this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Hagee&diff=prev&oldid=383164627 by Special:Contributions/Lexo, but the previous IP's edit still needs to be deleted as well. Sorry for the error. Safiel (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

- WP:OVERSIGHT is for such requests. I would say WP:REVDEL is enough for those comments. Deleting them as you have done removes them apart from a history search. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony

There's currently a discussion on this article's talk page about comments of jurors in the Casey Anthony trial, and their possible legal implications. I believe more input is needed, from uninvolved editors who may be more knowledgeable on BLP and libel, etc. Chickenmonkey 22:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if some content in some section is a possible BLP violations/possible legal implications please point a bit more specifically to it and the supporting externals so that users can easier opine about it, thanks. As regards names, not notable names of jurors and fringe not notables can and in my interpretation of policy/guidelines should easily be removed in favor of privacy without any loss of educational detail. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The section being discussed is Death of Caylee Anthony#Defense, prosecution, and jury; more specifically: the comments by juror number 3, about the other jurors; and the comments by the jury foreman, about George Anthony. Chickenmonkey 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, one editor believes the jury mentioning that their suspicion of George Anthony played a role in the verdict they arrived at is a BLP violation, since he was not tried of any crime. But like I stated on the talk page, George Anthony was made a part of the defense's case. The Jury Foreman is explaining how he and the jury reached their decision. We can report what other jurors say of how they arrived at a verdict, and that includes them saying "the jury felt this way or that." I don't believe that it is a BLP violation to include the fact that one of the main reasons the jury acquitted Casey Anthony is because they did not trust George Anthony. One editor calls it slanderous and libelous, when all the Foreman is saying is that he and the jury did not find Casey or George Anthony believable. I'm not getting how that should be excluded, when that section is about why the jurors voted the way they did. The Jury Foreman is responsible for asking questions on behalf of the jury and facilitating jury discussions, so it is not at all as though he is not credible in relaying why and how the jury reached their decision. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article closely lately. Anyways, the go/no go part of BLP is whether we are summarizing reliable sources. After that, it's whether we are giving to much weight to stuff that does come from reliable sources. These are probsably the issues we need to deal with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Jury Foreman said much more than that. To their credit, Flyer22 and Chickenmonkey have taken much of the "heat" out the jurors' words, but my concern was that the very 'linking' to the remarks could be a BLP and a possible liable issue to the individual editors. Mugginsx (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we took away "much." But, yes, we have tried to tackle Mugginsx's concerns on this matter, while also expressing disagreement with most of those concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

David Hockney

"then suicided in 1977 after rage quiting in black ops" Has been inserted in the first section of this Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombish (talk • contribs)

Vandalism reverted. January (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Halperin

Mark Halperin was born in Boston, Massachusetts... He was born in Boston, MA and raised in Bethesda, MD.

The cited New York Times article says he was born in Bethesda.[35] But even the vaunted NYT can be wrong, so we can check other sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The database Contemporary Authors Online says he was born in Cambridge, not Boston. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiltrud Strasser

The article on Dr. Strasser (a veterinarian known for advocacy of barefoot horse hoofs) concludes with the following unsupported statement:

"Dr Strasser is infamous for her method of hoof care, that has often lead to lameness, pain and discomfort, disfigurement and scarring."

That is one writer's opinion. Many others would disagree vehemently.

Removed and article tagged for footnotes. – ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius

I have twice today removed content which does not meet WP:BLP policy from Church of the SubGenius. The content removed can be viewed here. The content essentially ridicules an individual (the judge), is poorly sourced (especially given the nature of the claims), contains commentary (the sentence beginning with "ironically"), and is WP:UNDUE. I have posted a note on the article talk page noting that, per BLP policy, the contentious content should not be restored until consensus as to its conclusion is reached on the talk page. Additional input regarding the sourcing and suitability of the content would be appreciated at Talk:Church of the SubGenius. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the talkpage responding to this. :I don't really see the BLP violation here. Yes, the sourcing is poor, the language could be toned down, and saying "ironically..." is a violation of WP:WTA (and possibly WP:SYNTH). But if such problems could be fixed, are you saying it still shouldn't be mentioned in the article? I don't know if the material is true or can be properly sourced, but if it is, how specifically would that violate BLP?--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. The woman in question has every right to feel BLP-violated--esp. given that this stuff is based on a bunch of forums/websites such as this. Jezebel is absolutely correct--and I have half a mind of applying revdel. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it was supposed to be a BLP violation against the woman? I thought it was against the judge. Anyway, as noted on the talkpage there, no RS sources exist for this (or can be found at least) so the BLP question is moot. It fails WP:RS and WP:V before we even get that far. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the BLP issues, the entire paragraph is irrelevant to the subject of the article. The terribly sourced, obviously one-sided paragraph is about a child custody battle, not the Church of SubGenius; religious affiliation is frequently used as a weapon in such disputes, whether mainstream or smaller religiou. This paragraph is a classic example of what Wikipedia is not intended to be or how it is intended to be used. Risker (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If it were reported on, it would seem to be relevant that involvement in a fake satire religion caused a woman to lose custody of her children (in an article about the fake religion), but as stated above, it's moot. No reliable sources have reported on this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article and will help with BLP enforcement, as I've heard about this case before. The real problem here is that the sources are pretty much blogs. If there were a reliable news source which presents a neutral account of the situation, I think that would support a sentence or two, but this really does fall under WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. Yworo (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Standard & Poor's

Mutliple new & IP editors are amending the S&P page with Harold McGraw III's political donation records, apparently to promote the meme that the S&P downgrade was politically motivated. The reference cited is the FEC donation directory, and not to any reliable sources. I would appreciate some help in maintaining the page. It should probably be semi-ed at the very least. Ronnotel (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If and only if a person is the sole owner of a corporation would such ephemeral stuff be of the remotest value. I think the Chinese rating service downgrade is unlikely to have been based on the Chinese being Republicans by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree and I guess I'll just semi the page myself - tired of dealing with the IP vandals. :) Ronnotel (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this has now made its way to WP:ANI where I've left a comment; I support your actions on the S&P page for exactly the reasons you calmly gave on the S&P talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

missing posts

Hi - earlier tonight there was a large duplication of content and as it was unnoticed for a while, additional comments were posted - I have reverted back as the page was taking long to load and was large/duplicated and confused - I have attempted to re-add all comments but if you see your comment still missing please re add it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kuzanov and Karekin II

A single-purpose account, user Kuzanov (talk · contribs) has been adding poorly sourced contentious material to the article on the head of the Holy Armenian Apostolic Church, Karekin II. He has been repeatedly reverted on the English, Georgian and Armenian Wikipedias, but still continues. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau

An alleged direct representative of the article subject has lodged a lengthy WP:BLP complaint on the article's talk page, proposing deletion of a lot of material. I have gone through it all in detail, over several hours, and sourced a number of things that the complainant says were not sourced, disputed the claims of the complainant in a few cases, and flagged the rest as problematic with {{or}}, {{weasel inline}}, {{unreliable source}} and other such tags, but not deleted any of the challenged material myself. I believe that in two cases (an apparent WP:NOR violation and a WP:RS/WP:NPOV-failing blog quotation) there are genuine WP:BLP issues, while the weasel stuff is actually all probably verifiable with the sources already cited (they're just not cited granularly enough, fact by fact). I'm done working on the article; I'm trying to be mediatorial, so I decline to do further edits on the disputed material. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

List of people diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder redux and Zooey Deschanel

At [36] we have Zooey Deschanel writing in her blog and saying "Are you an unmedicated adult with Attention Deficit Disorder who also LOVES to do crafts? I AM! I barely have the patience to write this opening paragraph (I have already gotten up four times), so I need to focus my unfocused mind on projects that can be completed very quickly. Am I going to knit a scarf? NO! Will I knit a scarf for a bunny? I don’t know. Maybe, if it’s a really small field bunny and I am knitting with giant knitting needles. I recognize I will never complete something that takes any kind of patience (sorry needlepoint) so I decided to focus this blog on crafts I CAN complete." I removed it but it was replaced. This is also used in her article to claim she has ADD. Now it is possible she has ADD, but this looks like a flippant remark just emphasising the fact that she lacks patience, and I don't think we should take it seriously enough to claim she actually has ADD, nor can I find any reliable sources that says she does have ADD. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies. You are correct. Collect (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

She is clearly joking around. Such casual banter is far from sufficient for us to report a medical diagnosis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources-on-themselves section seems more relevant than WP:SPS. Of course, Cullen's point is still valid: It looks like a blog that might conceivably contain humor or sarcasm.BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The list title says 'diagnosed' in any case, and she doesn't say she was diagnosed as having ADD. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad and religion infobox value

This is about what to put, if anything, in the religion= attribute of the infobox for the BLP Bashar al-Assad.

I think it can serve as a useful test case for the WP:BLPCAT policy.

Assad, the President of Syria, is from the Alawi community. Countless sources can be found to support this and there is no dispute about it at all. He is frequently described by RS along these lines "Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, belongs to the minority Alawite group. About three-quarters of the population are Sunni".

Assad is without doubt a Muslim. A source is available where he self-identifies as a Muslim and identifies his religion as Islam.

al-Assad, Bashar (2010). "Politics: Viewpoint: President Bashar Al Assad". The Report: Syria 2010. Oxford Business Group. pp. 20-21. ISBN 978-1907065163. "If we have been used to blaming others for the denegration of Muslims, we should carry out an honest critique of ourselves. In taking stock of ourselves we will discover that we are more responsible than anyone for the stereotypes that are associated with Islam and Muslims...If our religion is treated with abuse and contempt, it is because we have surrendered our decisions and image in the world to others who shape the external perception of our faith...How can we defend our religion while we are unable to defend our opinion or homeland?"

Being a Muslim is a requirement for presidency in Syria, so his religion, however one wants to describe it, seems at face value at least to be "relevant to [his] notable activities or public life" to quote WP:BLPCAT.

The problem is that this seems to be a case where the requirements of BLPCAT conflict somewhat with commonsense. He is Alawi but no one so far has managed to find a source where he "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" to quote WP:BLPCAT. We don't have any sources where he describes his religion as Alawite or Shia Islam or some variation thereof. There is probably a good reason for that rooted in political expediency. The sectarian/identity related issues are an important component in the current clashes in Syria for example. The question is, what should the religion= infobox value say

nothing
Islam
Something more specific such as Alawi

See Talk:Bashar_al-Assad#Shia_or_not_Shia for detailed discussions. This is not an issue that is going to go away given what is happening in Syria. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was called into this discussion by User:PassaMethod, who would have the infobox say Alawi. I'd like to make two observations. 1. If common sense conflicts with the letter of a rule, I think there is a strong case for common sense, per Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense. 2. We do have sources where he stated his origins as being from the Alawi community or family background, as Sean stated here. Being religious myself, I can say that this is usually sufficient proof of a person's religion. Especially after the fact of his general religiousness has been established.

Taking together these two arguments and add to it the fact that his being Alawi is well sourced, I would say changing his religion to Alawi, which is after all a subcategory of Islam, would be justified. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deepak Kamani

G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Negative and long-unsourced BLP, Google news archive didn't turn up adequate sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunalpoker (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked all the ext links to see if they are useful and made some changes => stub Deepak Kamani. He gets a number of hits in google books so maybe the article could be rescued. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I also did the same thing for the Swahili version. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just use Google news archive search for his name. Add in "billions" and you can find which results are about the scandal he was involved in. [37] I added two references and some information about that. Dream Focus 17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was only concerned with removing unsourced BLP violations and seeing if any of the external links were potentially useful. Unfortunately they weren't. If others want to build it up from the stub with decent sources that would be great. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Garcia

Additional input would be helpful at an RfC on football player Stephen Garcia. The RfC section is Talk:Stephen_Garcia#rfc_538A282. The issue is whether or not the article can include information about incidents that led to his suspension from the football team. --Noleander (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman

This post consists primarily of derogatory name-calling, sourced only to publications that have engaged in similar name-calling. It is highly contentious and unfair. It is certainly not unbiased or neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.196.63 (talk • contribs)

Please be more specific. You think the entry on Fjordman amounts to "derogatory name-calling?" Please clarify or else we can't look into it for you. Also, please note, that Fjordman is not "a living person" but an online persona. Since we do not know who writes as Fjordman (one person, 10 likeminded people, 5 employees of some group whose interests the blog promotes, etc.) we cannot, and should not treat Fjordman as "a living person." That said, perhaps there are other BLP concerns in the entry. Please clarify.Griswaldo (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- he has most certainly now been identified as a specific "living person" and thus is fully under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Not up on this at all clearly. He identified himself in the last few days. I'll strike that.Griswaldo (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My view of the general underlying priciple, Griswaldo, is that a person or persons writing under a pen name is just as entitled to the protections of WP:BLP as anyone else. That's unless you want to argue that the author is a dead person or a computer or a non-human animal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No I think that such a view makes BLP inherently meaningless. The point of BLP is to protect living people from harm -- to protect their privacy, to protect their reputation from being slandered, etc. A phantom is protected already by way of being a phantom. We also cannot know that a pen name is linked to a living person as opposed to a group of living people, a corporation pulling a marketing stunt, a government agency agitating rebellion, etc. etc. You cannot claim the protections afforded to living people unless you are demonstrably such a living person. But that doesn't mean that all the other policies don't apply - WP:NPOV, etc. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Our articles can only harm identified living persons. If no one knows who is behind the pen name, whoever or whatever is behind the pen name can't be harmed. Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are obvious exceptions to this. The members of Kiss (band) were not readily identifiable for a long time, and also used stage names, and the same goes for luchadores, and other masked performers using stage names. They still have professional reputations that can potentially be harmed by false information. And of course a huge number of people use names professionally that are not their legal names, even if their faces are published. Basically, I would be very wary of making pronouncements that so-and-so category is excluded from WP:BLP without being the Wikimedia Foundation's staff counsel, since you'd need expert legal knowledge on how defamation law, privacy law, etc., etc., may apply in multiple jurisdictions to the case at hand. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. The policy is aimed to protect living people. We know that the members of Kiss are living people, and that their faces are known to the public, etc. In other words where there is identifying information (such as photographs and other visuals of a real life human being) BLP should apply. Where there is none I can't for the life of me see how it should. An online persona, unlinked to any living human being, is just that an online persona. It is not a "category" of human. It simply is not a human at all. All I'm saying is that only human beings are included in a policy that protects human beings. It's that simple, and if we are not allowed to make that obvious and logical of an interpretation of the policy without talking to the WMF lawyers then I'm not sure what policies we can interpret, ever.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm no lawyer, but as far as I know only actual people, identified by their real names, have legal rights in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. I could not file a lawsuit against anyone as "Griswaldo" for instance. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And one last point, in case it wasn't clear already above. The very things we aim to protect living people from, are de-facto protected in cases like these already. A purely online persona is only known through public information, and not private information. The minute a real person appears in the picture (e.g. lets say someone finds out who the online persona belongs to and starts making pieces of information public) we obviously work to protect that real person as we do any other, under the BLP policy. Until then we rely on other policies.Griswaldo (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, the notion that a writer using a pen name is not entitled to the protections of WP:BLP is simply bizarre. As for Griswaldo's claim that "only actual people, identified by their real names, have legal rights in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. I could not file a lawsuit against anyone as 'Griswaldo' for instance", it is simply wrong. Read the article John Doe and its references to learn that people whose legal identities are unknown can be sued and actually are sued all the time. There is a long tradition of writers on controversial subjects using pen names, among them Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and many others. Some writers have maintained their pseudonyms for decades, and others real names were never discovered, or only discovered long after their deaths through sophisticated literary analysis. Are you really arguing that writers who use pen names are not entitled to the protections of WP:BLP? (apologies for forgetting to sign earlier) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not arguing about the "writers who use pen names." That's what you fail to understand. I'm arguing about the pen names, known only as such. "John Doe" is a name given to actual living, in the flesh people who cannot be identified by name, or are being protected from such identification for some reason. But you see that process starts with an actual person, in the flesh, not an online persona. I did not say that you can't try to sue "Griswaldo." I said I can't sue you as Griswaldo. And by the way, fat chance, without actually connecting Griswaldo to a real life person, that such a lawsuit goes anywhere. There is a very false assumption underlying all of your comments Cullen, and that is that there is necessarily "a writer" behind all online personalities. Once again there could be many writers. There could be a corporation. There could be a government agency. There could be ... you name it. Of course some human being(s) is/are typing on a computer somewhere but BLP does not apply all the activities engaged in by human beings -- (e.g. BLP does not apply to corporations). BLP applies when there is an identifiable human being to protect.Griswaldo (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps by considering the "living" part of BLP this might be clearer. If Username X blogger is never identified and dies how would we know if s/he is "living?" If Username X blogger is never identified and dies and someone else continues blogging as Username X who are we protecting? We don't protect usernames. We protect people.Griswaldo (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not at all uncommon that a person dies and their death is not known for a long time, or never confirmed 100%. The presumption in the weeks and months following their disappearance is usually that the person is alive. Gradually, the presumption changes to one of death. There are certain legal processes of course. My presumption is that a pen name represents a real person who is covered by WP:BLP even when discussing them by their pen name. If evidence was produced that the pen name was a corporate creation, I would reconsider. It seems we disagree on this but have discussed it thoroughly and calmly, so perhaps we ought to move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Darcus Howe

Repeated reinsertion of/ edit wars over PoV interpretation of a recent BBC interview, and removal of {{fact}} tags, with BLP issues for the subject and interviewer. See also talk page. I declare that I am an involved editor; and have previously raised the matter at OR noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted that the article appears to have substantially mis-cited the WaPo blog content. Where clear opinions are ascribed to a single person, the BLP must also then ascribe the opinion to the same person. Words not found in the cite should not be used in an article - they appear to be the opinion of a WP editor, which is contrary to WP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You've been partially reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos are repeatedly being used as a reference, as well as an editor's personal interpretation of the videos. I have reverted the additions based on RS and BLP grounds, and ask others to examine this article as having material substantially violative of BLP policy (particularly regarding a BBC presenter). Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Resolved

– Considering stale as page isn't being disputed after almost 2 weeks.

This individual is a politician in South Carolina. Information that reflects negatively upon him has been removed from his biography on more than one occasion and replaced with puffery, likely written by members of his staff. Working - I will check into this and see who is doing it and if it is an IP, I would recommend semi protection. If it needs some "re-writing" or something, I will take a stab at that as well. JoeGazz ♂ 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if it's stale. Today is the 11th and they haven't caused any issues since DeltaQuad protected it on the 3rd. I would consider this stale but recommend to the admins blocking the accounts removing referenced information, repeatedly, which becomes vandalism after a period of time. JoeGazz ♂ 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Islam-related BLPs: Fjordman, Bat Ye'or

JonFlaune (talk · contribs)

I have concerns over this editor. He appears to have a highly negative view of those who are critical to Islam. Virtually all his 600 edits have been related in some way to the 2011 Norway attacks and Anders Breivik. His edits generally portray critics of Islam in a negative light and are of poor quality. Two examples are Fjordman and Bat Ye'or. Some of his edits on Fjordman:

3 August Adds that Fjordman is "far right" in Wikipedia's voice (his first edit at the article)
6 August Adds it back when reverted
6 August Adds that Fjordman is "Islamophobic" in Wikipedia's voice, sourcing it to an opinion piece
6 August Someone attributes the labels "far-right" and "Islamophobe" to his critics, but JonFlaune reverts them back as facts in Wikipedia's voice
6 August Adds that Fjordman is an "extremist" in Wikipedia' voice, sourced to this, which is of undetermined reliability
7 August Adds that Fjordman is a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice
7 August Adds the Category:conspiracy theorists category
7 August Someone changes "Islamophobic" to "anti-Islam", but JonFlaune reverts backs, saying "scholarly term used by sources"

The article now says Fjordman is a "Norwegian[1] far-right[2][3][4] Islamophobic[5] blogger and conspiracy theorist[6] who uses the pseudonym Fjordman". Before JonFlaune edited the article, it merely said he was a "anonymous Norwegian blogger". Some of his edits on Bat Ye'or:

7 August Adds conspiracy theorists category (based on the premise that some argue that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory)
7 August Adds that Robert Spencer is a "Islamophobe", sourcing it to an Al Jazeera opinion piece
7 August Adds that Bat Ye'or was cited favourably by Breivik, an attempt at guilt by association
Further edits that unbalance the article

JonFlaune came to my attention when he renamed the template "Criticism of Islam" to "Islamphobia" (and the corresponding template title) (so that all the critics on the template were Islamophobes), arguing bizarrely that it was a "non-extremist title", saying further that "The curren title of this template ("Criticism of Islam") is POV and Islamophobic". I reverted the rename, and they responded by adding a POV tag to the template. I went to their talk page, but I didn't think their response was constructive (he said I had moved a template from a "neutral, established, and scholarly term to a POV title expressing a fringe point of view and which pretends the racist Eurabia conspiracy theory is merely "criticism" of Islam"). I'm bringing this here for more eyes, and because I don't want to have to follow him around and monitor his edits. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place to discuss this - none of this concerns WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't Fjordman, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer etc. covered under BLP? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are some BLP issues but if there are severe BLP violations then WP:ANI might be a better place to report. New user - strong POV around a single issue and a limited understanding of wikipedia policy and guidelines. I reverted this one for undue attacking labeling, personally from this users contributions they are unable to edit NPOV in their single issue and they should be topic banned in any edit connected to Islam/Muslims and pointed towards WP:Adoption - Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the user who insists on describing Robert Spencer -- the leader of what the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti Defamation League (and any other reputable source) consider to be an extremist hate group [38][39] -- euphemistically, politically, and misleadingly (and completely unsourced) as a "writer on the West's relationship with Islam"(sic!). The real problem here appears to be users with strong and fringe opinions enforcing such views in these articles. What's next? Will the leader of KKK (another organization considered to be an extremist hate group by the mentioned reputable sources) be described as a "writer on the West's relationship with people of African origin"?JonFlaune (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman is described as far-right and Islamophobic by the Norwegian Wikipedia and most (all?) mainstream sources -- for example by The Independent [40]. It has been pointed out by others that some editors have "slanted the (Eurabia) article towards supporting views" (see extensive previous criticism on its talk page), and indeed it appears it's heavily guarded (any criticism of this fringe and far-right conspiracy theory, as it's described by all mainstream and non-extreme sources (e.g., Marján, Attila; André Sapir (2010). Europe's Destiny. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 161. ISBN 0801895472), was just removed from the lead). The same applies to some other articles related to Islamophobic far-right concepts. Spencer is a self-proclaimed "counterjihadist" and founder of "Stop Islamization of America" (considered to be extremist by the Anti Defamation League[41] and considered to be a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center [42]), and extremely controversial, described as "Anti-Muslim" (which is the same as Islamophobia) by the New York Times[43]. Dagbladet writes that:

"Spencer is widely considered to be an extreme Islamophobe who is spreading hate against ethnic groups and religions. He has been heavily criticized by [the American organization] The Anti-Defamation League"[44]

The Anti Defamation League writes, for example, that he is an "anti-Muslim writer" who promotes "a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda" and considers him a proponent of an "extremist ideology"[45] Describing him as a "writer on the West's relationship with Islam" (in an article which looks more like an advertisement for fringe, far-right ideology than a balanced and encyclopedic article based on mainstream sources), as if he were a recognized authority in the field, is not only extremely misleading, it's clearly political.

As for the categorization of Bat Ye'or, Category:Conspiracy theorists states that:

"For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories"

Eurabia is categorized under Category:Conspiracy theories. Andrew Brown (writer) describes her as the inventor of the Eurabia conspiracy theory.[46]. Numerous other sources can be found establishing that she is a promoter of what mainstream scholarly works and mainstream media consider to be a conspiracy theory. JonFlaune (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For comparison: The Norwegian Wikipedia article on Fjordman states in the introduction that he is "a far right Norwegian blogger [...] who writes English language conspirational, dystopian articles criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration to Europe". In the body of the article, he is described as an Islamophobe, which is sourced to an interview with a researcher at the Norwegian Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities in Dagbladet[47]. The Dagbladet article discusses Fjordman's proposed "Nazi solution" (from the article title) for Europe's muslims (i.e. he wants to "remove" all Muslims from Europe). Obviously Fjordman is also categorized under Islamophobia on the Norwegian Wikipedia. I must admit that I'm somewhat opposed to the idea of removing all muslims from Europe, but surely, agreeing with the article subject is not a condition for editing the article. JonFlaune (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman should be renamed, thats the only BLP concern I see (I KID! :) As to the other stuff, this is a behavior issue, not a BLP issue, I concur ANI should be the place.

I will only add that there is nothing insulting in calling a a spade, a spade. Calling an anti-semite an anti-semite is not a violation of BLP if it is verifiable, and neither is calling a far-right-winger a far-right-winger if it is verifiable. There are problems if not verifiable or the only sourcing is partisan - extraordinary claims do require extraordinary sourcing.--Cerejota (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman (again)

Source given for him living at a "daycenter" does not say "for the mentally retarded" and I suggest that implying that he is "mentally retarded" absent an exceedingly strong source is contrary to WP:BLP. Others are invited to weigh in on this, but I find the claim to be "contentious" as a minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced materiel which could be construed as negative is an automatic removal; unsourced positive materiel can also be removed. No argument possible against removal of this unsourced claim. I support your removal of this content. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Marmolejo

The information recently posted pertaining to 8/8/2011 NY times article does not comply with Wikipedia's core principles. It is not neutral or verifiable and sole purpose is to be disparaging. It is not reflective of Marmolejo's 15 year legal career. The allegations in article are unsubstantiated. There is no response to allegations by Marmolejo or US Attorneys Office due to policy not to comment on pending matters. Posting this information is not relevant to Marmolejo's legal career, is libelous,and sensationalist in nature. This needs to be deleted immediately and contributors blocked from reposting. Attempts to delete have resulted in reposting by same contributor. This is a personal attack and attempt to force subject to defend herself. These tactics should not be permitted by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssantos29 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your allegation about "criminal activity" above. Be careful what you post about living people on Wikipedia, even if it's not in an article. As for your claims, at the moment, you've reverted the material, but it's not clear to me whether it belongs in the article. I will say that the level of detail that was in the article was far too much, but a brief mention of it might be okay. I'm curious what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times piece was principally about the case and its effect on a family, and its mention of Marmolejo was almost in passing. For the time being, I would say that any mention of the case in the BLP would be undue weight. If there turns out to be masses of coverage of Marmolejo's involvement in the case, or if reliable sources talk about it affecting her career or political fortunes or whatever, then a mention of the case would be worth including. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think your analysis is very reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

^ Caputo, Michael R. (2004-07-13). "Same Old Ruthless Russia". washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post Company. p. A15. Retrieved 2007-05-31.
^ Cite error: The named reference Godfather was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] Caputo, Michael R. (2004-07-13). "Same Old Ruthless Russia". washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post Company. p. A15. Retrieved 2007-05-31.

[Godfather-2] Cite error: The named reference Godfather was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]