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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:16, 30 May 2011

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Kelly Wearstler

Are breast and ass measurements relevant for female interior designers?

Kelly Wearstler is a prominent American interior designer. Her prominence can probably be indicated by links such as this, this orthis.

Wearstler's work as an interior designer is the only reason she is known, except, I guess, to a small group of collectors of decade-old issues of Playboy, who remember that she was a Playboy playmate back in 1994.

As these Playboy aficionados are more numerous on Wikipedia than people interested in interior design, they have managed for years to keep the article in a state where her brief appearance in Playboy completely dominates the article. This has been done through a playmate "infobox", with breast, waist and hip measurements, and a navigation box listing all playmates of a certain year, effectively emphasizing that particular context above any other. Kelly Wearstler and/or people working for her have actually tried to change the article to actually reflect her real fame, but they haven't done this with much skill and have promptly been reverted by more experienced Wikipedia users.

Wearstler's success as an interior designer is the only reason she deserves a Wikipedia page, not her appearing nude in a single issue of Playboy 17 years ago.

I recently removed the playmate infobox and navigation box from the article. that removal remained unchallenged until today when they were put back, first by an IP, later by User:Dismas.

This article needs some more attention. Her appearance in Playboy should certainly be mentioned in passing, as it is in her NYTimes profile, but I see no reason why it should dominate the page. --Hegvald (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of undue weight.--Scott Mac 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct that it probably shouldn't dominate the article, you are being dismissive and condescending with remarks like "a small group of collectors of decade-old issues of Playboy". The fact is, appearing as a Playmate of the month was essentially a free pass to notability until recently. It is a significant event in her life. I agree that the Playmate infobox probably isn't appropriate for this article, but I don't think looking down your nose at people adding it helps either. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are going about this in the wrong direction. There's no reason to remove any of the material pertaining to her Playmate status. The problem is that the article says little to nothing about her status as an interior designer, and, judging from the fact that I get over 500000 Google hits on "Kelly Wearstler", there should be plenty of material to add. Whether she likes it or not, though, she will always be the interior designer that used to be a Playmate.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't have any great regard for "interior designers" (even less than I have for Playmates); they strike me as an over-self-publicized, overpaid, socially useless breed of entrepreneurs. Their overall usefulness to society is something less than the folks who design hats for British royal weddings, and the entertainment value of their work is several quantum leaps lower. If I were running for office, and I could cover up a past as a Playmate or a past as an interior designer, I'd cover up being an interior designer. Being a Playmate says "I have no qualms about exploiting my appearance to make money off sexually frustrated adolescent males of all ages." Being an interior designer says "I have no socially valuable skills whatsoever." "Interior designer" is the profession undereducated rich women on soap operas who've been out of the work force for years (in the unlikely event they were ever in it) go into when they're peeved at, or dumped by, their spouses. Because it's the only job that's even remotely credible for them to hold. If most of Kristen Wiig's annoying characters were real people, they'd be interior designers. That weasel who sold your down-on-his-luck brother-in-law a second mortgage that quickly went underwater by getting him a phony appraisal and puffed-up income statement. He's married to an interior designer. Is your state legislator a real tool, a political hack in the pockets of special interests (and it doesn't matter whether they're business or labor interests, liberal or conservative PACs)? He or she will have been endorsed by the state's trade association of interior designers. And received a pile of campaign contributions from them.
Just push the damn infobox to the bottom of the article; that's where too many of them belong anyway. Most infoboxes are useless clutter anyway. They're the unholy spawn of USA Today's breed of superficial journalism. I've spent a couple weeks suffering my way through the complete set of Playmate articles and removing the trivial and the obsessive detail. A batch of the models have gone on to do real jobs and play constructive roles in society, and nobody's advocating subordinating their Playmate past. No reason for special treatment for the interior designers. Even the lawyer-Playmates aren't shameless enough to ask for it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be quick about this.

Instead of removing things from the article, why doesn't Hegvald add some evidence of this notability as an interior designer? Or add {{tl|Infobox interior designer}} above the other infobox?
Several peer reviewed scientific studies have been done using Playboy's data as their data set. So this data would be helpful in an encyclopedia entry for one of the Playmates.
I'd appreciate it if editors could keep their personal morals and opinions of Playboy readers out of their editing and discussions. The maintainer of the WeKinglyPigs.com web site, which is a reliable source for the article, is female and not a "sexually frustrated adolescent male" of any age. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "depends on what the measurements are", arf! arf! arf! Seriously though, Hullaballoo, is Wikipedia really the place to vent your spleen about how you consider interior designers to be the spawn of Satan and on a level with Bible-peddling life-insurance salespeople or anybody working in the advertising industry? Just asking. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, not really. But I was responding to the almost-explicit argument that "interior designers" are so much more reputable than Playmates because their work is so very very worthwhile. That and the fact that I remember the pompous, self-important self-promotion that Wearstler or one of her PR people tried to substitute for the article [1]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the argument you refer to is high quality HS but seriously there are so many targets for your wroth, i.e. interior designers and other such modern necessities as lifestyle coaches, that you will exhaust yourself by railing against them all. My cat is of more companionship, intelligence and pertinence to me than 95% of the human race, I do take a fairly Bhuddist POV in general and, I think, it helps to remain detached on WP where people will quite happily argue for hours, days, weeks, months, years about hooey. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that both Dismas and Kww claim that I removed things. The only things I removed were the boxes.

Infoboxes, by their nature as graphic embellishment, draw attention and tell the reader (in this particular case): "this is the deal with Kelly Wearstler", "this is the most important information". In this case that included the (apparently) false name she used as a Playboy model, the bust/waist/hip measurements, her weight and the preceding and succeeding playmates, all things to do with a single minor episode of her life 17 years ago. Whatever anyone decides to do with the rest of the article, as long as that infobox remains on top, it will still continue to draw attention to itself and dominate the article. I don't think anyone who looks at her biography and thinks about this article objectively can seriously argue that this anatomical information and her status as a Playboy playmate back in 1994 are the most important pieces of information about her.

The main issue here is conforming with the BLP policy. No matter how short the article is, it still needs to do so. In this case, that means not giving undue weight to minor aspects of her life. I don't find Wearstler having been a Playboy model any more shameful than her being an interior designer, and it shouldn't be suppressed. But in the context of her entire biography, it isn't all that important and shouldn't be given undue weight. It should be mentioned in passing, nothing more and nothing less. --Hegvald (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her status as a Playmate is notable. Look above in the discussion, and you will find precisely no one that agrees with you that it needs to be minimized. The problem is that the article is a three sentence stub. Add four or five paragraphs of well-sourced information about her career as an interior designer, and the infobox can be moved to a later paragraph about her career as a Playmate. Right now, the infobox is as late in the article as possible.—Kww(talk) 12:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that I would be interested in writing about Kelly Wearstler, I would still have to ask myself why I would I want to invest time and effort in doing this when there is a greater-than-average possibility that the article will still end up looking as if it had been co-authored with Beavis and Butthead. --Hegvald (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the infobox. It is quite unacceptable. That she was in playboy is notable, and is rightly recorded in the article. However, glorifying it with a big box and breast measurements is clearly a breach of WP:UNDUE and the spirit of "do no harm" encapsulated in the BLP policy. She's an interior designer. She doesn't highlight here past appearance and neither should we. Especially not on the nonsense that of infobox conformity. Anyway, how is her breast size in 1994 relevant to anything? Can you verify that's here size now - 17 years later? Is this an important part of understanding her? There's no justification for this. We don't define someone who has a notable career by their appearance in some magazine 17 years ago - and their breast size then. Horrible, sexist and unfair to the subject.--Scott Mac 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I would agree with you: I routinely remove mentions and links of things like "Maxim's 100 Hottest Women": those lists are not particularly notable, and not particularly relevant to the careers of the women involved. Being a Playmate is a quite different thing: a conscious choice of the woman involved, done with her cooperation, in an effort to seek money and fame. Most articles about her as an interior designer still discuss the Playmate stint. As I say above: if you don't want the weight to be undue, weight the scale on the other side: find some material in this notable career as an interior designer that will fill the article. I looked for a bit, and couldn't find anything I thought was worth adding. That says a lot to me about its actual notability. The fact that her cup size in 1994 can be reliably sourced also says a lot of 'that fact's notability.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it isn't notable, or reference to it should be removed. But it will not do to breach WP:WEIGHT and then say "well someone else should re-ballance it". The problem is risking an unbalanced article for the sake of a silly box. Her breast size 17 years ago would not be considered notable enough to include in prose, so it is hardly justified in highlighting it in a box.--Scott Mac 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood Kww is right - she'll be known more for her Playmate status than her interior design work. Look at Yvette Vickers - a Google News search on her death shows about the most common headlines for the stories usually referred to her Playmate status, with the next most common element being her B-movie status then specifically her role in Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. In that light I say have the inforbox in Kelly's article reflect that. If for some reason the crowd doesn't feel comfortable with that, then do what's done for the articles for Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson and have {{tl|Infobox people}} at the top with a focused Playmate infobox down below. Tabercil (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE should be the guide here. Her New York Times profile is nine paragraphs, with only one paragraph about her Playboy appearance. That sounds about right to me for our biographical article. If editors want to increase our coverage of her Playboy appearance, they can expand the entire article and then make their case to include the various Playboy widgets and boxes. If a compromise is necessary, I would suggest that the prominent top infobox be left out but the bottom collapsible Playmate box could stay. Is there a way to make those boxes default to collapsed? Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I know how to do that and I will try now, I do it sometimes when they are so big as to be obtrusive in the article or when there is only a tangentially connection or as in this case where less obtrusive makes them less undue. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done but not yet added as its unclear if there is consensus support for it - to anyone wanting to make a template default to collapse on a single article in future you add this to the template and "state=collapsed" to the template on the article. {{Playmates of 1994|state=collapsed}} - Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation boxes such as this one and "specialized" infoboxes, such as the one for Playboy "playmates", both serve the same function: to push a non-neutral POV and give undue weight to a particular aspect of a subject. There is nothing in the articles about those other "playmates" from that year that is important for a reading of Kelly Wearstler's biography. Even within the Playboy playmate context, there is nothing specifically about the other "playmates" from 1994 that make them more significant for Kelly Wearstler than tose from 1993 or 1995. And the people who want to find "playmates" from that or any other year can find them through lists and categories in any case. --Hegvald (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this issue, the more bothered I am that WP:UNDUE somehow requires that material be suppressed or scaled back because more "consequential" claims are treated skimpily. There hasn't been any claim here that Wearstler/Gallagher has been treated differently than any other Playmate has been. The disputed information has been given the same weight that it has in articles on other Playmates. The argument here is that because her second claim to notability is treated rather skimpily, the treatment of her first (chronologically) claim must be scaled back. This doesn't make any sense to me. If her career as an interior designer (not the world's most respected "profession," see here [2]) can be expanded, it should be. If the article can't be significantly expanded in this regard due to lack of significant coverage, then under the Wikipedia definition of notability it's just not so notable, and its low relative weight in comparison to her Playmate coverage is appropriate, whatever value judgments Wikipedia editors may otherwise hold about the merits of her various careers.
Lately I've been adding book review excerpts to book and author articles, something which Wikipedia has rather embarrassingly neglected in favor of overdetailed plot summaries. I've been doing this using review archives, sometimes online, sometimes by trudging down into Wolfowitz's Big Basement Full Of Old Books And Magazines and rummaging through packing crates. Every so often, I come across a scathing review that is certainly noteworthy enough to include in the article, but does not represent critical consensus. (See Stranger in a Strange Land for an example, the NYT review.) You could reasonably make an "undue weight" criticism in such cases. But the way to deal with it is not to remove noteworthy content, but for editors to continue to add further relevant content.Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. There's a big difference between, say, detailed exposition of a celebrity's DUI or publicly-revealed-drug-use, out of proportion to the way such matters are treated generally, and an article that is imbalanced because certain matters are treated at the length that has been treated as appropriate, in the general case, by consensus, while others are treated more sketchily than they could be. This discussion has lost sight of that important difference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, you have already shown your bias against interior design and its practitioners in your previous rant. It is no more interesting or relevant now than it was then. If other former "playmates" with later successful careers in other fields are treated in a similar way, with the Wikipedia bio giving the size of their breasts more prominence than their professional accomplishments, it is something that should be looked into, not held up as a standard. --Hegvald (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias" against interior designers? Oh, the horribleness. Are they forced to sit at the back of the limo or something? You want to give more weight to her professional accomplishments, whatever they may be, nobody's stopping you -- in fact, everybody's been encouraging you. But she doesn't get special treatment and the right to edit out well-known parts of her past that she might want to downplay. And let's be frank, her physical characteristics are certainly relevant to her main reason for prominence, her Playmate career. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People might take your opinions more seriously if you based them on real life and not on inane pop culture like soap operas. You do realize that soap operas show interior designers as rich pampered socialites because all women in soap operas are rich pampered socialites? In the real world - the one that this encyclopedia is about - interior design is a building trade and hard physical work, and you don't get into it if you're a pampered, spoiled socialite. You get into it because you can make more money at it than at general construction - many interior designers these days started out as journeyman carpenters. Do you think they just stood there in six-inch heels and half a pound of makeup, tee-heeing at a display of paint chips? LOL they're tearing down the wall with a crowbar! --NellieBly (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know "bias" was putting it politely. "Irrational vitriol" is probably a more adequate description of your attitude towards interior designers. "[Systemic] bias" is a good description of the situation in Wikipedia in general, where a strong contingent of nerdish Playboy and porn fans keep track of who posed nude in which magazine decades ago (do most normal Playboy readers even remember who was the playmate of last month?), but no strong group of interior design fans exist to even it out.

Your claim that "her main reason for prominence" is her "Playmate career" is silly. She never had a "playmate career". She spent a few hours posing for a Playboy photographer. That's it. She has spent two decades building an actual career as an interior designer (including the time she spent in design college before her interlude in Playboyland). And that is her main claim to fame, as her coverage in the NYT and other current publications clearly show.

As for writing about her, I am not really interested in doing that. Does that mean that I have no right to argue against including a blatantly sexist infobox as the most prominent part of her article? That is the real issue here, and it may well apply to other biographies. --Hegvald (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's change the focus for a moment

Indulge me for a moment by putting this debate in the context of the other gender.

Consider the case of Steve Largent. He was a well-known American football player in the late 1980s. He went on to serve in the US congress. His page contains a US congress infobox, of course... but immediately below it, a *larger* infobox summarizes his career in the NFL. Mr. Largent's height and weight are included most prominently. Mr. Largent is most likely better known nationally for playing football than for serving in congress.

Are we giving undue weight to Mr. Largent's less-useful-to-society career as a football player over his laudable political career? Are we objectifying him by including his body statistics from his playing days? (He's probably not 187 pounds of lean muscle nowadays.) And, what about the vast number of football players who have moved on to less-glamorous careers, but who would prefer to minimize their sports background in favor of coverage of their car salesmanship? Should we collapse their NFL infoboxes and reduce coverage of their football career if we can't find articles about their motivational speaking tours?

I hear and acknowledge reasonable points on both sides of this Kelly Wearstler discussion. I'm worried, though, that people's feelings on this specific article might not be separated from their opinions with regard to gender politics.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing I do agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz about is that "most infoboxes are useless clutter". Most tend to give undue weight to figures, facts or factoids of ultimately dubious relevance or accuracy, because these are the kind of things that fit into a box. But as far as the BLP issue is concerned, I don't find a case such as the one you mention quite as egregious, and the general discussion about infoboxes probably belongs elsewhere. --Hegvald (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Qur'an and science

Regarding a removal of content on Qur'an and Science, relating to Dr. Keith Moore's testimony of the accuracy of the Qur'an in Human Embryo development, considering it against WP:BLP and referring to an old discussion on his article too. The previous dispute was majorly based on the following:

Moore's academic textbook with Islamic Editions is not in his CV/Resume'

His 3rd academic textbook, with Islamic additions, was basically adding Qur'anic versus wherever it applies. I assume that his main problem was that the Arabic editor who helped him with the Arabic text, Al Zindani, was later considered a terrorist and started to work with Al-Qaida. I'm the first person that would remove something like that from my CV. So, if it was manipulating his name, it would of been easier to just announce that it's false. Especially as it's talked about him in all around the internet.

His Islamic version text-book is bias and is only used in certain countries

Where are the countries that can speak Arabic to read Qur'anic versus in Arabic? The middle-east! I've also seen many comments from Arabic Anatomy students on bookstores saying that his book is required by their University.

I've seen in other articles the usage of YouTube videos to take direct quotes of living personnel, so is this link considered acceptable, too? I won't reference details about the second terrorist editor, but just wanted to write a direct quote from Moore, if possible.

Thanks for our help, as this subject have been in debates fro years... getting added and removed over and over again. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the youtube external. IMO that would not be a reliable external and the uploader does not appear to be officially connected to the video and copyright status of the medias clip is unverifiable. We also would be unsure if the clip was complete or had been edited from the original in some way. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't make assumptions about why he does what. What the talk page discussion says is " The 3rd edition of his book The Developing Human contains changes by a Muslim, who removed all scientific pages which go against creation by a god and inserted religious texts from the Koran as well as excerpts from the Sayings of Muhammad, the Hadith." and points out that subsequent editions of the book do not contain those changes.

We have no proof that he wrote those passages and given the circumstances should not assume that he did. So it is clearly a BLP violation to include them. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is all considered assumptions, also. I think that an admin shouldn't be repeating a comment made by a new user, especially that he didn't bring any sources and only has 6 edits, total. The comment you're referring to was basically ignored because it was made 4 months ago on a 3-year-old discussion!

I think it's the publisher's duty to verify if Moore was involved in the textbook, not you nor me. The comment is full of biasness, as I've read the book myself and it's used as an academic textbook in Islamic states. It's not Wikipedia's problem if the Arab media is weak. Whatever is there is there. The 3rd edition with Islamic additions is the exact 3rd edition in the west, except for adding the versus. One edition was for the west and another was for the Middle-East, which are both used till now. There were no additional Islamic versions because the Arabic co-editor was kicked out of the Arab nation after his involvement with terror organizations. Do you have any sources for disputing Moore's textbook? ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other videos for living persons used the same way. If Moore's textbook mentions his involvement in Islamic connections, can I use the main source of the full video (considering that I completed the copyright rules) as a direct quote. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you owned the copyright or could find the video in a location that asserted ownership of the copyright then you are over the first hurdle, there may be other issues such as WP:PRIMARY - if he is only commenting about himself and his views related to himself them there is a chance that you could use a small quote but I would have to look at it and get a couple of other opinions to be sure. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm gonna postponed the videos. I have all the contact and stuff, but I have a lack of timing because of two bias editors that are wasting all my time in endless discussion. Thanks for the tips and I will work on it, sometime soon. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened: Is the dispute--that mentioning Moore's acknowledgment of the accuracy of the Qur'an in Embryology--accurate, stating that it might violate BLP policy? I was just writing what the following citations said! I don't think that the sources are unreliable, just because the publishers have no market here in the west. I've used these sources in my university before, also.

His own anatomy textbook: Moore, Keith. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With Islamic Additions. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Dar al-Qiblah for Islamic Literature, in conjunction with W. B. Saunders Company, 1983. (ISBN 0721664925)
His statement in an article: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association. Vol. 18. 1986. p. 15-16.
Another author who mentions Moore's acknowledgement: Edis, Taner. An illusion of harmony: science and religion in Islam. Prometheus Books, 2007. Original from the University of Michigan. p. 96 (ISBN 1591024498)
He also mentions that he gave lectures in Saudi Arabia here, also. Just an answer for the disputers that said that he never went there.

Btw, do I need to use all sources to stop further disputes, or do I just link my edit summary to this noticeboard. I've already got editors' approval when I added it months ago, but it was deleted this week again. Thank you all ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Corsi

I have objected, as have other editors, under the provisions of WP:BLP, to the pejorative and objective labeling of Jerome Corsi as a "Conspiracy Theorist". Perhaps there's a case to be made for this inclusion, perhaps not...but it certainly should at least require the establishment of a strong consensus for this edit in talk. Editors are now engaged in reverting edits removing this pejorative characterization despite WP:BLP objections raised. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of relliable academic sources

When someone publishes in an academic journal that an individual is prominently known as a conspiracy theorist, we can use that as a lreliabe source for this fact. See the last diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerome_Corsi&action=historysubmit&diff=430675099&oldid=430673364 for the source which is to an expert in conspiracy theorists.

Please do not remove this fact unless you have a reliable source which disputes it. I have found none in researching this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. WP:RS "facts not in evidence". While the cited source may be academic, Mr. Berlet is no "academic". From Wikipedia (emphasis mine)...

John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist, and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the media and on the Internet, and political cults on both the right and left of the political spectrum.

He is the senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks,...

I'll leave it to other editors as to whether a cite from an apparently hyper-biased "investigative journalist" satisifes WP:BLP, WP:RS criteria for objectively maligning Mr. Corsi as a "conspiracy theorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeInJoisey (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 May 2011

Given the content of the article, I don't think we need a citation in the lead to call him a conspiracy theorist. The article makes clear that he writes about conspiracy theories (using some form of the word conspiracy 19 times), news media (eg Newsweek in 2007 and others this month) things such as "The main purveyor of this broad conspiracy theory is Jerome Corsi, "[3], see also [4] and I could go on. Saying " Corsi has discussed topics that are considered conspiracy theories in most circles," seems pretty weasely to me. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the content of the article, I don't think we need a citation in the lead to call him a conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps so, perhaps not...but that's an issue to be resolved by consensus in talk, not here. I am soliciting administrative intervention as to the propriety of inserting content currently disputed under a WP:BLP objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It meets rs, so what other objections have you got? TFD (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation is irrelevant to the purpose of this notice. Please consider commenting in the article talk for consideration by all interested editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Chip Berlet's article in Race in the age of Obama, published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited.[5] When evaluating the reliablity of sources, we must look at the type of publication. Articles published in academic books are high quality reliable sources, and this article passes. Berlet in fact has written many articles and books for the academic press. Although Berlet also writes journalism and activist writing, this article is scholarly writing.TFD (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear opinions, as always, no matter who holds them, are only valid as claims of "opinion." The current standards for WP:BLP tend to make exceedingly good and strong sourcing a minimum for any such claim, I seem to recall a statement You would need a good source that called his view a conspiracy theory. It is a very strong term, and means more than a theory that a conspiracy existed which would imply a strong standard for calling any view a "conspiracy theory" and, by extension, anyone would need fully as strong a source for calling anyone a "conspiracy theorist" under the current BLP rules. I would suggest that a single source would not meet that requirement, and likely three independent sources would be a good idea. Collect (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider posting your observations in the article talk. I'm experiencing some difficulty here with editors arguing the validity of the content as opposed to the propriety of its inclusion prior to consensus being attained after a WP:BLP objection has been raised by several editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added two additional sources that directly describe Corsi as a conspiracy theorist to the article as per suggested by Collect. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Halperin

Politicsandletters (talk · contribs · count) continues to add plagiarism accusations based on a single self-published source. User has been warned several times. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thanks for raising it. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ケーキ姫

-no real name is mentioned in the article -false name is mentioned in thearticle "yuumi" -the person says in the article "being an youtube celebrity and net idol and niconico douga celebrity" -which is not true, because on youtube it has only 3270 subscribers at the moment - this was reached since 11 February 2010. -the person mentions only a youtube name -only one video reached 100.000 views, this is mentioned in the article but the video is titled Pray for Japan, where the person is reading japanese text from the monitor about the earthquake in Japan in March 2011 -also the person is not a youtube partner and the videos are full of foreign content and dont have a lot of views (or not enough to call itself a celebrity) - it looks like advertising for its "importancy" and it's twitter account to get follower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.160.232 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please could you tell us which article you're referring to? The header of this section renders on my machine as four neat boxes. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is about the article on Japanese Wikipedia, please ask on ja:Wikipedia:利用案内.

ウィキペディア日本語版のヘルプは「ja:Wikipedia:利用案内」を参照してください。

ケーキ姫 is the Japanese name "Keekihime", and from the context I assume the user was referring to an article on Japanese Wikipedia about a sort of 'internet celebrity' (a Net idol), which is at ja:ケーキ姫. As far as I can tell, there has never been an article on English Wikipedia about that person. Chzz ► 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Petrino

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Petrino&action=historysubmit&diff=430565844&oldid=430378931

This user has been warned for vandalism several times since 2009, all over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the entirety of that disputed and badly sourced paragraph about a living person. It seems to refer to a blog post that in turn refers to Wikipedia citing that blog post. I imagine that won't be the last of it, so I suggest you and others should watchlist the article too... and I also suggest that you raise, here or at the article's talk page, any other parts of the article that you feel are unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or not cited to reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the paragraph I was disputing, it was the fact that it's even in dispute. The paragraph refers to a radio interview given that was transcribed to a blog. Nowhere has anyone disputed the account other than in the head of the guy that keeps vandalizing the page? tag01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use blog posts as sources for controversial content about living persons, especially not blog posts that say things like "To those who have found your way here from Wikipedia’s entry on Bobby Petrino…Welcome!"

If the interview is discussed by reliable secondary sources then it might be suitable for mentioning in the article. Can you point us to any such discussion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've left "Zeke" a little note on his talk page about his slightly tendentious edits to this article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kingman

I am the youngest grandchild of Ed and Nellie Kingman. I was born January of 1954. Brian Kingman is my cousin and was not born in 1954. He was born in 1953. G1027565 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G1027565 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source agrees with the 1954 date: Baseball-Reference.com.[6] —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A second source, John Anthony Kingman, Brian Kingman's brother, agrees with the 1953 date. User wikipedia user Pragmaticist. G1027565 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's brother, if he can be verified as such, is a primary source.

An additional secondary source is Kingman's rookie card, which shows a 1954 birthdate.[7] —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Bukenya

His biography on wikipedia indicates that he attended st. Henry's College Kitovu. However information available indicates that he attended Old Kampala Secondary School instead if Kitovu. would please try to verify since that erroneous information is repeatedly quoted by media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiang (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Colter

According to the article, she was born in 1947, which would have made her 15 years old when she married Duane Eddy. I know this is wrong, but I'm not certain as to the actual year of her birth. I THINK it was 1943. Do you think someone could verify this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.80.108 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, there are some Google hits for 1943 but no RS from what I've searched. Connormah (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Popeil

I noticed this article in the New Pages backlog and decided that I'd fix it instead of slapping template tags on it. Because of my involvement in it I can't determine if there is significant notability to qualify for inclusion or if it qualifies for deletion. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only see self published entries on social media, and write your own resume sites. John lilburne (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in the Proquest newspaper archive I found one 1000-word profile of her, which may be sufficient to assert notability in conjunction with lesser mentions. One article calls her a "celebrity voice coach". I'll add some citations to the article and cut down the poorly sourced promotional material. Will Beback talk 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement

Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement appears to have become a laundry list of views not help dby (despicable) LaRouche but a host of people who are connected only marginally to him. As such, I suggest it should be focussed on positions connected to the name of the article - primarily his own stated views and the stated official vuiews of his movement, rather than containing every sort of "view" connected to anyone connected to anyone connected to anyone connected to LaRouche. The article is clearly under WP:BLP rules, and I suggest the current state has gotten a tad out of hand. I posted [8] in response to a comment:

It's actually a much more rigorously written article then many other "views" articles. See Political positions of Mike Huckabee or other articles in Category:Political positions of American politicians.

As I found no comparable example in the example given of "three degrees of separation' <g>, I would like to ask that others view the melange masquerading as an article. I know LaRouche is horrid etc. but WP:BLP applies to horid people as much as it does to saints. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed limiting the scope of the article's content. Outside opinions on the state of the article are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any article or page that mentions living people falls under WP:BLP. But I don't see any specific violation alleged here. Which part of the policy at issue? Will Beback talk 00:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the part where stuff in a BLP should actually be related to the name of the article? Right now, the article includes stuff "three degrees of separation" from LaRouche. Which is a tad much. And I would say over 4K edits on the LaRouche related pages is a bit much for any single editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is all about the "Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement", and third party responses to those views. It's thoroughly sourced. There's no BLP violation. Is there some specific material that you're concerned about? Will Beback talk 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that others weigh in on whether material at "three degrees of separation" belongs in this clearly BLP article. We already know your position, but somehow I would hope that Wikipedia is not a home for every factoid and opinion within "three degrees of separation" of the person who is ostensibly the subject. Wikipedia should not be the universal wastebasket of the encyclopedia world. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "three degrees of separation" material in the article, so your question seems to be a straw-man argument. Please give an example of the material you think violates BLP. Will Beback talk 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK: 21st Century Science & Technology has published papers by entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, including one that urged the return of the insecticide DDT because he said it has "saved more millions of lives than any other man-made chemical. Dr. Edwards has no actual connection with LaRouche that I found, and the paper his not in any way a statement of Larouche. Not a statement of the LaRouche movement. Not a statement by any Larouche publication as any sort of position. They published an article by an unrelated person, who is thus "connected" with LaRouche here, and reaching "three degrees of separation" or more from LaRouche. Other articles compared environmentalist and anti-DDT campaigner Rachel Carson to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. is not any exposition of views, but a simple invocation of Godwin in an article. The book, by LaRouche followers Rogelio Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, denied that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)...' is also reaching - the claim is not that LaRouche holds the view, that his organization holds the views, that there is any actual connection to LaRouche in any way, but only that two of his followers hold a view! Maduro's writings were the basis for the Arizona legislature's passage of a 1995 bill to allow the production of CFCs in the state despite federal and international prohibitions. is clearly not related either to LaRouche at all, and hence has three degrees of separation from him as well. The "Greenhouse effect" hoax: a world federalist plot, another book by Maduro, says that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a plot by the British royal family and communists to undermine the U.S.[137][138] It was cited by science writer David Bellamy.[139] Ditto. Three degrees removed from LaRouche at all and his "movement." LaRouche followers have promoted the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle -- "followers" (unnamed) is not exactly a strong connection to any sort of official "views" by Larouche or his "movement". Note 21st_Century_Science_and_Technology#21st_Century_Science_and_Technology does not assert that it presents any sort of official view of LaRouche. Alas - I note the editor who has many edits on that article. Too many BLP violations to count - including accusations of criminality, homophobia, and non-politically correct taste in music pitch. In short - a misch-mosch, melange, and laundry list of every conceivable criticism of Larouche, his followers, the followers of follwers, and people who are quoted by followers of followers of followers <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro was a follower of LaRouche, his books and articles were published in LaRouche publications, and other LaRouche writers made similar points. So there are zero degrees of separation between Maduro and the LaRouche movement.

Movements are known by their activities, not just their official position papers. If a movement repeatedly protests against climate change, then that's an indication of their interest on the matter.

Magazines are characterized by the writers they publish. While J. Gordon Edwards was not called a member of the movement, the movement published his works, effectively endorsing his views. That a LaRouche magazine carries articles by prominent climate change contrarians is further evidence of their position on the topic, a position so strong that they have been described as being at the "forefront" of climate change denialism.

The movement engaged in wide variety of attacks on Rachel Carson, to the extent that they are covered in reliable secondary sources. The sources are all good. If sources say that the movement attacked Carson by comparing her to a Nazi then it is appropriate to include that in an article on the movement's views. LaRouche has personally called Carson's view of DDT a "fraud",[9][10] so it isn't as if the people writing the material in his magazine have significantly different views.

As for the article in general, the material is all well-sourced and relevant. There aren't any clear BLP issues raised here. Will Beback talk 20:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW if a person who is not directly affiliated with LaRouche is quoted in a publication associated with a person who has had an article published in a magazine which is reportedly run by people who were associated with any association or movement connected with the LaRouche "movement", then those comments are fair game? As I said - "three degrees of separation." Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you talking about Edwards? He wasn't just quoted, his papers were published, repeatedly, by a LaRouche magazine and his views were endorsed by LaRouche. For example, one 2002 article in LaRouche's flagship Executive Intelligence Review magazine is titled "LaRouche to Bush: Overturn DDT Ban".[11] An editorial in 21st Century Science says, " If you want to save science—and human lives—the fight to bring back DDT, now being championed by that very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., had better be at the top of your agenda."[12] This is clearly a view of the LaRouche movement, not a third-degree of separation POV. Will Beback talk 21:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- so if the NYT (for example) endorses a candidate, then every editorial position of the NYT is associated with that candidate, and all positions held by people who are quoted in those articles are connected to the candidate? To assert that a person speaks for the vague "movement" should at the very minimum require a direct association of the person with that undefined "movement." Suppose the official (not to suggest an unofficial one) newspaper of the CPUSA endorses a candidate for President - I take it that I could say "thus-and-such is associated with the CPUSA"? Sorry -- I only believe two impossible things before breakfast - the third one is difficult. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people would compare LaRouche movement publications with the New York Times. When I say "endorse" I did not mean it in the political sense. Surely you understand that. I meant it in the sense of "agree with". They published Edwards' attacks on Carson and the DDT ban, positions with which they agreed. No one is asserting that they agreed with him on anything else. Let's not waste time on straw man arguments. Will Beback talk 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the People's World example? If a person were, for example, endorsed for political office, would that make tthem allied with the CPUSA? This is not a straw argument - it is the idea of "guilt by association by association by association" which is at the heart here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about political candidates. We're talking about a specific policy position, one which the LaRouche movement clearly holds based on multiple primary and secondary sources. It's not a BLP violation to say that LaRouche and his movement oppose the ban on DDT when there are so many sources to support that assertion. Will Beback talk 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rephrase When I say "endorse" I did not mean ... because it sound like something a character out of Lewis Caroll might have said. John lilburne (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life would be simpler if words only had one meaning each. Will Beback talk 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Collect has made his point. I've started a section on the article talk page to begin discussion which material may need to be removed or drastically altered. All are welcome to join the discussion, tyro or expert. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect didn't make any point. He claimed that some of the views listed in the article are not held by LaRouche or the movement, and are instead held by those at "three degrees of separation" from the movement. That's clearly untrue. Will Beback talk 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambika Soni

There has been a malicious attempt to keep changing Smt Ambika Soni's religion to Roman Catholic to which she is supposed to have converted from Hinduism. This is factually incorrect and she continues to be a practicing Hindu. I can confirm this as I am her Private Secretary. This malicious attempt is creating misinformation about a Public figure and a senior Minister of the Government of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psministerib (talk • contribs) 07:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the BLP to my watchlist. The disruption seems t have been going on for a few months - if it is replaced again without citation and or discussion please request WP:semi protection at the WP:RFPP - Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lauryn hill

Resolved

her birthday is listed as may 26th on wiki page, but the source attached [1] says may 25th and every time I change it, someone reverts it back. How can wikipedia get an artists birthday wrong when the source says otherwise?! someone please intervene or maybe I am just going crazy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.38.93 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Epstein

Should we be including information about misdemeanors in an article about a professor (the charge involved in this diff is a misdemeanor)? --rgpk (comment) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. In the ordinary course of things, I'd say not. Unfortunately, judging from the sources linked, this case has acquired an unfortunate political dimension. Since it seems confined to blogs for now, and the subject remains essentially a private person (see WP:NPF), I'd still say we should cut it, but with less conviction than previously. We had a discussion over a similarly ugly situation awhile back, involving a professor who'd written some emails expressing some rather inflammatory viewpoints which were unrelated to his reasons for notability - IIRC, we decided eventually to keep the information in the article, on the strength of the argument that this was a case people would be commentating about for years to come. Ray^Talk 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that he pleaded guilty, then it should stay. I don't think incest is a misdemeanor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In such sensitive matters we should be going by verifiable facts, rather than what we think, but in this case you are right - incest in the third degree is a class E felony in New York.[13] Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that he pleaded guilty to "attempted incest" which is (according to the court document) "A misdemeanor, 1 count, not an arrest charge, Not an arraignment charge". I'm not sure if the original charge still stands though there are reliable sources only for the original charge. --rgpk (comment) 17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He plead guilty to attempted incest - a misdemeanor - It appears clearly to me the the headline charge was dropped on acceptance of the lesser charge which seems quite normal in America - you get charged with all sorts of extreme charges and then you are convicted usually of a minor offence. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bd4mr-W0TFs/Td1lbkoRKYI/AAAAAAAAIKo/8yIyCTnHnFk/s1600/DavidEpsteinGuiltyIncest.JPG - actually he is not really notable or if he was it was only just and has now become a blp problem because he has turned into a one event misdemeanor rap sheet low notable person which imo we would do well to delete. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to keep the details of the charges, especially if the felony charge has been dropped. The only part of the paragraph in question that relates to Epstein's claim of notability is the simple fact that he is on administrative leave. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - it is also assumable that as he was not convicted of the felony that there would be no legal ability to keep him on administrative leave. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that section, it took up a 3rd of his bio. That's way too much for a misdemeanor it seems to me. RxS (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be hosting this biography. There isn't enough independent, reliably sourced material to do anything much besides recapitulate his c.v. And pretty much all of the newspaper coverage - much of it sensationalistic - relates to his recent family and legal difficulties. That combination augurs very poorly for our ability to write a neutral, encyclopedic biography in this instance. It seems to me that deletion is the best approach in terms of harm reduction, and we're not really losing much encyclopedic information anyway. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell - the article should be deleted. It was apparently created based only on the charges. The subject otherwise lacks sufficient notability to have generated much reliable biographical material. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No decision on deletion can be made here. Anyone who thinks that the whole article should be deleted rather than just the content about the charges should start a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it to AfD post haste - insufficient notability, and a misdemeanor conviction, IMO, is insufficiently relevant to a biography to make any difference. It should not be here. Collect (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AFD'd it Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Epstein RxS (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Carley

I am the subject of the article. Not sure why it is on here. Surely this is out of line with the general notability guideline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb123 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cunningham Agee

User:Omnibus170 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)It seems to me that someone who doesn't like Mrs. Agee has claimed POV issues with her article and that the objections aren't valid. Knowing Mrs. Agee just received a new doctoral degree, I checked her article for inclusion of this award and suggested a few other minor edits. Even though the POW banner doesn't necessarily mean an infringement of policy, it inherently casts a negative light. Would a Senior Editor please review this article for NPOV? The warning seems inappropriate and misleading. I blelieve it should be removed. Thank you.User:Omnibus170) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a little look it does look a bit over gushing. - THe NPOV template is not such a big issue just a pointer - try just copy editing and removing the excess flattery, especially any that is cited only to the subjects primary reports, and remove any WP:PEACOCK phraseology and you will have a more neutral article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and removed the worst included offences and the NPOV tag, however, from a little glance at the talk page there may be serious offences of missing/excluded content that might warrant the tag return until a full picture of the subject as covered by reliable sources is presented. I dont have time to look into that now though. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has requested that someone review the article now that new sourcing has been provided to see if the tags are still appropriate. I would request a third party rather than me make that review. Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist (musician)

Hello, I received an e-mail from Hopeton Brown (also known as "Scientist"). In it, he notified me about false and misleading statements on the article that are negatively affecting his career. I cannot seem to find anything on there that is even negative, and everything appears sourced. (I am not certain about the reliability of some sources, however.) I have directed him here to continue this discussion and point out what is false in the Scientist (musician) article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eric bolling

Eric Bolling's bio has been hacked and it was changed to say he is famous for a racist (or rascist as the fool spelled it) rant against President Obama. This is libelous information and must be changed immediately. Please return the bio back to it's original information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.35.17 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie Vincent

Resolved

– Information removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A series of editors is adding information about an arrest to the article. At this point the information is just that he was arrested, there are sources that confirm this. It does not appear to me to be appropriate since it is just an arrest. Opinions? GB fan (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon

There is presently a discussion at Talk:Lee Rhiannon#"Hard-line pro-Moscow communist" regarding the inclusion of content about her alleged involvement with the Communist Party of Australia, and that of her parents. The proposed addition is mainly sourced to blogs and the publications of the Sydney Institute, a conservative thinktank. There has been a slow burning edit war over this content in the past weeks, and I feel the discussion would benefit from the participation of uninvolved editors. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" involvement? This shows what I am up against. Her mother joined the CPA in 1936, her father in 1940. Her father was editor of the CPA newspaper Tribune. She herself grew up in the CPA and was a member of its successor, the SPA, for at least a decade, as she has said herself. These are not "allegations", they are widely known and incontrovertable facts, fully sourced, yet Greens editors continue to delete them because they find it embarrassing that one of their Senators was a communist. This is nothing but suppression of facts for partisan reasons. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome Lear's Fool's request for additional objective oversight. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large addition that User:Intelligent Mr Toad is desirous to insert is imo totally undue and coatracking lots of stuff about her parents and appears a partisan attempt to assert she is a communist a claim she strongly denies. She has been a green party member for 21 years. Please also remember the article is about her and not her parents. Mr Toads usage of such external blogspots at this http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2011/05/greens-and-fundamentalism.html - is also against all wikipedia guidelines and policy.Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon is more than capable of lying about her family's communist past in order to shore up votes. Members of the Australian or state Greens should not be allowed to edit her article - the conflict of interest is obvious. Paul Austin (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is now edit warring to add the material. I think an uninvolved admin may be needed here. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting editors based on their political affiliation is a VERY bad idea. Wikipedia has never required that editors be free of conflicts of interest, only that they don't let those CoIs prevent them from abiding by policy. If we banned Greens from editing (and were somehow able to implement that), it would present a strong risk of anti-Green bias in the article. If we then restored the balance by banning anti-Greens from editing as well, we'd end up with a very poor-quality article because there'd be nobody left with an interest in or knowledge of the subject. --GenericBob (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My text does not say or imply that Rhiannon is still a communist, and I have said several times that I don't think she is. The text does not say when she ceased to be a communist, because so far as I know she has never made a statement on that question. Her parents' biographies are relevant because of her public statement that they were "not Stalinists", which is plainly false. This therefore goes to the question of her honesty about her past, which has been the subject of considerable public controversy in Australia and no doubt will continue to be. I don't go as far as Paul in saying she is "lying" about this - people frequently come to believe things about their parents which they simultaneously know not to be true. If my parents had publically defended the Moscow Trials and the Hitler-Stalin Pact, I'd be defensive about it too. I reject the view the length of my text on Rhiannon's past is disproportionate or unjustified. She has not yet taken office as a Senator, so most of her political career is in the past. She was a communist for over 30 years - from childhood until some time in the 1980s. She has been an ex-communist for perhaps 25 years. Readers of this article will be looking for a full account of her political past, and I have written one. Greens loyalists are entitled to debate my edits with me and amend any wordings they think are unfair. They are not entitled simply to delete my text and leave no account of Rhiannon's communist past at all. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Intelligent Mr Toad's edits could be much better sourced, but do reflect actual facts. He should drop the "green conspiracy" rhetoric - even if/though true, it's pointless arguing along those lines. User:Chrismaltby seems to be keen to whitewash the article, he should be encouraged to be a bit more objective and exhibit less ownership of the article. --Surturz (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said a few times, the issue is not with including relevant factual material, it's to do with the undue weight and non-neutrality of the proposed additions by Mr Toad. That is not just my admittedly biased view, but one shared by several disinterested moderators. As for "ownership" of the article, I am perfectly willing to share in consensus making about edits. I am happy to recognise that I am not the font of all wisdom on this topic or any other. Chrismaltby (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support most of Mr Toad's material but there are some bits I find problematic. Working off this diff:

"Rhiannon asserts that she was never a (CPA) member" - as far as I can tell from the article and ref attached to that sentence, nobody has ever alleged that she was. This comes across a bit "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" to me - 'assert' has connotations of a debate. If other editors feel the fact needs to be mentioned, IMHO it would work better in the second paragraph as a direct quote: "In 1971 the CPA split over attitudes to the Soviet Union, and particularly the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Rhiannon stated that 'Although I was never a member of the CPA these divisions disturbed me.'" This makes the context clearer.
"However, (Rhiannon's parents) joined the CPA in the 1930s, at a time when it was totally loyal to the Soviet Union and Stalin's leadership of it: they could not have remained in the CPA if they did not share this belief. REF: Stuart Macintyre, the leading historian of the CPA, writes: "From 1930 the Communist Party of Australia adopted an iron discipline... that subordinated it to a nominally international organisation (the Comintern) that was itself subjected to the control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin."" - the "they could not have remained..." bit looks like WP:SYNTH to me. It's certainly a plausible interpretation, but people are complicated don't always act in accordance with their beliefs. I'd be happy to leave the rest in, on the assumption that readers are just as competent to interpret those actions as we are.
Citation to Blogspot - not convinced Aarons' blog is notable enough for the mention, but open to argument on this.

--GenericBob (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's been frequently asserted that Rhiannon was a CPA member. I think Henderson said so in one of his pieces. I thought she had been, until I found her assertion that she wasn't. This surprises me, to put it mildly, but since I have no evidence that she was, I have reported her assertion. 2. The question of the state of the CPA and what its members were required to believe in the 1930s and 40s is relevant because of Rhiannon's statement that her parents were "not Stalinists." Anyone who knows the history of the CPA knows that this is a false statement. It was not possible to join the CPA in 1036 or 1940 without being a Stalinist - CPA members were taught their doctrine from Stalin's Foundations of Leninism and their history from the Short Course, which glorifies Stalin's every word. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Lendering

Resolved

– IP checkuser blocked three months

Jona Lendering - accusations of racism(de-archived)

67.169.112.181 (talk · contribs) persists in adding this edit [14] based on a web petition signed by 1400 people and a web magazine. Note that the so-called 'academic criticism' is an article by "Saam Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia." There's been an ongoing web-based attack on Lendering and Wikipedia which may be the background to this. I'm not convinced it has a place in Lendering's article. 1400 seems extremely small. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rozanehmagazine.com is an unreliable source by default. It is obviously home-made. Iranian patriots have their say on ancient history. They promote the notorious Cyrus Cylinder fringe theory. Since Jona Lendering has written an unfavourable review of a book by Kaveh Farrokh, one of the theory’s main proponents, they attack Lendering. This is cyber-bullying. - Konstock (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice this and added a new section, merging. For several years that has been a web-based campaign against Jona Lendering which occasionally is taken to his Wikipedia article. An IP has recently been adding material about a petition signed by apparently 1400 people accusing Lendering of racism (the IP doesn't link to it, perhaps because the site is blacklisted, but it is at www.gopetition.com/petitions/jona-lendering-anti-iran.html. The last couple of todays I and another editor have reverted it. The IP has also been adding a link to an article[15] in a web based magazine which the IP describes as academic criticism although it isn't in anything resembling an academic publication and the authors are described in the article as "Saam Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia." A new bit is the addition to a link on Kaveh Farrokh's page (thus self-published) which says "More recently Dr. Kaveh Farrokh,a historian with the University of British Columbia, has prepared a critique that details Jona Lendering’s activities as a purported online historian,". Farrokh is actually a student counsellor at Langara College of Higher Learning[16] and although he has published books on the history of Iran his PhD is related to his professional career as a counsellor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rozanehmagazine.com is not a WP:RS for anything contentious or controversial or disputed - it is only used on five other BLP articles. The www go petition is not notable unless reported in an independent reliable source, and even if it is , such an online petition is still of dubious value. Off2riorob (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes just got put in the article again - I noticed them while doing WP:RCP with huggle and reverted them before I noticed this discussion. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A whoooooooole bunch more stuff about this has popped up on my talk page -- User_talk:Kgorman-ucb#Public_figures_are_subject_to_critiques. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I've written a bit about another BLP violation: Ironically, when the IP writes "Dr. Kaveh Farrokh,a historian with the University of British Columbia, this is also a BLP violation as it's making claims about a living person that aren't true. As I've said on Lendering's talk page and BLPN, he is a student counselor at Langara College of Higher Learning - see [17]. He has no degree in history or a related field. His PhD was in the field "Research, Educational and Counselling Psychology" which he received from the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology - his specific subject was "The relationships among cognitive processes, language experience and errors in Farsi speaking ESL adults."[18] His 1988 MA Thesis was on "Patterns of adjustment of international students to the University of British Columbia".[19]. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked (not by me) as a sock of Rjbronn Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjbronn/Archive is the old case. Dougweller (talk) 12: 33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jaye P. Morgan biography

My Name is Michael Baiano,I was Jaye's first husband, Iwas Jaye P. Morgan's first husband,at that time she was band leader Frank DeVol's vocalist.Her manager Bullets Durgom got her a job as a singer on the Robert Q Lewis show,which was simal cast from New York. She flew back to Los Angeles where we were married on April 15 1954. I returned with her to New York after a brief honeymoon at the Raquet Club in Palm springs (Charley Farrellthe owner,had attended our wedding) we flew back to New York,as she had been given only four days leave from the Robert Q Lewis show,and a contract to appear on the Johnnie Carson that weekend. Our marriage ended in 1960. And I returned to Los Angeles. She's a terrific lady, we are still friends,speak on the phone occaisionally and took her to dinner a few times.

Kindest regards, Michael Baiano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.27.43 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. To add a marriage we need a WP:RS a reliable source for the claim. I had a look round the internet but didn't find anything, do you know of any reliable locations these claims can be verified, without independent reliable verification we would be unable to add the details. Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I found a news article that confirms some of this; if anybody's got access to the LATimes archives, GNews searching the husband's name turns up a likely useful article behind their paywall [20] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Burleigh

Hello, I am writing again to alert you to the politically/racially motivated attack on me in your wikipedia page. Someone keeps inserting "Assyrian-American" into the entry. While my mother is of Assyrian origin, my father is American of Swedish/English/Irish origin. It would be therefore, equally accurate, under the standards this "editor" is using, to label me "Swedish-American author" or "English-American". Clearly, this is being done to associate me with some "other" ethnicity. I insist it be removed and kept OFF the first line of the entry. If the wiki editors deem it crucial to include my ethnic heritage, you MUST add the other part of the genetic pedigree, but I do feel this is racist. Thanks Nina Burleigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, to my previous comments. In wikipedia, You do not see Cornel West, for example, identified in line one as "an African-American" writer. You do not see David Remnick identified as a "Jewish American editor." This is simply not done, even when writers take their ethnicity as a subject. Remove it from mine, and stop ethnic/racial labelling immediately! Nina Burleigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect to say Assyrian-American in the lead. You were born and raised in the U.S., which makes you American. There is no reason to emphasize any part of your ethnic background unless it is relevant to your notability. See WP:OPENPARA. I've corrected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob_Newton_(footballer)

User claims to be Bob Newton and is removing negatively, but sourced, content from the article. Article is not necessarily "well" sourced on the negative information. I opened an SPI as the user has been using multiple accounts. User claims to have emailed the foundation over the issue. I have no vested interest either way, but I am not strong on BLP policy. Should the negative information be removed, as requested by the user, as there is only one source? Should more or better sources be found if available? Or should content stay as it is per WP:CENSOR?--v/r - T P 15:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited the entire article for NPOV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch!--v/r - T P 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Unser

Wasn't Bobby Unser born in Albuquerque, NM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.147.160 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of his brother Al. Bobby was born in Colorado Springs; a few years later the family moved to Albuquerque, where Al was born. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Malone

Article appears to be of living person (Olympic medalist), and while it includes a single reference at the bottom and used with footnote reference near start of article, most of the article appears to be largely unreferenced. I'm not sure what to do. 24.155.88.186 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a refimprove tag to the article. The article needs to be cleaned up for tone also. It sounds like it was written by someone close to him. GB fan (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany York

I'm coming here as opposed to edit warring: one or several accounts have loaded this with trivia, including every tv and promotional appearance made by Ms. York; even her affinity for her dog is chronicled and edit-warred over. I'm asking for help--I'm happy to go in and clean this, but I am sure that whatever I remove will just be restored. It's a fanzine article. Any thoughts? 76.248.149.168 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that a contributor is assuming ownership of the article [21], which includes the repeated removal of maintenance templates and retention of trivial information. Isn't there a Wiki guideline that reminds us that just because it's sourced doesn't mean it belongs? if I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear it from an admin. Thanks, 76.248.149.168 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, Bbb23, and for restoring the maintenance template to the article. My disclosure is that of having engaged in this issue under two accounts, not out of deception, but because my internet connection gets cut too frequently, and upon restoration I'm always gifted with a new IP. As for the article, there's a lot of sourced cruft, including specious interviews, that serve no purpose. My impression is that copyediting will meet with strong resistance from those who promote these contestants, or are just really dedicated fans of the pageants. 76.248.149.168 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a lot of stuff, but there's still too much trivial and promotional information. I've also added tags. As for your connection and varying IPs, why don't you register on Wikipedia? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dull story: I have, but rarely use my illustrious account anymore, feigning retirement and preferring to be an anonymous pain in the ass rather than creating articles and running them through the FA mill, etc. My I got tired of checking a watchlist that ran over 1,200 articles. Thank you for the help, and please keep an eye on this--don't be surprised if your improvements are overturned. Cheers, 76.248.149.168 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a registered user doesn't mean you have to have an extensive watchlist or do any more than you do as an IP. It just makes things more consistent, makes you more identifiable, etc. 1,200 pages seems excessive - maybe you should try Wikirehab. :-) As for reversion of my edits, it wouldn't be the first time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct on all counts. But a return to respectability would mean being recognized by my Wikifriends, with the inevitable expectation to re-engage within my field of primary interest. 76.248.149.168 (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Savage

Resolved

– speedily deleted at AFD

Carrie Savage, voice actress (talk · contribs)

The user (apparently the article subject) removed unreferenced bio information (which can be seen in e.g. [22]), but also added 'commentry' to the article such as Whomever posted the previous information that was posted about me on this page should be ashamed, It is a travesty that sites like this exist where any body can just go around posting whatever they feel like [23] and suchlike; consequently their edits were reverted.

The unreferenced bio info has now been removed; however, the article still has no inline citations to reliable sources.

The user further raised their concerns on our helpdesk, Wikipedia:Help_desk#Carrie_Savage.2C_the_voice_actress - and as stated there, I thought this best raised on BLPN to get more attention. Best, Chzz ► 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user has just been blocked for making legal threats. Chzz ► 00:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user who introduced the problematic stuff to the carrie savage article has a decent number of other BLP edits that should be checked for quality, here. I'll look over some of them myself shortly. Kevin (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was taken to afd and no reliable sources were found, so I speedy closed the article as delete, and had the article history suppressed per the oversight policy because of private and negative content. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus/John A. Wise

I'm having trouble with an editor (an admin alas) on the Juice Plus article who is insisting on incorporating a section about living people based on OR from a self-published POV source[24]. I originally took it to RS/N but not much input there yet. That discussion here, he is insisting that WP:BLP only applies to articles about people, not people mentioned in articles.--Icerat (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text is also supported by the NEJM.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously claiming a 1986 NEJM paper supports a claim about an association with authors of a paper published in 199&. The NEJM article was published in 1986 and the "association" you claim that paper supports was with a paper published in 1996. Care to explain exactly how that works?--Icerat (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on the substantive issue (not really looked into it as yet), but I think Icerat's user page may be relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be relevant how? --Icerat (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you write about 'POV sources', your own POV is clearly also of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is yours and everyone elses. Care to note why you haven't pointed out Doc James' clear POV on these kind of topics? In any case attacking the man and not the case is very poor form. It's a BLP issue based on a SPS source. Do you dispute that? --Icerat (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please spell out the problem. Yes, the edit you mentioned added text about a living person, but does that text fail WP:BLP? How? Is the text wrong? Does it fail verification? Is it undue? Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSPS - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. --Icerat (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look like the same arguments we got from User:Ronz who was using WP:BLP to try and squelch debate on the quality of and use of Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price article (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard) If you look at the disputed text and Barrett's The Rise and Fall of United Sciences of America paper as well as Therese Walsh's "Juicing for fun and profit: taking a good thing too far" article (reprinted in) Gale Group's 1997 Nutrition forum: Volume 14 Prometheus Books pg 36-39 (which says and I quote "Juice Plus capsules and many other dehydrated juice capsule products, including those from AIM and Juice For Life, are promoted as having enzymes that aid in digestion. These claims are just as false for juice capsules as for whole juice. Even the claim that juice capsules contain much the same nutritional value as the actual juice is unsubstantiated.") there doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP issue here.

Furtheremore, Nutrition forum: Volume 14 pg 36 has a sidebar which references quackwatch another of Stephen Barrett's sites which has Unconventional Cancer Treatments which has some more on United Sciences of America.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, what on earth are you talking about? Barrett is being used here for BLP stuff, not about the juice. That's why this is on the BLP noticeboard. Please read what an issue is about before commenting. -Icerat (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUMP! This is still an issue. A self-published source (mlmwatch.org[25]) is being used to support the following clearly BLP section implying wrongdoing -

John Wise, NAI, and Juice Plus Research

In a critique of Juice Plus,[1] Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch remarked upon the previous association between two authors of a 1996 Juice Plus research study [11] and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[56][57][58][59][60][61] In 1986, lead author John A. Wise, who later co-authored several other Juice Plus research studies,[28][29][30][31][36] was USAI's Executive Vice-President of Research and Development; and second author Robert J. Morin was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions[56][57][58][59][60][61] drove USAI out of business in 1987.[56][58][61] Wise became a consultant to Natural Alternatives International (NAI) in 1987 and a company executive (Vice-President of Research and Development) in 1992. Barrett noted that Wise was also an NAI shareholder and that production of Juice Plus for National Safety Associates (NSA) was responsible for 16% of NAIs sales in 1999.

The other references used are straight from the Barrett piece and nowhere remark on this association, this is a clear use of a self-published source being used for controversial BLP information, contrary to WP:BLPSPS. --Icerat (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Wise's own biography says much the same thing and it presents Forbes (2006), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2003), Journal of the American College of Nutrition (2004), The Skeptic (2000), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (2010) as supporting sources. All Barrett really does is connect the dots preventing WP:SYN.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not his "own biography", it's a wikipedia biography and many of the same authors as on Juice Plus were involved in writing it. There's a reason WP:SYN exists. You can't get around it by using a SPS. If any of these sources "say much the same thing" then rewrite it using them. Well ... I just went to the Wise artice and discovered most of these sources don't even exist any more, and Barrett is used as a source there as well - again, an SPS being used for BLP. --Icerat (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the John A. Wise article has now been listed for Afd --Icerat (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUMP - still no comments from uninvolved editors. BLP policy says instant delete, but need 3rd party to prevent edit warring.

Above is a poor interpretation of BLP. BLP refers to contentious material. There is nothing contentious at all about what's written in the article. 18:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao

Would this fall into a BLP violation? Neohertz wants to add acussations that Manny consumes drugs with reliable sources (according to him), but those are just allegations made by people who fought with him. Further information at Pacquiao talkpage. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I'm having trouble locating the source(s) that the editor wants to put in the article. I looked through the Talk page section and the recent article history and don't see what exactly he's trying to add and support. Maybe I missed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations done by his ring enemies only. Kinda gossip. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't have a source, it's kind of a no-brainer. He hasn't tried to add anything to the article, either. I wouldn't carry on a conversation with him, as you are doing, on the Pacquiao Talk page unless he comes up with something or attempts to change the article in an inappropriate way.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sayuki

Sayuki is a geisha in Japan in a very strict environment where geisha are not supposed to reveal their real names or ages. Sayuki has asked many times in the media that Western media do not treat her differently to other geisha by breaking geisha tradition. Please stop editing the Sayuki article to reveal her real name and age. It is not fair to her and it is harmful to her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.11.87.75 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Graham has posted her birthname on her official Sayuki website.[26] That pretty much renders your argument invalid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayuki's name has rarely been reported in the Japanese press as they are generally responsible but got out in the Western Press. Her age is not mentioned anywhere but here. Please remove it. This kind of transgression of geisha rules has an impact on the career of a living person. It is irresponsible to publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.75.199 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It being irresponsible to publish it is not necessarily a great argument for removing it. However, since it's completely unsourced, I have removed the birth year for the time being. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bruggink

Would anyone have time to check this article? I noticed the writer of the article adding non-reliable sources elsewhere, but I don't have the time to see if this BLP is up to snuff. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, in the event problems are found, the same editor has written several other BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the article to Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bruggink, as he seems to be know for only mentions in the media for hunting for Osama bin Laden in the weeks prior to his death. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Farah

This is a very longstanding problem article, partially because due to vandalism in the past the subject (who is a conservative media personality) went on a campaign against Wikipedia for a time. Now there is an IP editor who has added in a self-referential mention of the campaign, including a direct quote of the vandalism that inspired Farah's anger in the first place. While normally it's fine to make well-cited self-references to Wikipedia controversies, in this case the content repeats slander needlessly and is only going to inspire further negative attention about our inability to police BLPs. There is discussion on the talk page, but the IP continues to revert it back in despite objections. Rather than get in an edit war over it further, I'd like to invite people with more experience with BLPs to take a look at the latest batch of contributions by the anon. I think some of them are just fine, but others have been reverted several times as BLP and/or NPOV violations. Steven Walling 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that "inspiring further negative attention about our inability to police BLPs" is a reason not to include material in an article. We should be doing that better, anyway. However, I'm not certain about how notable the controversy is, or how much it should be quoted in reference to our BLP policy. I'm heading out, I'll come back later and voice my opinion more fully. For now, I've removed the questionable material as per BLP while the discussion is going on. Dayewalker (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't merely a matter of self-referential material -- it has been covered in other sources, including Slate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in on the talk page. I didn't mean the sources are self-referential. I meant that it's needlessly self-referential to quote vandalism that happened in an article in the past. Steven Walling 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there is no BLP issue here, as the material meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I reject outright the position that decisions about the inclusion of controversial material in an article about an individual should be made based on the individual's likely reaction, as SW is asking us to do. I also reject the position that our collective "inability to police BLPs" is relevant; there is only one BLP currently under discussion. Finally, please keep in mind that "the latest batch of contributions by [this] anon" are not all at issue here; just those related to the Joseph Farah article. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the logical structure of this sentence is "JF campaigned against publication W because they said bad thing 'BT' about him." The question is, (1) should this be included in a BLP and (2) if so, should we quote 'BT' explicitly or just say something descriptive like "disparaging comments"? The fact that W=Wikipedia here is irrelevant, the answer should be the same if it were Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Daily Star. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the article about Joseph Farah was vandalized with a suggestion of homosexuality is fact; that it is "disparaging" to be characterized as a homosexual is Farah's own POV. Wikipedia should not present that as objective fact. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then replace "disparaging" by "unwelcome" if you wish. The logic remains the same. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved user I don't see any benefit to the en project or the living subject or the reader either from repeating the insults that we failed to keep out in the first place that upset the living subject just because slate have commented on it. Of the four alleged reliable external supports for this content, one is self published by the subject two are not wikipedia reliable sources and the other is a twenty seven month old slate article that is not wholly about Farah but is about defamation in general with only a couple of mentions of his dispute with wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that someone is a homosexual might well be inaccurate -- but an "insult"? Really, O2RR?? The longer this discussion goes on, the more it becomes apparent that relating what actually happened is not inappropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) Let's not get bogged down in whether or not calling someone a homosexual is an insult, please. It's not, but it was certainly seen as one by the subject of the article, and it was clearly vandalism. Dayewalker (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be more precise with language. The original edit was vandalism. Subsequently relating that that vandalism was quoted by both the article's subject in an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia, and by reliable secondary sources discussing the primary's campaign, the issues Wikipedia has with BLPs generally, and whether or not inaccurate information regarding ones sexuality actually constitues defamation is not, itself, vandalism. It is, in fact, entirely compliant with Wikipedia's core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. I think characterizing the vandalism as "insulting" or "defamatory" is inherently POV, and we should avoid the issue with a reliable, uncontested quote. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, O2RR - for whatever reason, longstanding consensus seems to hold that both WND itself, and ConWebWatch, are reliable sources for otherwise verifiable facts in articles about WND, despite the former being a more-or-less primary SPS, and the latter being biased against the subject. I'm not saying that's a consistent or even defensible position, but I don't think that it's a can of worms we want to re-open at the moment. Besides, it's a moot point-- even if you strike the three POV-pushing sources, the Slate reference remains, and its age doesn't diminish its reliability. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, - of course I did not assert it is insulting to be called a homosexual if you are one but it did clearly upset the subject. Anyways,two of the citations are not reliable and one is self published and as it attacks someone else (wikipedia) it is also not usable so you are left here insisting on including a twenty seven moth old slate article that is mostly not about the subject. We don't speculate about subjects sexuality and including it this way is a back door inclusion of content the subject found insulting or upsetting and with such weak externals and such dated low notability content there is nothing that demands its inclusion at all - in fact there is much more reason in regard to WP:BLP policy to not insert it. - As for my interpretation of the externals - I stand by my investigations of them irrespective of any so called existing consensus. Actually its not even worthy of inclusion - his article was vandalized and he complained and it was corrected - what is notable about that? We could add that to a million BLP articles. There was no legal action, no court case, nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the appropriate forum for debating the reliability of these sources. If you'd like to, please take it to WP:RSN. Your opinion notwithstanding, the consensus that at least two of the three biased sources can be judiciously used predates this discussion, and aren't at issue here. Also not at issue here is "notability"-- WP:N is binding on whether an article should exist, not whether content should be present in it. My edit does not speculate on the subjects sexuality-- it mentions, in a NPOV fashion, that his sexuality was the subject of pernicious vandalism. Whether or not the subject finds the matter to be "insulting" or "upsetting" has no bearing on whether the material should be included, although I'd certainly support a NPOV description of his reaction to it as well. Finally, your argument that many other BLPs have been vandalized comes very close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but, even if that were a valid point, it's still imprecise. In five seconds of googling, I can find 8 separate occasions where Farah quotes the vandalism directly, spanning more than a two-year period since the occurrence. For how many other BLPs can you say that? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider your sentence ending "one is self published and as it attacks someone else (wikipedia) it is also not usable so you are left here insisting on including a twenty seven moth old slate article that is mostly not about the subject." Granted, WND constantly flirts with being SPS, but, to date, has not been considered as such. But Wikipedia is not a "someone," and the verbiage in the rest of that sentence both presupposes the outright dismissal of 3 sources previously considered somewhat reliable, implies that a source becomes less reliable with age, and attempts to alienate others from agreeing with my position by employing imagery implying that I am the only one who supports inclusion of the material. I respectfully submit that there was a better way you could have made your argument, and I would ask that you please be more judicious in your choice of words in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Lastly (I promise), consider the statement "I did not assert it is insulting to be called a homosexual if you are one" (emphasis mine). I'll grant you its technical accuracy, but it's misleading; Mr. Farah's sexuality isn't at issue here. You implied that it's insulting to be called a homosexual, full stop, and I find that bigoted. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but attacking me will not help you at all and neither will your miss-representing my position. I do not see anyone else here supporting the inclusion of this content and as such large discussion of it is in itself undue. Organizations can still be assumed to be a collection of individuals that BLP also applies to. As for word - splitting - I am actually only commenting on the broader issues and not the pin point detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLPGROUP-- BLP policy explicitly does not apply to a collection of individuals. I'd also ask that you not attempt to prematurely terminate this discussion, and refrain from attempting to alienate me from it. It's inappropriate. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:BLPGROUP does not explicitly reject my position but it does clearly encourage such editorial consideration and makes it clear that high quality reliable sources are mandatory. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jewish categories

In the body of this article, it says that Gordon-Levitt's "family is Jewish." Other than a quote about a character he played in a movie, that's the sum total of what the article says about Gordon-Levitt and Jewish. Nonetheless, the article had two Jewish categories in it, American Jews and Jewish actors. I removed them, but All Hallow's Wraith, reverted referring in his edit summary to a previous "conversation". My assumption is he means this discussion on BLPN. That discussion also had to do with WP:BLPCAT, but the actor in question was Mila Kunis. For those brave souls among you, feel free to read the discussion. A threshold question was whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish because Jewish, according to many, can be an ethnicity, not a religion. I don't think that issue was resolved. Some editors suggested that the issue be further explored to try to reach a policy resolution. Will Beback asked Jayen466 to look into it. I don't know what came of it.

Here we are again, but there is a key difference. Without rehashing the arguments in the previous discussion, there is almost nothing in the Gordon-Levitt article to even indicate he's Jewish. By contrast, the Kunis article had much more. Thus, even if we put BLPCAT aside, there's no support for the categories, a relatively standard reason for removing categories. But I don't have the stomach to edit-war or even discuss this with AHW, so I'm bypassing the Gordon-Levitt Talk page - something admittedly I often tell other editors not to do - and coming directly here to try to stimulate some broader discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources that describes him as Jewish? If so, the categories are fine. If not, not. Simples Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there's nothing in the article that describes him as Jewish, just the one phrase about his birth family. I have no wish to look for sources, assumning they exist, as I'm generally opposed to these kinds of categories as generally irrelevant. Without any sources in the article at present, the categories, like any unsupported categories, should be removed. But I'm faily certain AHW will add them back. Unless maybe I get some consensus here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source cited in the article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon-Levitt, the younger of two sons, was born in Los Angeles, California. He is Jewish. His father, Dennis Levitt…" Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nowhere in that source does Gordon-Levitt describe himself as Jewish or even allude to himself being Jewish. I referred to this in my first post above. This is what the author of the article says: "Then, in 1996, he took the role of Tommy Solomon on the sitcom 3rd Rock From the Sun, and suddenly the whole country knew who he was: a Jewish kid playing an extraterrestrial pretending to be a Jewish kid." That hardly supports the categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bus stop's source, first, AFAIK, it is not cited in the article (at least not for that proposition), and, second, I can't really read it because it sends Firefox into a tizzy with pop-ups and pop-unders. Nonetheless, I looked at in IE, and after some difficulty was able to read it. The interviewer says Gordon-Levitt is Jewish and describes his parents' involvement in the Jewish community. Gordon-Levitt says nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cribb asked for a reliable source that describes him as Jewish, not one where he describes himself as Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bbb23 makes an excellent point when he says, "A threshold question was whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish because Jewish, according to many, can be an ethnicity, not a religion. I don't think that issue was resolved". I agree that this is an important question. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water fuelled car

Resolved

– Poster was blocked for abusing multiple accounts - see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaufman1111

Two references from peer reviewed journals were added to the Aquygen section. In this section a theory was called "discredited"on the basis of one reference against the theory. Two reference in favor of the theory were added and the word was changed to "controversial" This is a theory proposed by a living scientist and I believe the BLP policy has to be respected by including references against and in favor. In the past these references were removed in other articles as well on the basis that they were proposed by a "sock puppet". ISTAT (talk)ISTATISTAT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Santorum

I thought for sure this would already be mentioned here. It's not. See Santorum (neologism).

Summary: There's an Internet campaign to associate a living person with shit via Googlebomb. The Wikipedia article on this campaign, because it's long and full of links, is the #2 link on Google for his name, above the page on the person himself. People argue that this article is not a violation of NPOV or BLP because it neutrally describes the event (the campaign) and doesn't claim that Santorum himself did any bad things.

My opinion is that 1) Wikipedia is in effect participating in the campaign, not just reporting on it, and 2) an article can be negative about a person without literally saying anything bad about the person himself--excessively reporting a smear, particularly one that isn't fact-based to begin with, tends to reinforce the association of the person with the smear in the reader's mind. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you. However, this has already been discussed extensively here, on the article's talk page, and at WP:AFD, numerous times over the years, so I see little likelihood that the community is close to changing its viewpoint on the inclusion of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, agree with you in principle, but the established consensus is regrettably clear. It's unfortunate that the article fails to characterize a deliberate campaign to vilify anyone for their political views as anything but that, however successful and widespread the campaign may be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you can suggest secondary sources that put forth that opinion — I will gladly incorporate them into the article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the characterization of Savage's behavior as "revenge" in what's currently note 14 would be a start. But of more concern is the curiously sanitized set of sources for Savage's actions: rather than, so far as I can tell, citing the writings/columns where the "project" (to use a more neutral term) began, the article cites much later ones, where Savage uses more neutral phrasing to describe his activity. It's rather hard to believe, in the construction of an article this extensive and detailed, that no one ever came across those sources. When Vidal did something similar in Myron (with much more wit and logic) he wasn't exactly coy about his intent to ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, I did not see the word "revenge" in that source. Please note that the particular source you mention, is already given prominent weight — in the lede/intro of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I answered too quickly and got my cites crossed up. The reference to "revenge" is in the Mother Jones piece currently listed as note 6. The note 14 source described Savage as a columnist "who does not hide his hatred for Mr. Santorum," a point I don't see noted in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have added all of the information you suggested, all of the quotes you suggested, from all of the sources you suggested — into the body text of the article, and all of them into the lede/intro of the article, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Suggestions_from_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. -- Cirt (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hulabaloo - Well yes but its still an egregious BLP violation. If there's consensus to add a clause to WP:BLP to the effect "does not apply to persons who are unpopular here", that'd be one thing. Absent that, I would say that application of the BLP rule would be justified regardless. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives, anyone? It's not as if this hasn't been discussed recently -- see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded greatly since that discussion. While I believe that the formation and spread of this neologism is notable and should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, I find the size and detail of this article to be concerning, just on a personal level. I suspect that any attempts to change the status quo will be unsuccessful because it violates no specific rules or guidelines. That said, I think a number of people are having difficulty reconciling the principles of WP:BLP with this article. Seeing how "the community" applies those principles in cases where the person in question is unpopular may be an eye-opener for some people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this public figure unpopular, simply because of the number and breadth of his surrogate white knights on Wikipedia. But that's what it boils down to, really. This makes me feel uncomfortable, so I want to erase it. Well, even if you erase the term from Wikipedia, you will not erase it from the internet, much less peoples' mouths and minds. Better to work to ensure that the article stays neutral and continues using high-quality sources (which is what the spirit of BLP is) than to tear it down in a futile attempt to control the terminology of peoples' sex lives. Quigley (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have noticed that what I actually said was that coverage of this topic belongs on Wikipedia, which is pretty much the opposite of wanting to have it deleted because I don't like it. Your suggestion that anyone is attempting to in any way control any aspect of people's sex lives through discussing this article is ridiculous and inflammatory. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article's subject is not a person, not a campaign against person, and not a "Googlebomb". The article's subject is a sexual slang term for a common byproduct of a sex act (not what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz described) that has not had a widely recognized name before. It has been popularized through print media, slang websites, and the columnist's own website before Wikipedia even had an article. It has been used and documented, without reference to any person, in multiple reliable sources, ranging from erotic fiction to sociological books to medical journals. It has an eponymous person, but so do many now-common words like "dunce", "lynch", "draconian", "tawdry", and "chauvinism". The namesake, who is a public figure, has welcomed the incidental search results (which we don't control; we are Wikipedia not Google) as helpful to his conspiratorial cause. This neutral and impeccably-sourced article, which is about a term, does not even fall within the purview of BLP. Let's not be hysterical, let's not forum shop, and let's do more research before we write a complaint. Thanks. Quigley (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the subject of the article, this article is obviously about a person and falls squarely under WP:BLP; this cannot be Coatracked as an article about a 'term'. Dreadstar ☥ 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. I don't know even how it could be a "coatrack", if the only coverage of the person is about the one capital S Santorum controversy. If you think there is too much coverage of the term's origins and namesake, (which I think there is, and it gives an excuse for the political friends of the Senator to say it is about him) then we could talk about shifting the emphasis more towards the term's adoption and its usage. Quigley (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are plenty of reliable sources about this, but really, let's face facts, this term is obviously a political commentary on Santorum, as well as being a commentary on sexual socio-political issues, so it's a coatrack subject from the start. Sure, we can probably have the article under our current policies, but we need to be very cautious about WP:BLP, that's all I'm saying. You can't take the BLP out of the neologism. I totally agree with you that there's too much coverage of the term's origins and namesake, and we should shift the emphasis more towards the term's adoption and usage. But even then..it's stil going to have WP:BLP concerns. Dreadstar ☥ 19:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I'm concerned that I might be too lax on this, and that it is indeed a WP:BLP violation as it has elements that attack the subject (Santorum), and is apparently part of a smear campaign. So I wouldn't object to the article's deletion or redirect to one of the existing articles on the circumstances of the neologism such as Rick Santorum#Statements regarding homosexuality or Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. That makes BLP sense. Dreadstar ☥ 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is, once again, not Rick Santorum. Proposals to merge the article about the term have been denied, repeatedly, on the article's talk page within the week. Articles that document real smear campaigns have been kept (examples one and two). The term's rise started in 2003, and the man's political career ended in 2007, for reasons that had nothing to do with the neologism. If he has a serious chance at running for some national office again, he will have raised more than enough money to legally and illegally suppress unfavorable search results on all the major search engines. He has indicated a desire not to do this, because he is successful at framing the term's existence to make him into a martyr against those to whom he has voted to deny civil rights through legislation. The politics are over. The term's primary meaning and associations are sexual. The term's origins in the politics of the past are trivial. That Wikipedia even thinks it has so much influence over peoples' perceptions is an exercise in egotism. I feel like a broken record. Archiving is overdue. Quigley (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is, as one of the academic sources in the article puts it, "Dan Savage's internet media campaign to transform former Senator Rick Santorum's name into a new sexualized word, to retaliate against and increase awareness about the senator's issue stances." If it were just about the "term," it would hardly be notable at all; its googlerank would mean little more than the ridiculous number of GHits that Pat Pornstar gets from promotional linking. Arguing otherwise doesn't strike me as intellectually legitimate, and playing down the highly relevant "campaign" aspects impairs the encyclopedic value of the article and raises NPOV problems. Arguing that "the politics are over," frankly, doesn't reflect reality (or a few thousand current GNews hits)[27]; he may rack up Fred Thompson level votes, but Stassen he's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage's media campaign may be the most notable part of the article, but it is not the focus and the scope of the article, which is about the term. Information about the term's origins, which happened to be in politics, is probably disproportional; but that is because reliable sources, not politics, dictate what we write. Any accomodation to Rick Santorum's future possible political ambitions is submission to a crystal ball; such is as intellectually dishonest as applying BLP protections to a person who is dead. Quigley (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't split BLP hairs that fine; BLP states very clearly, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page"; equally clear is that the article's subject is about how Santorum's name became and is being used as a neologism. The "most notable, focus and scope" of the article may be the neologism, but it's all based on a Living Person and includes a large amount of content about Santorum - you cannot separate the neologism from the Person it is based on. And there's no need to keep repeating yourself for my benefit, I've read all the comments on this and am already aware of what you're saying. Thanks for the info, tho... :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that BLP not only applies to Santorum in that article, but to every living person mentioned in it, including Savage. Dreadstar ☥ 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'"Real" smear campaigns'? Are you suggesting that this one is fake? Just because it doesn't make negative factual claims about Santorum doesn't mean it's not a real smear campaign.

And the difference between this and the Obama ones is that the Obama ones are not the number two Google results for "Obama"--those articles have much less of an effect than this one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't control Google, and to change a Wikipedia article to try to increase or decrease its pagerank is an unsure and dangerous enterprise beyond our mandate. To explore the Obama analogy further and with finality, Savage's political actions are most akin to Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website, because he is raising awareness of and refuting Santorum's comments that equate gay and lesbian people with child molesters. If there's any smear campaign against living persons here, it's Santorum's smear campaign against millions of gay and lesbian Americans. If Wikipedia erases its own neutral and balanced content so that Rick Santorum's personal website—full of malicious screeds against different social groups—comes first on Google, then it has sacrificed millions of people on the altar of one. That's the logical result of stretching BLP policy beyond biographies to "information about living persons [on] any Wikipedia page". Quigley (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not 'stretching BLP policy' to 'information about living persons on any page,' that's the way it actually works...no stretching necessary. For instance, your accusation that Santorum is engaging in a smear campaign falls under WP:BLP, even on a noticeboard. Any page. Dreadstar ☥ 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then where is the outcry against User:Ken Arromdee's and others' accusations that Savage is engaging in a smear campaign? Does that not fall under BLP? Is Dan Savage not a living person? I'm afraid to conclude that what Herostratus said about BLP not applying to "persons who are unpopular here" is true—only, that unpopular person in this case is Savage, not Santorum. Quigley (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I said, content and comments about both Santorum and Savage fall under BLP. We must be careful about critical comments and content on everyone who's alive. Dreadstar ☥ 03:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, if we were writing 80 years ago, whether there would be some argument for moving Hooverville to Charles Michelson neologism for shanty towns. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer, a very, very good point. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an excellent opportunity to point out that Hooverville has a wordcount of 941 words. Santorum (neologism) has a word count of 10,518 words. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, no one is stopping you from going and improving the article Hooverville by expanding it with additional secondary sources. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage is biased towards recent subjects because of the accessibility of reliable sources, among other things. Perhaps a better forum for your concerns is the WikiProject on countering systemic bias? Quigley (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt: The point is that "improving" the article with more secondary sources is bad, and that the Hooverville article is better than the Santorum one because it has not been "improved" in that way. Increasing the article's length and the number of links helps the Googlebombing.

Of course, Google didn't exist 80 years ago. Asking "what would Wikipedia do to Hooverville if it was 80 years ago" postulates that not only Wikipedia existed 80 years ago, but Google and Googlebombing as well, at which point the hypothetical Hooverville campaign would no longer be much like the real one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Hooverville article is not "better", as it contains large chunks of wholly unreferenced info. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better in that one aspect (it's shorter and therefore has less effect on its subject). It can still be worse in other aspects. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Arromdee, glad that we can at least partially agree on that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were writing 80 years ago, we probably would be covering the subject in an article about the upcoming presidential election and the Democrats' campaign rhetoric. There were lots of such phrases, and "Hoover Depression" was probably pushed the hardest, but Hoovervilles is probably the only one that stuck. (GNews shows more than 3 times as many hits for "Hoover Depression" than for "Hooverville" in the 1930s, although it's hardly a complete archive and the "Hoover Depression" hits are more likely to be spurious.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is old, old, old news. We can no more justify its removal now on BLP grounds than we can any other term that has made its way into the popular vocabulary, however fair or unfair or accurate or inaccurate, from Mesmerism to Stalinist to McCarthyism to Sandinista. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

If it were indeed 'old, old, old news', then it wouldn't be a neologism. :) I actually see some questions in this discussion about whether or not this is indeed a term in the 'popular vocabulary' and not just a Googlebomb or internet term that isn't really used much in real life. I've never heard it said anywhere, but then maybe my horizons are limited.... As for the comparisons, I'd like to see something closer to what this one purports to be. For instance, in the Hooverville comments above, the real comparison would be (at the time!) Hoover (neologism) which means "'The dried feces and vomit tracked into the shanty homes built by the homeless in unsanitary conditions." Something like that. Dreadstar ☥ 04:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesmerism, Stalinist, McCarthyism, and Sandinista are named after people who aren't alive and therefore don't fall under BLP. They're not negative in the same way; their association with their subjects is only negative to the degree that they make negative claims about the subject--this one harms its subject in a different way. None of those are part of Internet-based campaigns and any harm that Wikipedia does by popularizing the term is far less directly related to any group's goals. And they are all widely used terms. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a BLP violation, in my view. There's an attempt to create a meme associating a person's name—not a common name—with anal discharge, and that includes the name of his wife, children, and other relatives. Wikipedia is helping to create it by hosting a stand-alone article. Just because reliable sources have written about something doesn't mean we're forced to give it its own page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not forced to give santorum its own page, but we're not forced to delete it, either. By covering the subject neutrally and with the most reliable sources, we are filling a gap that would otherwise be filled by unreliable or biased websites that do nothing for the former Senator. And he (and Savage) are the only people connected to this article; if we take the extreme position that his "other relatives" are implicated, then everyone with the given name Peg should be offended by and protected against the sexual term pegging, coined by the same sex columnist. If a person's name causes them emotional distress, then they have the legal means by which to change it. Quigley (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) People with the name "Peg" won't have the term turn up as the top Google hit for their name, and nobody will search for "pegging" when they want the name.
  - 2) The idea that someone should change their name to avoid a Googlebomb that is assisted by Wikipedia is absurd and contradicted by BLP.
  - 3) "Covering the subject neutrally" is taking advantage of a loophole in Wikipedia's rules in which only the article's claims are treated as harming the subject. In this case, the article doesn't harm Santorum because it makes statements about Santorum that aren't neutral, it harms Santorum because its nature as an article harms him. Associating a living person with sexual shit is inherently harmful, even if the association is only done by putting them together in the same article.
  - 4) Likewise, claiming that we're "filling a gap" that would otherwise be filled by biased websites assumes that harm is only caused by biased text. In fact, harm is caused to him by having a large, well-linked, article at all, whether the text in it contains biased claims or not. Removing biased claims from the article doesn't prevent it from doing harm to him. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There's an attempt to create a meme associating a person's name..." - the attempt has succeeded, as the article documents. The term is established enough, and the creation of the term well documented enough, to be outside of the zone of discretion where we can reasonably take BLP into account whether to have an article or not. It is now encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the term had been associated with fluffy pink bunnies, say; so the only difference is that the term describes something disgusting. Therefore WP:NOTCENSORED applies. It may be a conclusion as unpalatable as the topic, but there it is. Rd232 ^talk 05:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to ignore BLP considerations. The fact that the term describes something disgusting affects how it harms the subject, and therefore how to apply BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its use is limited and forced. Most of the sources are about the campaign, not examples of the word being used. And in any event, the point is that we don't host stand-alone articles on every word that exists, and on every topic a reliable source might mention. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to believe that the broad range of sources that use the term—from erotic novels to sociological books to medical journals—were "forced" to use the term. If you have sources that say this, please quote them. Yes, most of the sources are about the campaign, but that is because what we write is dictated by the availability of reliable sources, and not politics. Recently, a reader brought a quote mentioning santorum in a medical journal to the article's talk page for inclusion. Cirt did not have access to that journal, so he could not cite it before: such collaborative editing is all the more reason for santorum to have its own article. As its breathtakingly thorough reference list shows, the term is not simply what "a reliable source might mention", but has generated hundreds of pages of writing and discussion for almost a decade. It is definitely important, notable, and worthy of its own article. The correct venue to challenge this status would be AfD. Quigley (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the concept of this word is literally execrable in and of itself, I can't say I see any grounds under WP:BLP to support its removal.

The article is written with a NPOV, it is verifiable, and it does not contain original research.
It does not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. (The word clearly exists, and its use is exceptionally well documented; it is disingenuous to claim that the subject itself is disproportionate. The extensive sourcing makes it clear that the neologism exists and has been the subject of wide-ranging discussion.)
It does not meet the definition of an "attack page"—unsourced and negative in tone—as it is well sourced and neutral in tone.
I don't see that the sources are being challenged, or are likely to be challenged, to a degree that would eviscerate the article.
While much of the material is contentious, as evidenced by this discussion, it is not unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, so that part of BLP doesn't apply.
It's not gossip: it's a well-documented phenomenon.
It doesn't misuse primary sources.
It isn't about "a person notable for only one or two events", so the "Avoid victimization" clause doesn't apply.
Rick Santorum is a public figure, but the article is compliant with WP:WELLKNOWN.
It doesn't use personal information.

The remainder of the BLP clauses simply aren't applicable. In short, there's nothing under WP:BLP that creates grounds for deleting or substantially rewriting this article. Sure, it's a despicable thing that someone created this neologism, and it's terrible that it caught on to the extent that there are one hundred and twenty-eight citations in a well-written article about the subject. But claiming that it runs afoul of BLP is unsupportable, and ultimately a case of "I don't like it". The word, and the phenomenon of the word, exists. The etymology of the word is noteworthy. The case where a neologism was coined to make a negative association with a prominent politician, based on and related to his public statements regarding sexual matters—and the word stuck—is likely to be of historical significance. The article should remain. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well stated, Macwhiz. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Very well said. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While MacWhiz states the technical BLP arguments well, he doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which can accurately be said to involve the principles underlying BLP more than the letter of the policy. SlimVirgin hit the nail on the head when she described the central matter as "an attempt to create a meme associating a person's name—not a common name—with anal discharge." The claims that the article is really about "the term" are flimsy and often serve a political agenda rather than an encyclopedic one. What this article ought to do is to treat its subject the way Wikipedia treats an even more prominent example of the same general phenomenon, the attempt to use online search engines and such to associate George W. Bush with the phrase "miserable failure." That's the model we ought to be following here.

And it's certainly not the case that the article is well-sourced. For example, the article asserts "Santorum has received utilization in fiction works," citing four examples. But these cites are mostly contrived if not inaccurate. The first, Hard by one Jack R. Dunn, is a self-published, free-distributed E-book. The fourth, Hate Starve Curse by Austen James, is another self-published book by a non-notable reader, more easily searched because it was published and offered for sale through Amazon's self-publishing operation. The third, Men On the Edge, represents only the use in a single short story story by an unidentified writer. The second cite, The Stepdaughters by Rod Waleman, is phony; whoever inserted it into the article simply found a book with a typo in the hokey old Latin phrase "sanctum sanctorum" (know these days mostly as Dr. Strange's house in Marvel Comics) and listed it even though anyone reading the relevant excerpt would easily know that it has zero relationship to the Savage coinage. So we have, after nearly a decade, exactly one documented use in legitimately published fiction. That hardly supports the claim that the term itself is notable.

Similarly, the claim that "The word appeared as a humorous aside in college newspapers" is overstated at best. While four examples are cited, two use the term in discussions of Savage and his activities, not independently, one uses it as a general reference to sexual activity, not in the sense described in the article; only the "music review" actually supports the claim. The New York Times reference is overstated; the relevant text is actually "Other recent Google bombs have sought to associate President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, with various unprintable phrases." The source for the claim "The term's popularity as a political epithet has extended to bumper stickers and t-shirts" seems pretty weak; apparently the principal outlet for such merchandise is a blog operated by Savage and the items are manufactured on demand. Until I objected to it this morning, one citation describing the "santorum" coinage as an "important linguistic development" was attributed without qualification to a humor piece that is (by design) not exactly rigorously factual -- it also described Savage's motive as being "to honor" Sen. Santorum.

The article fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles are supposed to describe subjects in the way they are described in reliable, independent/nonpartisan sources. As reported -- but seriously underplayed -- in the article, the "santorum" phenomenon -- or however one wishes to encapsulate it -- is the result of, and inextricably associated with -- a campaign organized by a partisan media figure who disapproves of Santorum's views on sexuality; its purpose is not to "memorialize" Santorum's comments, as the article has it, but to make him a subject of derision/ridicule, to emarass him or damage his public image. This is not seriously disputed, even by Dan Savage himself. (In contrast, the use of the name "lewinsky" as a synonym for a sexual act, although pressed by some partisans, is generally seen as a more spontaneous development.) And while Savage's actions may be enjoyed by many who are amused by seeing a figure like Santorum discomfited, there appears to be a wide sense of unease (example here, in the comments at a fairly liberal site on a similar proposal [28]) about the appropriateness of Savage's campaign, another point avoided in the article.

And the article fundamentally violates principles underlying BLP, even if a case can be made that it evades the specific elements expressly barred by the policy. The Wikimedia Foundation resolution requires to make "taking human dignity" into account one of our most important concerns in constructing articles relating to living persons. Dan Savage apparently believes that Santorum's views are so repugnant that he does not deserve to be treated with any minimum of decency or respect. The article, as currently framed and written, comes closer to Savage's view than to Wikipedia's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are points that have been repeated ad nauseum by a few people here, and yet I don't see signs that minds are being swayed, and I'm no longer clear on the purpose of continuing this discussion at BLPN. I don't see any prospect for a different AfD outcome in particular. If the point is that the article needs to be edited in particular ways, then that should be argued at the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, I don't doubt the article has issues. I just don't see that they rise to the point of deleting the article using BLP as a justification. I think part of the problem here is that some people see the Wikipedia article as "an attempt to create a meme"; that would obviously be wrong under any number of policies. I see it as documenting the apparently-successful creation of a meme. I don't think the existence of the Wikipedia article helped in that success, increased that success, or legitimized the term. The story of the word is rooted in a political agenda. That's not the same thing as the article being rooted in a political agenda. Were we to conflate the two, it would be impossible to write about any political subject.

Personally, I don't like the word. Removing my personal tastes from the issue and going by the text of the BLP, which I am presuming accurately reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community, I can't find justification to remove the article. If I felt sufficiently strongly about removing the article, I'd either look for other grounds, or I would work to first change the BLP to cover this case. If this case truly runs contrary to "the principles underlying the BLP" but does not actually violate the BLP as written, then it indicates the BLP has a gap that needs to be closed... after the appropriate discussion and procedure, to ensure that the BLP continues to reflect the consensus opinion. But that should be a separate discussion on a different talk page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "harms the subject"

I'm troubled by the frequency with which the critics of this article (and others) invoke the specter of "harm to the subject" as a reason for deletion or other adverse action. Wikipedia's mission isn't to aid or impair the political career of Rick Santorum. Our mission is to inform our readers about the world. That's why BLP doesn't say that we can't report unflattering facts about a bio subject; it says that negative or contentious information must be properly sourced. I'm sure Rick Santorum is harmed to some extent because his Wikipedia bio reports on his residency controversy. As that section of the bio notes, his supporters charge "that the controversy is politically motivated" -- but so what? The rest of the world doesn't follow Wikipedia policies, and we report on things that go on off-wiki that wouldn't be allowed here.

Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't joining in an attack by reporting on it. Many people have the ability to influence the public conversation. Some of them use that influence to spread personal attacks, some of which are meritorious and some of which are garbage. If scurrilous political attackers succeed in getting a lot of attention for a garbage attack, then they've made it significant and we'll report it. Yes, our article will in turn contribute, to at least some degree, to making the attack even more significant, but that's a consequence of the original attackers' success in getting noticed. NPOV doesn't allow us to start picking and choosing which facts we'll include based on which politicians might be helped or harmed by a truthful report. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMLane, I agree with what you say here (and with what macwhiz says above). This really is not an issue for the BLP noticeboard, since there is no overt violation of WP:BLP, but since we are discussing it here, I will pose a question. Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, the article which seems like it should naturally include coverage of the "santorum" formation, clocks in at 1,264 words. Santorum (neologism) runs to over 10,000 words (10,574 at the moment). It seems to me that regardless of the legitimacy of covering this information in Wikipedia, whether as part of an existing article or as a separate article, this amount of coverage is excessive given the real world importance of the event and the amount of in-depth media coverage it has received. While Wikipedia has staggering amounts of information on video games, etc, this particular article is possibly unique in that it the term is necessarily and inextricably linked with a living person and, regardless of how balanced our coverage may be, the term itself has negative connotations for most people. Given all of that, I feel that by having such an unnecessarily large and detailed article, we are violating what I feel to be the spirit of BLP and going beyond the role of a neutral party in all of this . I will not ask anyone to agree with me, but I will ask if you can see why I might feel that way - do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, but consider this: Considering the neologism "santorum", which would give that term and its history more undue emphasis in the context of Rick Santorum: being part of an article about Rick, or being a unique article that is not directly related to Rick? I understand the normal thing is to merge less-notable articles into main articles, but I think it would ultimately work against the goals of the BLP here: as an article on its own, I think "santorum" puts less emphasis on the relationship to the man than it would if it were a section of the man's biography or a page about a controversy directly relating to the man's political career. The current article is about the word; a merge would make it about the man. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravel Morrison

Ravel Morrison - criminal convictions

To give a bit of background, this is an immensely talented youth football/soccer player who's always been regarded as a bit of a "problem child" and has had a few run-ins with the law. He is frequently written about in reliable sources, but only really due to his off-the-field activities. He was found guilty of witness intimidation at the start of the year and recently admitted criminal damage, in addition to various times he was cautioned/charges were dropped etc (including one for assaulting his mother). My question is, how much of this is relevant enough to be included in his article? As I understand it, only his convictions should be mentioned (witness intimidation and criminal damage). Or is the second too minor? Any advice appreciated. doomgaze (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, anything that's not a conviction shouldn't be in there, and the criminal damage conviction (girlfriend threw his phone around, so he threw hers rather further...) is too minor to be worth mentioning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyhydrogen

Resolved

– Poster was blocked for abusing multiple accounts - see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaufman1111

Not allowing references to be added to a definition of a person as 'fringe scientists" and fraud and scam because they are in favor of that person while allowing one negative citation only is a violation of the BLP policy. This happened several times in the section "Fraud and Scam" Protection from this vandalism is needed. ISTAT (talk)ISTATISTAT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Which fringe scientist or fraudster did you have in mind? Your comment here is not sufficiently specific to identify the person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen C. Meyer

There's a discussion on WP:RSN that also concerns issues related to WP:BLP. Editors from this board are invited to join the discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letitia Libman

See my AfD of the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letitia Libman. The page is so filled with BLP violations (mostly the slant of coverage toward the negative) that it probably deserves deletion, despite having quite a few sources. Raymie (t • c) 00:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Taylor (writer)

I am sorry, but this guy is in no way notable. Wiki bios of living person should be of notable public figures. I nominate this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadRo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the article for deletion, as it fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. See WP:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Taylor (writer). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Palekar

His date of birth is listed as April 1, 1944; however, his birthday is actually November 23, 1944. He is my mother's only brother, and my birthday is November 19 and we have jointly celebrated our birthdays together on a number of occasions in Mumbai. Should you require any other personal clarifications on his personal side please contact me at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.26.115.166 (talk • contribs)

Hi, at wikipedia all content requires reliable verification, personal knowledge included. As you have this http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi-times/Amol-Palekar-Baaton-Baaton-Mein/articleshow/240783.cms - WP:RS currently supporting the April 1 date, which appears to be Amol talking about himself .. to change the birth date you will need some WP:RS that support your claim. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information about his spouse and children is also inaccurate - Sandhya Gokhale is his second spouse, and Samiha is her daughter from her first marriage. Shalmalee Palekar is my first cousin, and is from his first marriage to Chitra. Advait Mantri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.26.115.166 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small edit to correct this mistaken assertion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. Sankaran Nair

This article is poorly written and poorly sourced. It has been tagged as lacking sources since March 2010. It has very few watchers (fewer than 30 - why can't we just give a number?). I removed some trivial, unsourced material about Nair's family from the article today. I mistakenly thought I was removing old information, but it turns out I was removing information that was recently added. The IP then put in a source for the information (a book without a page number). It's not clear if the source supports part or all of the information, particularly based on the way the reference is placed. I reverted because the information is so tangential to the subject, some of it is trivial, and it's poorly worded. The IP added it back in. Unfortunately, I can't make any more reversions, or even edit it.

Could others please look at the article and do whatever you think is appropriate? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Jacobsen

User:Olafgate is repeatedly removing cited material and replacing it with uncited claims. This author has a new and controversial book out so it would be good to have more eyes here in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the material and done some clean-up. I will continue to watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BEST study

User:Drrll insists on removing the explicitly attributed opinion of Joe Romm from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, with the explanation

WP:IRS: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports"; WP:BLP: "be very firm about the use of high quality sources"

what's being removed is the rather innocuous "Climate-change activist Joe Romm has strongly criticized the BEST project in Grist magazine and in his Center for American Progress blog." See also Talk:Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature. Any comments, etc. Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And opinions that the study is not biassed also should be fully represented. One problem, however, is the WP:BLP implication from the criticism - to the extent that an opinion makes BLP-sensitive sensational or contentious claims about people, the opinion should be disallowed per WP:BLP.

"opinions that the study is not biassed also should be fully represented." - WP:SOFIXIT. Rd232 ^talk 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question makes no BLP claims. Waving the BLP flag any time there are edits one disagrees with trivializes Wikipedia's very real and ongoing BLP problems. That being said, I don't see why Romm's opinion is noteworthy given that (like Muller) he has no apparent expertise in atmospheric data analysis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"he has no apparent expertise in atmospheric data analysis" - irrelevant, we're not talking about an academic peer review. It's a critique of how the study was organised and the key people involved. Rd232 ^talk 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Short Brigade, both on the BLP issue and the noteworthiness of the inclusion. The BLP issue is, at best, very attenuated. This is really just a content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 563: / Line 563: @@
 ::: Also, consider your sentence ending "one is self published and as it attacks someone else (wikipedia) it is also not usable so you are left here insisting on including a twenty seven moth old slate article that is mostly not about the subject." Granted, WND constantly flirts with being SPS, but, to date, has not been considered as such. But [[Wikipedia]] is not a "someone," and the verbiage in the rest of that sentence both presupposes the outright dismissal of 3 sources previously considered somewhat reliable, implies that a source becomes less reliable with age, and attempts to alienate others from agreeing with my position by employing imagery implying that I am the only one who supports inclusion of the material. I respectfully submit that there was a better way you could have made your argument, and I would ask that you please be more judicious in your choice of words in the future. [[Special:Contributions/24.177.120.138|24.177.120.138]] ([[User talk:24.177.120.138|talk]]) 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::: (ec) Lastly (I promise), consider the statement "I did not assert it is insulting to be called a homosexual ''if you are one''" (emphasis mine). I'll grant you its technical accuracy, but it's misleading; Mr. Farah's sexuality isn't at issue here. You implied that it's insulting to be called a homosexual, full stop, and I find that bigoted. [[Special:Contributions/24.177.120.138|24.177.120.138]] ([[User talk:24.177.120.138|talk]]) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
-::::Thanks but I do not see anyone else here supporting the inclusion of this content and as such large discussion of it is in itself undue. Organizations can still be assumed to be a collection of individuals that BLP also applies to. As for word - splitting - I am actually only commenting on the broader issues and not the pin point detail. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
+::::Thanks but attacking me will not help you at all and neither will your miss-representing my position. I do not see anyone else here supporting the inclusion of this content and as such large discussion of it is in itself undue. Organizations can still be assumed to be a collection of individuals that BLP also applies to. As for word - splitting - I am actually only commenting on the broader issues and not the pin point detail. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::::: Please see [[WP:BLPGROUP]]-- BLP policy explicitly does not apply to a collection of individuals. I'd also ask that you not attempt to prematurely terminate this discussion, and refrain from attempting to alienate me from it. It's inappropriate. [[Special:Contributions/24.177.120.138|24.177.120.138]] ([[User talk:24.177.120.138|talk]]) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::Yes, WP:BLPGROUP does not '''explicitly''' reject my position but it does clearly encourage such editorial consideration and makes it clear that high quality reliable sources are mandatory. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards