Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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.

David A. Yeagley Template:Blpwatch-links

We could use some help at David A. Yeagley, where at least two anon IPs have repeatedly blanked the entire article and substitute a "hatchet job" bio containing negative unsourced statements. It's been going on for some time now and has escalated to the point of edit warring. I have left messages on the discussion pages of the anons, but in vain; they refuse to use "discussion" or edit in good faith without blanking the original text.

The offending editors are 64.238.136.39 and 216.177.172.11, with very similar edits having also been made by User:Brent Michael Davids, User:Verity Truth, and 162.83.249.112. An IP check is probably in order due to possible sock puppet activity to avoid 3RR or repercussions on the registered user names.

Thanks in advance for your help, Badagnani 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

129.115.102.13 has just joined in with the same behavior. Badagnani 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anne Milton Template:Blpwatch-links

Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A constituent, Tim Ireland, has an attack blog on Milton. This has been repeatedly reinserted and edit-warred over. As it stands there is a short para on coverage of the Ireland dispute in the press (fine by me) but the blog itself keeps creepong back in (not fine, per WP:EL, links to avoid). I have removed the link. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's an WP:EL thing though, not a WP:BLP issue. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison Template:Blpwatch-links

• Harlan Ellison #Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried removing the offending material because the source is from a work of fiction, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the event actually took place. Other editors have also tried removing the text for the same reason. Yonmei continues to insert the libelous account, which is undoubtedly a personal attack on the biographical subject. The confusion lies in that Harlan touts this story as being true, as often fiction writers are want to do.

The source for the libelous account is from the story SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD: I, THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE, which appeared in a collection of fiction from STALKING THE NIGHTMARE copyright © 1982 The Kilimanjaro Corporation. From the dusk jacket of that book: ".... For the first time the author has embodied his belief that fantasy and reality have switched places in our time by including four essays he calls SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD...." From Stephen King foreword from the same book: ".... one can almost see 'The 3 Most Important Things in Life' as a stand-up comedy routine (it's a job, by the way, that Harlan knows, having done it for a while in his flaming youth)...."

If we cannot be sure the events took place from a likely work of fiction, then how can we include this fictional anecdote as fact? The entire entry should be removed. 70.81.7.65 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross Template:Blpwatch-links

An anon contributor is removing whole sections of this article that are properly sourced on the basis that the material removed is too critical. Could some non-involved editors advise this user? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean Rick Ross (consultant) since this is the one you appear involved in. Nil Einne 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn Template:Blpwatch-links

I edited this article to remove a large number of unsourced controversial statements, which are plainly unacceptable under WP:BLP. However a number of users have insisted on reverting these edits, with one user describing them as a "whitewash". 217.34.39.123 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Much of what is being disputed is sourced and acceptable under WP:BLP, much of it is unsourced but not particularly negative, and some of it looks like attempts to build up 'guilt by association'. Needs more thorough investigation. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• • This is the sort of article that will continue to hold WP up to libel until WP:BLP is strengthened. CyberAnth 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blpwatch

This article has been created by Ken Avidor. Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. Bob 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (moved from WP:AN, Patstuart^talk|edits 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

I saw this while lurking AN/I, and took a look. Not only does the article suffer from a number of mis- or non-contextualized ironic statements, which standing alone present the appearance of a man who changes his opinion on his life's work with the wind, but it also features a large amount of redundant linking, which initially served to look like there was a LOT of opposition to his ideas. I took a whack at cutting the fat, and contetualizing some of it, but one quote absolutely had to go. I have NEVER heard of this guy before, but it's clean there's a LOT of POV-pushing going on at that article. ThuranX 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to block someone for willful POV pushing by creating an article about their enemy? I know there was the famous case where Wikipedia had to block the whole House and Senate because people kept on defacing their opponents' pages. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a long (one year) history with Ken Avidor, both here (see Talk:Personal rapid transit/Avidor) and off-wiki. He is virulently against PRT, and he has ridiculed PRT proponents on his web pages and blogs ([1] [2]). He commonly refers to Anderson as a "PRTista" and the "wacky professor". His anti-PRT campaign is so famous and widespread among the PRT community that there are two blogs devoted to debunking Avidor's claims ([3] [4] - this one created by yours truly).

Having said all that, I've read the Anderson article and, compared to Avidor's typical work, it's actually not too bad. His opinions on this topic are so extreme that I honestly believe that this article is about as neutral as he is capable of producing on someone like Anderson. This is not to say the article is acceptable (ThuranX has already improved it significantly, and it still has a lot of issues), but rather, I don't think the POV pushing was necessarily "willful", or a sign of bad faith. I think it's entirely possible that this is his idea of neutral.

The question now is, will he fight changes to the article? He has already predicted (off-wiki) that "PRTistas (will) take a meat-axe to it...". So I think it would be best for those of us whom he views as proponents (User:Mr Grant, User:Dunning, and me) to avoid editing the article - maybe someone not associated with PRT can work on it instead? There's actually a lot of information there, and most of it seems pretty accurate, so it's really just a matter of toning it down.ATren 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati Template:Blpwatch-links

I am following the procedure:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

The following in the article has been repeatedly reinserted.

I have to report it here, since the rule is being violated by two admins, FeloniousMonk and JoshuaZ, who have a strong ideological bias against the subject of the article, and are breaking this clear rule and the one against original research, and are hiding behind arbcom diktats to punish editors with opposing ideologies. How can we expect justice when it's admins who are guilty and heavy handed, unless we go above their heads?

He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,[19] [OK this is sourced, just provided for content]

although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith. [This is not sourced]

He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. [This is is a blatantly POV accusation and unsourced] For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques.[20] This link is just an ibid, so refers to [19] which is Sarfati's own article, which would not support this critical paragraph. So this paragraph is unsourced and counts as original research as defined:

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Wikipedia:No original research. 58.162.2.122 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

I’m having a similar dispute on the biography of another living person, so I’d like to raise my questions here.

The first is that the transcripts from a criminal trial were published by a prominent local newspaper. Am I within Wikipedia’s rules in using those transcripts as sources, or is that considered original research?

My second question is illustrated by the following. One media report said the unidentified girl shown on the TV monitor in the courtroom was 11; a second report said she was 7. A third source said the monitor was positioned such that reporters couldn’t easily see it. There shouldn’t be any problem in including those three facts in the Wikipedia article as just stated (together with the sources). But I want to go one step further - just a small step - and point out that the third fact could EXPLAIN the discrepancy between the first two. (If the reporters couldn’t see the monitor clearly, then they couldn’t accurately estimate her age.) Now the third source doesn’t itself make this suggestion, so one COULD say that my suggestion is “original research”. But I would respond that it is merely PART of “collecting and organizing information” (see WP:NOR) - it’s a logical consequence of organizing the information - and is therefore permitted.196.15.168.40 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The main purpose behind the "no original research" policy is that you are not presenting your own theories or interpretations. In the first case, linking to the transcripts or citing them as a source is perfectly legitimate. In the second question, my opinion is that your new synthesis of the facts - the new conclusion that you draw - would constitute original research and would be inappropriate. BigDT 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BigDT I think you forgot to mention that primary sources, such as court transcripts - must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them. Otherwise, it's very easy to misuse them. But please permit me to explain to you user 196.15.168.40. The article he is referring to is the David Westerfield article. He is a convicted child-killer. 196 has been trolling that article since March of 2006. 196 believes Westerfield was wrongfully convicted. At first, he stated he was here to correct the article and make it neutral. Well, all of that was done and yet he is still around. Thanks to him the article became the nicest article about a child-killer in all of wikipedia. 196 claims to "know a lot" yet he has never contributed to any article except the Westerfield one. When I bring that up to him, he claims that he doesn't have the time to contribute to other articles. However when he first came to wikipedia, to edit the Westerfield article, he was adding something new to it EVERY single day. So much so that an administrator was brought in to protect the article. Strange how he doesn't have the time now. Back then he had the time to contribute his bias and original research to the article. When he found out other users would thwart his efforts he toned down. 196 has made ALL efforts to make the article reflect Westerfield is innocent. Personally, I believe 196 is Westerfield's lawyers or knows somebody who knows the lawyers or are a relative of David Westerfield. A casual observer would not go through the lengths that he has made. For example, he is able to recite dates of testimony and who made them. Clearly the case is very close to his heart. So BigDT be careful what you tell this individual for he will surely find a way to abuse it. He has expressed contempt for the victims parents and blames them. If that's not enough he said deragotory things about the victim and her brothers. The victim is a 7 year old girl. To understand his bias go to the articles external link and go to link 8. Read the section he titled as "Guilty?"; he wrote the entire section. An administrator tagged the section as biased, but 196 conveniently saves the section without the tag. He cares nothing about wikipedia and has only remained here because wikipedia is available to anyone. Fighting for Justice 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

I posed two simple technical questions, and in reply you subject me to a long personal attack, only two sentences of which address those questions, and even that is wrong (just like the rest of your response). This shows the difference between you and other editors, like BigDT. Where does Wikipedia say that “primary sources ... must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them”? You removed important information from the Westerfield article even when I used secondary sources in addition to or instead of primary sources, so you are clearly just using this as an excuse.

You complain that, in the beginning, I added something new to the article “EVERY single day”. Those are the exact same words used by your predecessor, TripleH1976 - and it was he who asked an administrator to protect the article (something else you’ve got in common with him).

You speak as though it is BAD that I am “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”. I’m not alone. This case generated considerable interest, resulting in vigorous debates including on internet discussion forums, which continued even long after the trial was over. Probably because the transcripts were published, MANY people were “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”, even though they were not related to Westerfield or his lawyer. You - and Wikipedia - should be grateful that you have someone here who is actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about the case.

You believe the article is neutral. Let’s look at one current example. Westerfield was convicted of possessing child pornography. In fact, there is a WEALTH of evidence - most of it from law enforcement themselves - that he did NOT have any child porn. I added that evidence to the article, but you REMOVED it all (as did TripleH1976 before you). Yet you accuse ME of being biased! (So did he.) Quite apart from the Westerfield case, don’t you think the public would like to know what could happen to THEM, too? A zealous prosecutor could again override his own experts in his determination to obtain THEIR conviction.

I have been thoroughly disenchanted by this, my first experience of Wikipedia. I can see why it has a bad reputation. Just ONE determined vandal can effectively sabotage attempts to improve an article, and there’s NO guarantee that the administrators will intervene.196.15.168.40 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above was posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I originally recommended the user post it here, but I copied it myself after finding out the user has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note I am not endorsing the summary, there has been some discussion on the talk page which provides a different view Nil Einne 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In my attempts at mediation, I have addressed these concerns on the article's talk page. However, I believe that Rjensen is not representing the case accurately. A quick flip through the history of this article confirms this: the user in question, Tvoz, has inserted citations from reliable sources to document the controversy that arose after Rockefeller's death. She has not made the claim that Rockefeller and Ms. Marshak were sexually involved, nor has she said that she had "motive". (The fact that Marshak was named as a beneficiary in Rockefeller's will shows only that they had some kind of relationship: it could very easily have been a platonic one.) Her edits have been to improve the neutrality of the information and to provide sources for the claims, and thus I do not believe that it is in any way a violation of WP:BLP. I will continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's comments above amount to a malicious personal attack on Tvoz, as she did none of the things described. Take a look at what Tvoz did add to the article: [5] (her subsequent edits have added even more references and refined the text). Nelson Rockefeller died under unusual circumstances, something that gained wide press coverage at the time (for example, it was the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit [see snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78kbelushi.phtml]). Note that although it was widely assumed that Rockefeller died during sex with Marshack (such as in this CBC editorial [6]), the Wikipedia article has never said so, and has followed an editorial line similar to that of Time magazine, among others ([7]), scrupulously adhering to WP:LIVING in regard to Marshack. Rjensen's sterile revert warring and willingness to throw wild accusations about show little understanding of consensus or Wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clive Bull Template:Blpwatch-links

Helper1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new account, is repeatedly inserting this edit, which among others claims that the subject (who is married) seduced a woman via his late-night talk show. The edit alludes to various podcasts which Helper1 has claimed are publicly available - I have asked for him to be more specific as to where to find them, and I don't believe that the current references to them are adequate verification - at best they are too vague. Helper1 continues to revert. The article has been a focal point for hoax vandalism in the past, and I would like some more eyes on this. I have tried a Google search and found nothing relevant on the web. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy Template:Blpwatch-links

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This book, published by Doubleday and written by Hoover Institute research fellow Peter Schweizer, contains chapters entitled things like, "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider" and "Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss". Is listing these titles a violation of WP:BLP? // Lawyer2b 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, reporting "X said Y", if, in fact, X did say Y and either (a) X is a reliable source of information about Y or (b) your article is about X is ok from a BLP standpoint. But good grief ... this article needs help. It should not be giving WP:NPOV#undue weight to the author's claims and it really needs to cite SECONDARY sources of information about the book. BigDT 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is essentially a recapitulation of the book, with a lengthy quotations for most chapters (that is, for each liberal person being attacked by the author). For example, the section (in the Wikipedia article) that discusses the book chapter on Barbara Steisand is over 500 words long. It contains sentences like Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States.

I don't think that the article about the book could possibly be considered NPOV unless it summarized each chapter in three sentences or so; what's there is way too much like mini-articles that present only one point of view (the author's). John Broughton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An article about a book should be primarily based on secondary sources. It should talk about the impact of the book, about what people have written about the book. It should not be an opportunity to present the POV of the author without balance/context, and it should not violate content guidelines. Guettarda 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have examined a few dozen WP articles about controversial and non-controversial non-fiction books, and almost all of them consist primarily of of a description of the contents. I make no claim that this is a proper study--just what is known as "range-finding". DGG 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the original poster has a good point. I have seen quite a bit of this kind of thing, from both the liberal and conservative sides, on WP. Steve Dufour 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

John Orr

Would someone mind checking this out? I've read a reasonably reputable synopsis of this dude, so can't bring myself to remove stuff I know is accurate, but I suspect it is in a poor state. If not, let me know so I can stop worrying. Thanx 68.39.174.238 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (PS. I don't have on hand the source I'm referring to, so I can't use it to source this... ARGH!)

Periyar RamasamiTemplate:Blpwatch-links==

It is potentially libellous allegations without any any citations which I have asked for.The wording are not encyclopedic. 1: Periyar being likened to Hitler is potentially libellous as Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths whereas Periyar was not guilty of even one.Further no evidence or citation is given this comment.Periyar turned the offer to become the head of the Madras Presidency in 1939 after the Congress quit but he turned it down now to compare Hitler is wrong.

2:Brahmins:comments like The population of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, which was about 10% in the 1920s, is today less than 3% as a result of persecution by EVR and his followers are strange as not even a Single Brahmin has been killed in the entire Dravidan movement. Further Rajaji,Jayalaitha and Janaki who were Chief Minsiters were Brahmins and ruled Tamil Nadu longer than any other single community and these statements are not backed by citations or evidence which are required.Jayalalitha is the head of a Dravidan Party

3: And the wording should be encyclopedic none emotional and contraversial lines like Within a span of 20 years, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, who had been living there for more than 2000 years, were turned into alien immigrants by the DK's propaganda. The speeches called for the elimination of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, and the enslavement of Brahmin women. The speeches harkened back to an ancient Tamil glory, similar to Hitler's revival of ancient Germanic culture are not abcked by citations or Evidence

4:Further some one blanked His Childhood and Education.Even today there was mass deletion by 192.223.243.6 which was reverted 5:Only 1 name needs to be used either Periyar or EVR not 2 creates confusion to readers particularly foriegners.Periyar is how he is known.Tamil Nadu Government refers to him as Periyar.http://www.tn.gov.in/government.htm.He is refered as Periyar in Tamil Nadu Government. Periyar University is called named after him and Also, convention suggests that the most common name be used as far as possible in the text of the article Vandalism is done by 80.195.10.170 who vandalised the page 3 times .Harlowraman 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for disputes about deceased persons. Please following Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche Template:Blpwatch-links and related articles

These articles are being used to showcase the theories of three minor critics, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth. These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. It would be proper to devote perhaps one paragraph to their shared theories. However, two of them are editors at Wikipedia: Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they are very aggressive about promoting themselves and their viewpoints in these articles, and apparently in other articles as well. I believe that some of their allegations may be libellous, but because they have been published (or in some cases self-published) it is argued that they must be included in the articles. They also have friends at Wikipedia who support them (as seen elsewhere on this page.) I think at the very least there are violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. Both Cberlet and Dking are published authors, based on their user pages (and following a link); I suspect they can recognize libel when the see it, before they put it in writing. And it's pretty clear that Cberlet and Dking think that LaRouche is, well, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Which would tend to make their opinions on that matter the mainstream view, actually.

It would help if you provided some diffs here (or even specific wording that bothers you), rather than broad generalities. Details will give other editors a much better idea of what you consider "esoteric" and what you think might be "libellous". (As far as undue weight, that's really a matter for talk/discussion pages of articles, unless an edit war breaks out.) John Broughton | Talk 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, these three authors allege that LaRouche is a fascist and that he is in favor or some sort of totalitarian state. I consider this possibly libelous because LaRouche has campaigned for over 35 years against fascism. These three make insinuations, without offering evidence beyond a technique of "decoding" where Dennis King, for example, says that photographs of galaxies that appear in LaRouche-affiliated science publications remind him of swastikas. Wohlforth equates support for government regulation of the economy a la FDR with support for a totalitarian state.

LaRouche has mainstream critics, of course, but they generally criticize him for being a conspiracy theorist, and do not accuse him of conspiring to bring about dictatorship or, as Dennis King does, having a "dream of world conquest." I think that one would have to draw the conclusion that King, Berlet and Wohlforth are themselves conspiracy theorists, and their ideas might deserve some mention, but not a central place in a biographical article. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a diff from yesterday, where Cberlet inserts his own libelous allegations into the intro of the article. --Tsunami Butler 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar material was added by Dking here in the midst of a rather extensive re-write, and when the potentially libelous material was removed, it was re-added by Phil Sandifer here. --Tsunami Butler 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche, and Wikipedia is lucky to have him working on the article. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash any negative fact about LaRouche. Please be cautious when reading any statement of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. Mgunn 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom com case cited by Mgunn was closed in February of 2005. Dking did not register as a user until June of 2005. The WP:BLP policy was first drafted in December of 2005, so BLP issues were never raised in the ArbCom case. Mgunn's interest appears to be POV-oriented, as his edits and comments demonstrate that he is a defender of the neoconservatives (as are King and Berlet,) and LaRouche is an outspoken opponent of same. As I understand it, WP:BLP policy applies universally to articles on living persons. --Tsunami Butler 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo Template:Blpwatch-links

A series of anonymous IPs, which all resolve to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in Queensland, Australia, has repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations that DiNovo, a Canadian politician, was involved in a bank fraud scam in 1992, was saved from prison only by agreeing to act as an RCMP informant, and has misrepresented other elements of her biography. Edit summaries have included inflammatory allegations that a "legion of NDP attack queers" is conspiring to protect DiNovo by burying this information; one of them, charmingly, directly addressed me as "Bearcunt". In the most recent edit, this mythical legion of NDP attack queers even found its way into the article itself.

This has happened six times now. I have tried addressing the matter of BLP policy on several prior occasions, but each time the allegations simply resurface again, posted by a different IP number that still resolves to the same institution. I expect that since they're posting anonymously, the person in question isn't even seeing comments posted to prior IP talk pages. I even tried at one point deleting and recreating the article to remove this claim from the edit history entirely, but as the matter has resurfaced again I've restored the deleted edits so they can be reviewed here. I've even tried searching both Google and the Toronto Star news database to investigate the verifiability of the claims, but whodathunkit? Not a single verifiable source to be had.

Since this happens at completely unpredictable intervals, I'd like a few people to keep it watchlisted just in case this happens again at a time when neither myself nor CJCurrie (the other user who's done reverts on this) are online. And if anybody has any other advice on how we can make this stop, I'm all ears. Bearcat 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: the article has now been sprotected; instead, the anon IP has taken to removing administrator comments about the non-negotiability of BLP from the talk page, usually replacing them with a personal attack against whichever Wikipedia user reverted the previous attempt to do this. They have also vandalized the user pages of several Wikipedia users involved in the dispute, including mine and User:Blue520's. It's really time for this nonsense to stop — what other recourse is there besides continually reverting? Bearcat 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Further update: The anon user's latest tactic has been to deliberately insert false links into other articles asserting DiNovo's involvement with other things that she has not been associated with, such as The New Yorker and the band Earth, Wind & Fire, and then to falsely allege that other editors (e.g. User:Durin) placed those links and therefore have a credibility problem. This really, really has to stop, but short of permanently blacklisting all of APNIC, what else can we do? Bearcat 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat Template:Blpwatch-links

One contributor (Gstaker (talk · contribs)) thinks that information sourced to an article in the Washington Post should be removed because he thinks the Washington Post is not a reliable source.

Another editor (Momento (talk · contribs)) asserts that allegations of anxiety and heavy drinking can only be made by a qualified doctor if not, as is the case in this article, the article, according to him, violates WP:BLP policy.

I disagree with the reasoning of these two contributors. Andries 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The claims that you classify are as exceptional are not in the entry nor does anyone currently wants to add them, so I think that your comments are irrelevant. I omitted adding that part of the Washtington Post article to the entry because I could find no corroboration, in contrast to the claims of heavy drinking. I cannot know whether the excerpts that you quote are sensationalist lies or not because I was not there, though again, I do not intend to add them to the entry. Andries 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good original research, Andries. Selective quoting from one article, based on your presumption of lack of corroboration for the part you did not quote, but omitting the fact that there is lack of corroboration for the part you did include, is violating NOR and demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source. Any editor reading the whole quote will know that this is sensationalist BS and will avoiding touching that source in a BLP as being "poorly sourced". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you state, there is corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation that I included both in reputable sources and non-reputable sources. For example in the book by Spohia Collier Soul Rush that is also used as a source for the article Prem Rawat. Andries 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not know whether what is written is sensational bullshit and I do not know how to find out. Andries 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(ed conflict)Sources, Andries, sources. An editor can make the assessment that as these extraordinary allegations are not reported in any other source, and given that there are hundreds of scholarly sources on the subject that do not mention any of that, these cab be assessed to be extraordinary claims that do not have the necessary support to be considered anything than a "poor source", in particular given the context in which these were made. As editors we have some responsibilities that we cannot skirt by playing the "I don't know" card. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you write, there is not a single scholarly biography on Prem Rawat. In contrast a lot has been written about the related subejct Divine Light Mission. Of course, I can say write that I do not know when I really do not know and have no way to find out. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please stop disingenously stating that there is no corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation. Apart from the already mentioned reputable source, somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources for this are Dettmers statements, and Mishler radio interview. Andries 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement that I engage in Wikipedia:original research when I use my knowledge and my common sense to assess whether sources are reliable in a certain context. Assessing sources is the right and duty of contributors. Andries 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The source we are talking about describes the radio interview, so I do not understand what you are saying. There are no other sources corroborating any of these sensationalist claims. Who is the disingenuous here, Andries? Or is it that you believe that it is OK to selectively cite from an article based on an editors' presumptions based on "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources"? You may need to refresh your memory on WP:NOR and WP:V, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sophia Collier wrote in her book that Prem Rawat and his brother got slushed during Millenium '73. Andries 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a 13 year old having some fun maybe?. But that is very different than saying that he "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" alongside saying that he engaed in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop mentiong off-topic quotes? That latter quote is not in the article nor does anyone intend to add to the article. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because if you did add the quotes that you selectively omitted, it will clearly destroy the credibility of the other statement and of the person that made them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to add it? Andries 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A thirteen year old having fun by drinking a lot of alcohol during an event that he himself described as the "most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." is not innocent. Andries 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is okay to quote selectively from a reputable source based on common sense, personal experience, corroboration form other reputable sources, or non-reputable sources etc. Again, assessing sources is the right and the duty of contributors. You can quote more from the article in the Washington Post if you think that I have omitted something important. Andries 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not OK, Andries, as per my arguments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain? I do not understand your reasoning. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try: The article describes the opinion of Misher, saying that in a radio interview he said that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". The same article describes him as saying that PR engaged in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools". These explosive allegations are not mentioned in any other source besides this article. None of the scholarly sources describe these traits even these sources that containing highly critical material, such as these from your favorite Dutch scholars. So, as a responsible editor, and given this is a BLP, we can safely assert that this source does not meet the threshold for being a high quality reference: Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives, WP:BLP advises us. And we should listen to that advise, not dismiss it on the basis of one's knowledge of "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the reputable source the Washington Post the allegation of heavy drinking was also reported by Mishler and another inner circle member called Dettmers in an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated Septembre 21, 2002 Andries 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You forgot to disclose who exactly was the journalist that wrote the article, his trial for conspiring to steal data to harm PR and his students, the judge comments, and the affidavits he signed in which he says that "because of my media connections [...] I was supported by the Group to publish articles that furthered the goal of defaming Prem Rawat and his students" and that "based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications", etc. So, these sources are as unreliable as these can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the media articles were never retracted by the magazines. And there is another person who signed a similar affadivit in the same affair i.e. Tgubler (talk · contribs) who has not stopped being critical about Rawat. All this suggests that these affadavits were signed to get rid off a nasty litigation instead of a genuine change of heart. Andries 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the person that was the co-conspirator about which the judge said to "suffer from a credibility handicap" when he tried to retract his testimony? In any case, you are just speculating. Let these affidavits speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you do not convince me when you assert that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please note that the wording of Washington Post article suggested that Rawat's anxiety was not just a detail of Rawat's private life, but relevant for his notability because of Rawat's claim to bring peace. I admit that the Washington Post would not be the most suitable references if there were multiple scholarly biographies of Rawat, but there is none. Andries 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are abundant scholarly sources about Prem Rawat, see the article itself, and none of them support these statements, even the most critical ones. The arguments are all laid here for other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. The subject of these scholarly sources is Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (organization). Not Prem Rawat. Where is the scholarly biography of Prem Rawat? Andries 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue? These scholarly sources describe him, his youth, the succession, the arrival to the West in the 70's, his marriage, the family rift that ensued, the evolution of the presentation of his message, etc, etc. So again, there are substantial scholarly sources that describe Prem Rawat's life. Do these have the title "Biography"? no. But that does not mean that we do not have sources about him. We do, and plentiful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, untrue. If you think otherwise then please show me one scholarly article that has either an extensive description of Rawat's life or has Rawat as its main subject. Andries 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can keep saying "untrue" until you get blue in the face, Andries. But the fact is that there are many notable individuals about which there is abundant sources describing their life-work, and do not have a biography with an "extensive description of their lives". That does not mean that there is no material about their lives to serve as the basis for article about them in Wikipedia, and furthermore, that does not mean that we should use material that is unsuitable (as per the arguments I made above), just because there is not such biography available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have observed that you have made the same argument in the pasts in other biographies. These arguments are in contradiction with WP:BLP, in particular when BLP asks asks to be very firm about the quality of our sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the Washington Post not a high quality source? Andries 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument, Andries. I am not disputing the quality of the Washington Post. Please go to to the beginning of this section and re-read the arguments provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)As one coming fresh to this dispute, I see the Washington Post as a fine example of a reliable source. Further, there is absolutely no requirement that an associate of the subject be a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist to observe that he was anxious or stressed and that he drank a lot to deal with it. We as the readers can note that the quote is from a former associate and not from the man's doctor, who would in any event be forbidden from releasing such information by the strictures of medical ethics. The quote should be attributed to the person who said it, and should be complete enough that it is not taken out of context. Claiming that it is a "minority view" violating Wikipedia policy since most of the man's other followers have not described him as anxious or a heavy drinker is a red herring. The quote appears well sourced and should be included. If the other editors have a quote wherein a follower said in a reliable publication that he was not a drinker and was not anxious, they should add that. That is how a NPOV treatment of a subject works. Edison 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Jossi is mistaken when he writes as I may sunmarize his way of reasoning that a reputable source completely stops being a reputable source if it makes an uncorroborated implausible statement. Yes, may be he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Wikipedia entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did). But of course, we can still use the corroborated statements from the reputable source for the Wikipedia entry. I think Jossi's reasoning "demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source", to use his own words. Andries 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You summarise Jossi well - "maybe he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Wikipedia entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did)". Exactly!. Be true to truth.Momento 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Edison, for your comments. Note that the discussion was not about about if the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, or if the comment made by these persons in the article can be attributed to them. The question was about the selective quoting from that source to avoid giving readers the possibility to understand the context in which they made these comments. Any sensible reader will most probably dismiss these outrageous allegations, if the have the opportunity to read all what they said. Andries decided to just add a specific allegatiion that in his opinion is plausible, while omitting others that are, in his opinion, implausible. My contention is that when you cite you cannot make these "editorial decisions", as you are engaging in a clear attempt to enhance the reputability of the source by selectively omitting material that shatters the credibility of the source. So, either we, as responsible editors do not use that source in a BLP, or we cite the comments of these people without selectively omitting other material. My opinion is that we should not use that source on the basis of it being "poorly sourced" in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I consciously added only material from the Washington Post that is corroborated and omitting that is what uncorroborated. I often leave out uncorroborated statements from reputable sources or statements that I consider implausible. I am not going to change my habit in this regard of making good editorial decisions. Feel free to add more information from the Washington Post that will allow the reader to make an informed decision about the accusations. Andries 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An exceptional, sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employer who died in the 70's is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. That a newspaper reproduced this claim doesn't excuse it from failing every other test for inclusion.Momento 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is a non-exceptional claim voiced in a reputable source (Washington Post) that is more or less corroborated by other reputable sources such as Sophia Collier's book Soul Rush and by another inner circle member i.e. Dettmers (in among others an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002). In addition it is corroborated by yet another inner circle member in a non-reputable source. Here Momento admits more or less that it is a non-exceptional claim [8]Andries 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Andries. The Washington Post article includes material from the same person that is my all means and "extraordinary claim". You decided to "censor" that material and leave other material that you consider to be not extraordinary, when it is when taken as a whole. John McGregor's legal imbroglio, and subsequent ruling by a judge coupled with his apology renders that source to be of the same quality: "poorly sourced". As per BLP, that material has no place in a WP article. Your continuous efforts to keep a partially censored reference to that Washington Post article, without addressing other editor's concerns about that material is a case of WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unconvincing Jossi, if you want the full story to be told to the readers then feel free to add more material from reputable sources. I have no problem adding it myself though you never answered the question whether you want me to add it. Do not censor well-sourced material from from reputable sources. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question Andries. If a 30 year old exceptional and sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employee who died in the 70's turned up in a local paper about (insert any notable person), would you include it in their autobiography?Momento 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-exceptional, corroborated claim voiced in a national newspaper from one of the few persons who could know. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MIshler is not a reputable source and no scholar or journalist has corroborated his claims. Jossi, could you please block Andries from the PR article?Momento 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You omitted some of material, because they shatter the credibility of the source. When taken in their totality, that material violates WP:BLP. You cannot cite only what you perceive as credible ands omit what you perceive as plausible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I only wrote down material from a reputable source that is corroborated but I have no problem to cite more even if this what you describe shatters the credibility of the source. Can you please explain how this violates WP:BLP without repeating your unconvincing arguments? Andries 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No reputable source corroborates Mishler. He is a biased source, making exceptional and sensational claims that are not corroborated by any of the scholars who have written on PR.Momento 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Again, there is not a single scholarly reputable article let alone book that treats Prem Rawat extensively. If you think otherwise then please provide such a source, as I had already requested to Jossi without result. In the absence of such sources, it is perfectly okay to use secondary source material from reputable newspapers, such as the article in the Washington Post. I would agree with Momento that if multiple scholarly reputable biographies are available, like in the case of Adolf Hitler then it would not be okay to use secondary source material from newsapers. Andries 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue? There are nearly 100 notes and nearly 50 references cited for the Prem Rawat article and not a single one repeats Mishler's claim. We know Melton was aware of Mishler's sensationalist claims (and probably all PR scholars) but he quite rightly ignored them. Your suggestion that in the absence of any negative evidence from the dozens of reserarched and scholarly articles, editors should include negative material from a biased, ex-employee would turn Wikipedia into a gossip column.Momento 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, untrue, again show me one single scholarly reputable article that treats Prem Rawat extensively. Andries 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to provide you with a scholarly article that supports your claim. I say they don't exist. You find one. Wiki policy is The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.Momento 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources used in that article, making it one of the most extensively and meticulously sourced in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop evading my question Jossi. You motivated your exclusion of the Washington Post article by saying that there are many reputable scholarly sources on Rawat. I am still waiting for the title of one reputable scholarly source that extensively treats Prem Rawat. Andries 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil McGraw Template:Blpwatch-links

An anon is adding disgusting libel to this article. I've blocked them for 24 hours, but be on the lookout. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed uncited material about ethical violations in Texas. CyberAnth 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

John Cena Template:Blpwatch-links

On the article's talk page, we're looking to get consensus on whether or not putting statements about anal sex into his personal information section is relevant or not. To sum it up quickly, John Cena is a professional wrestler. Apparently in October, he made a statement on the Howard Stern radio show that he isn't into anal sex. It's been added, reverted, added, and reverted off and on in the past month or so. We'd like some outside views on this as to its relevance within the confines of the article (does the fact that the section is all about personal information open it up to something like this?) and whether this is an issue at all in terms of the guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Metros232 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is completely irrelevant, particularly since it's a denial. You may as well list all the arenas he hasn't wrestled in.Momento 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been added back again with no consensus to do so yet. So I'm not sure how to handle this situation. There are about 2 users who want it in and 2 or 3 who don't. I'd appreciate more input on the talk page. Metros232 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Mindell Template:Blpwatch-links

This is an author whose article is on the radar of several POV pushers who want to highlight the dubiousness of some elements of the subject's history and current activities. The main reason I'm posting here is because some of the sources for references (like quackwatch) are out of my experience as to whether or not they are acceptable. POV creeps into the article on a regular basis also. Anchoress 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones Template:Blpwatch-links

Although I believe his research is nonsense, the talk page Talk:Steven E. Jones#Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense slanders him. I don't feel it's my place to remove the section, because both theories are WP:BOLLOCKS, but could some 9/11 conspiracy theorist comment? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Kennealy-Morrison Template:Blpwatch-links

My concern about this article is that the subject's own book is used to source the subject's own claims, with no independant verification of the subject's claims being used. I would politely request that the section in question is removed. The section which is poorly sourced is in relation to Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's claims to have married Jim Morrison. There are no sources cited, other than Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's book, 'Strange Days: My Life With And Without Jim Morrison.' I was under the impression that proper sourcing needed to be in place in order to allow publication of claims within Wikipedia. I would remove the offending material myself; however, a tendentious editor accused myself and others of vandalism when reasonable changes were made to the article. Maybe an editor is available to take a look at this (but please, not an editor who is already assigned as the 'regular' editor?). This is a high-profile article, when one considers that the claims centre around Jim Morrison, who is to put it mildly, rather well known on a worldwide basis.

BLP applies to unsourced material. This is sourced, and doesn't fall under BLP. The reliable sources guideline is broken, but even it allows the book to be used as a source. Books published by major publishing houses are not considered self-published. Moreover, the claim is very high profile, and I'd think that if there was anything false about it we'd have heard by now. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been other sources which have commented on her claims. They could be included to discuss her book's reliability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Shinseki

User Zsero is repeatedly using a hatchet-job article from the National Review to claim Shinseki was close to insubordination. His/Her edit says that "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." The cited article is clearly politically biased. It merely quotes "According to an Army source". Does this qualify as the kind of "fact" worthy of Wikipedia? The article makes predictions that proved incorrect about Shinseki, namely that he had political ambitions: "Shinseki's retirement two months ago coincides nicely with the planned — but yet unannounced — retirement of Inouye at the end of his current term in 2004. Shinseki will run for that seat, and most likely will win." Inouye did not retire in 2004, and is still Hawaii's Senator. The article goes on to state "any general like Shinseki, whose political ambitions interfere with his willingness to carry out civilian orders, must go".

Frankly, I've looked at this case and I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. Zsero's claim that Shinseki 'came close to insubordination' is found nowhere in the opinion piece used as a source. The word "insubordination" does not even appear in the piece. Zsero calls his claim of insubordination "a perfectly obvious one-phrase summary of what the article says" but I believe any fair Wikipedian looking at it would have to call it original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that others come and examine the situation as well, as Zsero is very insistent upon this point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin

I have created an article about Boris Stomakhin, a journalist who was recently imprisoned in Russia for exercising his free speech rights. User Vlad fedorov repeatedly inserts citation from an allegedly Stomakhin's article, taken out of context, to defame this imprisoned journalist as a fool and extremist (see last "Further political activity" chapter in the article about him - I will delete it again). Not only such citation is biased, but the cited paper may not actually belong to Stomakhin. The original source of the text is basically a blog run by several young people. Moreover, there are already claims in media that Stomakhin was convicted for articles he actually did not write. I summarized my arguments in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, "Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons".Biophys 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Would it be possible to have an advice from a neutral person who is familiar with Wikipedia policies? Whatever such person decide, I would accept. My only concern is to have an objective article that provide information rather than propaganda from any side. Biophys 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to resolve the situation, but apparently it did not work. My arguments can be found in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, but I would like to repeat them here:

"Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the cited fragment of the text has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading this and his his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article."

You wanted to write that decision of administrator Alex Bakharev who found this source to be reliable and rewrote that passage doesn't suit you. He also found my translation to be correct.Vlad fedorov 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the segment of the text allegedly written by Stomaknin was impecisely translated to English. There is nothing else I can do. I will never again write any articles about "controversial" persons, because there is no way to protect their views and even facts of their life from crude falsification in Wikipedia. Biophys 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it not strange that Biophys who is russian by nationality living in USA, could do nothing with "wrong" translation? He could suggest better translation, which he didn't. Instead he claims that 'there is nothing else I could do" which is weird.Vlad fedorov 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K, I added some statements of ARTICLE 19, Committee to Protect Journalists, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, etc. in Boris Stomakhin article to show that I am not alone in this opinion. So, we need an objective article about him.Biophys 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin", talk page and its archive. Statement from Committee to Protect Journalists is taken by user Biophys from Blog, and the statement from Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false and libelous statements. For more details and facts of user Biophys abusing and violationg Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin" and its talk page.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A proposal. The situation with Boris Stomakhin article is getting worse and worse. Obviously, we can not have a Wikipedia article dedicated to defamation of a journalist who is sitting in prison cell for free speech being "practically paralyzed". This article became an object of vandalism (see talk page), editing war between several partisan editors, and the Russian language sources are even more unreliable than I thought. For example, the texts of the most contentious alleged Stomakhin's paper "Death to Russia" are obviously different when cited by different sources (see talk page). The problem: Stomakin's writings are considered offensive by many Russians. I suggest the following way out of the trouble.

1. Find an arbiter who is not Russian. 2. Exclude any Russian language sources as difficult to verify by third parties. 3. Make an NPOV version of the article and lock it from any further editing. Me (as an original creator of this article) or anyone else can prepare a new version of this article based exclusively on English sources. The arbiter can make any necessary editing and lock it. Another option is to remove the entire paper.Biophys 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the user Biophys in his 'proposal' uncovered his real motives. Boris Stomakhin is a russian politician and talks only on Russian. Biophys wants actually to prevent non-russian users of Wikipedia from learning new information from reliable russian sources, beacuse russian sources are not in support of user Biophys views. The incident was already resolved twice by administrator Alex Bakharev and twice he found user Biophys to be wrong.Vlad fedorov 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, pay attention at the request by Biophys, he's currently asking to find 'an arbiter who is not Russian', next time he would ask to find 'an arbiter who will rule in his favor'.Vlad fedorov 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If this proposal about using only reliable English language sources and locking the article is accepted, I would not mind if Alex Bakharev was an arbiter and edited new version of the article that I could prepare. All links to unreliable Russian language sources can be also provided, but they should be marked as "articles allegedly written by Stomakhin", and so on. Biophys 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, please state here all your reasons of unreliability of Stomakhin's articles "Death to Russia". And why there are 'allegedly wriiten by Stomakhin'? For I could critisize any of your sources as 'allegedly written by the their authors' then. I complied with all Wikipedia policies by citing Stomakhin's article. May I bring to your attention that according to Wikipedia policy I could cite even a blog, but only in case it is written by the subject, e.g. Stomakhin? Vlad fedorov 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to pay attention of all people reading this section that Biophys consistently mentions that he could write NPOV article about Stomakhin. Is it not strange that this person consistently asks for such weird things like to remove all sources on Russian, to select non-Russian arbiter, to rewrite himself the article about Stomakhin which is the cause of the dispute?Vlad fedorov 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K. I just edited Boris Stomakhin article using Russian language sources and included citation of "Death to Russia" by Sokolov (although I feel this is violation of LP). If Alex Bakharev or any neutral 3-rd party editor (I suggested non-Russians to avoid nationalistic feelings) verified this text now for consistency with LP policy and corrected it as needed, that would solve the problem I hope. Biophys 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The user Biophys right now reverts my additions to the article which add citations of Stomakhin which are contained in the official court sentence for Boris Stomakhin. He deletes my additions without any explanation by telling me that he complies "LP policy". Is it LP policy to delete additions which are supported with reliable sources?Vlad fedorov 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Death_.26_Putin.27s_birthday and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Unsourced_speculation to see that I am not alone who are fed up with Biophys political propaganda. Even non-Russians complain that Biophys publishes propaganda in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Mikkalai, the Boris Stomakhin article is better now. Still, the article is even more biased than the court sentence used for conviction of Boris Stomakhin. This is very easy to fix. Can I do it? I do not want to be involved in the editing war again. Biophys 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you, Biophys, making any edits, since you have already made some. User:Mikkalai deleted the most extreme citations of Stomakhin, as he had written in talk page. The court sentence is never biased, with the same, your own personal logic you may dispute the legality of any court sentence and sanity of any person including me. The thing you must remember is that you ain't the only sane person in the world, and other people have their own opinion too and you must live with that opinion. The article must be balanced. You couldn't write that Stomakhin is innocent having an official court sentence that established he's guilty. The only edits you make is to make readers feel that Stomakhin is really innocent dissident and not a criminal, which contradicts to the facts and reality. These human rights activists (Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina) you cite have acknowledged that they never support 'extreme' opinions of Stomakhin, they ackonwledged that writing of Stomakhin were indeed "extreme" they also acknowledged that they do not share views of Stomakhin - which is not written in the Wiki article. You already have distorted the real meaning of their opinions, and I won't allow you to distort the article further.Vlad fedorov 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only this court sentence is biased; the entire case was fabricated. This is not my opinion. That was argued by journalist Vladimir Abarinov [9], ARTICLE 19, Elena Bonner, Vladimir Bukovsky and other notable people and organizations. Yes, Stomakhin was convicted for his "extreme" opinions and nothing else. But this Wkipideia article paints him as a fascist who was rightly convicted. This is done using citation out of context and unreliable sources. This is wrong. Biophys 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Would it be appropriate if we include in the article about Vladimir Putin everything that is written about him at the RKO web site you are using for Stomakhin? Biophys 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that 'Stomakhin case was fabricated' is already presented in the article. So I would like to cite again administrator Mikka's question for you: "What's your problem?". Should we include in all the Wikipedia articles your personal garbage and conspiracy theories? Look at George W. Bush article, isn't it pretty good article for a man who triggered 600 000 Iraqi civilian deaths? If you acknowledged that Stomakhin published 'extreme' opinions why had you deleted them regularly from the article? Why had you edited them thereby making original research? Let us assume that I believe that Western Civilization is barbaric. Should I write in corresponding Wiki article citations of Osama Bin Laden and Co.? Should I edit opinions of the Westerners like you did in Stomakhin article? I have established clearly that your sources are blog entries and contain false facts and accusations which contradict to prevailing majority (90 %) of sources. You also was caught writing your personal opinions referencing them to Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina. The problem with you is that you are bad faith conspiracy theories writer. Other people have told the same. Think over it.Vlad fedorov 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you believe it is appropriate to cite unreliable blogs by extremist groups (like RKO web site) or "yellow press" (like Sokolov) in the articles about living people like Vladimir Putin and others. This is great. Biophys 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) I left my answer to Mikka in Stomakhin talk page and can repeat my main point here. The texts of citations of alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia" by Sokolov and extremist RKO web site are clearly inconsistent with each other (two first phrases in the continuous citation by Sokolov can not be found in the "complete" text of RKO site). Therefore, I believe both sources are unreliable and this citation should be excluded from the text of this article, although the link to "alleged" Stomakhin writings can remain. Another important point: the context of citations from the court sentence must be explained, as I did. Otherwise, this is misrepresentation (which in my field would be equivalent of scientific misconduct) Biophys 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them. So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good.Vlad fedorov 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I cited Bonner and others from "zaborisa.narod.ru" which is not RKO web site. You took the text of court sentence from zaborisa.narod.ru.Biophys 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) We must stop this discussion. So far, you have made several hundreds of edits in Wikipedia. Almost all of them are about defamation of Stomakhin or Jewish organizations. Biophys 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you chief here to order me to stop discussion? If you want to stop discussion, then you are about to leave Wikipedia, if you can't discuss, but to harass then quit. Your only contribution in Wikipedia except miserable copied articles on Biophysics - are directed against Russia and they consist of conspiracy theories unsupported with any evidence. Isn't that you who deleted citations from Guardian on Politkovskaya which said she was widely critizised? You don't like truth? Zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net - are copies of one and the same site. You even unable to study sources you write from in Wikipedia. I haven't been defaming jewish organizations never. If I wrote that the statement of a jewish organization contains false facts, then it was not defamation, clearly. By the way, applying the same criteria, you have defamed Russian Federation, Russian Courts, Serbsky Institute, Boris Stomakhin, Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina - because you attributed false citations of them. I have counted 6 persons which you defamed with one breath. By the way there are some jews among them and jewish organizations. Let's look at the talk page for Boris Stomakhin - I think it's no comment and everything is clear. How much times you've been falsifying ('summarizing') citations from these sources? The only thing you have against me is citing from what you personally consider "unreliable" source. Two Wikipedia administrators have found my source to be reliable. So, I repeat once more, what's your problem, boy?Vlad fedorov 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way you have just started edit war with administrator Mikka. I would ask him either to lock the article or to ban you from editing it.Vlad fedorov 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Since my editing has been reverted by Mikka (no edit wars!), I included "totally disputed" tag in the article.Biophys 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to provide why you dispute the article as a whole and provide the evidence in support of arguments right here. All your arguments above were already decided by two Wiki administrators and they had found them to be wrong. The opinions you wish to be included in the article were included although some of them were taken from blogs which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Don't freak out your loss in the Wikipedia dispute. If you will persist in vandalizing the page I would report it at vandalism noticeboard.Vlad fedorov 07:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please see my arguments in Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Article_development.Biophys 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no one valid argument. All your presented arguments were already reviewed by two wiki admins and were found to be wrong. So you told nothing new and edited the article again. Your uninvited and ungrounded edits were reverted. I warn, I report you as vandal.Vlad fedorov 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I can only copy and paste my arguments here, exactly as they appear at the talk page. This is typical case of defamation of LP using controversial sources. "Yes, no problems with correcting wrong citations. But the citation itself was actually correct ("Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens"). That was deliberate disinformation. Let's take a look at another possible disinformation in this article. The text cited by Maksim Sokolov includes the following continuous text (Russian): "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию...". Two first sentences cited by Maksim Sokolov can not be found in article "Death to Russia" allegedly written by Stomakhin. This also looks suspicious for the following reasons. First, RKO web site obviously has no any editorial oversight; they can post absolutely anything. Second, the "articles" in RKO site are not dated. This is serious. Any written production must be dated, even personal letter. Otherwise, it is not admissible. Third, Maksim Sokolov did not say what he had actually cited. He did not tell this is "Death to Russia" or anything else. We compare two dubious texts and can see that, yes, they are different! The citation by Sokolov without any reference to the source is also not admissible. Fourth, journalist Vladimir Abarinov claimed that some texts allegedly written by Stomakhin and used for his conviction actually were not written by him (!). Fifth, article "Death to Russia" was not cited in the court sentence, although they tried to find the most incriminating "evidence". I am not doing any original research here. This is simply an examination of sources. My position is very simple and clear: Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. (and these are are not simply "controversial" materials; these are mutually contradictory and controversial materials). This is not POV issue. If you think the article is POV, one can cite the Stomakhin's court sentence as many times as necessary (but not out of the context). It is also O'K to represent Sokolov opinion (but without his contradictory citation). It is O'K to provide a link to RKO site, because we are not responsible for content of other sites. None of the administrators told me these arguments are wrong

Biophys 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys you have failed to cite specific rule from Wikipedia which you thought I violated. It's pathetic and laughable to see that you just write empty words. I could copy-paste too. "Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them. So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good".

"The references at the end of each citation clearly show source from which they were taken. They are contained in the article of Stomakhin (all two citations) and Sokolov's article (the first citation). Citation in Sokolov's article and Stomakhin's article completely corresopond to each other. Moreover, citation in Sokolov's article evidences that the article of Stomakhin 'Death to Russia' published at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm is an authentic text. Therefore, in addition to citation of Maksim Sokolv we could also cite the passages from Stomakhin's article 'Death to Russia' published at [10]. The user Biophys maliciously lies when tells that the article by Maksim Sokolov implies continuos citation from the same article. Here is the whole relevant passage from Sokolov's article:

Стомахин же избрал ясную манеру - "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию, не давать ни малейшей пощады никому, постараться непременно устроить хотя бы один ядерный взрыв на территории РФ... Эта страшная и зловонная Россия должна быть уничтожена навеки". На этом фоне "Майн кампф" - учебник гуманизма. Если сажать по ст. 282 и 280 ("Публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности"), то начинать посадки, очевидно, следует с абсолютного чемпиона. В противном случае статью следовало бы совсем отменить. [11]

Biophys, you have falsified already the article Human rights in Russia, and I've caught you falsifying data. Now you are trying to falsify the present article. Changes reverted. I invite anyone who could read in Russian to the followoing address to judge whether Biophys is falsifying the link and the source. http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/ http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm I would like to pay attention that the user Biophys is systematically falsyfying the information in the articles Boris Stomakhin and Human Rights in Russia - which are the articles written by him personally. He constantly rewrites, changes, delets the reliable information he doesn't like personally and abuses other contributors of Wikipedia. Please read the whole discussion page for the detailed explanation of cases where Biophys maliciosly falsified the information."Vlad fedorov 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See my reply: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy.Biophys 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is:

• Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
• Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
• one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
• Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
• Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
• Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
• Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
• Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
• The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
• Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Allen Template:Blpwatch-links

Byron Allen interviewed Ronnie Lott on his syndicated interview show. During the interview Lott says that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated if Byron Allen had not helped them cheat in an Anthropology class. Should this be included in the Marcus Allen article? --Gbleem 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible Lott was joking? If so, it definitely shouldn't be included in Marcus Allen. And even if Lott was completely serious, that doesn't make him an authoritative source as to what Marcus Allen's grades in the anthropology class were. So I would say, no, it does not belong in the Marcus Allen article. --Metropolitan90 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I put it in the article. I don't think I would have put it in if I thought Lott was joking. They did laugh about it but I think that is just because they thought it was funny in retrospect and not because he was making a joke. Assuming I can get a copy of the video what criteria should I use to determine if he is joking? I suppose someone could interview him again and he could say he was joking. --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point on the grades. If I remove the statement about grades could Lott be considered a reliable source on the issue of cheating? --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ross Gelbspan Template:Blpwatch-links

I'm not an editor of this article, but the subject of the article has reverted edits to make his entry more favorable. I flagged this for NPOV and expert attention. The Talk page has nothing on it, but these reversion and edit wars seem to be ongoing. I'm mentioning this article here because this may need attention, mediation, etc. I'm not sure if there are guidelines for subject reversions. Experienced mediation help would be great. JazzyGroove 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin Template:Blpwatch-links

I recently added some material to the biography of Vladimir Putin that relates to the press censorship and other undemocratic actions of the Putin government. The material has been repeatedly removed by Alex Bakharev with the explanation that minor violations of civil rights should not be included in the biography. I have mentioned in my additions, the widely reported accusations of murder by the former KGB agent in London who died recently of Polonium poisoning. No one can deny that this event is a major news event and has strained relations between Russian and Britain. It should be included in the biography as long as it is carefully noted that it is only an allegation at this point. I call upon the editors of Wikipedia to carefully consider the possibility that these deletions in Wikipedia may have been instigated by the Russian government itself, a government that is extremely sensitive to criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.13.136.170 (talk • contribs).

I don't think this is a issue of BLP concern. Nil Einne 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking over Putin's article it seems like it is very much slanted in his favor.Steve Dufour 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

'Slanted in his favor' by users inserting unsupported allegations from mass media like Putin has killed Litvinenko, Politkovskaya and so on? You would like to mention he was behind murders of Kennedy, Mahatma Ghandi and Ceasar too, right? You have to look at "George W. Bush" article definitely.Vlad fedorov 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir Template:Blpwatch-links

Someone has vandalized the biography of His Beatitude Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir by having questions included in the sub-article of his involvement in politics and the removal of information from this article to slander his work as an anti-Syrian nationalist..

Koenraad Elst Template:Blpwatch-links

• Users hornplease and TwoHorned have been persistently editing some material into "Koenraad Elst" over the course of several months that are violations of WP:BLP. The following statements:

[12] "He has also been accused of connections to the Vlaams Blok by Sanjay Subrahmanyam (a professor at University of California, Los Angeles) in the Times of India"

is based on one source and a newspaper op/ed to boot. It is an unsupported statements and has the connotations of an opprobrium, making it a BLP violation unles it is sourced more reliably.

[13] "has contributed with other interventions described by Prof. R. Zydenbos on his homepage as emanating from right-wing circles in Belgium"

is based on the following linke: [14]

It is a geocities site. It's authenticity cannot be verified. We do not know if it really belongs to Zydebos, who is not notable enough to have his criticism mentioned. Also, BLP#Reliable Sources clearly states:

"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

This is clearly a diatribe written against Elst by this Zydebos chap who has not published it anywhere other than his "website" so BLP mandates that it be removed

These points have been raised, but hornplease and TwoHorned keep adding them in and mass revert-warring with a clear intent to defame Elst on wikipedia (as their talk page posts indicate) based on political biases and various degrees of ethno-religious bigotry expressed by hornplease.// अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 16:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ConcurBakaman 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. TwoHorned's BLP violations were also discussed at an WP:RfAr, but we assumed good faith and didn't take any action then. User:Hornplease is a member of the BLP project, and regularly and often deletes "pov" from other BLP articles, so he should know better than supporting WP:BLP violations, and should also treat articles about people he dislikes the same way. (Though to his credit he recently removed OR from the article.) --Bondego 14:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Boudin Template:Blpwatch-links

Kathy Boudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article shows rampant POV, seemingly looking to paint her as a one-dimensional mad leftist radical. The writer knows nothing about her or her views or the work she did in prison, or her dedication to peaceful change in the current time.

Note: The articles on her husband, as well as the Weather Underground as they are on the same touchy subject show the same bias. Fair treatment of individuals does not mean an indictment of their beliefs, no matter how radical they may be. Winnebagan 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony Martin (professor) Template:Blpwatch-links

This biographical article falls considerably short of the standards of Wikipedia; it is full of unsourced claims and it is completely biased in its presentation of a controversial, if obscure, individual. Tony Martin is "considered by many to be the foremost scholar on the life of Marcus Garvey"? Really: by whom, exactly? What is the rating system for evaluating scholars of Marcus Garvey? The article also claims that Martin's work, "The Jewish Onslaught"--one of the most patently and ludicrously anti-Semitic diatribes to have been published in America in recent years--was written in response to efforts by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups to repress Martin's scholarship. Is this claim documented? Is it even credible? It is further worth asking why this article stops its narration of Martin around the year 1993: has he done anything of merit since then? Has he published a book since "The Jewish Onslaught"? Or have "the Jews" succeeded in their efforts to "silence" him?

Far from being a first-rate scholar of Marcus Garvey, Martin since the mid-nineties has been nothing better than a second-rate Leonard Jeffries. His Wikipedia article, to the extent that he merits an article at all, should reflect this.

I have attempted to clean up that article as much as possible to make it compliant with our content policies. It still needs the attention of an editor knowledgeable on the subject, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Viera Scheibner Template:Blpwatch-links

The information contained in the Criticisms of this living person's biography is POV and potentially libelous, and therefore should be deleted. POV criticism of the critics has also been removed demonstrating a bias. The habitual replacement of libelous material seemingly indicates a vendetta against Viera Scheibner.

Agreed that this needs watching, but not with the reason. This is about a content dispute between mainstream/skeptical editors (who view Scheibner as a quack) and supporters of her medically unqualified anti-vaccination activities. The article is under major sockpuppet attach from the latter. 82.25.234.106 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun

He was a Scientology leader but has dropped out and seemingly become a non-person. About half of his article is taken up by conspiracy theories about him by another ex-Scientology leader, Barbara Schwarz. She seems to be saying that he is a bigamist. I tried taking this part of the article out but it was put back by the group of people who handle the Scientology-related articles here. Steve Dufour 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

She never wrote that Mr. Rathbun is a bigamist. The problem is that people pick data from her life story and twist it to cause her and Mr. Rathbun harm. These articles on all living persons should be deleted as these kind of reportings on Mark Rathbun, Barbara Schwarz, or others, destroy lives. Wikipedia editors are living in the delusion that they have a right to exploit and destroy private lives with rumors and lies and come away with it. There a thousand rumors about these two individuals but also others, and it comes down to that Wikipedia editors really do not know these people. My advice to Wikipedia contributors/editors/admins: go for quality and not quantity, and stop hurting people and harassing people on Wikipedia. - Watchdog2007

If the material is sourced, I don't see a good reason to remove it. I put in some {{fact}} tags, because sources are needed. It seems that he's notable for two things: becoming a Scientology Unperson, and being the subject of Barbara Schwarz's delusions. Because he's notable on his own, it's worth including the stuff about Schwarz. If he were otherwise not notable, that material would be better merged to her article. Argyriou (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara's theories are already well covered in her own article. Steve Dufour 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dufour's claims are ill-founded. He is improperly combining what he believes to be true (i.e., that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to Anne Rathbun) with what Barbara Schwarz believes to be true (that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to her, Barbara Schwarz.) Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to support the theory that Barbara Schwarz shares his beliefs about Mark Rathbun being married to anyone else. Only if one holds both beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to indicate there is anyone out there holding both beliefs.

For Mr. Dufour to file this report (with no mention of it made on the relevant talk page, I might add) falsely presenting his conclusions, drawn from combining Barbara Schwarz's beliefs with his own, as what Barbara Schwarz "seems to be saying", is manifestly irresponsible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If Barbara's theories are patently false then I don't think so much space, about half of the article, should be devoted to them. If her theories might be true then the article shouldn't present his marriage with Anne as a fact, as it does. Steve Dufour 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The last time I read WP:NPOV I didn't get the impression that it said "you must either describe what the vast majority of the world accepts as the truth as only something possibly true, or you must abstain from discussing the fact that anyone else has ever believed anything else." If you don't think that "about half of the article" should discuss Barbara Schwarz's claims regarding Rathbun, then please find us more information from reliable sources about Mark Rathbun and then the single paragraph discussing Schwarz won't be as large a part of the whole. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Should half of Queen Elizabeth's article talk about the theory that she is really an alien lizard from outer space? Steve Dufour 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that parenthetical claim "(which quite a few believe)". It's good to avoid straw man arguments. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

At least a million more people believe the queen is an alien lizard than believe Mark and Barbara are married. :-) Steve Dufour 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And so far not even one person has been presented who believes that Mark was married to Barbara and to Anne -- certainly not Barbara, which makes it an irresponsible misrepresentation for you to bring this here claiming that she "seems to be" making claims of bigamy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case maybe Barbara's theories should be removed from Mark's article. Steve Dufour 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Mr. Dufour. Please read carefully. The fact that no one believes your original research combination of Schwarz's beliefs and the general beliefs contradicted by Schwarz does not say a single thing about what should or should not be in the article. One might as well say that because no one believes that the Apollo moon landings were both real and faked, it means that Wikipedia should never discuss anyone believing that they were faked. Frankly, it seems you are trying to game the system -- first, filing a completely false report that Schwarz "seems to be saying" Rathbun is a bigamist to get the article onto this noticeboard, and then continuing to argue what you think should be done with the article even after it's been clearly shown that your excuse for bringing it here is purely your own misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it? Steve Dufour 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)p.s. If only one person believed the moon landings were fake I don't think it would be mentioned in the WP article on them.

What is wrong with sticking with the truth, Mr. Dufour? What makes you think that you are entitled to manufacture an issue to try and make things go your way? What you are doing is the Wikipedia article namespace equivalent of POV forking, and just like any determined POV-pusher called out on his misdeeds, you are trying to pretend the issue is whether you get your way, not the fact that you already made all the same arguments and when you didn't convince consensus, you did an illegal end-run to try and dodge consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors is that a conspiracy theory believed in by only one person, as far as I know that is, should be allowed to take up half the space in an article? Steve Dufour 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you had a concern about the article which was actually based on the facts and which had not already been rejected by consensus, you would have had no reason to resort to submitting this false report. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My edit lasted about a day until someone reverted it so that it still looks as if Mark is accused of bigamy. Hopefully a new version will be writen which is acceptable to all. Steve Dufour 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the words "the real" in front of Mark's name the first time it was mentioned in Barbara's theory. I hope this is ok with both Antaeus and Tilman as being a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor (footballer)

There is an edit war going on at this page between at least 2 people concerning the name of his wife and child/children! Neither person quotes sources or signs themselves, nor do they seem to read the talk page asking them to do this. Hyperman 42 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps Template:Blpwatch-links

User:143.81.252.12 has added defamatory information about subject, and was reverted. He re-added the material, but included a {{fact}} tag, and was reverted. The second reverter (who beat me by seconds) also placed a warning on user's talk page; I added a note with further explanation. Hopefully, that will take care of the issue, but 143.81.252.12 may come back, and the material is a rumor which has been floating around a while; if he doesn't bring it back, someone else might. Argyriou (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Speleers Template:Blpwatch-links

There is an edit war concerning this actor's date of birth. In particular, various sources I have found provide two different years (including the actor's website and IMDb). There is a small discussion as to the what the correct birth date is on the talk page, but the article is generally unstable due to the rate at which the birth date is change. We have also seen in increase in vandalism lately, but that is easy enough to remove on a per-case basis. // Todayisdifferent 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein Template:Blpwatch-links

This is a dispute concerning a edit I made to the biographical section of the article on Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and professor at DePaul University. Dr. Finkelstein is well known for works challenging certain facts about the Holocaust and the State of Israel.

In all of his publications and public appearances, Dr. Finkelstein makes the point that his parents were survivors of the Holocaust. He has stated that his mother and father were both survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto, as well as concentration camps and labor camps.

Whether of not Finkelstein's parents were indeed Holocaust survivors is important because it lends his positions a degree of credibility that would otherwise be absent.

My edits changed the categorical statement that Finkelstein's parents were survivors to statements that these accounts were due to Finkelstein himself.

My changes were removed by another editor who made no attempt to contact me and characterized my changes using extremely disparaging language. I engaged him on the discussion page of the article, and offered to soften the language while preserving the fact that the status of Finkelstein's parents as Holocaust survivors is due to Finkelstein himself and has no independent, third-party verification. I have not been able to resolve this matter in that context.

I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons and feel that my edit can be worded within those guidelines and that it adds important information about Dr. Finkelstein.

I would like assistance in resolving this dispute. The record of it can be found in the section on "claiming" in the discussion page of the Norman Finkelstein article.

Thanks for your assistance.

Robert E. Rubin Roberterubin 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin

The question here does not seem to be so much a matter of WP:BLP as of original research, as I assume the parents are no longer living. Have any critics of Norman Finkelstein cast doubt on whether his parents were Holocaust survivors? If the answer is no, then there is no real issue. If the answer is yes, then the dispute can be described. I would avoid writing "the only source is Finkelstein himself" or some such wording, because it implies "I think he's wrong but cannot prove it". Sam Blacketer 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.

Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Itche Goldberg Template:Blpwatch-links

• Itche Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two days ago an anon listed this person as having died. I can find nothing in news.google.com which even mentions him, let alone his death. I have reverted pending a source. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • His death has been reported again, with the only reference being alt.obituaries. Still zero refs at news.google.com. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Finally found a reliable source for his death - [15]. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat

Dispute between Momento (talk · contribs) and Andries (talk · contribs) about repeated removal by Momento of sourced information from the talk page that Momento considers poorly sourced. [16]

This dispute deals with more or less the same material as the Criticism of Prem Rawat dispute that is also listed on this noticeboard in another section hereabove.

Andries 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ascended_master

There are a number of problems with the addition of a "Critical" section under "External Links". This article is about the religious belief that calls saints in Heaven "Ascended Masters" and is not exclusive to any one organization or church. It is not about a political party position or a scientific theory; it is simply a religious belief.

Having these "Critical" links does not fit the external links guideline because it is not relevant to the article, rather these links are related to the Church Universal and Triumphant and / or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Therefore these links could be on the Church_Universal_and_Triumphant or Elizabeth_Clare_Prophet pages if desired by other editors.

Another issue, is from the Wikipedia: Three Revert Rule WP:3RR: Reverting potentially libelous material: "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary."

>>> The repeated adding of blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous external web site links attacking any person or organization on a page describing the belief in Ascended Masters, a religious belief held by a number of organizations both in the past and present, is totally out of place - and a violation of the Wikipedia policy quoted above (Elizabeth Clare Prophet is still living). This type of behavior interferes with the possibility of Wikipedia becoming an objective, neutral, and useful academic reference resource. At the very least, it should be obvious that under no circumstances should "External Links" to defamatory personal attack web sites directed against any individual or church be on an encyclopedia article that is NOT about that individual or church organization. Aburesz 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am currently mediating a dispute on Ascended master, and I would like some opinions regarding whether the links in the critical section of the external links would violate the living persons biography rules or not. Aburesz feels that they are because he believes that they are either unsourced or not sourced properly. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more, do external links fall into the living person's rules, and if yes, would these links violate it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Baker (chef) Template:Blpwatch-links

I would be grateful for some guidance on editing this article. User Sparkzilla is repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. His cited sources are of an unreliable nature as the contentious material only appears in two self-published articles contrary to WP:V#SELF. Sparkzilla cannot show that the author is a well-known professional journalist with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. Now he is trying to invoke the WP:BLP "Using the subject as a source" section to justify it's inclusion. However I believe this to be irrelevant to the case. An authoritative interpretation would be much appreciated. David Lyons 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.

Contrary to Mr Lyons opinion, NONE of the information in the section comes from articles published by Mr Devlin. I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.

Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.

I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice. Sparkzilla 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't bore the authoritative editors here, except to say that my response to Sparkzilla appears on Nick Baker's talk page. David Lyons 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I commented in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Salah Choudhury Template:Blpwatch-links

• Salah Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bangladeshi editor. Uncited negative content is being added. One solution would be to block the person adding negative content, but that editor probably won't be the last, given the level of dislike against him. Andjam 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Graham Coutts Template:Blpwatch-links

• Graham Coutts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - currently lacks sources, which given that we're talking about a man convicted of murder is totally unacceptable. I haven't deleted anything because (a) it should be easy to find sources for most of it, but I don't have time right now, and (b) I think the article is important as it documents a key part of an ongoing political debate in the UK. JulesH 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tahir-ul-Qadri Template:Blpwatch-links

• Tahir-ul-Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - completely unsourced and a major cleanup project. The article is periodically subject to the insertion of an opinionated paragraph deriding this individual's teachings and linking to a youtube video. --BigDT 07:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anshe Chung Template:Blpwatch-links

Blatantly, blatantly, violates BLP. This article is about a person best known through an online avatar, and it seems like all her online enemies have added unsourced negative material to the point where the largest part of the article is the "Controversy" section, almost all unsourced, accusing her of various things. Someone else helpfully added citation needed tags, but didn't delete the negative material. I'm going to delete it, but it'll probably get restored; someone please keep a watch on this. Ken Arromdee 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Template:Blpwatch-links

We're having trouble on Rush Limbaugh with some editors consistantly reverting additions quoting Rush Limbaugh on his views of appropriate punishment for drug crimes in the section about his personal drug debacle, claiming that the placement of the quote is POV and libelous per WP:BLP. There seems to be a consensus against this view and in favour of inclusion of the quote, if one can consider collaboration in phrasing the quote to be consensus for inclusion. Could someone please come by and offer us a fresh pair of eyes? GertrudeTheTramp 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, not a BLP issue, as the statement is sourced. Please consider making a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics to ask for an outside view, if desired. --BigDT 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Julia Allison Template:Blpwatch-links

I along with another editor are having a dispute with Julia Allison. The subject of the article (an "opportunist") is constantly reverting (violation of 3RR) here, here, and here facts and is claiming via e-mail to "report" me for editing "her" article, as well as other threats. I removed her last name, because she was stalked in college, and is afraid of her last name being revealed, because she doesn't want to be stalked in New York City, since she is a sex columnist (Note: Sex is not included because this will harm her "image"). So, I have agreed. But, she wants to upload pictures that I don't feel is necessary to be involved in the article. I pointed to WP:AUTO, but I don't she is understanding or ignoring the policy all together. Would someone please comment on this, because I really am too nervous to sleep over this because I am afraid that she might sue Wikipedia over some bull. She has also been a part of controversies as well (i.e. plagiarizing an article in college...I didn't source this because of legal threats) and wants to re-write history. Bearly541 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a somewhat lengthy comment at Talk:Julia Allison. I hope it leads to a constructive conversation. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reports Bearly. First, please assume good faith and be civil in your comments here: 1. Calling her an opportunist is not necessary; 2. The diffs you posted do not show a violation of 3RR; 3. She followed WP:AUTO and commented on the article talk page about it and hasn't edited the article since; 4. Saying she is part of controversy and has plagiarized is also unnecessary; 5. What legal threats?; 6. Re-write history?? --ElectricEye (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

She took out information after I e-mailed her about WP:AUTO. I am being civil on my comments here. What I mean by threats is: that she was going to report me to Wikipedia because I edited her "article" and she is the only person to edit her article. And, she wants certain facts to be said about her...etc. Bearly541 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I think she is currently editing the article via IP address. If she is currently editing her biography, I think this should fall into WP:AUTO. Real96 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BDORT

Please take a thorough and careful look at this, as I believe it really is clearly defamatory and anti BLP when inspected closely: [17] and [18] . I am representing Dr Yoshiaki Omura on wikipedia with his permission. There have already been malicious defamatory statments about him removed by an Admin[19]. I believe the editor, Crum375, left as the sole editor of this entry is biased against Dr Omura/BDORT as I have outlined here [20] . I requested the Arbitration that has just closed and which decided I am banned from editing the article. Be that as is, it has been confirmed and remedied [21] that the version that was edit warred over for months including by 'Crum375', against my repeated reversions of it and my support of the stub by the last Mediator to end the edit war - contained BLP defamatory information. I know that the remaining BLP information I refer to in the article is presented in a non obvious way, but this subtlety does not lessen the BLP issues one bit, nor the lack of basic accuracy; protracted discussions by me about the points raised with this editor are fruitless. I am not trying to circumvent the ArbCom, but to prevent further real life damage (which has already happened and which the ArbCom has acknowledged privately to me due to privacy issues) and continuing BLP problems remaining. Thanks.Richardmalter 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to an identical post by Richardmalter below. Crum375 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella Template:Blpwatch-links

It seems that a couple of editors, one anon 209.217.124.237 (talk · contribs) and one new-ish account Happy Fun Toy (talk · contribs), are keen to promote an attack site critical of the subject of the article. Deleting the offending posts should be sufficient. Bucketsofg 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ira Berlin

Berlin is a historian who writes about slavery and editor joelrosenblum (who has a huge beef with Berlin) has repeatedly posted assertions that Berlin is pro-slavery. He bases this solely on a reading of one of Berlin's books done by students at a high school, citing no scholars who agree with him. I have repeatedly removed the Berlin-is-pro-slavery section (called "Controversial Book Passages") because I think the argument that Berlin is pro-slavery is unbelievably wrong, because I think there is no "controversy" just because one editor and some high school students who obviously don't know much about history say there is, and because calling a historian of slavery who is still alive "pro-slavery" risks libel charges as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of the edit war and am hoping someone else can weigh in. For now the "Controversial Book Passages" section is in the article (joelrosenblun re-instated it) but I'm arguing that it should be removed entirely because it is absurd and, more importantly, potentially libelous. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Ira Berlin--Bigtimepeace 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Danny Pinaturo link to pornographic web site

The following was added to the Danny Pinaturo Wikipedia page by user 172.193.116.59 on January 7th at 19:28. It was removed by CieloEstrellado at 22:19 and reinserted again by 172.193.116.59 on January 8th at 4:41am.

According to Campfire Video [22], Mr. Pintauro has taken out an add on the adult gay male website http://www.manhunt.net/ advertising that he is looking for sexual playmates. The ad includes nude photographs of Mr. Pintauro. " I think the link is inappropriate for both the content the link points to and the link connection to a "for profit" web site. It also violates the Wikipedia living biography policy in my opinion: Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page:

I have removed it again and advised on talk it has been turned over to Biobraphies of living persons/noticeboard. Philbertgray 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Biography on Les Balsiger==Template:Blpwatch-links

There is a page on a Les Balsiger that is an obvious bio of a non-notable living person and is also an attack on this individual. "140.211.55.195 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)",

• Comment - this article is currently being considered on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (2nd nomination). I took a look at the article and don't see it as an attack article. --BigDT 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is about a living individual who is really not notable at all and is only sourced by religous articles from the source claiming to be wronged and a blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Self-contradiction - This is the exact opposite of the comment made by 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute)[23][24] in the first Les Balsiger AfD while deleting another participant's comment:
    • "I do not agree, he is a well known person in Oregon and think he should remain"

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Huard Template:Blpwatch-links

• Bill Huard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - subject of the article edits as User:Hueys20. The article is almost completely unsourced and could use a general cleanup and some assistance, particularly form anyone familiar with hockey, in finding sources. --BigDT 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

George A. Ricaurte Template:Blpwatch-links

• George A. Ricaurte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This has been a battleground for views on animal testing and the scientific method. Large chunks of unreferenced text with only a peripheral connection to the article subject have been repeatedly added. I have been reverting it to a stub and have said on the talk page that additions require verifiable sources. Could do with someone else having a look to see if you agree with my approach and to help to keep it in shape. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your approach about the retracted article, except that there is need a citation for both the original article and to the actual retraction in this article, rather than relying on the article on "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA."

But the article lacks balance. He has presumably done other scientific work, and it might be notable. Put it in, possibly as refs to the firtst paragraph.DGG 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gammell Template:Blpwatch-links

• Stephen Gammell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article about an author of children's books stayed vandalized for over a month with some nonsense claiming he was publishing pornography books. Several other editors have added unsourced negative information. Please keep an eye on it. --BigDT 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no problem when I checked. However...I almost hate to bring this up because he sounds like such a nice guy....but the article is completely unsourced and really gives the impression of a puff piece. Steve Dufour 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yisroel Dovid Weiss Template:Blpwatch-links

• Yisroel Dovid Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edit war, mainly dispute about whether subject is rabbi, per every source, or not per certain editors unsourced opinions. Should be noted that it is debatable whether in the subjects milieu (haredi judaism) there needs to be a formal granting of 'ordination' (semicha) for him to use this title. Although this is a secondary point, as despite claims like 'common knowledge' etc. not a single source has been offered even questioning his claim to the title. There is also the problem that some of these editors wish to introduce rumours about homosexuality, paedophilia, etc. Thanx in advance,  ⇒ bsnowball  16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clay Aiken Template:Blpwatch-links

• Clay Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edit war pushing POV. This article has been through mediation [25] and arbitration was requested and then withdrawn when a consensus for the topic format was reached. The history is in Archives 10-12. Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs) is now pushing POV edits regarding the sexuality issue and has reverted the page 4 times today. I don't want to get into an edit war and put a warning on his talk page which he ignored. Can someone please step in and help. It appears this user has a history of disruptive edits and has just come off a block. This is the edit that has the consensus [26] Maria202 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 corruption scandals in Chile Template:Blpwatch-links

• 2006 corruption scandals in Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) New, well referenced article with much potentially libelous text. The references are in Spanish, which I cannot read to determine whether the statements are true. The article may need someone to review it who reads Spanish. Thanks. -- Jreferee 01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura

• Yoshiaki Omura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is a biography of a living person in which the content is clearly disputed. While it is protected from editing and correction, false and misleading, poorly sourced, irresponsible and potentially libelous material is being exhibited, and Dr. Omura's reputation is being damaged. This is unacceptable. I have repeatedly removed such material and it was repeatedly replaced, and now I am disabled from editing the article though I am not unregistered or newly registered. PLEASE HELP. We should not need a law firm to help us remove such material.

Sincerely, Telomere+ Telomere+ 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the statements in the article are indeed negative to Dr Omura, but these statements appear to be clearly referenced. What do you mean by "poorly sourced"? Andrew Dalby 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have explained in some detail in Dr. Omura's article discussion section what I mean by poorly sourced, with examples, prior to removing any poorly sourced portions. My explanation was removed. Why? The main body of this Yoshiaki Omura article seems to have been put together by a person who acts like Dr. Omura's enemy and wishes to damage his reputation. To someone who knows Dr. Omura and works with him, as I do, the negative statements are obviously false and placed with an intent to damage. Please read my explanation in the "my talk" section of Telomere+.

In addition, some references found to contain erroneous information have been changed by their owners already, with apologies to Dr. Omura, and are outdated. My goal is not just to remove the poorly referenced and obviously false information that misleads people, but to publish the truth. As I stated, I have not newly registered; why preclude me from the right to remove damaging untrue material according to Wikipedia policy? Please do not refuse to enforce the relevant Wikipedia Policy in this case.Telomere+ 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso Template:Blpwatch-links

Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - nothing specific at the moment, but the primary editor of the article is a critic of the subject. There seem to be few other editors, the article is dense, and I think it could use a few more eyes... A Ramachandran 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. Andrew Dalby 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) Template:Blpwatch-links

In Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), several editors seem intent on adding information from and a link to an anti-Cohen blog. It has been repeated pointed out on the talk page by several other editors that blogs are not reliable sources and may not even be linked to in external links, but these editors persist in resinserting these unreliable sources. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion related to the blogs, Ekajati, not just what you want to read. You claim Cohen's blog is inherently permissable because he is the subject, but what is being said is that to the extent Cohen's blog and associated blogged statement of "Integrity" in response to critic's charges, which does really not meet the criteria for use because it contentious; unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; and makes claims about third parties and their motives for criticism; and whose claims are to be treated with caution per wikipedia; is being cited, then a critical blog containing responses to those charges by named subjects of Cohen's criticism should be referred also to retain NPOV. If as an alternative material from neither blog is mentioned, or the mere fact that Cohen and named critics have both established blogs advocating their respective positions without further information is mentioned, then you do not have, as you try and suggest, an issue with WP:LIVING that justifies your claims here. Your actual statment that:

"Also, please note that the use of the subject's blog is permitted, but only in an article about the subject. Do not attempt to retaliate by removing reference to and links to Cohen's blog. That could also result in administrative action."

not only mistates the actual policies for when a subject's blogs are not suitable, but does not adequately justify keeping reference to Cohen's blog entries based on wikipedia criteria just because you desire to retain the blog, and does not justify your a priori assumption of bad faith and "retaliation", and threats of adminstrative action based on claimed "retaliation". It is not "retaliation" to respond to your assumptions and POV editing. --Dseer 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that I am working from a POV is incorrect. I have nothing to do with Cohen whatsover. I am attempting to apply WP:LIVING as written and intended. It is you who have a POV issue, and don't seem to be able to allow WP:LIVING to take precedent over your apparent need to smear the subject. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You openly consider editors who disagree with you to be apparently motivated by "smearing" the subject, an admission of a biased and unsubstatiated judgement which proves the POV you deny. Ekajati, Wikipedia has three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. Your POV edits do not take this into account. It is you making personal attacks, issuing threats of blocking and talking about "reprisals" when your one sided, POV edits are challenged. Your repeated explanation for your edits, that "blogs are not permitted per WP:EL", is not what WP:EL actually says, and therefore your edits will be evaluated accordingly. --Dseer 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Information found in self-published ... websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." "A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source."

In summary, his own blog is permitted as an external link, and his own blog may be used as a source for NPOV biographical facts. No other blog may be, for BLP. DGG 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume from this summary you may not have read the full discussion here and in the article and considered it carefully as it is written. What I object to is use of selective cites from WP:LIVING and applying them to WP:ELwithout considering all applicable guidance, the impact on NPOV, and the discussion of other editors who already know all that. Per WP:LIVING, if it were true that "information" from the blog was was being cited in the article, it would not be permitted. And per WP:EL, if were true that Cohen's blog did not include "information" including criteria that WP:EL sites as an exception to using material from Cohen's self-published blog, that is being contentious, self serving/aggrandizing, and making unsubstantiated charges about third parties, it would be permitted, either if information was used in the article as Ekajati proposes, or simply kept as a link. But that is not the case. And, this does not mean as Ekajati alleges "links to blogs are not permitted per WP:EL". Rather, WP does not prohibit links where the blog is authoritative and when the link improves the overall article (in this case NPOV). It does not mean Cohen's blog and/or statements from it MUST be referenced or links or face charges of "retaliation" when it skews NPOV and is not really biographical in nature. Further, none of the proposals we were current disputing were to cite information from the critical blog in the article, but simply to identify the existence of (relative to Cohen) the best critical and authoritative link on a reply to Cohen's assertions, whether to provide the link or just reference that it exists, thus WP is not providing derogatory information in the article. Whereas Ekajati proposes to leave as information not even just that Cohen has responded to critics on his blog, to which there is no objection, but that he is quote "setting the record straight" regarding his critics which is a matter of judgement, not fact, while excluding even the fact that critics have responded to his claims when there was no attempt to include information on what those responses were. WP also says both the claims of religious partisans and their critics are to be considered carefully. The intent here is not to put WP in the middle of the dispute or cite poorly sourced information in the article, but simply point out in neutral language the NPOV fact that the dispute exists, and leave it at that. Ideally, true NPOV considers both sides cautiously, and since both sides are using blogs, NPOV would be crafting a way of simply saying something along the lines of Cohen makes assertions on his blog about his actions and critics, and named critics have made assertions about his actions and responded to his assertions about critics on their blog, which keeps to the verfiable facts and without implying Wikipedia has taken a position on this particular issue, which omission of either side would. The only concern here of the editors in question preserving NPOV within the framework of BLP, and avoding liability, of course. --Dseer 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerated unsourced criticism keeps being added to the article. Andries 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and since citation not provided, your deletion was justified. --Dseer 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This case should be closed

Ekajati, who brought this unjustified complaint against other editors here rather than engage in dialogue, has been banned for repeated sockpuppetry. Ekajati, A Ramachandran, and Hanuman Das, who have been tag teaming in making similar complaints about editors in various articles, are in fact the same person, along with other "socks". A Ramachandran and Hanuman were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Ekajati. See [[27]]. --Dseer 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced Rumors

What is the policy on sourced rumors in general? Also here are a couple of particular instances I have questions about:

• What is Wikipedia's policy on properly sourced but completely unfounded rumors? Rumors which have absolutely no evidence to back them up, but nonetheless are well known rumors such as the insidious Richard Gere gerbilling rumor that people keep re-inserting into his article.

I'd say, if rumours are really widely circulated (in published sources), and are shown to be false (ditto), it is probably appropriate to mention the fact, with references both to a source for the rumour and to a source for its falsity. Andrew Dalby 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about completely unfounded rumors which exist but are completely relegated to a small group of people. Such as the little known rumor that Michael Jordan retired in 1993 because he was banned from the NBA for a period of time for gambling? Quadzilla99 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If restricted to "a small group of people", that suggests to me that the rumour is not published and is not notable. For both reasons, not appropriate to a Wikipedia article. Andrew Dalby 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lu Sheng-yen Template:Blpwatch-links

Also True Buddha School Template:Blpwatch-links

• Lu Sheng-yen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & True Buddha School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unsourced critical information and editorial comments are being inserted into these articles by anons. A Ramachandran 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add them to my watchlist. If the negative opinions of other Buddhist groups can be documented from published sources, I see no reason not to mention them. But if this claim is added to the article without documentation, I agree it should be reverted. Andrew Dalby 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Silver Ravenwolf Template:Blpwatch-links

A number of people with negative opinions of the subject are adding links to what appear to be their personal websites espousing this negative opinion. These are self-published personal essays by non-notable people. Some sites appear not to be personal sites, but if you check the copyright notice and compare the name to the site registrant, you will see that they own the site. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful about neutrality. Since there is controversy, mentioned in the article but referenced only to a pro-Silver Ravenwolf page, the article is at present slightly unbalanced. It's not a good idea to remove all the opposition. Andrew Dalby 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

all of the linked articles are personal sites, and given that 1. they're sites of otherwise published authors (not random geocities people) and 2. they're being linked mainly for analysis and things clearly stated as opinion, not spreading of rumors, this seems to be a good way to add legitimate criticism that deserves an airing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Biographies of Living Persons

Thanks for the reminder re: this policy.

I am reviewing entries on living persons in the "List of Surnames of European Royalty and Nobiity" to make sure this Wikipedia policy is adhered to.

I am also reviewing the available materials on the Internet to discover any "sensitivity" or "respect" issues (i.e., if an action for libel has been filed by the "offended" personality) have been raised against a "nickname" of a living person which is in this "List".

Kazimieras Garšva Template:Blpwatch-links

• Kazimieras Garšva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Recently a user has started to remove referenced information that may present this person in negative light (he is a leader of an organization described as 'extremist' among other things). Comments on the talk page appreciated; I am pretty sure WP:LIVE does not mean 'remove all information that does not present the person in positive light'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The contributor above in particular article began to adding doubtful and poorly sourced information [28]. Among other information, which he added, was doubtful and poorly sourced statement that particular person in question leads and “extremist” organization. Contributor produce only one doubtful and insufficient for such statement source: [29]. Please note that particular source does not talk bout Mr. Kazimieras Garšva at all. The only lead to Mr. Kazimieras Garšva in this source is only one time mentioned word “Vilnija”. As I stated several times in different positions it is not clear if the “Vilnija” mentioned in source actually is the same companionship “Vilnija” which Mr. Kazimieras Garšva leads. Because simple googling yields dozen of words “Vilnija” [30]. I informed that such partial mentioning and use of one doubtful source to label organization lead by person is not enough.[31], agreeably by WP:living I removed doubtful and controversial information [32] , but particular contributor restored it [33], provided “motives” by him on talk [34] is clear violation of WP:living, which states “Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. What this particular contributor demonstrated is conjectural interpretation. Question about ratability of source in this context was raised and by different contributors [35], (as well as [36]) but was once again restored by this particular contributor. WP:Living policy stats that “Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.” Rejecting doubtful source about "extremist" other provided sources on this particular article is not third-party sources. These sources exclusively Polish, note that Mr. Kazimieras Garšva have interests and investigates committed crimes by Poles, as well as Polish support for soviet regime during national awakening. So these Polish sources should be used with care, especially then particular contributor do not hesitate to mislead labeling these sources such as [37] providing information that source is “Lithuanian embassy site“, while in reality it is some sort of tourist site. Please note that in current article still there are badly described sources, which even do not mentioned who is author etc. But problems with this issue is taking place and in different article Vilnija (please note with what inspiration article was created [38] ) And yet again particular contributor Piotrus failed to stick to the policy. He motivates that “For starters, WP:LIVING concenrs itself with people, not organziations.” (speech not corrected), while WP:Living clearly states: “These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.”. In this article (Vilnija) we already have the same doubtful statements about “extremist”. But this article goes even further. Mr. Garšva works here described as “quasi-academic” (once again WP:OR; WP:NPOV; WP:Living violation) (please note person has Ph.D) and even stated that “the quasi-academic works of its leader, Kazimieras Garšva, have been very negatively received by Polish government[9][10], media [11][12][13], and on occasion criticized by the Lithuanian government as well” while provided source do not concur provided text about Lithuanian government actions at all. Seeing such mislead such statements were corrected [39],[40] , there was asked that sources and text should be checked [41]. But every thing, including and article clarification and added facts, was removed by particular contributor Piotrus.[42]. So particular contributor do not provide any third party sources, but also ignores and Wikipedia policies. Could anybody urgently intervene in this matter?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.K (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Sahaja Yoga Template:Blpwatch-links

Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bothi (talk · contribs) is adding libelous commentary, first to the talk page, then to the article. A Ramachandran 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

William Moseley (actor) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Gir29456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -This user has consistently added uncited and unverifiable personal information to William Moseley (actor). They have not responded to messages placed either on their usertalk page or the article talk. It seems to me that a final warning (You will be blocked if you continue this behavior) is called for but need, obviously, administrator input and approval for such a remedy. //Eluchil404 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank Rosenblatt

It is unclear why the Frank Rosenblatt page links to the biographies of living persons page, as Rosenblatt is not a living person and hasn't been one for some time.

Dmargulis 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kate Middleton Template:Blpwatch-links

Kate Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I recently added in some information from PEOPLE magazine about Kate Middleton to the article. According to the rules on this site, it was reliable information worth mentioning. I read the article and linked to the website where it can be found. However, there has been some disagreement on that. I have tried to discuss the situation with the other party on the discussion page, stating that right now the only information about Kate Middleton is in magazines and media coverage. I also stated, if that is not allowed to be in the article then there really is no point for there to be an article on Kate Middleton as there are no other sources of information about her but the media and magazines. The other party still has insists on deleting the information from PEOPLE magazine stating their magazine sources are more accurate. I guess my question is, what is the best way to resolve this? What is the best thing to do? If any of the information is incorrect to post on the article, then I would happy to delete it. RosePlantagenet 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• PEOPLE is a magazine that is acknowledged worldwide. What is their source? If it's a tabloid newspaper or similar magazine they can be shown to be inaccurate. Otherwise, can't both sources be used? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point, nothing wrong with both as long as they accurate. I do not know what sources they are using, the editor stated several times they had read numerous reiable sources, however, when I suggested they add them into the article the editor never did. As of right now, two third parties have stated the information can stay in, so that part of the dispute seems to be over. RosePlantagenet 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby Template:Blpwatch-links==

The Larry Darby article is currently the subject of a minor edit war. The subject of the article has been repeatadly blanking the page claiming libel but not naming any particular statements as libelous. I attempted to deleted the unsourced statements but Mr. Darby apears to want the entier thing removed. I have decided to stop editing and mark the current version (an offer to represent anyone who believes they have been slandered in lawsuits against "Wikipedia") as autobiographic.

--Selket 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking from outside at the article, a good deal of it is poorly sourced BLP--just read it. Possibly a NPOV article could be written. DGG 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be editing it himself now and actually keeping some of the challenges. He did, incedently change the word holocaust to holohoax and then back again. --Selket 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Selkat has again caused Wikipedia to post poorly sourced, atrociously written, content designed to disparage the subject. After an exchange of e-mail with general counsel for Wikipedia it was agreed to not re-post the libelous content and leave only the factual statement "Larry Darby was the runner-up candidate for Alabama Attorney-General in the 2006 Democratic Primary. Darby garnered 43% of the vote, carrying 33 of 67 Alabama counties. [1]" For a few days Wikipedia abided by the settlement agreement. Then Selkat comes along and undoes the agreement. Selkat even accused me of being unethical! Obviously Selkat has violated Wikipedia policy and has some personal vendetta against the subject.

Michael Prue Template:Blpwatch-links

Michael Prue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anon user, known to be the same person as the Cheri DiNovo violator above, has repeatedly edited both Michael Prue and Robert Hunter to assert that Prue's byelection campaign in 2001 orchestrated a smear campaign against Hunter. The controversy in question did take place, and does need to be discussed in a neutral fashion in both articles, but no verifiable media source has ever found that Prue or his political party were the orchestrators of it. Prue's article has been sprotected; at present, Hunter's has not. Editor continues, however, to respond to any reversions with the same tactic as at DiNovo, alleging that any objection to their material is a partisan attempt by "NDP attack queers" to hide the truth, rather than a straight and neutral application of Wikipedia's BLP and verifiability policies. As at DiNovo, IP numbers vary but always resolve to APNIC. Temporary blocks have been applied, but because the user is on a dynamic IP blocks don't necessarily resolve the issue for any length of time. Bearcat 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Hunter was sprotected on January 24. Bearcat 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay Template:Blpwatch-links

Gordon Ramsay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It appears from the page on Celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay that he has died today, January 23rd. However there is no account in the article as of how and when this should have happened, and a google search did not turn up anything about him being dead. Does anybody know if this is true or not? Rudbeck 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There must have been a confusion with the death of David Dempsey, a top-chef of Gordon Ramsay BBC News. JoJan 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Csuri Template:Blpwatch-links

Charles Csuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This stub was created recently and there has been debate on whether detailed information about his relatives should be included. A recent diff indicates that there might be two or more of Csrui's relatives adding or modifying this personal information. I would say that this content is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Swaggart Template:Blpwatch-links

Jimmy Swaggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Please see Talk:Jimmy_Swaggart#Cleanup.3F_NPOV.3F_How_about_WP:BLP.21 for explanation. CyberAnth 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah II of Jordan Template:Blpwatch-links

Abdullah II of Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The text "Mathematically, His mother's pregnancy was considerably less than nine months at the time of his birth, which might confirm the claim that he is an illegitimate son to King Hussein" has been repeatedly replaced on the page. I assert that it's both original research (as indicated by the "might confirm") and a WP:BLP violation unless the assertion of illegitimacy can be supported by references. Other editors disagree with me. Additional opinions and advice would be welcome! --ElKevbo 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dare Obasanjo Template:Blpwatch-links

Dare Obasanjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Should TechCrunch blame in the vandalization of wikipedia be reverted into the article ?

Michael Savage (commentator)‎ Template:Blpwatch-links

• EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User continually makes unsourced allegations that Savage is a fascist. Several warnings have been given to the user both on the article talk page, and the user talk page, but he continues to insert this potetnially slanderous material. No sources have been given to substaniate the claim, and the only link provided says nothing of the sort.

Diffs on the article

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]

ect

Most recent warning on article talk page:

• [48]

Relevant warning on user talk:

• [49]

--RWR8189 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RWR8189's assessment. EnglishEfternamn continues to be disruptive by inserting unsourced allegations, most specifically with regards to Savage's defense of Marines accused of crimes. He takes a section of text meant to describe Savage's position and adds a final sentence such as "Critics see this as proof that Savage is fascist", adds a fact-tag and moves the entire paragraph to the "Criticism" section, making a description of Savage's believe seem like a criticism. Regarding WP:BLP, Jimbo has already weighed in saying that placing a fact-tag on unsourced info is not acceptable, the unsourced info has to be swiftly deleted. This has been explained to EnglishEfternamn many times, yet he ignores it and continues to be disruptive.--WilliamThweatt 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good day, I would like to take this time to talk in my own defense. The cited content in question carries proper references. It can be hard to find these references at times because the layout of the website is designed in such a manner that makes it constantly changing. Therefore, involuntary redirections have taken place in some instances. I apologise for this and will work to make sure these citations are DIRECT. The citations are correct, nonetheless as long as the server on the website in question does not redirect.

I don't know the degree of revelance this holds, but I must state that to assess the credibility of these users, one must consider their past conduct. RWR8189 has been following about every page I edit and giving blanket reversions without reason, and accusing my edits of being vandalism, which I have warned him/her about.

WilliamThweatt on the other hand has been a bigger hinderance to my wish to edit articles. As soon as I begin trying to contribute to the Michael Savage page, this user made false complaints to administrators, one of which sent be threatening e-mails, and I received a few threatening e-mails from WilliamThweatt himself, how he found out what my e-mail is, I don't know, but I was willing to overlook this at the time. He has now resorted to personal attacks once again, and I feel as if my right to contribute to the pages has been subject to strong, un-dying intimidation. I wish to peacefully co-exist with these users and seek a resolve.(EnglishEfternamn 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I will not respond to the above accusations as this is not the correct forum to do so, however this is the source that the user inserts in the article to allege support of fascism. It seems to be a fan site of Savage and is not a reliable source. Regardless, this fan site does not accuse him of fascism, and implication that it does would be original research This uncited implication is potentially slanderous and cannot be tolerated.--RWR8189 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you being directed properly? I'm looking right at the references now...(EnglishEfternamn 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

The word "fascist" does not appear on the cited page. Implying that the content of the page on this unreliable source proves that Savage is somehow a fascist is original research and not acceptable.--RWR8189 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To both users: How about this? I propose a mutual truce. Both of you apologise and state you were wrong for making these un-warrented complaints, and I'll take my edits elsewhere, at least until I can perfect the citations, which are in fact gennuine. Deal?(EnglishEfternamn 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I most certainly will not apologize for attempting to enforce such an important Wikipedia policy in WP:BLP. Thanks.--RWR8189 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You've done no such thing. A violation of the rules must take place beforehand for such a situation to occur. Thanks.(EnglishEfternamn 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

And once again, are you viewing the right page, or the redirection page?(EnglishEfternamn 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I'll refer you to this section of WP:BLP and what Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

--RWR8189 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I think you need to apply this concept to your own editing style, to compell you to be more honest. Real resources on a real individual have been used, you have refused to listen to my explanation as to why the link does not always show up, I'm working on that. I have also offered a truce, a peaceful co-existence, and you have refused that as well.(EnglishEfternamn 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

EnglishEfternamn, I and other editors have gone to great lengths to explain this to you. The allegations of fascism you are inserting are not sourced on the page you are directing the reader to. Until you actually have the proper citation for your allegations, do not insert them, as it would be in violation of WP:BLP. In regards to your edits to the Hamdania paragraph, we have repeatedly explained to you why this can't be included as it is OR. Please think long and hard about your actions. Its good that you are passionate about editing this encyclopedia, but there are rules that you must follow, including WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:CIVIL. (To anyone interested, I and WilliamThweat already had a fight with him over this same material back in december.)--Mbc362 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on. A number of editors from all sides of the political spectrum have been very patient with this user and have tried to explain to him why he is so very clearly in the wrong. They shouldn't have to put up with this any longer. Gamaliel 05:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that various users have sent me threats. This is a violation of a number of rules, and the users here going out of the way to intimidate me are being supported by crooked admins. Gamaliel, if these threats persist, I will have no choice but to report administrator abuse.(EnglishEfternamn 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Please provide a link to these alleged threats and I will investigate them myself. Gamaliel 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And for the 29th time, the references are gennuine, but it can be hard to be directed properly. Try clicking to the link several times, it could be your browser is not up to date. Again, I should mention that earlier in this section, I was willing to take my editing ambitions elsewhere on the grounds that William Thweatt and RWR apologise for unwarrented accusations. We all have much to contribute here and I feel a peaceful resolve is in need here. My offer still stands, and I hope we can stay on good terms.( EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

• EnglishEfternamn has once again inserted the disputed content which violates WP:BLP. It can be seen here.--RWR8189 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, have you checked the citations, because I am reading them right now, at this very moment.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have cited Savage saying a couple random stupid and offensive things. That's fine. What's wrong with the section is that you have strung them together to push a claim that he advocates fascism and then attributed that claim to unnamed and unsourced (and probably nonexistent) "critics". Gamaliel 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that such critics in question are indeed both sourced and existent?---- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then please source them and end this problem. Do not once again reinsert the same unreliable source and claim it says something that it doesn't.--RWR8189 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no footnote or other source for this claim that I can see: "For statements such as this, critics state that Michael Savage takes a militaristic approach to solving problems in American society." Gamaliel 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say as I am looking at the refs right now...I'll have to try to get the link right again, I guess.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark (journalist)‎ Template:Blpwatch-links

Citylightsgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has complained on the administrator's noticeboard about the editing of the British journalist's article. The user posting here is involved in this dispute, but has done so in order to speed up the resolution of this issue. Philip Cross 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Steven Kagen

Steven Kagen went to Appleton West HS but graduated from Appleton East

Mike Huckabee Template:Blpwatch-links

• Mike Huckabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated insertion of a paragraph criticizing Mike Huckabee (a former governor of an American state with possible Presidential ambitions) for not ordering a new investigation of a criminal case. Includes no sources for any claims except a single quotation (and that source may be inadequate), and editorial statement like, "The West Memphis Three ordeal has become internationally known as a debacle of the Arkansas justice system." A.J.A. 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films Template:Blpwatch-links

A disaster waiting to happen. Hoaxes, kids adding people on there, etc. All unverified. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly Template:Blpwatch-links

• Ruth Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - On the Talk page to article Ruth Kelly User:Dave left the following comment about Ruth Kelly: there's plenty of evidence she's a ... (deleted as recommended) ...-cat.[50]. I recommended him to reconsider (aka delete) his comment as it is a derogatory, insulting statement that, even if viewed as an users personal opinion, violates WP:TPG and especially WP:BLP. As User:Dave has no intent to retract[51] his comment, I’m seeking advice about whether the statement in question really violates our policies and must be deleted or not. -- Túrelio 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, insulting people violates WP:BLP. I've deleted talk and left a message on the talk page. Tyrenius 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Túrelio 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I think there are two issues here.

1. I wasn't aware that it was against policy to do that, and for breaking policy I apologise.
2. I don't think that it should be against policy to express an opinion about someone on an article talk page, especially when it is clear that it is an individual user's opinion. How does one go about getting a debate on this policy? Dave 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Har Gobind Khorana

72.64.122.196 is vandalizing Har Gobind Khorana page with unsourced claims and even changing the name in the narrative. I think this person wants to somehow make him into a Sikh, even though his own Nobel biography does not mention it. I have reversed this vandalism but I suspect he will be at again soon.DaveBorman 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic Template:Blpwatch-links

Prior to mid-2001, Free Republic was not registered as a non-profit corporation. Under the law, it was a sole proprietorship. Therefore any libelous statements about the period prior to mid-2001 are libelous statements about Free Republic's owner and founder: a living person named Jim Robinson.

Jim Robinson has successfully sued the City of Fresno and won an out-of-court settlement of $60,000 (and cost the city $100,000 or more in legal fees) for a press release describing Free Republic as a "hate group." This proves that they are inclined to litigate. Litigious people must be handled with care.

The Free Republic article here at Wikipedia is being "owned" by a pair of left-wing partisans from a rival website called Democratic Underground. I'm convinced that they don't care whether Wikipedia gets sued. Their only concern is to insert or link, in the Free Republic article, the most derogatory information on the Internet that they can find.

Some time ago, they found a very derogatory article from 1999 (in the pre-2001 period I described) that was purportedly written by TJ Walker. The article cannot be found on TJ Walker's website, although an inaccessible link bearing a title that is similar to the title of the article can be found. This was self-published anyway, and could not be used under WP:BLP guidelines even if it could be found.

It was, however, republished by a partisan left-wing website called AmericanPolitics.com. This website carefully couched its republication in weasel words such as "TJ Walker claims ..." Clearly this would also fail to qualify under WP:BLP guidelines. Nevertheless, it was inserted in the Wikipedia article about Free Republic.

The purported "TJ Walker article" claims that death threats against Bill and Hillary Clinton had been posted at Free Republic and allowed to remain there for several months. This is a lie. Threats of violence have always been removed immediately from Free Republic. Abruptly, and without explanation, AmericanPolitics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued.

The partisan Wikipedians from Democratic Underground, undaunted, scoured the Internet and found an archived copy, and it is now linked at the Free Republic article with the "death threat" accusation, in the lead of the article. Anyone who attempts to remove it is immediately targeted with verbal abuse and accusations of sockpuppetry.

Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued. Thank you. Dino 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Free Republic was not a sole proprietrship as Dino claims. It was a LLC. From L.A. Times vs. Free Republic [1999] "Unable to present any evidence of transformativeness, Defendants are forced to falsely portray “[t]he [Free Republic] site [as] a not for profit enterprise.” Defendants’ Motion 6:20-21, 7:5 (relying on the Declaration of Howard K. Szabo). In fact, the Free Republic website is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of “Internet discussion and marketing.” Wayland Decl., §§ 9-10, Exhs. H & I (fictitious business name statement for Free Republic). Free Republic is not -- and never has been -- a non-profit entity." LA Times v Free Republic

Also see : "Thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com." Is Wiki safe from Libel Liability- Fairness & Accuracy For All 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Note : That Admin User:Jossi who is heavily involved with BLP, LIVING, and re-writing RS V to ATT is of the opinion that the source is fine, even as he accepts as fact Dino's unproven claim that the article was 'pulled' for being libelous! Jossi wrote : "Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from his website, on the basis that it was libelous? [unknown] Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC) link Why is Dino even persuing this, when Jossi, who is the long time mediator on the Free Republic article, [just now returning to medition] said it was OK? - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Note : Dino writes above : Re: "The purported "TJ Walker article"... Abruptly, and without explanation, American Politics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued."

Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted TJ Walker personally and that Walker told him that he never wrote the article in question! "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here Troubling - Very Troubling. (TJ Walker and APJ have been asked to confirm or deny Dino's very public claims that noted author TJ Walker NRO plagiarized the article attributed him - or had it ghost written - or whatever it is that Dino claims) Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any question of immunity from liability, Wikipedia has strict policies against the posting of libelous information. One admin who is involved in rewriting those policies does not a consensus make. Those policies have been continuously disregarded with regard to this article. Dino 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Er.... uh... sorry to break the bad news to you Dino, but you're suffering from a total misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its policies. The first words in WP:V say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's why, for instance, articles are allowed on Wiki using claims by Fringers who argue that Saddam did orchestrate, fund and direct the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Cause these nutty claims were published somewhere notable - this making them WP V. The fact that I can cite the US Gov and the words of Bush himself saying Saddam was not involved in 9/11, does not mean that I can get the claims saying he was deleted from Wiki. It behooves you to read some WP, Dino. Seriously. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein falls under "Significant Public Figures" as described in WP:BLP. Therefore, an article related to him can contain notable accusations. Jim Robinson is not such a public figure.

The accusations made against Saddam Hussein are notable all by themselves. Although most people don't accuse Saddam Hussein of directing 9/11, the number of people who do is a lot more the number of people who accuse Jim Robinson of publishing death threats.

The accusation that Saddam orchestrated 9/11 is (or should be) described as a minority opinion. Even if that justified including the reference, you'd have to say "a small minority of people including TJ Walker believe that Free Republic posted death threats".

Also, if there is significant doubt that TJ Walker actually wrote the article, then it isn't a reliable source even for TJ Walker's opinions. We don't need to *prove*, using an official statement from Walker, that Walker didn't write the article in order to reject it as a source.

I think you're trying to distort WP:BLP. Unproven accusations (even implicit ones) of posting death threats are exactly the thing the policy was meant to prevent. Ken Arromdee 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is accusing Jim Robinson of making death threats. There are multiple RS V sources documenting (not alleging) death threats posted on Free Republic, as there are other political forums. A new one Dino's 'claims' that TJ Walker's admitted to him that TJ plagarised his own 1999 article entitiled 'Is FreeRepublic.com really Deaththreat.com' (or had it ghost written - or whatever it is that Dino claims - he won't exactly say - except that Dino says TJ 'denied' writing it to him) (then the story changed) are not credible, and his smears against this notable published author CBS News are reprehensible. They will be addressed. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether the accusation is "making death threats" or "publishing death threats" is irrelevant. And whether TJ actually published the article is only partly relevant. Even if he really published the article, it isn't a notable accusation unless it's been published in a lot of places. And even if it was as notable as the accusations against Saddam Hussein, you'd have to say "a few people accuse Free Republic of posting death threats", just like you must do with Saddam. You can't just write the article as if the posting of death threats was a fact--any more than you could write an article that Saddam being responsible for 9/11 was a fact. Ken Arromdee 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's no WP:RS, remove -simple. AmericanPolitics.com wasn't an RS in first place. <<-armon->> 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Ayers

While I thought that the text was legit due to the source (Atlanta Journal-Constitution), it turns out that the referenced articel doesn't exist! I've commented out everything but the 1st sentence for now, but would appreciate some help on it. Also note, I only found out because of a blog picking up on it. 68.39.174.238 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. Or suggested it anyway. He doesn't seem to be that important yet, even if one reporter at the Journal-Constitution is a fan. :-) Steve Dufour 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the information you deleted - it's well sourced (and the source is not the Journal Constitution). I also object to your prod so you'll have to take it to AfD. I'm not trying to be contentious but I disagree with you on these issues. --ElKevbo 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm letting the article alone. As I said on the talk page he is a borderline case for notability. I would think that his arrest for DUI wouldn't be proper to mention under WP policy, but I am not an expert on that. Steve Dufour 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Al Amoudi and black billionaires

User:Yom repeatedly and persistently cites a blog[[52]] in articles Mohammed Al Amoudi and black billionaires to make the controverisial claim that Al Amoudi(a dark skinned Arab) is the richest black person in the world contradicting a reliable source which claim Oprah Winfrey is[[53]], and also contradicting a reliable source that classifies Al Amoudi as the world’s 8th richest Arab![[54]]. I see no evidence that Al Amoudi self-identifies as black and he is actually of predominantly Middle Eastern origin. His father is Yemeni and though his mother is Ethiopian, many studies claim that Ethiopians have substantial caucasoid admixture from the Near East[[55]]. (User:Yom is notorious for using original research to dismiss such genetic studies in an apparent effort to label everyone black, including Europeans! Talk:Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe#Yom is violating Wikipedia policy ).

As a mixed race person, I find it incredibley offensive and presumptuous of certain editors to simply brand mixed race public figures with racial labels they do not neccecarily accept. I also think it’s incredibley inappropriate to state that someone who is less than half black in ancestry is black because this is a throwback to the racist one drop rule of the segrated South and is inconsistent with how millions of mixed race people self-identify[[56]]. All of this puts the statement in violation of wikipidea living person policy which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. [2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.[[57]]. User:Yom ignores such warnings claiming Nazret.com is a reliable source, however he is citing from the Ethio-blog section and WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources clearly prohibits the use of blogs saying Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. Blogs are further condemed by WP:RS#Editorial oversight which states that Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature). If blogs are not considered acceptable sources in regular articles concerning noncontroversial topics then how in the world can they be considered acceptable sources for discussing topics as controverisial as race in articles as sensitive as those dealing with living persons, where stanadards are supposed to be much higher? Vexperiential

Part of the problem is the word "black" itself. No human is literally black in color; the word "black" is just a label put on certain people with darker skin color shades. In the United States Mr. Amoudi would be considered "black" although he would not be in many other countries. Many African Americans would not be considered "black" in other parts of the world. I think Mr. Amoudi should be mentioned on a "Black Billionaires" page, but with some kind of disclaimer explaining his ancestry. Steve Dufour 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)p.s. I just checked out the Black billionaires article. It was quite interesting and a great example of the kind of information WP can provide. p.p.s. Tiger Woods is "black", that is American culture would put the label "black" on him, even if he is not African American.

Oh I agree that anyone with any known degree of sub-Saharan ancestry should be mentioned in the article but I object to someone who is not predominantly black being described as black without a reliable source giving that opinion. And I'm not sure that he would be considered black in America. Many members of the Saudi Royal family look blacker than he is but they're not regarded as black in America. Generally mixed race people are only considered black in America to avoid calling them white, but if there's another ethnic group they fall into such as Arab, Hispanic, or Asian, they are often described by those terms. Vexperiential

We seem to be agreeing. Mention him in the article, along with Tiger Woods, but don't say they are black---just that some people have said they are. Steve Dufour 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the source they're using to quote people describing Al Amoudi as black is a blog. As I showed above, wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources, and when making statements of a controversial nature in a living person biography, wikipedia requires the sourcing be excellent. Technically he's not black. I bet the vast majority of his DNA would come from the middle east which makes him Arab. There are black people in the article who are almost billionaires, so there can be billionaires in the article who are almost black, but I don't think we can quote anyone calling them black unless it's a reliable source which we don't have. Vexperiential

It's not WP's job to give the final answer on these kind of questions. I think the article would be incomplete without mentioning him and saying that some people do count him as black. Steve Dufour 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the article does have a chart showing he's the richest billionaire with any known sub-Saharan ancestry, while Oprah's the only billionaire of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry. But what concerns me is that some editors have gone further and quote Nazret.com's Ethioblog describing him as a black billionaire. I prefer to let readers decide for themselves if a billionaire who is only half Ethiopian (and Ethiopians are only about half black) is a black billionaire, rather than quote a source as unreliable as a blog making the incredibley controversial claim that a prominent Arab billionaire is a black. Vexperiential

Again we seem to be in agreement. The article should mention him, but not say for sure that he is "black". Steve Dufour 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in the article. We need more objective outsiders like you to keep an eye on it as so many people try to use to promote political agendas. Did you notice how user:Halaqah tried to change the opening sentence from this article refers to actual or incipient black or part-black billionaires to just this article refers to actual or incipient black billionaires in a POV pushing attempt to brand everyone mentioned in the article as just black even though people like Tiger Woods have publicly stated that it bothers them to be described as black. Editors like that are the reason I hop you and others continue to keep an eye on that article. Vexperiential

Stop mischaracterizing my actions Vexperiential. I never said he was a black billionaire, nor did the article ever say that he was. It simply stated that Nazret.com (see the talk page of the article and of the individual's article for my comment on Vexperiential's charactrization of the page as a blog that anyone can post articles to) considered him as such. It never defined him as a black billionaire outright. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability question

I have been doing research on a person for non-WP purposes, and a colleague has pointed out to me that he might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To summarize the commonly available information:

• He is a member of British/Irish nobility and a descendant of William the Conqueror
• He is mentioned by name in the existing WP article about his father, specifically with reference to his nobility
• He is a senior corporate executive in a company that is developing an international reputation in its area of specialty (which is admittedly quite narrow)
• He is the inspiration for a song that is on one of the all-time top-selling British albums
• He was recently interviewed and photographed for an article in a major magazine with international circulation.
  • As a side point to this, the magazine is a "men's magazine" and the link to this article is NSFW for many of our readers, so a link to the article would probably not be appropriate.

Before I invest the time to write up this article, I'd appreciate some feedback on whether more experienced editors would feel this person is notable. Feel free to reply to my talk page, and I will also check back here. Risker 11:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He sounds like he is notable enough by the standards that usually prevail here. Steve Dufour 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"

Well for me the key question is can every fact in your article be REFERENCED by a reliable source (preferabley an on-line source so that others can fact check you). If the person is notable enough to have mentioned in reliable on-line sources I would say he is notable. Otherwise you have an article with no references that can be easily checked and seeing as it's a living person article where standards are so much higher, that's potentially problematic. Vexperiential

Allison Munn File I keep going to Allison Munn, to find someone keeps saying that she is engaged, well... she is not!So who ever is putting this,IMDB.com is very trustworthy, and is claiming cleared that "she single"!Teddey 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jarosław Kaczyński Template:Blpwatch-links

Recently in the article on current prime minister of Poland some users have started using references that seem dubious to claim he is gay. It appears few if any of reliable media has repeated such views. See this discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Zalmay Khalilzad

Someone is amusing themselves by indicating that Ambassador Khalilzad is Jewish instead of Muslim. While, as a Jew, I would be very pleased to welcome to the tribe a person with the caliber of Ambassador Khalilzad's outstanding accomplishments, his other biographers seem pretty clear that he professes the Muslim faith. Unfortunately, these kinds of edits targeting a living person reflect poorly on Wikipedia when they remain unaddressed. I hate to see such a great project be attacked by weakminded folks who think they are somehow insulting either Jews or Muslims, or anyone else by such antics68.163.244.46 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article appeared to be okay per above on my check. Removed uncited details about subject's personal life. CyberAnth 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian McLaren Template:Blpwatch-links

FYI - an anonymous user keeps spamming the Brian McLaren article with a link to a blog with inaccurate and libellous information regarding the living person. I have tried to reason with the anon in discussions to no avail, and even recommended the reading of WP:NOT explaining that articles on living persons are not to be used for grandstanding and as a repository of links to critical articles.

I can't spend my time on editing wars, so if someone is willing to take this on and deal with it I would appreciate it. --Virgil Vaduva 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Made post to incidents to have anon IP banned for 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anon_IP_keeps_spamming_controversial_links_into_Brain_Mclaren_and_has_violated_3RR. CyberAnth 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website Template:Blpwatch-links

• {{Talk:Cult[58]|Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website}} - An editor has used a defamation word to describe cult exit counselor Rick Ross [59]. The definitions of this defamation word are here. The editor was recommended to delete the defamation as a slander-like statement. The editor refused and repeated the defamation, apparently claiming a truth defense based on this reference. The problem is that Mr. Ross was not convicted of the actions that might or might not marginally justify the defamation word. Even if the editor is metaphorically justified in describing Mr. Ross this way, as a public figure under libel/slander law, there is an issue of WP:NPOV, since Mr. Ross was alleged to have committed a crime but was acquitted. (I don't know who's correct, but I feel it's my duty to report my concern of a possible slander/libel legal exposure to Wikimedia Foundation.) // Milo 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Audrey Seiler Template:Blpwatch-links Would someone mind checking this very confused page out?

Audrey Seiler was recently tagged as a hoax, was missed by the rampant {{blp}} tagging spree, and, to me, just sounds wrong. Would someone else read through this and let me know if this is "just me"? 68.39.174.238 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the substantial unreferenced information and information containing insufficient source per WP:BLP. I added fact templates to the remaining text, where needed. The article is about a hoax. The article is not a hoax. -- Jreferee 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding support to the above actions here. CyberAnth 10:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edith González Template:Blpwatch-links

The source for the paragraph called Controversy comes from the Spanish article Bebé de Edith González, fruto de inseminación artificial. That article translates as:

It is now being said (by no credited reliable source) that her baby was conceived by articial insemination and that each week the rumor is growing stronger that the baby belongs to a former presidential candidate who is not named in the article.

This is rumor built upon innuendo and should not be in the bio of a living person. While her pregnancy is mentioned in her IMDb article, there is no reference to this there. Morenooso 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire "Controversies" section which was entirely unsourced. Nothing of such an uncited nature should be in a BLP. CyberAnth 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tariq Ramadan Template:Blpwatch-links

Hi. I don't if this is the right place or not, but this article is attracting a lot of ip vandalism and edits like this. Please check the page history. Is it time for semi-protection? <<-armon->> 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd try WP:RFPP first. MER-C 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Page looks quite good from a WP:BLP perspective. CyberAnth 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacqui Abbott Template:Blpwatch-links

Why does this page have a biography of another apparently unrelated musician tacked on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Abbott If there's a reason I'm missing I apologise for wasting your time! -- 195.112.33.187 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a mergeto template to the article. The Jacqui Abbott article has been a stub for exactly one year today. -- Jreferee 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Al Gore III

There's a long-term tit-for-tat war going on between editors of the articles Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, and Al Gore III. The cycle goes something like this:

1. Editor "Dem" (not real username) adds detailed info about Bush twins drug/alcohol arrests to their respective articles.
2. Editor "Rep" complains, but can't get consensus to remove the material. In retaliation, they add info about Al Gore III's drug/alcohol arrests to the Al Gore III article (which is basically just a stub).
3. Editor "Dem" complains, but can't get consensus to remove the material. Stalemate.
4. Editor "Admin" removes material from all the articles citing WP:BLP.
5. Repeat.

I'm giving up on this one. If anyone else wants to give it a shot, be my guest. Kaldari 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete all three articles? :-) Steve Dufour 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. MER-C 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Simonon Template:Blpwatch-links

Can someone fix this and get factual evidence with some sources.

He married Pearl Harbour in 1566. The couple divorced in 1666. He is currently married to Shilpa Shetty CBB racism representative, Tricia Ronane, with whom he has two sons, Louis and Claude. Louis is right now in a relationship with another mam. Their godfather is Justin Timberlake and their godmother is Jade Goody. It is reported that he has left his wife for Serena Williams.

I am not an admin but I removed all potentially controversial uncited info and personal details per WP:BLP, noting in edit history that that sort of information simply MUST be cited before re-adding. CyberAnth 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Banjee Template:Blpwatch-links

I deleted the images in Banjee as being potentially libelous to the persons in the images since the images appear to be of living people, the persons in the image are associated with being thuggish men who have sex with men, and the article does not include Wikipedia reliable sources to support such an association. The images quickly were restored by another editor and the article now is in need of a BLP administrator to review the situation. -- Jreferee 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The images were uploaded under the GFDL by the reported author of the images. Click on the images to see. If there is a good faith belief that the photo's subject did not authenticate them for such release, this can be taken to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. But given that the subject's face is largely hidden, I doubt there is considerable grounds here. CyberAnth 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • GFDL does not authorize potentially libelous uses of images. Although the person's eyes are hidden in the photo, I believe that his identity still can be known, especially by those who are familiar with him. Since the article does not include Wikipedia reliable sources to support the use made of the living person images in the article, the images should be removed from the article if his identity can be known even with his eyes covered. Further comment/action still is needed to resolve this implementation of Wikipedia WP:BLP policy -- Jreferee 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • So, what do we do next? CyberAnth 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John Grisham Template:Blpwatch-links

• John Grisham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A fellow Wikipedian brought my attention to this website and was concerned that another user was trying to introduce potentially libellous material. I reviewed the article and the history and it turns out that one user kept reintroducing material paraphrased from one of the cited references, which is related to a current lawsuit involving John Grisham; a Google search suggests that this is a current event. I also noted that the user who kept introducing these changes, ChasAlmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be related to the plaintiff in the case vs. Grisham (according to the referenced magazine article, the husband of the plaintiff is named Charles). This user kept on reverting other people's edits to a version that is to his/her liking. Just to be sure, I changed the title to something more neutral, and also reverted the section to a shorter version (i.e. with shorter content). Other than this, I'm not sure what else I would need to do. Any help and suggestions would be appreciated. --- Tito Pao 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note. A few minutes after I made this entry, ChasAlmy reverted the article to longer contents, although the section title I created was not changed. --- Tito Pao 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure the lawsuit info should be included in a WP BLP, since it is still ongoing and the "The Hook" is questionable as a source. Probably the reason why big news outlets have not reported on the matter is that the matter is not resolved. I think WP should avoid commenting on the matter until that time. Better safe than sorry, so I am going to remove it until the lawsuit is subject of *multiple* reports in reliable sources per WP:N and WP:V. CyberAnth 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Featured article criteria requires only that the article not neglect major facts and details. The lawsuit does not seem to be a major fact or a major detail in Grisham's life, which further supports your deletion actions to help bring this matter under control. -- Jreferee 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Burke (evangelist) Template:Blpwatch-links

Please look at the article Billy Burke {see "Billy Burke (evangalist)", I don't know how to wikilink it directly}. I thought it violated the wp:blp in many respects, and quickly pared away the criticism section-I didn't have time or knowledge how to be more precision oriented to potentially retain certain parts of it without making a very pro-POV slant behind. But instead of it being improved, an editor restored the whole thing and since the editor thinks I'm an "agent" of some kind, is unlikely to want to work well with me to improve it. I suspect he will revert me again. I also don't know enough to make the judgement call on one source he wants to keep from a publication called "Creative Loafing" which the editor describes as an "alternative" newspaper in Fl. My sense was that for controversial attacks against the subject of the article that a higher standard would be required for sources, but I would value input from an editor with more experience with kind of question. Professor marginalia 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some POV material in the article and added fact templates. The facts in the article are slanted against Mr. Burke, but the article itself probably could be balanced with additional facts. -- Jreferee 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

James Dobson Template:Blpwatch-links

• James Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Yet another article under the guise of biography that is little more than a slagfest of controversies and critcisms, with the subject's own views described from primarily his critics' POVs. I have made some NPOV changes in the "Social views" section of article and, given the POV perspective of most of that section, deleted the entire very long and article-overwhelming "controversies" section per WP:Undue weight. I have described my concerns further at Talk:James_Dobson#Slagfest_or_Biography.3F // CyberAnth 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I reviewed the situation and it does not seem to require outside intervention related to the policy of Biographies of living people, which is a basis for posting on this noticeboard. -- Jreferee 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Corrigan Wells

Jonathan Corrigan Wells is a leading advocate of intelligent design. From this someone has said that he "rejects" evolution itself, which he does not seem to. I removed the sentence but it was put right back. Steve Dufour 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not find the word "reject" in the text when I visited it. I did find a problematic section and removed it to talk for re-writing, see Talk:Jonathan_Corrigan_Wells#Problematic_content. CyberAnth 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I rather over reacted to the situation I'm afraid. The article is showing some improvement. Steve Dufour 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Make that "was" showing some improvement. :-) Steve Dufour 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wells article continues to include false and petty attacks on him from people who despise him for his criticism of evolutionary biology textbooks. The sources given for the slanderous attacks include a left-wing political blog, and a web site that gives Wikipedia as its only source! Roger 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an organized PR campaign there to insert/inflate material favorable to Wells while remove/downplay material that is not. Two of the four parties involved are members of Wells's church, one is a former member, and the other is a conservative Intellignet Design blogger. Two of the four are commenting here and are presenting a very one sided description of the situation there. Any assistance in putting this conflict of interest PR campaign to rest from earnest, unbiased editors is appreciated. 151.151.21.99 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with Raul, except that he expressed agreement with FeloniousMonk inserting false statements into the article.

Some of the Wells issues are:

claiming that Wells rejects the idea that HIV causes AIDS, when all he ever did was to sign a petition asking for a reappraisal of the evidence for and against.

claiming that the Unification Church paid for Wells's UCB PhD, when sources say the opposite.

claiming that the Unification Church opposes evolution, when Rev. Moon said, "I don't deny the process of evolution in development".

blaming Wells for another book from his publisher.

The above anonymous editor is apparently calling me a "conservative Intellignet Design blogger". I do have a blog, but I am not an advocate of intelligent design. Roger 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented the issues there. And now you've been blocked for doing it, which speaks for itself. 151.151.73.165 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for 24 hours for expressing objections to the unsupported personal attacks in the Wells biography. Yes, that speaks volumes. You can see the above issues being debated on the Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells page. If you have an alternate view, then post it. Roger 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper Template:Blpwatch-links

• Anderson Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in a state of near constant revert warring over speculation about his sexuality. Please can some people take a look and see who's arguments are a correct interpretation of WP:BLP?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The more conservative ones, per WP:BLP. I have removed the material in question and posted my rationale at Talk:Anderson_Cooper#.22This_.5Bsection.5D_is_about_Anderson_Cooper.27s_identity.2C_not_his_sex_life.22.2C_and_the_Washington_Blade. CyberAnth 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Template:Blpwatch-links

The biographical article about Tom Cruise contains a story originally printed in the tabloid 'The Sun' which claims that David Miscavige, current head of Church of Scientology, told Tom Cruise that he would be worshipped as a Christ-like figure. Jeff Quiros, President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco, denies the story. So does Greg Churilov of the Scientology Parishioners' League. Since the story is about a living person, potentially libellous and poorly sourced, I edited it to delete it. It has been reverted each time. Please remove it.

I removed the material per WP:RS. I can only put the page on my watchlist and help revert. Most of that entire "biography" reads like tabloid journalism, by the way. CyberAnth 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David Miscavige

Thanks, CyberAnth. I also had the same thing (revert) happen when I edited the David Miscavige bio to remove the Sun story. Please delete it from the Miscavige bio also. Here is a link to the President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco's denial of the whole stupid story, in case you are challenged for removing it;

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...a/16591805.htm

69.12.131.206 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Done. CyberAnth 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Miscellaneous

There is a paragraph that states, " In February 2006 an article in Life & Style magazine reported that Cruise and Holmes were splitting up, but keeping up a public pretense until the spring...."

Please remove this paragraph. It is manifestly untrue, as Cruise and Holmes are now married, and spring is long gone. Moreover the sources on it are anonymous, so it's worth less than a double handful of flea dirt, IMO.

69.12.131.206 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Done. Let us hope it stays. CyberAnth 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor Katie Holmes! :-( --BenBurch 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Null Template:Blpwatch-links

Subject is a writer and broadcaster on alternative medicine. We need some advice on whether the fact that he is mentioned on the website Quackwatch can be included. And more generally on how the subject's critical views on mainstream medicine can be represented in an NPOV way.Itsmejudith 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Still need help! Itsmejudith 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

It is continually being added to this profile that Gaiman is the son of a famous scientologist called David Gaiman, and that Neil Gaiman may have been schooled as a scientologist. This is SHEER speculation, any web references just point back at each other in some form of mobius loop, with no official or concrete proof. There is no official sources even identifying Neil Gaiman as son of a man called David, let alone the SAME David (a common name surely!). In closing I will add that Neil Gaiman has a very large web presence, with a blog which he writes to daily, he talks about EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, at NO point does either scientology come up, or the name David Gaiman. Yet Gaiman will often talk about his jewish/church of England roots, the fact that he himself obviously never talks about scientology, coupled with the absolute absence of andy official proof means these references should not be added. It may be true, yes certainly, but until there is proof, it must be removed. I welcome any discussion on this. --Foxydavid 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do remove the unsourced information from Neil Gaiman's bio. It is not essential to understanding him, and may not be true.

S. M. Sullivan 07:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Ismail Ayob Template:Blpwatch-links

Ismail Ayob was Nelson Mandela's lawyer but he was sued by Mandela in 2005. This high profile lawsuit was widely reported by multiple reputable South Africa media oulets, for example: [60] [61] [62][63] [64][65] [66]. However, User:Zayd, has repeatedly removed references to the lawsuit from the article, and in 2006 did it on the Nelson Mandela article as well [67] (it has since been re-added to the Mandela article). Zayd's contributions (over the last year) seem to have mostly been about removing mention of the lawsuit from Wikipedia. Given the editing of someone who might be potentially close to the subject of the article (apparently Ayob has a son called Zayd, although that proves nothing), I think that this could get quite tricky. Should references to the lawsuit be left out? Park3r 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this could get tricky. Hagiographical articles often become an embarassment to the author or subject when other editors add the "other side" of the story. If the article no longer even mentions that Ismail Ayob was Mandela's lawyer, then I would argue that it no longer shows that Ayob is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. How about {{prod}}, nn-bio? Zaian 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article did mention the lawsuit and Mandela's relationship with Ayob from the start, and wasn't a hagiography (in fact it had a rather hostile tone) [68], but then mention of the lawsuit was removed [69]. It effectively became a hagiography, and all attempts to re-add information about the lawsuit and Mandela's relationship with Ayob have been removed. Ayob was a prominent struggle lawyer and still has a high political profile (if we get rid of his article, we may as well throw George Bizos out as well). The subject is noteworthy and the article can be kept. As for the lawsuit, the details should be kept in, but the possible conflict of interest issues need to be dealt with.Park3r 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it did start as a hagiography - most of the early edits were anonymous by User:82.111.242.71, with the first mention of Mandela and the artwork dispute coming later but being deleted by User:82.111.242.219 a few minutes before the user Zayd first edited. User:82.111.242.219 may not have been Zayd, but the same IP address made some unpleasant innuendo-filled edits on the George Bizos article starting on the same day. Zaian 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Regardless, I have re-added the section on the lawsuit to the article (and added a BBC source as well), and expanded on Ayob's other anti-apartheid activities (he represented Winnie Mandela, for example), and I have tried to add some balance to the sections both in Ismail Ayob, and Nelson Mandela. It should be noted that Zayd Ayob is now quoted in the Nelson Mandela article. Park3r 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems some pretty wild allegations are being made and it seems to be getting personal which is unfortunate especially coming from Zaian with his or her tremendous accolades and achievements, wish we were all like him or her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayd (talk • contribs)

Zayd, it's nothing personal. Thanks for editing this article and the Nelson Mandela article constructively with references. I think the text you added needs to be summarised as it is currently too long, and as you are apparently an interested party, your contribution (even if well referenced) is unlikely to be entirely neutral. It's a start though - please continue to contribute positively by allowing collaborative editing to take its course. By sticking to verifiable facts, and avoiding editorial commentary and opinion, it should be possible to end up with an acceptable neutrally-presented article. Zaian 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kara Borden Template:Blpwatch-links

There has been an ongoing conflict with Tommypowell and others over the inclusion of exact birthdates for underaged victims of crimes. My interpretation of WP:BLP is that these people are not public figures nor are they particularly notable outside of the fact that they were involved in a sensational crime, and I have been following my interpretation of policy by replacing their exact birthdays with simply their birth years. Tommypowell disagrees and has reverted my changes at Kara Borden, Shawn Hornbeck, and Shasta Groene. Any help and input would be greatly appreciated. AniMate 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is near impossible to find a source for the date of birth for this article. Through much searching, only one possible link has been found which isn't even accessible to the general public due to it requiring a subscription to view. The lack of any other sources would imply to me that the birthdate is not readily available and thsu should not be included. A third party's opinion on this would be helpful. Cowman109^Talk 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• ) Those birthdates were put up in 2005 by other users and have been up for 2 years without complaint. I have asked you many times for language in the BLP which distinguishes between birthdates for people of different ages or different occupations (actors/musicians only as you have claimed). You have been unable to respond. Birthdates, where available, are routinely included on Wikipedia pages-there is NO exception in the BLP for alleged crime victims.
• By the way, the link is accesible to the general public without subscription-http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=lancaster+new+era%22+kara+borden%22+ludwig+2+06+91&btnG=Search and again-the birthdate has been up for 2 years without complaint, posted by User Detour in 1995; not by me. Tommypowell 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that there's no exception in the BLP for birthdates for alleged crime victims.

There's an exception in the BLP for birthdates for *everyone* (except major public figures). WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Ken Arromdee 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think when you have been the focus of massive international media coverage including TV appearaces and hundreds of thousands of google hits you qualify as a "well-known living person" Where your birthdate is globally available in a 10 second google search the BLP concern about "identity theft" is not present. Tommypowell 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that WP should have higher standards than the "massive international media". What is the value of reporting the birthdays of child victims of sex crimes? Steve Dufour 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked out these articles. In my opinion the last two, at least, should be deleted. What value does it have to give personal details about children who have been victims of sex crimes? Steve Dufour 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not 'all-encompassing'. We do not need the details of each of the hornbeck sodomy charges, it's enough to list the proper number of charges filed. TO go too far in the 'gory details' of a BLP is generally frowned upon, and so should the inclusion of information which hurts no one to omit, and which probably serves more to facilitate harrassment than anything else, shouldn't be there. We wouldn't post the victim's address, and we shouldn't post their age. ThuranX 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there be an article on an individual who is notable only for being the victim of a sex crime while a child? I have no problem with an article on the perpetrator. Steve Dufour 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, ThuranX. I see one of the articles is gone already. Steve Dufour 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford Template:Blpwatch-links

• Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ghost rider1000 (talk · contribs) adds permanently two weblinks [70] and [71] which use an aggressiv and slanderous tone and seem to lead a smear campaign against the earl. Both links contradict Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. He was noticed on his talkpage, in a revert's summary and on the article's talkpage. ~~ Phoe _talk 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Leonard Weinglass article is potentially libellous

Article reads like it was written by an extremist offshoot branch of the John Birch Society. It's not just biased, but pure character assasination and right-wing extremist propaganda. Of all the NPOV violations I've seen on wikipedia, this is BY FAR the WORST, and given the lack of sourcing, exhibits a high risk of containing libellous information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.47.251 (talk • contribs).

The article probably should be nominated for deletion. He is not that notable unless there is something more that could be said about him. Steve Dufour 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He is quite notable,and a good deal more can be said. Since he is well-known to be proud of defending leftists, even those involved with criminal activity (and as it is part of American constitutional law that lawyer defend criminal cases) , saying so does not violate BLP. Since the crimes of the accused, some of whom have been convinced, are not relevant, the refs to the WP articles on them is sufficient, and I have removed the descriptions of the crimes. DGG 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If things have been written about him then bring that information into the article. I am on your side. However just doing a job, and defending criminals is a lawyer's job, does not make a person notable on WP. Steve Dufour 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends somewhat on the notability of the criminals. But the refs will bring that out.DGG 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Weinglass, one of the country's most prominent defense lawyers since the Vietnam era, is easily notable enough for an article. As of this writing, the current version of the article contains no improper material. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It could use some more references however. Steve Dufour 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Roskam Template:Blpwatch-links

POV warriors are battling out with no winners but Roskam is the loser. Starting to read like a hit piece or campaign bio instead of an encyclopedia article. potentially false light libel issues. Please keep an eye on it. --Tbeatty 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome as many people who understand WP:BLP as possible to come and comment on the changes to this article that are said to be based on BLP. Thanks. --BenBurch 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, I've been studying WP:BLP (among other Wikipedia policies) for about a month in my spare time. Generally speaking a Wiki biography about a living person must be written conservatively. It must strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. A side-by-side comparison between the Peter Roskam article, and the article about any living Democratic politician you'd care to name, proves that the former is a hatchet job. Much the same can be said about the rest of the Republican congressional delegation from Illinois and, I suspect, the rest of the Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia must not be put into a position of appearing to side with the critics of a living person. Any negative information must have ironclad RS V sourcing or it must be removed without hesitation. Thanks for asking. Dino 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything can be done if people supporting or opposing a candidate put in true, cited information. (The pupose of the information being to sway voters for or against the subject of the article, not to add to our intellectual understanding of that person's life or importance in history.) I think that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds anyway. Steve Dufour 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The information in dispute is all true and all cited in RS-V sources. And *my* goal is not to sway anybody against the congressman. He is not up for re-election for one thing. It is to make a good article. A good article ought to be the verifiable truth whether or not that makes the person out to be a saint or a sinner or (where most of us lie) somewhere in the middle. I will not allow all negative information to be removed in the name of some tortured interpretation of WP:BLP any more than I would allow the good he has done (like returning lost dog tags to vietnam vets and/or their survivors) to be removed. --BenBurch 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article at hand, but there is still the "undue weight" aspect to consider, whether or not the information is verifiable. For hypothetical example, if a subject is caught peeing on the side of the road at the age of five, and there happens to be newspaper articles about it to cite, is it really important enough of an incident to rate a paragraph (or even mention at all)? - Crockspot 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In this article there is "undue mass" as well as "undue weight". That is the total mass of information is way too much for a person who is not that important. Steve Dufour 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I would usually think that an article would have whatever was available in it since Wikipedia Is Not Paper. Is there some standard? What would you think the correct size should be? --BenBurch 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a policy somewhere. I would think that an ideal article could be read in one sitting and give some basic understanding of the subject and why he, she, or it is important. If every bit of information that is out there is included no one will make it to the end of the article. Steve Dufour 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you are exactly the sort of person we need on this article because you are fair and civil. Please head over there? Thanks. --BenBurch 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there is at least one editor working that article who would disagree with your opinion of me vehemently, and since I have made the committment to avoid that editor if at all possible, I'll probably take a pass on your invitation. But I will try to take a look at it. - Crockspot 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not me! I 'buried the axe' regarding any conflict we may have had a long time ago. Sorry if you haven't. I'd welcome your participation. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of burying the axe for me. It's the way that you (continue to) conduct yourself that I wish no part of. - Crockspot 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh the irony! Someone who supports and defends the Swift Boaters chastising me for my conduct! That's rich! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you prove my point for me. - Crockspot 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And you, mine! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated in any case. --BenBurch 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congressmen are up for re-election every two years. Otherwise I agree with what you say.  :-) Steve Dufour 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have me there, but the campaigning is a year off at this point. --BenBurch 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congressmen such as Roskam are already fundraising and picking out key campaign staff. Serving in the House means constantly preparing for the next election. Dino 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Really Dino? Fundraising is highly regulated by the FEC. Unless he has a federally registered 08 campaign, fundraising for 08 would be illegal. You're claiming he has a FEC 08 campaign in place, Dino? Another one of your 'claims', eh Dino? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he was making a general comment that in a democracy politicians are always "up for re-election." Steve Dufour 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article is being edited by people with political agendas. This shows how powerful WP has become if they think the best way they can influence the outcome of an election is to edit a WP article. Barack Obama's article is about the same. I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, unless you want to get in on one side or the other that is. Cheers. Steve Dufour 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent update: A new consensus has developed on this article. This is a freshman congressman with one month of service, whose article was ten times as long as the article about Dan Burton, a controversial 12-term congressman from a neighboring state. Pursuant to the directives of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, I went through the article with a chainsaw and then Propol and Tbeatty went over it with a scalpel and a pair of tweezers. The result is a reasonably good article, even though it's still four times as long as Dan Burton. I've nominated it for Good Article status. Dino 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel_Hook Template:Blpwatch-links

I'm new to this, but this is my brother-in-law. Yes, he has some links with Abramoff, but I find it unneccessary to see that Sam has its own Wiki page.

Is it possible to nuke it in its entiretiy?

Legitimate question: Would that be because it paints a less than favourable picture of Sam? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a small change for the sake of fairness. I wonder how long it will take for it to be deleted. Steve Dufour 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI Incident

There is a very interesting debate taking place on the Mel Gibson DUI incident AFD discussion page regarding breakout articles on controversial incidents in the lives of living people. I think editors involved with the biography project may be interested in weighing in on this. Cleo123 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

John Travolta

My 'Family' section cleanup attempt has been reverted by some unknown person. I added the year he and Kelly Preston were married and the names of their kids. My source was the wiki bio on Kelly Preston. I also deleted the parts about Jett having untreated autism because the sources were Operation Clambake,( an anti-Scientology message board), and a couple of gossip media. Not reliable sources. Some of the allegations were not sourced at all. All that I deleted were potential legal trouble for Wiki. Please consider blocking the editor who reverted to remove my changes, and protect this bio if you agree with my changes.

69.12.131.206 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

• Just off the cuff, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so unless there is a RS cited for marriage date and children's names in the Preston article, that info is not reliably sourced. Children's names are particularly sensitive, unless they are already notable themselves. (If there is an RS in the Preston article, it should be used directly in the Travolta article, not cite the Preston article.) - Crockspot 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I had previously raised concerns about the "Family" section of John Travolta which User:69.12.131.206 was trying to address, and I appreciate that. [72] The best solution would be to find an independent, reliable source to support the marriage date and children's names. Generally there is no attempt to keep secret the names of children of celebrities on the level of Travolta, so I don't see a problem with identifying the children's names in this article. However, the allegation that one of Travolta's children has untreated autism has not been properly sourced and so I do see a problem under WP:BLP with continuing to include that in the article, as some editors apparently want to include it. --Metropolitan90 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is Tilman who keeps reverting my attempts to correct the Travolta article and other articles too. He has an anti-Scientology website that he has linked to the bios of a few Scientologists. I consider that he is using Wikipedia articles to get more hits on his website. What to do? It is impossible for me to imagine good faith on his part.

S. M. Sullivan 07:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Mark Ebner is an award winning investigative journalist. Just because he writes about Hollywood doesn't make his website "gossip". His article is credible; the "Kawasaki syndrome through carpet cleaning" that Travolta is telling isn't. I am therefore restoring it. --Tilman 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Eben Pagan Template:Blpwatch-links

• Eben Pagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Negative information about this (non-notable, but let's ignore that for now) individual is sourced only to messageboard posts. Edit-warring is ongoing to keep said information in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan Template:Blpwatch-links

This article is being used to harass the bio subject. Some of the content in the article and history is potentially libellous. Please see the article talk page for complaints from the subject of the article. DrL 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck Template:Blpwatch-links

• Shawn Hornbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Do we really need to mention the specific and embarassing details of the crime comitted on this man in the lede? 'In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm"'// Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I took the word out and it was put right back with the justification that it was cited. I don't think there should be articles on child victims of sex crimes at all. Steve Dufour 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Belichick Template:Blpwatch-links

• There is a plethora of potentially libelous material being perpetuated on Belichick's biography page, including criticisms that, although cited somewhat correctly, are not Wiki in format and are not verifiable. Also, they are borderline libelous. As an aside, look at every other NFL coach's wiki page and find a "Criticisms" section. Oh yeah, right. None to be found. WStewart07 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mae-Wan Ho Template:Blpwatch-links

• Needs a good clean up and verification. Editing on the article is not active, but the mess that is there needs sorting out.--Peta 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BDORT Template:Blpwatch-links

• I have placed a request at WP:AE regarding the below discussion. -- Jreferee 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

BDORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Please take a thorough and careful look at this, as I believe it is clearly defamatory and anti BLP when inspected closely: [73] and [74] . I am representing Dr Yoshiaki Omura on wikipedia with his permission. There have already been malicious defamatory statments about him removed by an Admin[75]. I believe the editor, Crum375, left as the sole editor of this entry is biased against Dr Omura/BDORT as I have outlined here [76] . I requested the Arbitration that has just closed and which decided I am banned from editing the article. Be that as is, it has been confirmed and remedied [77] that the version that was edit warred over for months, including by 'Crum375', against my repeated reversions of it and my support of the stub by the last Mediator in order to end the protracted edit war - contained BLP defamatory information. I know that the remaining BLP information I refer to in the article is presented in a not obvious way, but this subtlety does not lessen the BLP issues one bit, nor the lack of basic accuracy; protracted discussions by me about the points raised with this editor are fruitless. I am trying to prevent further real life damage (which has already happened and which the ArbCom has acknowledged privately to me due to privacy issues) and continuing BLP problems remaining. Thanks.Richardmalter 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter has just been banned by ArbCom from the BDORT article, Talk page and related pages. The issues he refers to are described in detail in the Arb case (which he brought), and the case was decided against him, as he clearly has a conflict of interest and has edited the article tendentiously and disruptively for months, and was blocked for 3RR several times. As far as the specific issues, since the Arb case, we have modified the BDORT entry to focus on the actual diagnostic procedure and not its inventor. We have a well sourced article, with careful regard for WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well as due weight. I welcome a review of this article and comments, and would be happy to improve it while adhering to WP's rules. Thanks, Crum375 22:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, is there a WP policy about you tracking my every comment on WP or the like? I find it like stalking.

To others here, Please note the ArbCom as it does ruled on 'behaviour' as they saw it not content, which was not addressed. An admin unrelated to the ArbCom case deleted the defamotory material championed by Crum375 et at. I have three times set out the problem I refer to here above, and three times Crum375 has replied in a generalized way that has not addressed the actual problem whatsoever. There is a continued resistance to any cooperation without Admin intervention, andthis editor has also edit warred with the last Mediator. Please also note that this is due to the supra-WP bias of this editor as documented by me with diffs in the Arb case and confirmed in his view by the last Mediator. Crum375's bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" [[78]]. And as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly"[CheNuevara 00:10, 4 October 2006][79]. There is much more to this than seems. Thanks.Richardmalter 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, 'stalking' would be if I followed you around to different unrelated articles. AFAIK, following your posted comments and responding to them on an Admin's Talk page, or on a noticeboard, where you are addressing the same topic and the same article, is the proper and expected behavior of a good wikipedian.

ArbCom has reviewed everything you mention above - you presented it all during that case. They ruled that you edit tendentiously and have a conflict of interest, and unanimously banned you from the article, its Talk page, and all related pages. I suggest we focus on the actual issues. The BDORT article is available to all for review and comments. Again, I would be happy to have neutral editors review it and suggest improvements, if any. Thanks, Crum375 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not focus on issues raised. You respond in generalized ways that do not actually address points made. And to reiterate, you are the ONLY editor I have been involved with - amongst numerous Admins/Mediators etc who NEVER accepts any of my suggestions - and only accepts changes with outside 'pressure' or Admin ruling. You have also as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions of defending and editwarring and reverting pro the defamatory version for many months against me, an Admin, and a mediator - all who are completely neutral, that the Admin SlimVirgin deleted straightaway as as soon as I pointed out the WP:OR defamatory statements in it, that you advocated for repeatedly. You were 'deaf' to all my requests in this regard. That means your record in terms of WP:BLP is extremely poor regardless of your intentions ... Outside help is therefore certainly needed because of this, and your very poor WP:BLP record, with this entry. I may have a conflict of interest technically, but this does not change any actual event, or fact noted here. Richardmalter 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the statements you make about me above, that "as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions" can easily be seen as personal attack on me. If you have such documented proof, please present it. Otherwise, please focus on the issues at hand. As far as the more substantive points you make, you have presented all of them to ArbCom during the case you initiated, that was just closed. They reviewed all your points, and decided that your edits are tendentious and that you have a conflict of interest, and unanimously decided to ban you from BDORT and related pages. Since the case was closed, we have revised the article to focus on the procedure and not its inventor. It is well sourced and meets all of WP's requirements, including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well as due weight. If any neutral editor would like to review this article and suggest improvements, s/he would be more than welcome. Thanks, Crum375 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, as has Crum375, above, that anyone concerned with Richardmalter's assertions consult the record of ArbCom re Yoshiaki Omura, of whom Richard Malter is a proponent, as well as the entry itself. These, I would think, speak with startling clarity for themselves, as does the persistent disposition to personal attack, innuendo, and threat, of Yoshiaki Omura's advocates. GenghizRat 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GhengizRat, the defamatory statements on Omura that you wrote and edited and tried to support with many references and arguments have been Admin deleted. Crum375, again you do not actually' address the actual' points raised. You defended a version tenaciously that you championed with many arguments over many months that contained the clear defamatory statements on Omura that clearly violated WP:BLP, that have been Admin deleted, at my request. That's the factual record.Richardmalter 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. GenghizRat 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think the article is improving (re WP:BLP). But there are still serious (BLP) issues remaining. The first is as follows. If WP is representing the work of a living person, then the representation of their work has to be accurate. I realize all the WP editors here are non-experts but basic journalist/encyclopedic standards need to be maintained - especially since Dr Omura is a living person. Dr Omura's devloped technique, the BDORT, is currently described and explained almost totally inaccurately throughout the article. I have gone through many other WP articles on science and other technical subjects and there seems to be no problem giving accurate information in WP, so I am insisting that this article describing the work of a living person also has the same basic level of accuracy in description of the BDORT. Please see for a correct description: [80] especially the section: '3. Finding the right fingers for the Test' NB. "A correct match of fingers is able to give a reliable Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, if it satisfies all three conditions." - ie this is the so-callled 'three conditions for reproducibility'. Without this, the technique is NOT BDORT BY DEFINITION (because BDORT is said to be reproducible, repeatable). WPedians have to be reasonable reporters as well. Currently the article contains correct information but which is fragmented. If you ask why did the Patent Office initially refuse the application (which they did - as correctly noted in the article), it was because they said it was subjective. So Omura got the Affidavits (uploaded to WP and public docs available from the Patent Office for $25) to show that it was objective. Currently the 'threads' of the report are not linked narratively or accurately. But again, most of all, and please focus on this point, regardless of the poor 'narrative' currently, the actual description of the BDORT given is totally inaccurate. You will see also then if you read the correct description I point to above, the idea that the "forefinger" is used by the testee - as currently reported repeatedly in the article, is also completely inaccurate. Can we just get a basic accurate description please.Richardmalter 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, this is clearly a non-BLP issue, and hence this is the wrong page and forum. But addressing your point about the BDORT technique nonetheless, I did use the language from Omura's patent abstract. Although it's not as detailed as the one you describe, I think it's sufficiently detailed for our readers. They can always follow the links to Omura's writings and get more detail if they wish, about the exact finger selection, decision criteria, etc. Crum375 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum, this is a very BLP issue - VERY misdescribing the technique developed by a living person (for which by re-adjusting the page to focus on this very technique even more so makes this a big problem) is clearly a BLP issue. I cannot see why your resistance to a simple accurate description!. I do not see what problem you have with this. As usual you are for whatever reason "resistant" to any change, I propose - even though many other Admins/mediators/Editors have found ways to easily justify and incorporate those necessary edits I have asked for. It needs to be done in this instance, straightaway. Your record is that of defending and edit warring for many months a blatant BLP violation version which was eventually Admin deleted. I ask you now again not to continue in this vein.Richardmalter 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a technique was developed by someone who is living does not make a description of that technique, accurate or not, a BLP issue. That's making a mockery of BLP. Additionally, merely because affidavits were made to the USPTO that something is "repeatable" or "objective" -- that does not make that a fact either, even if those arguments were accepted by USPTO and a patent granted. Patent filings are primary documents, and any claim stated in them is simply that: a CLAIM. Quatloo 10:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, hello; I follow what you are saying, and generally I would say the same as you. However in this specific case Dr Omura and colleagues are saying that the BDORT is repeatable and objective - and that that is a key characteristic feature of it. Right up front (even for a minute ignoring the current technical misrepresentation), the article says "subjective". This is immediately an editorial POV, and moreso a POV comment on the work of a living person that is contradictory to the statements that living person makes about his specific work described in this article. That makes this instance a very BLP issue. To repeat, a WP editor is saying something contradictory regarding a technique to what the living person says about this, their technique! Even if, as I know, some non-expert third-party citations use the word "subjective", to include that and not to include even as claims, the statements of Dr Omura and colleagues about the reproducibility and objectivity of the technique, is also clear POV editing, ie selectively patching together an article that has a definite bias/opinion. But even beginning from a correct technical description (which no reasonable WPedian/person could argue against having in the article), the three conditions for reproducibility must be included otherwise what is described is not BDORT - and no one can argue with Omura about what BDORT is or isn't (though value assigned to it is another thing). And so even with this approach, we end up back at the same point. Thanks.Richardmalter 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements about a technique are just that, statements about the technique, and not about the individual who invented it. To say otherwise would mean reporting a criticism of a book, film, TV show, etc. would be also bring BLP into play and thus stifle almost all discussion of any contemporary creation. BLP was not intended for such cases, and cannot be reasonably applied. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One other point, and I don't mean this to apply specifically about BDORT, since I am ignorant of it and have no opinion regarding its validity. If a topic is overwhelmingly acknowledged as quackery by the scientific community at large, it is not POV to report it being quackery while devoting no time to the opposing viewpoint. Fringe views need not be presented at all. POV would be presenting the fringe as anything except the fringe. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, I do follow and agree with what you are saying re techniques etc. The problem here is I think though different: there is a discursive 'statement', or description, that is not citated, written by an editor that is completely contradictory to and summarily and conclusively dismissive of the claims made for the technique by its developer and colleagues (that can be citated). So it is not a question of reporting a negative criticism here that you comment on. It is an editorial expression/POV that contradicts the citatable material and which completely dismisses the key aspect of the work - described by his descriptions - of the developer of the technique. Richardmalter 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument you have raised brings BLP into play. If a technique's description (accurate or not, that is not important here) impacts BLP then we are dealing with a subject that is outside the realm of science and very much inside the realm of personality cult. *If* BLP applies, the subject is pseudoscience. Quatloo 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz Template:Blpwatch-links

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but I think someone should take a look at this edit [81]  YDAM TALK 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is really a problem here of hostile reverts and implied legal threats. Admin action requested - DGG 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I added a proposed deletion template to the article. -- Jreferee 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted the tag and worked to improve the article. It seems to be pretty much NPOV right now and satisfy BLP policy. But everyone is very welcome to improve it further. Biophys 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie McIntosh Template:Blpwatch-links

Someone should read this while it is probably right also very offensive

• I removed the section that seemed improperly sourced, per WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Crum375 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I removed a sentence for BLP violation and added one fact template. The article now seems to read OK as far as BLP issues go. -- Jreferee 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Warnock Template:Blpwatch-links

Neil Warnock#Disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Regarding the "Disputes" section of the above article. Sub-sectioned "Players", "Managers", "Referees" and "Fans". Whilst it could be said to be entertaining, most of the information contained within these headings, and in some cases relating directly to other living persons who are themselves the subject of biographical Wikipedia articles, is typical 'I heard it somewhere', although qualified(?) with a range of pre-cursors such as (quote): "he is said to have commented", "involved claims that", "apparently", "is said to have", and "many Forest fans have accused him of". It remains spectacularly unsourced.

Quoting Jimmy Wales: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Quoting Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages."

Removing any of this information 'aggressively' is not an option for me, as I have already tried to edit the page in a sensible manner, and got reverted immediately. A hard-core of editors appears to exist in watching this article.

If you are happy with the nature of the prose in the Neil Warnock article, then I apologise for wasting your time. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall it is a rather stupid article. But then Warnock seems hard-headed enough so that his feelings will not be hurt. :-) Steve Dufour 13:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I probably would agree; however, we don't make assumptions as such in Wikipedia do we? Citations have been asked for. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Georgie Thompson Template:Blpwatch-links

Georgie Thompson- User davesmith33 is repeatedly entering information which does not have a reliable source. // Bladeofgrass 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil Dowd‎ Template:Blpwatch-links

This is another soccer-related biography which says much under a section called "Criticisms", but is told in a prosaic, non-NPOV style, obviously based on hearsay, and citing no sources. IMO, It paints a dubious picture of the subject of the biography.

Again, if you disagree, please disregard. I have presented on the Talk page for this article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This can be closed, as the Criticisms section has been removed by a bold editor. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then re-instated! Ho-hum. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre Template:Blpwatch-links

• Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - In the article (and on its talk page), editors Opbeith, Bosniak, Emir_Arven and potentially others are repeatedly reinserting allegations or innuendo that the head of the UN peace keeping force, Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie visited Serbian "rape camps" where he was delivered with Bosnian women and raped them. This is an absolutely absurd charge that is rooted in propaganda rather than reality; Mackenzie has very publicly questioned much of the reporting surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre and calling or suggesting that he's a rapist is a way to discredit him. To me, this looks like ad hominem at its worst and potentially libelous to boot. -- Mgunn 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, among its editors, the article has a number of Serbian revisionists and siege mentality Bosnians that have made rational discussion and rational editting extraordinarly difficult. It feels a little bit like an online version of the Yugoslav wars... make the other side look as bad as possible without getting banned by Wikipedia editors. -- Mgunn

Will Young

There have been several attempts to vandalise Will Young's biography with homophobic remarks. Luckily another member has reverted to the original material Gill P 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again there have been attempts to vandalism this biography with homophobic remarks. Again they have been removed. There has also been some editing removing some perfectly legitmate reviews of his theatre debut. They have been restored. Gill P 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

George Voinovich Template:Blpwatch-links

A lot of unsourced and speculative claims in this article. Crockspot 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan Template:Blpwatch-links

There are several people sitting on this article reverting to a contentious version relying on irresponsible sources (sourcing a contentious crackpot without credentials or credibility). I've removed that source, and so have several others during the last few weeks, but these edits have been are reverted. Looking at the recent edits, some of the editors seems to have a personal investment. One is so off the wall ("Felonious Monk") that he may even be the crackpot in question as he seems overly involved in the article and obsessed or preoccupied with the Langan fellow. I've heard about the feud these two have had for the last 10 years or so. Seems like wikipedia is being used in a personal vendetta. It would probably be best to err on the side of caution here and warn the editors to be more careful. Denn Blake

What we seem to have here is several editors working in tandem to blackwash an article. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this in a bio here. Denn

David Cash, Jr. Template:Blpwatch-links

This has been changed a few times to libel another person with a similar name. The claims about a positive photo ID and attending Berkeley are false. Can we fix this more permanently? 76.17.126.213 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Shane MacGowan

Full of technically potentially libellous comment. I ve commented in more detail on the comments talk page through the tag but not sure if anyone goes there. Thank you High Heels on Wet Pavement 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter

I've added documented material (from the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, etc.) to the article on Robert Prechter. Prechter's employee, User:Rgfolsom keeps on reverting the material. Please note that this article is currently involved in a lengthy request for arbitration involving both Rgfolsom and myself. Smallbones 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter Template:Blpwatch-links

Article is at issue in a current Arbitration case. User:Smallbones is posting non-factual and defamatory remarks about the subject, including ridicule and name calling ("voodoo," "looniness"). This is not in keeping with a biography written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, is potentially libelous, and violates WP:BLP, a policy that the Arbitration committee has strongly reaffirmed in a recent ruling. Have twice removed the offending material in the past 30 minutes. Requesting administrator intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Careful with your facts! That's 3 times you've reverted this article in about an hour. Smallbones 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Oaten Template:Blpwatch-links

Mark Oaten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been a battleground of sorts for an allegation of coprophilia only sourced to a satire mag. It appears a reliable source may have also picked up on it now, but I already got burned once on British sources and don't want to get burned again, so if a few people could review it so I'm not the only one watching it, that'd be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Wretström Template:Blpwatch-links

This article is a violation of the Swedish personal data law[82] since the killers name has not been published in Swedish journalistic media and I don't think it has been published in media outside Sweden. Therefore the article of the supposed killer has been deleted from Swedish Wikipedia[83] (sv:Wikipedia:Sidor föreslagna för radering/Khaled Odeh). His name should therefore be deleted from all versions of this article that mention it. //StefanB sv 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know it's in violation of any Law, remove it immediately, don't post here! Ask Jimbo. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't violating any laws. Only US jurisdiction applies on en.wikipedia.org -- not Swedish. To say otherwise means the extreme -- you consent to enforce Islamic law (as specified by Iran), etc. an all US wikipedia servers, and so forth. Quatloo 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the killer's name hasn't been published anywhere, isn't it a violation of BLP, not because it's illegal in Sweden, but simply because it contains unsourced negative statements? If you're going to state that someone is a killer, BLP requires a source. Ken Arromdee 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Odeh sentence as it violated BLP. -- Jreferee 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Honda Template:Blpwatch-links

Can someone please take a look at this article? One (or more?) Japanese anonymous editor keeps adding some obscure conspiracy theory and subtle racism, flatly contradicted by reputable English article. ThreesCompany 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Coburn Template:Blpwatch-links

A small section of this article, "Sterilization controversy," is, in my POV unnecessary because it contains an unsubstantiated charge; a legal case was filed, but then dismissed with no further action. Several users have attempted to delete this section, but it keeps getting restored. We would appreciate your looking into this matter. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff Template:Blpwatch-links

• Carlos Latuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some editors keep insering unsourced comments his cartoons are "antilocution cartoons that demonize". It's obviously unsourced, but I don't know if it's controversial enough to risk a 3RR violation. Comments would be welcome. // Liftarn 11:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: New inserts are that he is called a hollocause denier (appears to be a mixup between the conference and the cartoon contest). A flickr.com page is used as source (is that reliable?). Also some cartoons are described as "monsters and as nazis" (the source would be the images themselves, no other source given). // Liftarn 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz Template:Blpwatch-links

• Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)A sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings. The artcile subject is mildly notable for having filed a possibly record number of FOIA requests related to Scientology, whcih are generally seen as groundless and obsessive. Beyond that info, which can be sourced to a minor news artcile, a group of editors, at least one of whom is involved in a rather nasty and abusive flame war with the article's subject, have been aggressively blocking attempts to removed the non WP:RS usenet sourcing, which seems to be included only to cast the article subject in a negative light by highlighting her personal troubles. The page has been locked by an admnin who himself is a public critic of Scientology outside of Wikipedia (as are the editors blocking removal and discussion of the non WP:RS usenet sources. The basics are on the Talk page for the artcile. BabyDweezil 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an attack page. When it was nominated for deletion before a call was put out on Usenet to bring in votes for its retention, and still it just barely survived. Steve Dufour 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. What is ironic is that they think by attacking Barbara, who left the Church of Scientology but didn't join their group, they are somehow scoring points against Scientology. Steve Dufour 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion as an attack page but that was taken off right away. Steve Dufour 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• BabyDweezil and Justanother appear to me to be editing this article's Talk page to disrupt discussions and to attack editors who contributed to the re-creation of the article, after it was blanked by Fred Bauder lat year. At that time, the aticle was entirely rewritten to include sources meeting WP:RS and the article's re-creation was watched carefully by Fred and others to ensure the article followed WP:BLP policy. BabyDweezil's statements "A sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings" and similar allegations are false; the article's sources include newspaper articles and court documents published by the United States government, which meet WP:RS. Likewise, the statement that one editior " is involved in a rather nasty and abusive flame war with the article's subject" is extremely misleading, since the article's subject is well known [84] [85] for her libelous and abusive postings to the Usenet where she attacks anyone and everyone who refuses to accept her delusions as factual accounts, and therefore the subject of the article is involved in "a nasty and abusive flame war" with nearly everyone she encounters [86] on the entire Usenet. BabyDweezil and Justanother have stated an intent to "cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD" this article, as the subject was the former president of scientology in Germany, and the well documented and well sourced antics of this former scientology leader are, without doubt, an embarressment for the scientology organization. Both editors have claimed an affinity for the scientology organization (and one editor admits being part of it), thus making it difficult to presume they are keeping a NPOV with their interest in the article. The scientology organization is well known for harassing those who do not support it and for attempting to conceal its beliefs and practices from public scrutiny which may be an embarressment to it. Nevertheless, the subject is notable for other reasons besides that involving scientology, and the subject's notability has been discussed at length and on repeated occasions as an examination of the article's Talk page archives will attest. However, I see the actions of these editors as being disruptive and a pro-scientology POV push by removing information from Wikipedia which is factual, well-sourced, and accurate, but embarressing to the scientology organization, and request that editors not involved with this article examine the article's Talk page, and examine the nature of the edits and behavior of BabyDweezil and Justanother on it. Orsini 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "and one editor admits being part of it". OH MY GOD. Susie, did you hear that? What, Nancy? There is a SCIENTOLOGIST editing here! You are kidding! No, really, one slipped in somehow. Well, get him out. We're working on it, dearie. He's a tough one. --Justanother 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely feel sorry for her on a personal level, sadly she has by her own actions made herself noteworthy for several reasons.

• 1. Ms. Schwarz has filed a very large amount of FOIA litigation regarding information she believes the government has concerning her life. I wish the circumstances were different, but what sets her apart is the unique reality she accepts as her motivation to litigate. Even more remarkable is that she has done this pro se (representing herself) without a law degree or even full command of written English. I don't mean the latter point to be an insult, it is actually a setback she overcame to make her case anyway. In a society where many citizens question the government's good faith in sharing information, Ms. Schwarz is historical. In my opinion it shows that the government does take FOIA seriously and that it can be abused. The specific circumstances I wish the article didn't have to discuss are her "delusions". It is for that reason I feel the article should be limited to discussing them as the relate to her motivation.
  2. Ms. Schwarz was subjected to a forced deprogramming session. The concept of such practices seems to be a source for debate, and to those interested I think Ms. Schwarz is a relevant topic.
  3. Ms. Schwarz has gained attention due to her posts to several online forums, including a self published autobiographical series on USENET and her hostile behavior to other users. Some editors on the Barbara Schwarz page seem to equate this as the only evidence citied for her strange beliefs in regards to the first point. That is not accurate, the main source of information is actually available directly from various government sources. The biography corroborates and expands her legal claims.

I believe that much of the debate about this article comes wholly from either WP:POV or COI concerns.

• Steve Dufour is trying to have the article removed because he made a commitment to Ms. Schwarz to do so to spare her embarrassment. This seems to violate some aspects of WP:COI.
• Justanother seems to believe the article is an indirect attack on the CoS due to Ms. Schwarz's previous association with the church.
• BabyDweezil appears to have followed User:Tilman to the article in an attempt at harassment with accusations of COI violations. When this failed, BabyDweezil has lingered to support his/her friend Justanother as friends often do.

I do not mean to offend you all, but I seriously think you are letting emotion get the better of your judgment in this case. Anynobody 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Can we not just discuss the article without trying to divine the motives of people that we do not know and have only the barest of interactions with. Orsini is clearly in WP:NPA land and, Anynobody, my friend, you are not far off. --Justanother 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And you are both definitely in ad hominem land. Let's stick to the issues, shall we? --Justanother 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that we are attacking you Justanother, I can assure you that is not my intent. Honestly, since User:BabyDweezil and yourself began editing here the points you've both raised have been addressed before. Judging from the size of the archives, I'd guess the same argument has played out in them over and over with different editors. The points I am making come from a genuine good faith attempt to explain that your feelings are perhaps getting in the way.

• User:Steve Dufour Admitted his reasons.

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Deletion discussions and deleted archives Continuing to push for AfD given the above link, seems personal to me. Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 9#Notability? I've never claimed to be neutral. I know Barbara and the only reason I have had anything to do with her article is because she mentioned it to me and I told her I would try to get it removed. I think I said that on my first post, or if not soon after. The only thing I have done* is try to bring it to the attention of people so they can judge if it should be here according to Wikipedia policy. That's for them to decide, not me. There do seem to be wide differences of opinion here about what Wikipedia should or shouldn't be. Steve Dufour 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:BabyDweezil Appears to have had it in for User:Tilman from the start, and has supported you ever since attempts to get User:Tilman blocked for COI violations failed.

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#What's the point of this ridiculous, gratuitous article? The appearance of BabyDweezil is my fault. I mentioned Barbara Schwarz in another discussion which he probably read, as an example for administrator intervention due to (apparently) a complaint, and how the article was forcibly deleted, but then rewritten from scratch, resulting in a similar article (differently written, but same contents).

Sorry. --Tilman 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Tilman--conflict of interest editing this article?? Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Tilman, time to recuse yourself per WP:COI

• User:Justanother Your edits and discussion appear to focus on the Scientology aspects of the article and other's agendas for editing (which I take to mean either you think there is an agenda against Ms. Schwarz as a person or an agenda against Scientology). (Please understand I know that isn't all you discuss, but it is a very common topic).

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Re: "president of Scientology" claim But there is no source shown that says she was the president of CoS. Just that someone with the same not uncommon name was. --Justanother 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Clean up needed I think I see material in the article that seems to be pushing an agenda by utilizing non-RS sources (usenet) or primary sources. She is not that notable and some "notability" seems to be being manufactured here. --Justanother 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) An ad hominem attack doesn't include concern for one's ability to speak about a subject related to their spiritual belief without those beliefs possibly getting in the way. After all you are a Scientologist, therefore in a subject with a possible negative connotation for Scientology (negative in the sense that it isn't positive) you may be running into some COI issues. Anynobody 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Like I said over at Tilman's, this analyzing of motives to see whose are holier is really starting to weird me out. Don't anyone worry though, I'll clench up and get through it, I'm not leaving you! Just don't expect me to address that crap in any seriousness. BTW, guys. You don't really think that anyone that has a life is going to slog through all of this to see if there is some question here that this board can address, do you? If anyone really has a question for this board, I recommend that they close this topic and start a new one without all the amateur (or professional, who knows) psychobabble and attacks on other editors and just ask the damn question. Assuming there is some question. Is there a question? --Justanother 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil did indeed appear with a disruptive attitude. I had mentioned Barbara Schwarz in the ICSA discussion, as an example of an "extreme" admin intervention due to (possibly) OTRS. He then appeared and questioned everything, including matters that had been settled and discussed long ago - when pointed to this, he wrote "Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence!". He then accused me of having a conflict of interest. The basis of this were usenet posts where Barbara had attacked me. (She has attacked about every scientology critic on the usenet) Anyway, all that User:BabyDweezil has accomplished is other people wasting enormous amounts of time, energy and braincells so that HE gets attention :-( --Tilman 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And we are still going round on this and he is not even here. This was his item. Let's close it and he can open a new one when he gets back and we will see if we can pose a question for this board that they might actually be interested in addressing 'cause I gar-n-ass-tee-u that no non-involved editor in his right mind will jump in now. So what is the point? --Justanother 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Ratner Template:Blpwatch-links

Michael Ratner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor has a remarkable interest in the real estate dealings of the subject of this article's brother, and wants to source claims of some kind of questionable financial dealings to their research into government records. Jkelly 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby)

The entire article is being used to paint Steve Walsh in a poor light. This article should be removed and/or locked.

Bardcom 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He is a referee. I don't see what purpose the article could have. Steve Dufour 12:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I just checked out the article's discussion page and some people think he is important. Steve Dufour 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope this can be 'put to bed' now, as I have been in and added sources for the information contained in the article. Cheers. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun

This is not really an article but a missing person notice. Steve Dufour 12:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi Template:Blpwatch-links

In the article about Naeim Giladi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), some editors are inserting direct links to white supremacists, neo-nazis web-sites, such as Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard and the Adelaide Institute. I beleive this violates both WP:RS and it is Poisoning the well. Comments? Regards, Huldra 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson Template:Blpwatch-links

• Template:Pauline Hanson - the subject is a controversial Australian politician who has recently announced her candidacy in the upcoming federal election. A media organisation conducted a DNA test of dubious validity (a Torres Strait Islander was supposedly of European and Asian but not Melanesian ancestry) and presented the results to the subject, as reported in a newspaper story. In this story she is quoted as saying "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war.", but we are not given the precise context of these remarks. Some editors have inserted this material into the biographical article, along with various attempts to ascribe racist views to the subject - see here for discussion. My main problem with this material is that it is of transitory notability - it belongs in a news article but not a biographical article, unless it develops "legs", which a search for follow-up articles shows none. But for BLP purposes, the quote is not well sourced in that we are not given any dialogue or record of conversation, so we cannot tell what, precisely, the subject was responding to. We must depend on the media organisation's own interpretation, and this has been reinterpreted in the attempts to summarise it for the biographical article. --Pete 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how it has been reinterpreted as you claim. A simple mention of the story is there. Current version of quote: "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war" [and] "rape and pillage" - "But I'm not going to knock it. It has made me who I am." - on discovering the results of a media-sponsored DNA test which claim Ms. Hanson's genetic makeup has 9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe"Merbabu 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For a start, your quote above is confected. Even taking the article at face value she didn't use those words in that order. All the paper tells us is that her words eventually followed "When told of the results, the former fish and chip shop owner appeared flustered...". We are not told of any intervening conversation, and therefore we cannot say to what statement or question, precisely, she was responding. The paper gives one interpretation, and when summarising it for the article you neccessarily reinterpret it. But I am not satisfied that the newspaper, in setting up what is clearly a stunt, has told us the full story. You appear to take the whole thing at face value, but it might be that Ms Hanson was responding to something quite different, perhaps the results of another person, or possibly the methodology of the test. You note that we are not told explicitly that it was her results to which she gave the response. We should be skeptical of media outlets which set up stunts of this nature, because they can misdirect the reader to make for a better story in order to sell more papers. Using such sources without corroboration in a biographical article is unwise or gullible, particularly when the subject is controversial. --Pete 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not "my" quote. It is (was) how the article sat when you posted here. And if the order bothers you, then change it - it won't change the meaning of the article. I'm sure if it was something you wanted to hear you woudln't be playing games about "interpretations" and "context". I thought our role was NOT to intepret. Furthermore, are you accusing "me" of "reinterpreting" or "taking it at face value". Which one? Furthermore, if sources cannot be summarised for inclusion in WP, then we are in big trouble - any sourced info on WP is likely to be summarised (or paraphrasing?) - do you mean you've never done it? hmm. If the interpretation is the issue then i suggest you offer an alternative.Merbabu 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The single source for the quote is too vague as to context for us to use it without making our own interpretation. --Pete 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that Pauline Hanson built her political career on views that have often been described as racist, so her own race, and her response to apparently being only mostly white, is notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking notability here, but quality of source. Do you have any input on this? --Pete 09:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality of source? It happened - no one is pretending it didn't. Yes, it was a media stunt, no is suggesting otherwise, but it got a reaction that is notable - ie, hanson's apparent discomfort with it. The WP article doesn't add any interpretation to it. Merbabu 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the source [87]. I invite 3rd parties to check it for themselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Lamborn Wilson Template:Blpwatch-links

Peter Lamborn Wilson is not a widely known author---his areas of interest run from pirates to Islamic heresy to anarchism---but he is a source of controversy. Much of the controversy in the Wikipedia article, though, relates to a pseudonym (Hakim Bey) he has used over the years for some of the books and essays he has written. In the article, in the opening paragraph, we find the following sentence: "He sometimes writes under the name Hakim Bey. The pseudonym may or may not have been a name-of-convenience or collective pseudonym used by other radical writers since the 1970s." I submit that this pseudonym has been used by other writers, and that it is impossible to prove that everything written and published under that pseudonym was in fact the product of Peter Lamborn Wilson. Given this, and given the controversial nature of a small percentage of those writings (dealing with pederasty/pedophilia), I submit that the criticisms within the article (i.e., that Peter Lamborn Wilson advocates pedophilia) are unjustified, unsubstantiated, and may qualify as libel. I have stated a number of times in the article talk page that verifiable evidence, per Wikipedia policy, must be submitted that proves all of the articles were written by the same person, and that person is, in fact, Peter Lamborn Wilson. All of these statements on my part have been rebuffed. So, I bring this issue here, I ask for an examination of the article, and a discussion of its content. Thank you. ---Charles 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun Template:Blpwatch-links

Non WP:RS that violate WP:BLP are being reverted back into the artcile. See recent history and Talk page.BabyDweezil 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article really should be deleted. He is only noted as the object of conspiracy theories, which may very well be true but still are not WP material. Steve Dufour 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

you are looking only at that section. His work for Scientology is N in its own right. But is this notice about fairness to him, or to B.Schwartz?DGG

I happen to be an (online) friend of Barbara. I feel sorry for her because of the attacks against her; which mainly take place on Usenet but also here where she is the subject of an attack article, Barbara Schwarz. Having said that, I would like to see the section about her views removed from Mark's article. I will not nominate his article for deletion; however he is really not notable. Just holding a job, however important that job may be in the little world of Scientology, is not enough to be the subject of a WP bio. Steve Dufour 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to nominate Barbara Schwarz for deletion but was not able to figure out the process since it has been nominated 3 times before. Steve Dufour 07:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a notability tag to Mark's article. Steve Dufour 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More sources have been added and in general the article has been improved. If anyone knows about Mark's whereabouts please let the FBI know. Steve Dufour 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing

A big part of the article is about an employee who was fired for plagiarism done in his college days. The Wonkette is cited as a source for certain rumors about him. Steve Dufour 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this section and examined the sources used. I don't have a problem with the sources. Wonkette in this case is probably acceptable as this regards an event that occurred in the Blogosphere and the Wonkette writer has knowledge due to previous employment. That being said, the section almost certainly does not belong in the Regnery article at all, since it is too tangential, and adds nothing to our understanding of Regnery. It looks more like part of a vendetta against either Ben Domenech or more likely, Regnery. Quatloo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. The section has been put back in with the reason given being basically that Regnery is an evil, right-wing publisher and anything that can be found that might be negative about it should be included in the article. I don't feel like getting into a fight over it, however. Steve Dufour 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It reads like just trivial gossip to me. I bet that most publishers have fired editors and other employees for more serious offensives. It would make more sense to just say that Regnery is hated for derailing John Kerry's career. Roger 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What it really does is make the anti-Regnery people look a bit out of touch. Steve Dufour 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Inayat Bunglawala Template:Blpwatch-links

• Inayat Bunglawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - What takes precedence; WP:RS or WP:BLP? A blog accused Mr. Bunbglawala of sending them threatening e-mail, but ultimately found it could not prove it. Several users wish to add this accusation in since it was mentioned in an Israeli tabloid. I have taken the "Presumption in favor of privacy" guideline in BLP, others disagree. Whether YNet is even an RS at all is also another issue. // Tarc 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the site is a blog, it makes my decision easier to say that WP:BLP takes precedence. The source doesn't really seem that reliable. But even then, I think that BLP should take precedence because if there's something that a person doesn't want others to know, or that others don't deem pertinent to the encyclopedia at all, it should be able to be disregarded. There's always that factor of "is this important/relevant enough to be included?" So in short, I say remove the information if it is deemed inappropriate in context. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to drop a line when I read this yesterday. Just wanted to say thanks for the input. :) Tarc 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TARC mis the issue. ynetnews is a source that fits WP:RS. This site is used extensivly in wkipedia. this is the web site of Israel's leading news paper. This is not an issue of blog Vs Wikipedia policy but an issue of wikipedia llowed to publish what was already published by WP:RS source. Zeq 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you are now completely misrepresenting and distorting the dispute. The primary issue was exactly as I noted above, regarding what takes precedence. I mentioned Ynet as an RS as aside to the primary issue. I did not and have not edited the article due to a question of Ynet being a reliable source; I edited it due to the policy on WP:BLP. Tarc 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew Template:Blpwatch-links

• Kate Mulgrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Acting on a ANI report, I've indefblocked a user, Taylor364 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who did almost nothing but blank Talk:Kate Mulgrew repeatedly. That user has now issued a legal threat. On further investigation, it appears that Timfhagan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – who may be Mulgrew's (ex-?)husband, U.S. politician Tim Hagan – had tried, earlier, to have information removed from the article and/or talk page, apparently pertaining to Mulgrew's stance on abortion or about an adoption of hers. Given this, we can speculate that Taylor364 is a sockpuppet of Timfhagan, and that if this is so, the legal threat would come from Tim Hagan. I'm unsure on how to proceed in such a situation – does this need Office attention of any sort? – and if yes, whom to contact. Guidance by those versed in WP:BLP matters would be appreciated. See also this explanation of the issue by an involved user on my talk page. // Sandstein 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, I don't think we should jump to conclusions. For all we know, she could be telling the truth. I would suggest that you possibly run checkuser on both of the people, to get a better sense of whether they're sock puppets. Given those are sockpuppets, you can rule out any possibility of it being either one of those who they say they are. If not, though, then I think the person has a right to take off whatever they don't want on the page about them. It's only right. But I doubt that that is actually Kate Mulgrew. But again, don't just assume. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I don't quite understand what you are saying. I've no reason to assume that Kate Mulgrew herself is involved in editing her article. My question was whether the legal threat by someone who may be her husband warrants any further action. Sandstein 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Well, again, checkuser all of the usernames in question and if they're all coming from the same place, it's probably just some vandal trying to find a hole in the system is all. Then, just revert the comment as vandalism. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  13:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Erwin Raphael McManus Template:Blpwatch-links

• Erwin Raphael McManus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Appears to be a church figure who has supporters and enemies. The enemies (either one person or with sock-puppets) are persistently reverting to an unwikified critical version that mainly links to a bunch of anti-this-guy blogs. One or two of his supporters occasionally revert to a hagiographic version, which isn't a good article either but at least isn't potentially libelous. Both sides seem to like to keep removing my cleanup tags. --Delirium 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Garth Turner Template:Blpwatch-links

• Garth Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A new editor, using the username Dorothy turner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the IP 65.95.112.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been altering information on Canadian politician Garth Turner. (The article lists Dorothy Turner as the spouse of Garth Turner.) Moogle10000 (talk · contribs) interpreted this as a violation of NPOV and COI, and warned the Dorothy Turner account heavily. I'm concerned that the Dorothy Turner edits were an attempt to establish better balance in the article, and that the NPOV warnings were a bit close to WP:BITE. I don't know enough about the situation to judge which side is closer to NPOV, but I'm worried that the editors on that article don't have a solid enough grasp of WP:BLP. Editors who understand BLP and Canadian politics are invited to examine the situation. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

I cleared up some of the mess which has been left, but someone is obsessed with "Snuff FC" and I don't know all the correct detaila about his playing statistics to be able to fix them all. (Jim901 20:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

I have been in and supplied a whole load of sources, contained in References section; also cut out some false redlink cats at the bottom. Perhaps other editors would like to go in and help further? By the way, this isn't really the correct place to put this report is it? It seems to be merely a 'talk page' subject. I can see no biographical controversy in the Robbie Keane article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

The article on Pete Townshend is being hi-jacked by two people (or possibly one person with a sock-puppet account). There was an edit war of considerable intensity that was waged on the article about one year ago. It was then settled with a consensus. But only after the text had grown wildy disproportionate in length and with inflammatory language. The calm prevailed for approx. a year. It has flared up badly again.

The story in a nutshell is that in 2003 Townshend was briefly under suspicion of having downloaded child pornography. The UK police investigated thoroughly, Took away 14 computers from Townshend. Spent 4 months on forensic investigation. Then elected NOT to charge Townshend with any crime. It issued a statement declaring that they had found no images. Townshend had vountarily acknowledged that he had ACCESSED a site on a single occasion - which was certainly a technical breach of the law. The police elected to caution him and Townshend accepted the caution. End of story. Receiving a caution in England is not the same as if you have done nothing wrong. But neither is it a legal conviction or judgement of guilt as that is construed by other countries or by lay persons.

There has been a concerted effort to insert inflammatory (and possibly defamatory) language into the article that will brand Townshend as though he had been charged and found guilty in a court of law. And the sheer quantity of data about an incident that covered 5 months duration in a 43 year career is wildly disproportionate. You can see the excessive exchanges on the Talk page - and the endless edit war of the past 2-3 days prior to an administrator locking the page (which I think was a prudent decision)

Anyway - I believe that this is a serious situation - with a possible sock-puppet account being used as part of a systematic and relentless attempt to demean the subect of the article. It seems to be a vendetta. Assistance and wise counsel much appreciated. Davidpatrick 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds

burt reynolds page vandalised again by unregistered user 172.189.14.186 he removed the entire reference section of which he had nothing to do with thus taking away all the citation of reference for most of the articles please stop these vandals, i have asked a few times if you could do the same thing other pages have and block edits by unregistered users, please help~~ Rogue_Gremlin 10:25pm (EST) Feb 18, 2007

Please use edit summaries and use the preview button rather than making repeated edits in succession. Most of the last 100 edits are from you, so it's kinda hard to follow what is going on. One IP user removed a hoard of external links ... probably excessively many unless there's some important reason to have them there. But that's likely a content dispute - we don't protect pages simply because there is a disagreement - we only protect them because of persistent vandalism. --BigDT 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been persistent vandalism, the externals links removed was the (entire Reference section), that helped to validate the entire page, including the proper citations for almost everything on the page. This is not disagreement stuff, it is straight out vandalism when others work is completely removed. Rogue_Gremlin 11:05pm (est) feb 2007

Colin Angus

A contributor is repeatedly adding the same libelous and unsubstantiated information to the biography of expeditioner Colin Angus. A warning has been issued, and changes made, however, the offender continues posting the same negative messages from different IP addresses. There is no information on or off the internet that supports these allegations."Kingfisher2"

Shawn Hornbeck Template:Blpwatch-links

The article has once again been protected. The current dispute is over whether or not we should call him a "kidnapping victim" or "an alleged kidnapping victim." Outside opinions are needed and necessary. AniMate 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the case has still not been decided in court I think you have to say "alleged". In general, as I said a couple times above, I don't think the victim of a crime, especially a child, should be the subject of a WP article at all. Steve Dufour 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on that one, but there are some people very invested in keeping the article. It's been protected several times, and I'm more than likely going to nominate it for deletion once the media attention dies down. Hopefully we can get it merged into the Michael Devlin article in the future. AniMate 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. I would think that 99% of everyone would think that there is something wrong with an article that details the sexual abuse of a child. Why doesn't WP have a policy to remove it right away? Steve Dufour 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 110%. However, these AFDs [88] [89] [90] show that people really think these are valid articles. They've been arguing for the inclusion of their birth dates and want as much info as possible. I absolutely think we need policy that states explicitly what should and shouldn't be included in these articles... and whether or not any of these articles should exist. As it stands, I'm appalled that these kids privacy is being abused after everything they've (allegedly) been through. AniMate 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to recomend WP to other people, as much as I generally like it myself, if the WP community seems to have such a blind spot about this issue. Steve Dufour 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller

The article claims he is a supporter of Hezbollah. Two links are given. One in Dutch and one in Hebrew. I managed to get a babelfish translation of the Dutch article and the article says no such thing. // Liftarn

Yevgenia_Albats

Repeated violations by User:Vlad fedorov who is trying to defame all critics of Putin's administration. See my arguments here Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules. This issue has been resolved by User:Alex Bakharev who wrote a compromise NPOV version (me and everyone else except Vlad Fedorov agree with this version), but User:Vlad fedorov continue inserting POV, and poorly supported "exceptional claims" in the article. Biophys 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Vlad repeatedly inserts defamatory and not supported by any independent sources claims about Yevgenia Albats made by Arutunyan who is a side of a controversy (see Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules). Then, he uses defamatory statements made by Arutunyan to discredit another journalist Anna Politkovskaya (see his edits of her article and also Putin's Russia. Actually, Yevgenia Albats struggled to protect reputation of murdered Anna Politkovskaya from defamation by Arutunyan allegedly ordered by Putin's administration (see Yevgenia Albats article).Biophys 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Please note that Alex Bakharev edited the article from which talk show scandal was deleted by User:Ilgiz. Moreover, Alex Bakharev has reintroduced the information according to which father of Albats was a GRU spy, which was repeatedly deleted by users Biophys and Colchicum. Alex Bakharev version doesn't endorses personal opinion of Biophys and Alex Bakharev doesn't endorsed you empty accusations.Vlad fedorov 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no any evidence that anyone except users Biophys, Colchicum and Ilgiz agree with the version of Biophys. Two other users are collegues of Biophys.

I would like to respond the following to the accusation of Biophys:

• First, users Biophys and Colchicum never contacted me on a Talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. In fact they just demanded me to stop the editing of the articles. They also never tried to resolve the dispute. They also haven't presented evidence of trying to resolve the dispute with me. Complains to the Administrators noticeboards and false, unsupported accusations of my violations of Wikipedia policies are not a method of resolving the dispute.

• Second, they violate 'good faith' obligatory assumption in cliaming that I stalk them. I am a newcomer to the Wikipedia. I was brought to the Wikipedia, because the article on Boris Stomakhin created by Biophys was completely outrageous since it turned everything uspide down. Convicted criminal Stomakhin was presented as a hero, besides his calls to exterminate all Russians, to destroy Russian with atomic explosion, to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.

• Third, accusations presented here were already taken up at vurtually every Administrators, incident, 3RR, BLP noticeboards and administrators talk pages. So they just mainly repeat their accusations. I have never received any warnings from administrators, because otherwise they would have gladly published these warnings already here. I was just arbitrarily blocked by non-Russian, English speaking admin William Connolley. This admin, however, later helped me to clarify the points of dispute which I had with Biophys over Boris Stomakhin article, but unfortunately he left the discussion on the talk page of Boris Stomakhin article, when the critical decision on the validity of Biophys accusations was needed.

• Fourth, these accusations pursue the goal to harass me and to stop me from contributing another POV into the articles dedicated to Russia.

• Fifth, I also would like to bring all these issues to the arbitration, because the allegations of Biophys and Colchicum that I violate Wikipedia policy by citing reliable sources defame me and are directed not on the sources, but on my person. I would like to have finally a decision of an arbitrator/mediator/administrator that my sources are valid and reliable, the are not contradictory and do not violate anything. The problem is that Biophys claims that every my contribution violates Wikipedia policies. This is a strategy taken by him in order to discredit every introduced material presenting other point of view.

The underlying problem, in my opinion, is the personal dislike of me and revenge of user Biophys against me for the following:

1)Dispute over Boris Stomakhin article.

In this dispute Biophys has created this article in order to present the evidence for human rights violations in Russia and to make the point in the article Human rights in Russia. However, the initial version of this article was totaly one-sided and presented just allegations of human rights activists and other defenders of Boris Stomakhin. In order to make the article NPOV and to add other POV I have added the official text of the Court sentence and Investigation conclusion on Boris Stomakhin. Also I have added Boris Stomakhin citation taken from the official website of his organization. These contributions made Biophys personal opinion on Stomakhin and his initial version of the article to look controversial. The edit war resulted because Biophys claimed that all my sources violate biography of living person policy. He was deleting opinions of the journalists from such respectable Russian newspapers as Komsomolskaya Pravda, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia. See the respective version of my edit of Boris Stomakhin article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=105173635

In order to delete my contributions from the article, Biophys had employed a strategy of accusing me of violations of Wikipedia policies. Namely, he declared that all my contributions are taken from the contradictory sources which violate Wikipedia BLP policy. Namely he claimed that the article of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov who also was a talk show showman and is very respectable and famous journalist in Russia contradicts to the website of Boris Stomakhin. It was established that from the citated passage two citations of Boris Stomakhin are found in his articles on his website, and the third citation is not found here. Therefore it was established that Biophys claims about contradictions are false. See the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22.

As Biophys failed to present the evidence of contradictions he chose to accuse me of other violations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy. He claimed after that the source (Izvestia newspaper article) is unreliable, it is not neutral, and it is "non-encyclopedic". As you see these accusations are not supported by any facts and resent just empty accusations. It is laughable to claim that the source is not neutral, sine the neutrality may be restored by presenting other POV and it is easy enough. However, Biophys pursued the goal of complete deletion of sources presenting POV which contradicts to his personal opinion. He failed to support his accusations here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy.

Following the edit warring between me and User:Biophys, Boris Stomakhinarticle was protected by administrator User:Cbrown1023 who told that he would unprotect that page till I reach an agreement with User:Biophys. The underlying problem for edit warring is that Biophys holds strognly Russophobic views and maintains that criminal Boris Stomakhin, who got 5 years of prison in Russia for public calls to extremism and terrorism against Russians including me, is actually innocent dissident and there is conspiracy against him by Russian government

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22 here wrote the following:

I am not talking about Izvestia at all. I am talking about this citation by Sokolov. 
It was taken from another unreliable and not identified by Sokolov source (probably 
RKO site). He also made a composition from three different articles/sources but 
misrepresented this as a single continuous citation. We do not want such citations 
in Wikipedia. Sokolov discloses his "source": Stomakhin (this is not a case with 
protecting an anonymous witness). Of course, he does it! The entire article by 
Sokolov is clearly a defamation of a dissident ordered by government (there are  
numerous cases like that in Soviet history). But this is not my argument at the 
moment. The argument is poor source - RKO site. Biophys 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 

Biophys himself took his text material inserted into the article Boris Stomakhin from blog [La Russophobe]. As you could see phrases in the current article Boris Stomakhin match those found in Blog La Russophobe. It is evident that this Blog La Russophobe is inciting ethnic hatred at least. The page of that blog http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-lr-russophobe-why-arent-you.html says that you should hate russians. User:Biophys insists that we should agree on exclusion from the article of citations taken from Russian respectable newspapers which hints that Stomakhin is not really innocent peaceful dissident, but actually almost a fascist. My question for Wikipedia administrators: If Wikipedia is a proper place for publishing Russophobic statements (anti-semitic statements), inciting ethnic hatred against Russians? I understand the position of User:Cbrown1023 who doesn't want to verifiy reliability of Russian texts, but a simple search in Google on Boris Stomakhin would lead to all Russophobe sources which are published by User:Biophys in current protected version of the article on Boris Stomakhin. I am astonished that Wikipedia administrators allow to paint people like Osama bin Laden like peaceful dissidents.

Biophys refused to negotiate, he demanded to scrap all sources which may prove that Stomakhin is a fascist. Here is his message[91] and respective diffs [92], []:

Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons
explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to 
discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I have filed petition for Cabal Mediation on Boris Stomakhin article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin

Biophys is a very interesting user, who contributes only to two topics: either anti-Russian propaganda, such as Putin (Putin phallus, Putin's citations), involvement of Russian in world terrorism, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Mitrokhin archieve and etc.) where he advances only one POV - Russophobic, or Biophysics (hence that's why he had chosen his nick). He never contributes to NPOV materials and holds extreme Anti-Russian position. Initially article about Boris Stomakhin was designed by Biophys to claim violations of freedom of speech in Russia (article 'Human rights in Russia'). However after I edited this article to present another POV, he began his personal vendetta on me by reverting and deleting all other materials, because my edits had compromised his edits at the article 'Human rights in Russia'. Incidentaly, the article was edited by two Russian admins - Alex Bakharev and Mikka, but Biophys was reverting and deleting even their versions, without any hesitation.

2)Accusations of Stalking.

As could be seen from the complaint, applicants do not show the real evidence of me stalking them, they just provide links to the history pages of some articles. It could be seen from these pages, that my edits, contributed to these articles, are deleted by users Biophys and Colchicum in no more than 24 hours period.

Moreover, the fact that some pages were created by Biophys and Colchicum doesn't grant them any authority or powers to publish false information in them. And certainly doesn't forbid other users from editing their one-sided stories by adding relevant and sourced material.

Users Biophys and Colchicum never tried to resovle any disputes with me. Empty and false accusations on Administrators noticeboards are not a method of peaceful dispute resolution. Personal attacks and unsupported deletions of my contributions, intimidation and threats are certainly not the way a man could resolve a dispute.

Users Colchicum and Biophys claim that I currently 'stalk' them. However, it could be easily ascertained form the Colchicum contributions page that he is editing the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Colchicum

14:39, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anatoliy Serdyukov 14:24, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dzhokhar Dudaev (→Assassination) 03:39, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Democratic Union (Russia) (top) 03:36, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Viktor Cherkesov (top) 03:21, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions) 03:19, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions) 03:18, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Kondopoga (→2006 ethnic tensions) 02:48, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Petri Krohn (Reiman) (top) 02:35, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergey Naryshkin (top) 02:24, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anatoliy Serdyukov 02:20, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Anatoliy Serdyukov 02:06, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Anatoliy Serdyukov (→External links) 02:00, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov (→Early life) 01:58, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov 01:57, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Eduard Limonov 01:57, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Eduard Limonov 01:56, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Vladimir Pribylovsky (→External links) (top) 01:52, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Akhmed Zakayev (→Exile) (top) 01:50, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Akhmed Zakayev (→Exile) 01:44, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Template:Russian Government Cabinets (top) 01:42, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Mikhail Fradkov's Second Cabinet (→External links) 01:41, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgeny Primakov's Cabinet 01:40, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet (top) 01:38, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet 01:37, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m User:Colchicum 01:34, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet 01:31, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) m Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet 01:31, 18 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Sergei Kiriyenko's Cabinet

It is evident from my contributions page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov

04:25, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (→External links - Do not force you POV on Stomakhin.) 04:24, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Boris Stomakhin is not a dissident, he is a criminal) 04:20, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (Irrelevant phrase deleted. Claims that mafia is ruling some country are ridiculous, then Clinton met russian mafia boss Eltsin? It is absurdity.) (top) 04:18, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (Absurd - is what you write here. Aleegations are not real facts and you should correctly edit the article containing unconfirmed allegations.) (top) 04:16, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (This is completly sourced and neutral text supported with references and good sources. Stop stalking me.) (top) 06:17, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (→Miscellanea - Source says they are not GRU. They are under control of GRU - which is a deifferent thing. You have falsified infornation) 06:14, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (As far as I see there are only allegations without any reliable sources) 06:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 06:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:40, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:40, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:39, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov) 05:25, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (Unsourced defamatory statement presenting original research removed. Biophys stop stalking me.) 05:24, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (There are no any references. Enforcing Wikipedia policy on sources.)

That I do not follow edits of the user Colchicum and his claims that I disrupt his edits and Wikipedia activities are false. Moreover the articles which he refers to in his support were not created by him, but by user Biophys. Therefore, user Colchicum allegations are not supported by the real facts and are fraudulent. He just tries to help his fellow Biophys there. Moreover, Colchicum invites other users who presented POV identical with him to harass me, in particular user Ilgiz - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ilgiz&diff=prev&oldid=109309046. They also try to intimidate users who are supporting me and it's going on right here on discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. Here Colchicum writes false accusations that I personally pursue him by stalking his edits which is clear lies that could be easily ascertained.

User Biophys also openly acknowledged his personal stalking of me (user Vlad fedorov) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colchicum#Thank_you:

I cite Biophys confession published on the talk page of Colchicum:

Please note that it perfectly appropriate to follow logs of other users. 
We can do it. WP:STALK policy says: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been 
coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the 
same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or 
distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an 
editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean 
reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. 
The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." 
Obviously, it was Vlad who disrupted our work in Wikipedia. 
Biophys 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 

It could be easily seen that users Biophys and Colchicum conspired against me not because of stalking, but because my edits and contributions present other point of view, which they do not tolerate and make everything possible in order to harass and intimidate me.

Biophys also confessed in his message to me, that his articles indeed have mistakes [93], but he demanded that I should not correct his mistakes which is outrageus.

As could be seen from the following history pages, my edits are reverted or deleted by user Biophys in less than 24 hours after my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Active_measures&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 16:56, 17 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (everything was supported by refereces; this is personal attack by two partisan users) .... (cur) (last) 08:37, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - You haver to prove the 'worldwide' character) (cur) (last) 08:15, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - This statement is a blog entry and violates Wikipedia policy. The statement is also unsourced and not supported by where the citations were taken from.) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 15:07, 9 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (this is description of his books (read them!) - supported by references) (cur) (last) 07:59, 9 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (This is unsupported defamatory statement against ethnic Russians) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasnost_Defence_Foundation&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 17:33, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (cur) (last) 08:15, 18 January 2007 Khatru2 (Talk | contribs) m (→Funding - disambig) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (cur) (last) 08:12, 17 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Funding - see talk) (cur) (last) 07:52, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Funding) <cut end>

It is therefore evident, that it's not me, but Biophys traces my contributions, for it is always Biophys who reverts my edits in no more than 24 hours often without any explanations.

I would like to discuss here just the typical case. In the article dedicated to Russian security agency GRU[94], it was written that terrorist Shamil Basaev and Said-Magomed Kakiev, Said-Magomed Kakiev are 'Chechen GRU agents'. I have deleted these phrases, because there are no any evidence and sources that support these statements. Moreover, there are just allegations that Shamil Basaev was trained by some Intelleigence service long before the Chechen Conflict arised. Biophys however wrote a list of Chechen GRU agents, thereby presenting these pure allegations as established facts.

In less than 30 minutes my edits were reversed by Biophys,

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 05:18, 19 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links) (cur) (last) 04:48, 19 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Chechen GRU agents - False unsupported statements removed) <cut end>

who has cited the following source: Land of the warlords, by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian Unlimited as evidencing that Said-Magomed Kakiev and Said-Magomed Kakiev are Chechen GRU agents. However, in the article the following is written about these individuals:

"Alkhanov rang for the help of Said Magomed Kakiev", the powerful head of the "West" 
battalion of 900 Chechen fighters under the control of Russian military intelligence, the GRU. 

Zair said Alkhanov has gained the support of not only Kakiev but Sulim Yamadayev, the 
head of the "East" battalion, 800 hardened special forces Chechens also under the 
control of the GRU. 

It could be clearly seen that newspaper article doesn't say these individuals are GRU agents. It says just their battalions were under control of GRU which is a different thing at all. It follows therefore, that Biophys has repeatedly and intentionally reintroduced false disinformation by these edits into the article [95], [96] and [97]. And as such violated repeatedly Wikipedia policy.

This is just fresh typical example of Biophys anti-Russian activities in the Wikipedia.

Other case include:

Deletion of pertinent information from the article dedicated to Yevgenia Albats. And specifically deletion of the information that her father has been GRU spy during the WW II. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=108373818&oldid=108344491 Please note that Biophys has never actually presented his arguments on deletion of this information on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats. According to the Wikipedia policy deletion of sources material is vandalism. This information about Albats father was later reintroduced by the administrator Alex Bakharev here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=109477667&oldid=108836686. However, it was evident that the information about Albats father compromises her neutrality as a researcher appointed on Parlament commission for the investigation of KGB activitites and compromises reliability of Albats claims. That's why Biophys initiated campaign for the deletion of such material.

Biophys also claimed on the talk page that the following sources: Boorishness as a World View by Yelena Kalashnikova (in Russian) Full Albats by Oleg Kashin, business newspaper Vzgliad, October 26, 2006 (in Russian)

violate BLP policy, because they are: 1) not neutral 2) controversial 3) Allegations of crude and extremely uncivil behavior 4) Unsubstantiated accusations of fraud

However Biophys failed to show how these materials violate Wikipedia policies. There are no facts, evidence, whereabouts and so on. Again Biophys undertook the same false accusations campaign against sources and information he personaly dislikes and the same false flag campaign he was waging on the Boris Stomakhin. Just empty and unsubstantiated accusations.

I have reverted deletions by Biophys of well-sourced materials published by another author on the article Mitrokhin archive. This deletion could be seen here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitrokhin_Archive&diff=107010834&oldid=106018891 I have reinserted these well-sourced statements, since they are reliable and definitely should be mentioned in the article. I have deleted Biophys's unsourced defamatory statements on Russians as ethnicity which incite ethnic hatred in the article David Satter. Please note that Biophys reinserts unsourced statements inciting ethnic hatred by following edits cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&diff=prev&oldid=107021411. I think he should be blocked for violation of LP policies, since these statements describe David Satter as inciting ethnic hatred at least.

I would like to notice that Biophys deletes well-sourced materials not for the first time. For example Biophys has deleted good source in the article State sponsored terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=102543018&oldid=102542124 Revision as of 23:23, 22 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Biophys (Talk | contribs) /* United States - reference to blog removed, non-working reference corrected) deleted the working link to [98]. I ask you to read his comments with attention, first Biophys claims that it is a blog, and second he claims the link is broken. But how he could say it is a blog if the link is actually broken? By the way, the source is not a blog and the link always works.

Every edit is explained and supported with specific arguments. FSB cannot be described as a secret police, since this term according to the respective Wikipedia article refers to the totalitarian states. I have corrected Biophys POV to NPOV, since CIA is not described as a secret police. As to the Human Rights article, I have employed the same approach which Biophys has taken in regard to the Izvestia article in Boris Stomakhin case. Biophys uses unconfirmed allegations of Anna Politkovskaya which is said was publishing her materials without verifications and presents them as facts and not as unconfirmed allegations.Parfitt, Tom (2006-10-08). "Assassin's Bullet Kills Fiery Critic of Putin". The Observer. Retrieved 2006-10-09. Moreover, in the cited sources on Russian there are no allegations of Politkovskaya that people were detained because of their religion, while Biophys inserted these claims into the passage dedicated to the freedom of religion, which is evidently is not appropriate.

I would like to bring your attention, that I have never deleted the information which was contributed by users Biophys and Colchicum. And their claims about Stalking are actually turn everything upside down, since I do not follow tremendous number of their articles. And claims about me pursuing Colchicum are absurd, since actually he first began harassing me (Mediation case page on Boris Stomakhin) by writing everywhere about my two acknowledged mistakes, thereby violating the Wikipedia rule that editors do not discuss personalities and discuss the articles and sources.

3)Allegations of uncivil behaviour.

I would like to notice that in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#La_Russophob, Biophys behaved himself incivil, and I never wished him to die actually. Biophys wrote 'Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia?'. Considering that Biophys wrote offensively in regard of Putin, I have responded the following way: 'The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too'. I don't find such exchange to be offensive, since Biophys first began 'death' assumptions.

This situation also concerns attepmts of Biophys to introduce defamatory claims of Russian journalist who was sentenced for his libelous and defamatory claims in regard of Putin into the article on [Phallus] cur [99]. Moreover, in order to abuse Putin he published this material deleted from the articles on Vladimir Putin and Phallus on his personal talk page, as well as his deleted article on the blog La Russophobe.

Later in order to hide information compromising him he deleted this material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biophys&diff=prev&oldid=107095030 the edit which he called clean-up.

Moreover, Biophys openly hinted on me as an agent of KGB working in the internet here [100]. He called me a troll on my talk page[101] and therefore personaly attacked me too.

Even now User Biophys maintains speculatory article about FSB brigades working in the internet on his talk page in order to send the message to and to harass everyone who has POV different from his. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biophys.

Summary

User Biophys and user Colchicum wage false accusations camapaign against me in order to punish me for presenting my POV in the articles which they feel are important for them. In order to disrupt my work, intimidate and harrass me, they accuse me of violating virtually everything in the Wikipedia and persistently publish their accusations on Administrators Incident Noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, BPL noticeboard. They persistently complain to the administrators urging them to punish me. All this is done with one goal - to silence individuals having other opinion, to punish those who correct their intentional mistakes and malicious disinformation.

I would like to bring to the attention that all of the disputes cited in the accusations of Biophys and Colchicum were published on the respective noticeboards and administrators pages. The problem is that no one has directly ruled that Biophys and Colchicum accuse me falsely. The issues which they complain here were taken by the administrator Alex Bakharev on his talk page.

Users Biophys and Colchicum actual reason for my public prosection is that I present the point of view they personally dislike and do not tolerate. There is no any evidence that I disrupt their work by creating annoyance or distress. It is my POV that creates 'annoyance or distress' for Biophys and Colchicum.

As could also be seen, users Biophys and Colchicum never tried to resolve any disputes with me. All they have done is false accusations and deletions of my contributions to the respective articles.

I would like to ask anyone here in Wikipedia to review all the pertinent materials to this dispute in detail, and not to consider surface accusations of the users who brought the complain against me. I could be contacted any time on my talk page and could provide any information that is needed to handle this case or others in which I am involved.

I would also like anyone here to ask the administrators User:Alex Bakharev and User:Mikkalai, about these disputes, since they were observing this dispute from its very beginning and were themselves editing the articles on which this duo complains.

Desired outcome

I beg anyone competent to take measures in order to stop users Biophys and Colchicum from persistent and continued campaign waged by them against me. I am not a witch and Wikipedia is not a witch trial place. If they couldn't tolerate opinion of other users and if they can't held disputes over the edits by means other than Complaints, then should create their own ecyclopedia where they could do whatever they want without other users disturbing them by other point of views.Vlad fedorov 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds

This is at least the 5th time I have reported this, PLEASE block unregistered users from editing this page, ip address 172.201.90.27 who keeps hoping ip address' in Reston, Virginia, this is not a dispute issue, he erases pertinent links that provide the citations for almost the whole page and since you can block his ip since he uses an anonimyzer or dial-up can you atleast block unregistered users, which would help stop the vandalism. TY ~~ Rogue_Gremlin Feb 20, 2007 9:07pm est

Some of the references you are adding to the article aren't helpful. I'm looking at this edit [102]. Just linking to http://www.britannica.com or http://encarta.msn.com/Default.aspx doesn't help. If you used the Burt Reynolds article as a reference, link to that article. The best practice is to link everything inline using {{cite web}}. So you would write something like this:

This is the line I want to cite. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://whatever|date=whatever|etc...}}</ref>

That will appear in the article like this:

This is the line I want to cite.

And then if you add a <references /> tag to the bottom of the article, everywhere that you have a <ref> link in the article will show up at the bottom. As it is, the IP user is right. Several of the links you have in there just say the same thing. Does that help at all? As it is, the references section just isn't that useful. If you would like an example of an article where inline citations are properly being used, see Wikipedia. If I can help you further, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks. --BigDT 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2 you mentioned are very helpful you just can't view them for free. Rogue_Gremlin Feb 2007

Mike Huckabee (pt. 2) Template:Blpwatch-links

Two editors repeatedly adding an undersourced, biased text of dubious notability, with extensive incivility.

Maybe more editors coming in can add some sanity. A.J.A. 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Derek Bell (baseball player) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Derek Bell (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Derek Bell is a former baseball player who lost his job with his team after threatening to go into what he termed "Operation Shutdown" before the 2002 season. He hasn't played professionally since, and has gone downhill rapidly and been arrested for drug use. Various anonymous IPs in the 192.88.124 range have been attempting to insert a mocking reference to Mr. Bell's unfortunate circumstances into the article ("Operation Shutdown is currently in its Xth month."). I think this is unencyclopedic and needlessly cruel, and have been reverting. Most recently, a "new" user has showed up to add the identical piece of information. Anyway, if y'all could help keep an eye on things, I'd appreciate it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the several users to edit the Derek Bell article, I feel that it is worth noting that the status of Operation Shutdown has been a part of Mr. Bell's entry for almost two years, and was the reason for starting an article on this particular baseball player. As a fan of not only Mr. Bell, but of the Pittsburgh Pirates, I do not find this information to be a mockery, but rather a way to follow a campaign on which he embarked. Furthermore, myself and the other IPs involved have not been adding useless information, but rather replacing information that I've known many people to enjoy seeing, and that has been there for, as previously stated, almost two years now. We have not been vandalizing the article, but restoring it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcupps (talk • contribs)

Jim Nobles

Editors at this article are asserting, based on some occult organisation's websites, that a politician in Seattle Washington is an occultist. The websites fail our reliable sources guidelines, and it seems likely that there are two different individuals, both interested in politics, actually involved here. Jkelly 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending material, and have left a note at the talk page of the article and of the user who was inserting the claim. Musical Linguist 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard Am I not getting it?

• Talk:L. Ron Hubbard - Hi. There was a posting to the talk page here that I considered gross misuse of the talk page so I deleted it here. Now I know that my deletion there may not be supported in policy and that is not what I am asking about. One editor let my deletion slide but another reverted it. I then removed only the part that I thought was an ultra-clear BLP vio, here and again, here. Figured that would be the end of it but one came back with lawyerly stuff and the other that I am just wacked to think that (my words, not his). Am I wacked? On just this point, I mean! Please (laff). I thought that sort of unsupported and wildly derogatory material could not stand, no matter where it appeared. I thought that is what BLP says. Thanks Justanother 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - Technically, BLP applies to article space, not the talk page. The comments you cite were not in line with Wikipedia norms in that the talk pages are specifically for the purpose of discussing ways to improve the article, not a blog or forum to voice opinions on celebrities. Feldspar's warning to that effect was an appropriate response to the comments. The comments could be seen as vandalism and removed as not constructive or trolling. But in that case, IMHO, it's better just to ingore them and not encourage the trolls.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. Thanks for your input. How do you then reconcile this prominent line in BLP

    Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. (emphasis added)

    --Justanother 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - I think the difference is that it is obvious that the comments in question are not presented as biographical information officially sanctioned by Wikipedia and no reasonable person would construe them as such. (That's not a shot at you, I just mean that there's no possibility of litigation as the comments are clearly presented as one editor's opinion and not given as "fact". Nevertheless, I have left a warning on the user's talk page.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. That is an interesting take. I can see the logic of it but, I guess that my problem is that it introduces "gray area" into something that should probably have as little gray area as possible. We agree that the comment is inappropriate and it is certainly about a living person but now we have to apply some subjective test as to whether litigation is a factor (IAMNOTALAWYER). This one may have been clear but why add the gray area? WP:BLP does not seem to. And is it only about litigation? Wasn't there something in BLP about feelings? Why would we allow that comment to stand anywhere here? The other problem with leaving such trollish remarks in is that it leads to subtle (or not-so-subtle) enabling of the abusers. Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions. That is a little subtle (and if I misinterpreted from that that Feldspar agrees with the troll then I apologize) but I have seen it much more obvious. My feeling is that such trolls should just be removed and that the BLP aspect just seals the deal. What do you think? --Justanother 15:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - All good points...and I don't disagree. However, we're now getting into other issues that are better dealt with on more germane pages. I don't feel that this is a WP:BLP issue for reasons outlined above. You're right, however, about the "grey area" and that should be discussed on the WP:BLP policy talk page to get more consise language in the policy regarding article talk pages. This is a clear case of trolling and could legitimately be removed as such. However, that's not always the most productive was to handle trolls. As for how to best deal with trolls, see WP:NOFEEDING under the subsections "Not feeding the Trolls" and "the value of slow reverts". I am going to remove the comments as trolling and see what happens.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you once again and very much this time. It is quite a pleasure and a distinct change to have my ideas and concerns addressed with respect and not as "fantastical, bizarre". I am not even saying that my idea of the application of BLP was correct, simply that, IMO, it is not really that much of a stretch from the words and intent of BLP, though perhaps going a bit into "uncharted territory". I will look forward to any discussion of this on the policy talk page and may well start one myself at a later time. Thank you again for your help. --Justanother 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Backmasking Template:Blpwatch-links

Poorly sourced claims are being made in this article about backmasking artists. The statement reads:

Other artists accused of backmasking include The Eagles[13], Queen[14], Black Oak Arkansas[15], Britney Spears[16], and Rush[17].

I asked for citations to this article and they were provided. However, the analysis of them is not reliable sources (please see the talkpage discussion). Could someone please clear this up? Ronbo76 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Toensing

This looks to have an NPOV problem. I'll revert, but could someone keep an eye on this?

Thanks.

Eddieuny 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman Hausherr Template:Blpwatch-links

• Tilman Hausherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A number of editors are working together to continually reinsert some poorly sourced information which it seems would inevitably cause a very POV guilt-by-association effect. An entire paragraph is devoted to explaining what a persecutory person a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner" is, not because the article subject is a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner", but because he allegedly "worked for years" with one, and "wrote for" that "Lutheran Sect Commissioner"'s magazine. Only problem is, the single citation that claims to show that they "worked for years" together only shows that they were at a single picket together, and the pieces that were supposedly "written for" the Lutheran Sect Commissioner's magazine are nothing but weekly digests giving capsule summaries of news stories that are of interest in a particular field. Just because someone reprints such a list of capsule descriptions does not in any way show that the list was written for them.

Moreover, the people who are working together to repeatedly reinsert this poorly sourced and POV information appear to be taking a far different approach to this article than they do to any of the articles whose subjects they prefer. As I write this, the report exactly three above mine on this noticeboard is Justanother (talk · contribs) arguing repeatedly that not editing out of another editor's words a personal opinion that Tom Cruise may be "crazy and bad" is a violation of WP:BLP. (And incidentally, also taking the opportunity to smear me with innuendoes such as "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions" when what I told the new editor, the one Justanother refers to as "the troll", was that "Our own personal value judgements ... our personal opinions ... don't really belong here unless they lead to improvements in the article". I am not happy that Justanother is now trying to insinuate that I am somehow expressing support for the troll's views by not phrasing it as "Your opinions are not welcome here".) But who took it upon himself to restore the paragraph-long description of Lutheran Sect Commissioners([103]) and specifically add material about how Lutheran Sect Commissioners allegedly "contributed to persistent negative public attitudes toward members of minority religions", calling it "The net effect of Tilman's (and friend's) work"?([104]) Who else but Justanother?

Fossa (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to take this opportunity to completely decimate the article of even its best-sourced information([105]) as the second-best thing, perhaps, to deleting it entirely ([106], edit summary "This version contains all WP:RS-sorced information and it odes neither embellish nor put down User:tilman. Keep it that way or simply delete." -- in fact, all sourced information, including that sourced to Marburg Journal of Religion and the journal Nova Religio has been removed.) And Misou (talk · contribs), who has added unsourced personal information about the article's subject([107]) and information sourced to Renate Hartwig([108]) who has apparently lost a number of libel suits (including to the article's subject) actually left me an inappropriate vandalism warning([109]) for removing the unsourced, poorly sourced, or irrelevant material from the article and explaining in each case why I was doing so. // Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not working with anyone at all (don't worry though, I put "cabal" on my Christmas list). The funny thing is I came to it because Misou posted a warning on Antaeus' talk page about vantalizing Tilman (warning since by removed Antaeus here, not that I care). I thought it meant User:Tilman and I could not figure out why Antaeus would vandalize Tilman as Antaeus and Tilman are "cult-fighting" buddies. So I clicked and saw it was Tilman's (non-notable - editorial comment, laff) article, not his user space that was being referred to. So I took a look to see why Tilman was "notable" today and saw these refs to the "Lutheran Sect Commissioner". "What is that", methought, so I looked it up. (I was not aware of Misou's similar reference to what I then found as Misou's had been deleted by then.) Found some (cough) poorly-sourced material in a US State Department Report and posted it. After all, if Tilman wrote for the organization and such writing speaks to his notabilty (god knows, little else does) then does it not make sense to add some extremely well-sourced info about what that organization is and how it fits in to the overall subject of "cult-fighting" which is, again, Tilman's "claim" to notabillity. I mean, we are not running out of paper, are we? PS, Antaeus. I see that you posted this an hour ago and have moved on to other work. Don't you think it might have been worth a mention in the talk page or a notice to mine and Misou's user talk? --Justanother 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Justanother, let me see if I can sum up the first part of what you are claiming. You claim that you only came to Tilman Hausherr because you saw Misou's false vandalism allegation on my talk page, but you did not investigate Misou's claim: you did not examine my edits to see what information I had added or removed, or whether I had presented sound reasons for those additions/removals (such as WP:BLP violations, which you clearly care deeply about -- sometimes). But somehow, without taking any sort of time to look at the very thing that brought you to the page, the allegedly-vandalistic removal of text from the article, you somehow managed by pure coincidence to reintroduce into the article almost exactly the very same text that had been removed.([110]) That is your story so far and it already strains credulity. But all right, let us suppose that you restored -- coincidentally -- almost exactly the same quote about what a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner" because you didn't bother to take a look at the recent history of the article. What is your excuse for restoring the same material after you were made aware that the stated relevance does not exist? When I removed the poorly-sourced claim that Tilman "has been writing in" Berliner Dialog, I did so with the edit summary "As before -- Tilman writes a piece that summarizes news stories of interest; to say he is "working with" anyone who prints that piece is your OR."([111]) Removing once again the irrelevant digression about the "Lutheran Sect Commissioners", I used the edit summary "remove again irrelevant digression about the pursuits of a man who has no shown connection to Tilman besides reprinting a piece that ANYONE CAN REPRINT".([112]) You ignored both of those and restored that poorly sourced claim that he "writes for" Berliner Dialog with the edit summary "Antaeus, what are you talking about? All I do is clarify the group that the article aleady said he writes for - not the first bit of OR. Show me the OR on talk please".([113]) But this is clearly false. The article did not 'already say he writes for' Berliner Dialog because that original research had been removed. You attempted to justify the very edit in which you restored that original research by falsely claiming it was already there. Now you attempt to again in this very space promote the same claim which has already been debunked -- that because "Berliner Dialog" reprints a freely available digest of news stories of which Tilman Hausherr was the compiler, it means that Tilman "wrote for the organization" (oh, it's graduated from a publication into an entire organization now) and that anything which pertains to "the organization" is therefore relevant to Tilman Hausherr. Under a similar theory I suppose that if the Ku Klux Klan were to carry the "Dear Abby" column in their newsletters then anything about the Ku Klux Klan would suddenly be extremely relevant to "Dear Abby"? The material you repeatedly reinserted was poorly-sourced material that violated WP:BLP; your claim that even now you have still not realized this absolutely astonishes me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry to hear that that you are strained and astonished. That does not sound comfortable. Hey, I have no reason to lie about how I got there. I watch your page, I don't watch Tilman's article. I won't bother but I imagine the edit history will prove my lack of interest there. When I arrived there the article looked like this. See the ref to the Lutheran Sect Commissioner? And the "Beliner Dialog". Well that is what I saw. So I clicks on 'em and I sees "net.update - 1. 12. 1999 - 29. 6. 2000 - von Tilman Hausherr" and "net.update von Tilman Hausherr 5.9.2002 - 29.5.2004". Now my German is bad but it looks like Tilman is the author there. So I figure those articles must be there to establish Tilman's notability since, IMO, little else does. Here we have Tilman writing for a Lutheran Church publication. OK, there is some notability, right? So I do a bit of searching and, guess what, I find the State report (it was not very hard). I am already familiar with those and I think I quoted one some time ago in the main Scientology article, if I am not mistaken. So it only makes sense to me to add that well-sourced material about the organization that published the paper that Tilman seemed to be writing for. And you know, Antaeus, I looked in the article talk page and I completely missed where you discussed this and where you justified edit-warring with Misou over it. Would you mind pointing me at it? Please. But wait, what does Tilman say over there:

      For example, that I wrote for Berliner Dialog could be properly sourced . . . Tilman 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

      Antaeus, it is amazing what you find if you ever actually look at a talk page while you are edit-warring. --Justanother 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Suppose that we take it as stipulated that Tilman wrote for Berliner Dialog. Oh hell! I'll even bend over backwards for you and pretend for the sake of argument that we have some reason to believe Tilman "wrote for" Berliner Dialog something more substantive than "Net Update", the previously-referenced digest of stories of interest from the news. Berliner Dialog is still a publication, not an organization (contrary to your earlier muddy references to them as if they were the same thing). Your argument is still "Tilman writes for the publication, therefore he supports the organization that publishes the publication, therefore anything which can be said about the organization can be brought up in reference to him" and as a result your argument is still shoddy and still no justification for your blatant attempt at guilt-by-association. If I were to insert into Kirstie Alley a paragraph of well-sourced material entirely about and unflattering to Narconon, I guarantee you would be screaming about how it was a clear attempt by "the POV-editors" to bias the article -- despite Alley being the International Spokesperson for Narconon for ten years or more, far more of a connection between the person and the organization than you have to justify your repeated insertions of anti-Lutheran Church material into Tilman Hausherr. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, a coherent argument (not the part where you try to back away from your error as in "that poorly sourced claim that he "writes for" Berliner Dialog" but that is OK, we all make errors - I mean the other part about Kirstie). Couched in the usual invective, of course, but a coherent argument none-the-less. Now, had I found such an argument on the talk page from your edit-war with Misou or had you presented any such argument on self-same talk page when I posted to it about my edits under the "ambiguous" heading of "Lutheran Sect Commissioner"; had you responded there instead of using up all your 3RR and having none left for Fossa and then running over here to attack me instead of simply asking a question (an abuse of this board that I will likely report on AN/I so there is your heads-up though I could likely be forestalled with a simple apology); had you done any of that you may have found that I agreed with your argument. I think we have seen time and again, Antaeus, that we two can edit together in the Scientology articles and really have no big problem about it but when you attack me and I defend myself it gets ugly and while it may be "fun" for both of us it is boring for others, and when you bring it somewhere like this, it is disruptive (and please let's not get into the bit with "our" and "your" - trust me, you don't want to bring that up either; please use my talk page if you really must). So, in response to your coherent argument. Fair enough. I think it would be most appropriate for me to make an article on the "Sect Commissioner" and put the US State data there (I also think there is UN data, and did see a bit). Then Tilman et al can help us with balancing the view. Finally, if we then want to put the Berliner Dialog in Tilman (and if we are to have anything at all there then it belongs), we can do the "publication of the sometimes controversial Lutheran [[Sect Commissioner]]" as we would if this were Kirstie's article. Does that sound fair? And again, as I have said before, but maybe you missed, "I do not have any double-standard" which also happens also to be a concise statement of who I am here. Cheers. --Justanother 14:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, please, by all means, Justanother, do bring your complaints about me to AN/I. I will be tickled pink if you do that. I am sure that AN/I will have an extremely delightful time evaluating your statement that I came here to "attack you" in the context of "the bit with 'our' and 'your'" which yesterday you thought was completely all right to share with everyone here and now you think should be discussed in some more private venue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I am at your command. --Justanother 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and/or ladies), I have taken a look at the article and its talk page as well as the extremely long explanations here (in the future please note the text in bold at the top of this page about being consise). It seems this dispute is rather complex, involving AfD, deleting sourced matertial, BLP, arguments over which version is better, and some obvious POV issues. After reading the comments and histories, I believe this issue is not going to be settled here. I suggest that somebody take the issue here RFC or here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. A fresh set of outside eyes not involved in the issue is needed to help establish consensus and sort out WP policies. I would also suggest that everybody take a look at this essay before continuing, it contains some good advice.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed] Fossa_?! 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed] Steve Dufour 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed] BTW, Steve, I had some words about your motives on Tilman's talk page. --Justanother 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Gelb

Another user has reinserted a number of times what seem to me to be libelous allegations that Mr. Gelb used unfair influence to gain coverage for his clients in the New York Times. Also unecessarily inflammatory statements (my opinion) ascribed to the subject, Mr Gelb have been reinserted into the article. Editors, please evaluate appropriateness of these items. Thanks for your help. Markhh 23:25 25 February 2007

I'm the user who readded the sentences in dispute. The allegations at issue have all been previously published in print by a reliable source, and are clearly and accurately referenced and ascribed to the appropriate source per WP:V and WP:NPOV. I don't see the problem. Grover cleveland 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't see a problem. BTW there is freedom of the press in this country and the New York Times has the right to cover whatever they like for whatever reason. Other people have the right to comment and complain about this as much as they like too. Steve Dufour 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)