Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
thanks for reporting yourself...
→John Howard: respond to some of the cheap baiting and childish antic here.
Line 202: Line 202:
:::::Yeah. For Matilda's information, I do a twelve hour night shift, driving a taxi. This doesn't give me a real lot of spare time to research and put together an RfC aimed at eventual ArbCom rulings. Be patient, Matilda, it will come, and your behaviour will only be part of it. The constant battling over Australian political articles has gone on too long and is probably the main reason really good hard-working editors tend to steer clear. It really shouldn't be a major shitfight to keep irrelevant propaganda out of articles. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah. For Matilda's information, I do a twelve hour night shift, driving a taxi. This doesn't give me a real lot of spare time to research and put together an RfC aimed at eventual ArbCom rulings. Be patient, Matilda, it will come, and your behaviour will only be part of it. The constant battling over Australian political articles has gone on too long and is probably the main reason really good hard-working editors tend to steer clear. It really shouldn't be a major shitfight to keep irrelevant propaganda out of articles. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Matilda, you've done little but moan about my allegations of your misbehaviour. Oh, the irony! --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Matilda, you've done little but moan about my allegations of your misbehaviour. Oh, the irony! --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)The cheap shots, baiting and personal attacks above need to stop immediately. If you have a problem, write up your Request for Comment and leave it there. Your childish antics do little to help your cause. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 07:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


== [[Critical Mass]] ==
== [[Critical Mass]] ==

Revision as of 07:43, 31 July 2008

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Chip Berlet

    I am Chip Berlet. The entry under Chip Berlet has, since it was created in 2004, been off and on a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information. It is currently biased and POV and fails the NPOV standard, much less BLP. It is currently under attack from conspiracy theorists and supporters of neofascist antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. Now being attacked are some entries where my work published in reputable journalistic and scholarly sources is being called unreliable and problematic. I have been trying to work within the Wiki guidelines on the entry Chip Berlet since December 2004. It is obvious that there is no interest in dealing with this ongoing problem and that Wikipedia's leadership ahs no solution to wikistalking and attacks by fanatics, which in my case has extended to a battle at Wiki quotes. Enough. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet. If it is appropriate for Dan Brandt, it is appropriate for me. Wikipedia has shown that it is unwilling or unable to enforce its own policies, and I have no faith that this will change in the near future. I have been through RFC's, Mediations, and Arbcom. It has been an utter waste of time. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet, and when that is accomplished. Please delete my user account. I have no interest in discussing this.--Cberlet (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD did not succeed. Mr. Berlet should raise any specific issues on the talk page of the article.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certain editors continue to add controversial and negative information that is poorly sourced, and are edit warring over it. See most recent edits. Citations from two non-notable websites, publiceye.org and antiwar.com, are continually inserted and reinserted. It needs to be rolled back to the last inoffensive version if these edits continue, and I think the page needs to be protected yet again.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Glenn Greenwald

    • Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Could someone explain to CENSEI why this edit is inappropriate. Specifically why we don't say in our biographies that the subjects are "inherently deceitful" and "unethical" based on anything, excepting very reliable (and probably multiple) secondary sources. . . considered in the light of Undue Weight, No Original Research and WP:BLP. And not based on lifting the text of a court case. . .and definitely not without a consensus to do so. My patience is wearing thin tonight, and I don't trust myself in this capacity. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. R. Baley (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of this thread at CENSEI's talk page here. R. Baley (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the judge really did write that in his published decision, then I don't see a problem.Verklempt (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The judge did, and I would encourage anyone who is interested to review it. Very interesting. CENSEI (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that we don't use primary sources in this manner (someone else who isn't about to go to sleep can look up the relevant policy section). We use secondary sources to describe notable controversies, we don't dig up controversies from primary sources ourselves. Gamaliel (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion a published court decision should not *always* be considered a "primary source" for the purpose of excluding it from WP. Now, if a WP article were to venture a legal analysis based on a court decision, that would violate WP:OR. But to simply quote from the judge's decision -- I don't see a problem here, as a general matter of policy. A relevant passage from WP:OR states that: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Certainly a published court decision meets the reliable source qualification. That brings us to the "use with care" qualification. In this particular case, you have to be concerned that someone may be trying to make a point about Greenwald by quoting the court's decision out of context. Probably several editors of differing political viewpoints should examine the decision, to ascertain that the quotes are being excerpted accurately and fairly. And if a sitting judge really did chastise Greenwald for bad behavior, then that belongs in the article.Verklempt (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it belong in the article? If no secondary source has taken note of it, why should we? Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After going over several articles, including articles of living people, its seems pretty clear that we do use these kinds of primary sources for information. Secondly, this is not being described as a "notable controversy", its simply a statement of fact added into the section on Greenwalds involvement of the Hale trial. CENSEI (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And why are we singling out this "statement of fact" among many many other statements of fact contained in such primary sources if no secondary source has done so? Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, its interesting for one (this is the same Greenwald who is always complaining about invasions of privacy), and since this interpretation is not followed in other articles, I don’t see how it applies here. But as far as the secondary source goes, if a secondary source is found will you drop your objection? CENSEI (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interesting" is not sufficient for a matter to be included under the stringent rules for BLPs, nor is the fact that you think it makes an odd contrast with the views of the subject of the article sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You never answed my question, if a secondary source is found will you drop your objection? Please be concise with your answer, a yes or no. CENSEI (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable secondary source is the bare minimum required to even begin to consider including this matter in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is that a yes or a no or an even if you find a reliable second source, I will still argue against it. CENSEI (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One question: Is the judge's decision you originally cited an appellate court decision? If so, then it definitely qualifies as a secondary source. If a lower court decision, then I think it would be a primary source, but still quotable under WP:OR, with requisite care and fairness.Verklempt (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was part of Judge James Moran's from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decision in the case. CENSEI (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's not actually a published decision? In this case, I think the relevant WP:OR policy qould be the one I quoted above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..."Verklempt (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not quite following you here? It has been published ... not sure where you are going with this and how it relates? CENSEI (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Atiyah

    I have already posted something on the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page. At the moment the BLP of the eminent mathematician Sir Michael Atiyah is under attack from a number of recently arrived editors and User:Bharatveer. It concerns the originality of unpublished work by Sir Michael (presented by him in several informal public talks to mathematicians) which they are suggesting amounts to plagiarism becomes of his apparent slowness in recognizing that another scientist had previously written something on related topics. There do not seem to be any reliable sources for the assertions (copied emails, comments in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, a petition submitted to an NGO in India). Atiyah is a member of the Order of Merit. He will soon be 80. He has been a recipient of the Fields Medal (the equivalent of the Nobel prize in mathematics) and the Abel prize, amongst other honours. He was formerly President of the Royal Society, the highest scientific honour in the U.K. Why can charges of plagiarism about a piece of unpublished work, not backed up by any WP:RS, be introduced into his biography? He has a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I presume even in future editions will not record the libellous assertions of this small group of POV pushers. The fact that several recently created accounts have appeared on WP who solely edit this page is also somewhat troubling. Any thoughts? Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bharatveer has now increased his disruption by creating an article Raju - Atiyah Case which breaks all the rules of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated the above article for speedy delete. Please could an administrator caution or block User:Bharatveer before he causes more disruption. He is already the subject of ArbCom editing restrictions for other disruptive behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second every proposal made (and sentiment expressed) above by Mathsci. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also strongly agree with this. Moreover the page Talk:Michael Atiyah has turned into a gross violation of the WP:BLP policies, with several SPAs adding their bizarre speculations about Atiyah. I suggest that almost the entire current content of the talk page should be permanently deleted. This mess would be easier to control if the numerous recently arrived SPAs disrupting the page could be blocked. R.e.b. (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if deletion will help. (Some of the documentation collected there might be useful to have on record, in case of future incidents. Trolls have a way of returning.) I do think though that now this issue is more or less resolved, the discussion about the controversy could be archived. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, not even sure if archiving entire current discussion is in accordance with BLP policy (although I don't really know the policy). I looked at the Barack Obama talk page and that has a lot of stuff, pleasant and unpleasant to one viewpoint or other. Perhaps we could archive the older sections and begin to delete new attempts to revive the discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User MathSci's introductory post above significantly misrepresents the controversy and the sources available. Briefly, the controversy is this: Michael Atiyah, a well known British mathematician delivered a research seminar at the KITP, Santa Barbara and then a large public lecture at the University of Lincon in which he discussed the issue of a possible link between functional differential equations and quantum mechanics. He stressed the potential importance of this idea even referring to it as potentially deserving a `Nobel Prize' and also his own priority: `dont forget I suggested it first'. He was subsequently informed (see correspondence) that very similar ideas had already been published by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju.

    The controversy is that *subsequent* to receiving and acknowleding this information, he approved the publication of a prominent article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society reiterating his priority.

    Prof. Raju complained to the AMS and, under extreme pressure, the AMS published this belated acknowledgement of Raju's work. However, the key issue that constitutes academic misconduct -- namely that Atiyah approved publication of the AMS article despite knowing of previously published work -- has not yet been addressed.

    35 prominent academics signed a petition, supporting Raju's allegation of academic misconduct. This petition states that "there is a prima facie case that ... [Raju's] ... work was initially suppressed." It states its suspicion that "there are no answers to Raju’s charges" and refers to "extraordinary circumstance". The signatories of this petition include luminiaries like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon (the links here link to their wikipedia bio pages which demonstrate their eminence) , and others (see complete list of signatories).

    Furthermore, Raju complained to a prominent ethics society in India -- the society for scientific values -- and after consulting three independent experts and also corresponding with Atiyah, the society declared that it found the complaint valid.

    To conclude, I would like to point out, as an academic myself, that the fact that Prof. Atiyah is a well known mathematician does not gurantee that he will not be guilty of academic misconduct. In fact, as is commonly known, eminent academics often feel they can use their power and influence to get away with academic misconduct and abuse this immunity. It is clear from the above sources -- and I would encourage neutral editors to explore other source material available on http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. This is significant, since if Atiyah is guilty of misconduct, at this stage in his career it would require a biographer to carefully examine the possibility that he has been guilty of this before. In my opinion, the sources presented above are reliable but I have started a discussion on this at the reliable sources noticeboard.

    I would like to request neutral sources to weigh in on this. Unfortunately, Users MathSci and Fowler&fowler have consistently, used ad hominem attacks on Prof. Raju and other editors in this debate and I hope that this does not repeat on this noticeboard. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please refrain from making personal attacks. The article Raju - Atiyah Case, an attack article directly related to this material, has been speedily deleted. Its creator User:Bharatveer, currently under ArbCom editing restrictions following a case against him, has been indefinitely blocked until concerns about an open proxy are cleared up. Elsewhere on WP:RSN there has so far been no support for the use of a petition as a reliable source. Why do you persist in your attempts to violate WP policies on BLP? Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This situation brings WP:NOT#NEWS into mind. Atiyah has been accused of academic plagiarism, but at this point, it remains just an accusation. The issue is still under investigation, and it has yet to receive significant attention from the media. Unless this accusation begins to receive attention from the media and the larger scientific community, I fail to see why this incident is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia; we're supposed to cover historical notability, and at the moment, we're not sure how this incident will pan out. As Perusnarpk pointed out, if Atiyah is found guilty, this will significantly alter any historical evaluation of his work. In that case, I think it's worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, this remains to be unseen, and it essentially amounts to crystalballing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Timothy C. May

    In light of Wikipedia:Blp#Non-article_space and the apparent lack of reliable references for the accusations being levelled, does action need to be taken against the Racism section on this talkpage? Skomorokh 04:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After this conversation, Pmetzger (talk · contribs) wishes to get broader community input on the question of whether content alleging May is a racist, using his own words as posted to Usenet as proof. Pmetzger maintains that this is an important facet of May to cover in an encyclopaedia article, and that concerns over sourcing and negativity are overblown as May quite forthright in his beliefs, which are unequivocal. My response is that going by our current WP:BLP policy, unreliably-sourced information about a living person that it at all contentious cannot be included. Someone's name being attached to Usenet posts is insufficient citation for labelling them a racist, according to my understanding of policy. No reliable sources on the topic have yet been found. Is there any way the material can be included? See this diff for an example of what we are talking about. Any input appreciated, 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    User talk:Skomorokh is pretty fairly representing the situation, but I'd like to expand a bit.
    The issue is essentially this: Timothy C. May is very open about beliefs that would be widely held to be quite extreme -- he's public about advocating for death camps for homosexuals, for example. He's a widely known Usenet personality, and his beliefs are far from secret. However, the notable achievements he's more famous for are all technological and "reputable" writing about him doesn't discuss his political opinions -- that information is only available from the (thousands) of postings he has made to Usenet and various mailing lists over the past ten years or so. (Mr. May does not dispute that he is the author of these messages, and it would be very simple to get email from him confirming said authorship (of which he is apparently proud), but I worry that personal email from him agreeing with his authorship would be thought of as "original research".)
    I see it as important that information on a public figure which is widely recognized as true, is not disputed by anyone including said public figure, and which is as central to a proper portrayal of said figure, should be reflected in their biography. Mr. May's unconventional beliefs about race and similar topics are not peripheral to his biographical sketch. However, because they are not widely attested by third parties in the traditional media, including the information appears difficult.
    It seems unreasonable that the biography should fail to include such information merely because the only source for it is the person's own writings on the internet.
    So, how do we get out of this dilema? A biography should fully and fairly depict a subject, and Mr. May's opinions (which I will repeat, he is fully public about and does not deny -- indeed, he might even welcome having his biography reflect the information) are a large and crucial part of his public persona. The question is, how can they be fairly described in his biography given Wikipedia's strictures?
    The situation seems to be one that was not widely anticipated when the current rules were developed. I'd like to get as many opinions as possible on both what might be done here so that the biography is both complete and fair, but none the less carefully remains within Wikipedia's spirit. Pmetzger (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Including Usenet or bulletin board postings in a biographical article is a big mistake IMO. It creates major slippery slope. Such online conversations seem to me more an aspect of a person's private life than part of their public persona, although there is obviously a fuzzy line there. I would not include this material until after a reliable book or magazine has published on it.Verklempt (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    w cant use usntet quotes about a person, but if the material is consistently attributed to him, his material published there can be quoted. But has nobody in a usable source published something about it? You say its not widely attested, but is there any such source? That would solve the problem, and then a short representative quote or two would have some context, so the reader knows that they are representative, and not something he happened to unwisely say once. DGG (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not about what's "true", it's about what's "verifiable." This holds doubly true for biographies of living persons. As such, there should be no mention of alleged racism unless it's reported in a verifiable, third-party, reliable source. This seems fairly cut-and-dried. S. Dean Jameson 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Using Usenet on Wikipedia (WP:USENET):

    Posts on Usenet are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.

    One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on Usenet, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the television series Babylon 5, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of Babylon 5 under the self-publication provision of verifiability policy.

    Skomorokh 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Hardy (jewelry)

    The company is being sued, not the person. I can';t see how the material belongs in the article about the person DGG (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is currently about the person and the company, and I clearly do not know what to fricking do. I'm okay with talking to the hand, but please don't make anybody else. Flowanda | Talk 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Holbrooke

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holbrooke#Radovan_Karadzic_Controversy

    Not sufficiently founded; speculative, and potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.99.199 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree and have deleted it.--Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Edwards' bio brewing issues

    The article on John Edwards may be, actually is already, on the receiving end of some funny business, so heads up everyone. Seems like a nonreliable source has been "reporting" some very controversial material about the subject. The reporting itself has been reported in a few more reliable sources, but nothing noteworthy about the story confirmed (at least yet) by any of them. This will either blow over as a non story soon, or it will become a reliably reported real story soon. But in the meantime, let's take care that Wikipedia doesn't become WikiNews. A few eyes on it would be helpful, as the subject, a very prominent US politician, has both considerable political enemies as well as plain old detractors, and some of the latter have not been above trolling the talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify: semiprotecting should temper the trolling; the current disagreements appear to be driven by misunderstanding of BLP policy, and thus are seen in good faith. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've watchlisted, but I think semi-protection will probably be enough to deal with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you satisfied with this edit? I'm hesitant to reverse because I have been an active talk page editor and am stepping away for awhile. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the text per WP:BLP. There is no consensus for adding the text because there is not reliable sourcing that verifies the claims made. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)][reply]
    I agree completely with Blaxthos and Therefore - and I believe that the discussion of this with specific detail, as in the following section, may itself be a BLP violation. This story is based solely on an unreliable source, with unconfirmed, possibly libelous, accusations. The only thing that has been confirmed at all is that Edwards avoided tabloid reporters (and that is not something that passes any inclusion test) - the rest is at present merely tabloid speculation. Unfortunately the semi-protection is not enough to prevent this from going in - it already has been added without consensus and has been reverted - so I do agree that more eyes would be welcome on the article. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also affecting other articles. I reverted this edit earlier.[14] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Story of My Life (novel) (wtf?) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a WP:BLP and specifically a WP:WELLKNOWN violation?

    blanked per affirmative answer to first title question; take to talkpage and discuss sourcing first, and only when (if) it is adequate openly discuss wording of content Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    --Oakshade (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is a BLP violation, why then aren't editors removing its existence on the the John Edwards page or moving for full protection? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ← I have protected the page for 48 hours and posted my rationale to Talk:John Edwards. I've also submitted the action for review at WP:AN/I - it might be best to centralize further discussion there. MastCell Talk 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Story of My Life (novel)

    The above article is getting caught up in the crossfire. Editors keep trying to add irrelevant material about the John Edwards material. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Formerly RS

    I have for some while had my doubts, but this Times story actually explicitly sourced to the Enquirer leads to to suggest that we must henceforth regard this source as dubious for purposes of BLP. DGG (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stuart Bell MP

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Bell#Quotes

    No citation given and is potentially damaging to him. I've just removed some vandalism directed at him as well.

    Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this - I haven't done it before!

    Unoriginalname38 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the rather silly uncited quote. It seems like an attempt at ridicule that didn't suceed. Not notable, irrelevant, or just plain silly: in any case its inclusion is not in the conservative style demanded by wp:blp. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert L. Hymers

    • A pretty messy article on a controversial fundamentalist pastor in California. A user claiming to be the subject's son has tried to have the article deleted, while other editors have more or less created a coatrack. I stubbed the article because a quick look at the references didn't make it clear to me that they were reliable sources, but I don't expect the stubification to hold. Additional eyes desired. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Howard

    John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a group of Australians, best described as political enemies of previous Prime Minister John Howard, led by the ex-leader of a small left-wing political party, has lodged a submission with the International Criminal Court, alleging that John Howard is a war criminal for the actions of his government in joining the U.S.-led Iraq war. The case has not been accepted by the ICC, nor have charges been laid. Based on news reports of this political stunt, editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard have been pushing for inclusion, despite the concerns raised by a group of more experienced editors (including myself) that this has the effect of labelling Howard as a war criminal without any solid basis. I have asked that contentious BLP material not be the subject of edit-warring, but rather those seeking inclusion should go through wikiprocess, seeking wider and more official input. Sadly, this is not the case, with discussion now polarising. A typical comment is here: lots of hand-waving, but the edit summary gives it away. --Pete (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone who is self described as an experienced editor should know to discuss the edits, not the editors. You may want to think about refactoring your comments about how other editors are "best described". - DigitalC (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edit summary quoted, it's hard to read it in any way other than POV. How do you see it? --Pete (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It can also be seen from of the talk page history to not be a typical edit summary which is how Skyring described it above : A typical comment is here: lots of hand-waving, but the edit summary gives it away - that serves to mis-characterise the debate and many of the participants in the debate. --Matilda talk 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is being discussed quite adequately on the article talk page with reference to policies including BLP - I see no reason to have multiple discussions in multiple places. --Matilda talk 01:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matilda submitted a 3RR complaint about Skyring's reverts on the John Howard article. I issued a 12-hour block for the 3RR violation, concluding that the material did not violate WP:BLP. Whether it should be kept in the article or not is a content matter that should be addressed by normal dispute resolution. Repeating part of the argument here:

    After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds.

    My admin action is open to review by others, since obviously the proper definition of WP:BLP is a matter of general consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I disagree with some of the narrative offered by Skyring, I totally agree with his conclusion that it shouldn't be there. Not because of BLP, but because it's silly and petty and makes us look likewise. Orderinchaos 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can venture my own opinion on the content, I agree that the war-crimes brief doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not all comments on a politician are important enough to include. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three key points.
    1. The launching of a case against a recent head of government of a liberal Western democracy for war crimes should be front page news around the world. John Howard up there with Adolf Eichmann, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. The wikisupporters of this material as encyclopaedic had to resort to googling because nobody could think of anything off the top of their heads (the three earlier comments). The reason that this material was not widely reported, I suggest, is because only one journalist out of the entire Parliamentary Press Gallery, not to mention the international media, regarded it as worthy of coverage, and then only to the extent of a hundred words on a website, rather than being otherwise broadcast, printed or published. The results of a search on Google News is instructive.
    2. Mentioning such material in a biographical article is effectively giving it credence - maybe Wikipedia is not flat out branding John Howard a war criminal, but allocating a paragraph of seventy-five words is giving the allegation credence that not even the tabloid newspapers bothered with.
    3. The discussion at Talk:John Howard is highlighted by differing views. Given WP:BLP concerns raised by several editors, the correct wikiprocess would have been to remove the controversial material, discuss its merits (or lack thereof) until consensus had been reached, or raise it here for more official comment. The material should have been reinserted only after a positive decision for inclusion had been obtained. That's the essence of WP:BLP violations - we remove them immediately.
    The conduct of User:Matilda bears closer examination. He engaged in edit-warring to keep this material, ignoring the warnings raised by several regular editors. This is not due wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please verify that I have been engaged in edit warring with diffs. Skyring's edit warring diffs are documented at WP:3RRN#User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: 12 hours). In addition to these he consciously decided to ignore the opportunity to self-revert and avoid a block [15] and moreover reverted again following that [16]. Skyring is calling for due wikiprocess but seems unable to follow it himself. WP:3RR is quite clear If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. There were multiple editors watching that page at the time and they chose not to revert - it seems to suggest that Skyring is not reflecting community agreement. The issues as to whether it is a BLP issue or not are being discussed quite adequately at the article talk page. --Matilda talk 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP noticeboard is not the appropriate place for this content dispute. Nobody seems to be disputing the facts, as widely reported in the Australian media, that a group of high-profile Australians accused Prime Minister John Howard of war crimes, and made a submission to the International Criminal Court. Everyone is agreeing that such a submission was made to the ICC. The dispute is, instead, about whether the content is worthy of inclusion. The involved editors should instead use standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes such as an RfC or RfM, rather than reverting each others' edits, or allowing the dispute to spill out here onto the BLP noticeboard.--Lester 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am more than adequately aware that the BLP noticeboard is not truly the appropriate place, however, I have chosen to answer the conduct accusations made against me here in this place. I am happy to answer them elsewhere if they are raised elsewhere. Skyring has accused me of being one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard. He has accused me of editwarring. User Shot info has also stated BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it. The conduct issues relate to BLP - so happy if it is taken elsewhere, otherwise I invite Skyring and Shot Info to make their accusations here. Skyring has said input into the BLPN notice has been tangential - that is because the accusations concerning my conduct have been tangential. As far as BLP goes, quite clearly my actions show I do not believe it to be a BLP violation, it is referenced, neutrally included in the article and I do not think an undue weighted item given the supporters of the brief to the ICC. I have explained that further (and at length) on the article talk page--Matilda talk 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Matilda asks for diffs showing edit-warring:
    This is after he introduced material that he knew would be controversial, and after notification that this was a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit-warring, he should have kept his cool and sought consensus. My position was that the allegations had very little weight and that repeating them in a biographical article was unjustified. As Matilda knew very well, having performed the google search mentioned above and finding only one brief mention in any mainstream media site. Whether Matilda thinks the ICC brief is significant is his own opinion. I need merely note the lack of interest by mainstream media, who would give this story tremendous coverage if it had any merit at all. Matilda's attempts to pretend that the material was significant and that accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is not an attack on that person's character are despicable and bring into question his judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator. --Pete (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe my behaviour as exemplified by the diffs meets the characteristics set out in Wikipedia:Edit war - especially by one who reverted multiple times and has displayed this behaviour in the past. Moreover I was active in the discussions on the talk page and am always happy to seek consensus. I deplore Skyring's personal attacks on me - characterising me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. I am not a member of any group and I do not think my edit history bears out Skyring's assertions. This is merely a personal attack. --Matilda talk 02:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC):[reply]
    I called your behaviour edit-warring because you reverted multiple times in quick succession. The record is there for all to see.. Could you please address the points made above on media coverage? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response, if you have one. --Pete (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As already replied to at 3RR the time difference is just under 3 hours and while two can be characterised as a multiple this is not what is normally described as edit warring. I certainly can't compete with Skyring's efforts as per the 3RR report for either speed or multiple reversions. I regard this as a personal attack and will answer the edit warring accusation from Skyring no further.
      I have already discussed at some lenght onteh John Howard talk page as to why I do not think this is a BLP issue. Skyring (and some others dismiss those who have brought forward the brief to the ICC as non-notable. We have articles on quite a few of those people so we tend to consider them notable. One was the former president of the Liberal Party, another other the leader of the Democrats, one of Australia's major minority parties. I don't think either are usefuly characterised as "enemies of John Howard" (nor are the other people aligned with the measure). I have not pretended the material was significant but I have inserted the material in a way that I believe was relatively neutral and was referenced by a reliable source. I did not wikilink the terms war criminal aor war crime, nor did I categorise him as such (whereas others have inserted his article under the category racists in the past.) I don't believe this is a question of BLP. It may be one of undue weight. I don't think the item is of undue weigh in the article - others disagree and that matter has been canvassed with my involvement on the article talk page.
      Currently I find the article lacking balance as to Howard's detractors. there were many from the characterisation of Howard in the musical Keating and in other portrayals such as cartoons to much more serious accusations such as these. The mentions of opposition to the Iraq war only start to touch on the opposition to this leader. On the other hand his party held the majority of seats in parliament over 11 years and opposition to the prime minister goes with the job.
      A few months ago we held a long debate on the article talk page about some pettiness over Howard's remarks concerning Barack Obama. I opposed those remarks being recorded in his article. Consensus held otherwise. I felt that that incident was trivial despite the mass of reporting around it. I feel that this incident is much less trivial despite the fact that there has been little reporting. I do not think that the number of times an item is repeated in the news makes it necessarily notable - there are many trivial facts repeated a lot of the time - we should devote a lot more space to Lindsay Lohan and her antics or Angelina Jolie's babies if we went on how much something is mentioned in the news. The question of undue weight can be adequately discussed on the article talk page - there is no reason for it to be here.
      At this point I am not going to reply further to User:Skyring - as far as I am concerned she is not being rational with her accusations and is making a series of personal attacks which I find distressing. --Matilda talk 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned you about trying to bamboozle me, and I've prodded you about responding to the points raised above, particularly the lack of media coverage. Considering your response above, I think it's time to make your misbehaviour the subject of more formal scrutiny, in particular your attempt to mislead other admins. Give me a little while to prepare a RfC, please. --Pete (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I await the RfC and will respond there. In particular your accusation that I have attempted to mislead anyone, other admins or other editors. --Matilda talk 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Undue weight of negative material is a legitimate BLP issue. Andjam (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    and why is the article talk page not a legitimate discussion place?--Matilda talk 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, drama central in this section. The only thing missing is a popcorn stand. Orderinchaos 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Get your hot pies at RfC/U :-) Shot info (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where on RFC/U exactly as at this time would I find the necessary case. Your harassment of me Shot info is less than amusing - as I said before put your complaints out there [19] or leave it alone. I thought you had elected to leave it alone [20]. I assume Skyring is still putting together his case - I will continue to wait for notification. --Matilda talk 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody is rather excitable. Shot info (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. For Matilda's information, I do a twelve hour night shift, driving a taxi. This doesn't give me a real lot of spare time to research and put together an RfC aimed at eventual ArbCom rulings. Be patient, Matilda, it will come, and your behaviour will only be part of it. The constant battling over Australian political articles has gone on too long and is probably the main reason really good hard-working editors tend to steer clear. It really shouldn't be a major shitfight to keep irrelevant propaganda out of articles. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Matilda, you've done little but moan about my allegations of your misbehaviour. Oh, the irony! --Pete (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)The cheap shots, baiting and personal attacks above need to stop immediately. If you have a problem, write up your Request for Comment and leave it there. Your childish antics do little to help your cause. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Critical Mass

    Various editors are adding the latest WP:NEWS accounts of police reports, charges, witness statements, etc., involving a run-in between the Critical Mass bikers and a motorist, in which a biker apparently was run over and the driver was dragged out of his car and beat up by the crowd of bikers. Arrests were made, and many news stories ensued. The acts alleged constitute possible felonies on both sides. Inasmuch as specific identifiable people were involved, and the sources are eyewitnesses and police, we are including poorly sourced severely negative information about specific people whether we mention their names or not.

    As usual the two sides are telling very different accounts, and that's carrying onto the Wikipedia article. Editors are inserting (and reverting the deletion of) unreliable information (sourced via newspapers to witness accounts) and loaded language ("distraught" motorist who "sped off" and fled the scene, etc). I've suggested that we stick to the bare facts and avoid too much talk of unproven criminal allegations, but neither side is listening to me. Wikidemo (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Though the language comes directly from the mainstream news story, "sped off," has already been replaced with "drove away." "Distraught" (speculative POV horse poo) has also been removed. As to whether the tires were slashed to prevent his flight, that can stay out for now, but if we find a fact-checked mainstream news source that mentions it, it may be a relevant fact of the case if it explains a motive on the part of the cyclists. Likewise, a 'fact of the case' that sheds light on the motive of the driver may also be relevant. It depends on what happens as this cases arising from this incident makes their way through the legal system. If nothing further happens in the courts some of these facts may become less relevant and it may be appropriate to delete them in the interests of a concise overall article. Critical Chris (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for working with me on that. This was probably a false alarm as far as BLP/N - the article isn't squeaky clean but it's hardly on the red alert level for a Wikipedia article. So we can chalk this one up as resolved and under control on the article talk page, but anyone who want to help improve a cool article on an interesting subject should feel free :) Wikidemo (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. And to others, the section on Critical Mass could use some oversight on weak news sources that are frequently cited by various editors, many of whom may be new to wikipedia, posting under IP addresses, and may not be familiar with WP policies on reliable, verifiable, fact-checked news sources.Critical Chris (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shivraj Patil

    Hello - an editor persist (under both IPs and accounts) in adding some fairly strong (unsourced) editorial comment to this article. Can people please check it out. He's been at it for a few hours now. --Claude Jour (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the BLP-violations were flagrant, I've semi-protected the page, and I'll have a word with the editor in question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm - just noticed that the editor is autoconfirmed, so the semi-protection probably won't do much (though it will prevent any I.P. stuff or creation of new accounts for sock-puppetry). Anyway, I've explained things to the user, so hopefully that will be the end of it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Bayh

    This article recently survived an AFD, but it's recently been nominated for DYK and I'm a little concerned about whether we should be running an article like this on the front page, given that it seems to be mainly a hit piece on her husband's possible COI's. Could I get some input here by people more experienced with BLP issues please? I don't want to run an article on DYK and then get a host of complaints about it, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Only a few days ago was WP:COATRACK brought to my knowledge, and already I'm seeing an example of it! Cool! I also think that the information about the ostensible subject herself is nonnotable. Data from financial disclosure statements seems usually unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. "The house is in *her* name" -- what trivial bullshit! Hurmata (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get a few more opinions on this one please? I would like to test consensus on this. Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the information after the list of boards she's on seems undue and pointy. This should probably be neutralized by summary instead of delving into money earned case-by-case. Also "professional board member" in the lede sentences seems like a jab. This could be stated below in the content but the lede should strive to be more neutral simply stating the nature of the controversies. Banjeboi 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Nally

    Article on former Irish presidential candidate Derek Nally. Apart from the first three sentences the rest is all vandalism, some of it libellous - it should be removed as soon as possible. Coolavokig (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marlo Morgan

    Joe Kleon

    I am looking for input from experienced editors, outside of the few who are involved with this article. Do you feel the subject is notable? Are the sources acceptable? I have read the notability guidelines over and over and I feel they are. An admin said today that a few editors, who are "bored" have repeatedly tagged the article as non-notable and she appears fine with that. I added five lines, with sources such as daily newspapers and widely circulated magazines (both in the U.S. and in Europe) and now these "bored" people are again on the warpath. A month ago, this same admin, Gwen Gale, chose to rewrite the article, after it was deleted, then later REMOVED a notability tag (from one of the two "bored" editors) and is now saying the subject IS non-notable. I am new to Wikipedia and very confused. When I asked Gwen Gale to explain how this subject NOW fails notability guidelines, I was told to stop badgering her and received no rationale, other than 'because I said so.' I feel the article has plenty of reliable sources, that the subject is notable, and that the subject has received sufficient and acceptable press both in the U.S. and in other countries. The subject has not been on the cover of TIme Magazine, but a simple Google search turns up more than 20 pages of results. This subject, with a 20 year career in the entertainment industry, has sources from multiple daily and weekly newspapers, with combined circulation in the hundreds of thousands, magazine sources with large circulations in many countries, and multiple mentions in respectable websites that receive millions of hits per month. This article certainly has more reliable sources that many articles I have read on Wikipedia, including some written by the two "bored" editors. Any input, from experienced editors, on this matter, is appreciated. I would like to resolve this issue, before an edit war begins. Thank you for your time and input. Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid I probably can't satisfy your question with a compelling and incisive rationale either way, but I can give my opinion and I can offer a little commiseration. First, about the allegedly impatient, terse, dismissive treatment you received. This is also my experience in the last year or so; Wikipedia seems to have a powerful clique with this ethos, who answer questions with, in effect, "Yeah?! So?!" The site doesn't have a decent search utility for policies and procedures, and the community portal page is badly organized. It's hard to learn the ropes here. About Kleon: I read the article, and he strikes me as really nonnotable. Now, I can't really back that up with citations from Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so my assessment is kind of weak. But in this day and age, almost anybody can get themselves written up in the print media. He's just a technician and engineer for mediocre acts. Their musical output may be entertaining, so I don't mean to put them down, but we're not talking geniuses of lyrics (like Springsteen) or of musical composition or of musicianship. I'd say the bands are notable, but their engineers and producers are not. Hurmata (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit history is very short, and you don't mention above that you know Kleon. I hadn't noticed that "bored" people were on any warpath; all that's happened is that some troll who uses a succession of IP numbers has returned to the article's talk page to tamper with the signed comments of others in order to make sarcastic comments. Each time the troll does this, the IP number (which typically has a history of vandalism and miscellaneous stupidity) is hit with a longer block; if the troll becomes very vigorous, then the talk page will be reprotected. Meanwhile, a brand new editor has popped up on the talk page, somebody whose very first edit anywhere is to claim (without any rationale) that Kleon is notable.
    I think it has been established that Kleon has a minor notability in radio and perhaps also music production. This notability is enough to have induced Gwen Gale to put a fair amount of time into rescuing the article and defending it against trolls. However, this edit of yours pumps up the coverage of Kleon's photographic work with mentions of individual magazine articles and the like (NB the magazines are of rock music, etc., not of photography) in a way that (i) isn't done to the article of any established photographer that I can think of and (ii) is remarkably similar to the kind of stuff written about Kleon much earlier (in the deleted predecessor) by User:Radioinfoguy (i.e. Joe Kleon himself). Indeed, I wonder how you come to have such a detailed list of references to minor appearances of Kleon's work. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) .... PS When I wrote that I hadn't noticed this discussion. Not that it changes my view. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only magazine mentioned in the photography section, that is a rock music magazine, is Classic Rock Magazine. The rest are daily newspapers and sports publications. Cleveland Magazine is hardly a rock music magazine. I indeed wonder, if you even looked at these sources, before commenting? If you did, you would see that daily newspapers are hardly rock music magazines. These "minor appearances" are in newspapers and magazines with circulations in the tens and hundreds of thousands. Hardly minor. I found these sources by actually doing research. Some were found by verifying material found in the external links of the article. I didn't know that listing multiple publications that have thousands and thousands of copies in print, in several countries, is minor. Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I did add "etc".
    Today I went to a bookstore and gazed rather blankly at thousands of photo books. I looked in a couple of dozen, and ended up buying a reprint of a famous book by a famous photographer (Winogrand, with whom it would be unfair to compare Kleon), and The Day-to-Day Life of Albert Hastings, a book I'd never heard of by somebody I'd never heard of about somebody I'd never heard of. The author is still studying photography, but the book is out and it has printed reviews (as well as blogged ones). I wouldn't be at all surprised if she had photos published here and there in newspapers, but she doesn't mention this or anything like it in her CV. By contrast, Kleon's article specifically mentions and links to such stuff as this one photo, which strikes me as competent but utterly unremarkable. The discussion of Kleon's photography seems to be by Kleon himself. Let him have solo exhibitions or a book published and reviewed, and then his photography will be worth discussion and a very brief summary of his work in periodicals will be appropriate as well. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For further background reading see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kleon Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jablonski

    Steve CarlsonTalk 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to WP:AIN, please respond over there. Steve CarlsonTalk 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonja Elen Kisa

    • Sonja Elen Kisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Linguist and author Sonja Elen Kisa has expressed a desire to keep her birth name private from Wikipedia, and given the murkiness of the issue - she is trans, which means it can bring serious nastiness on her birth family, plus see above re: porn stars, whose stage names aren't even their legal names yet are getting the benefit of the issue - it seems best to leave her birth name out. Her notability is that she is an author, translator and inventor of a language, not that she happens to be trans, and the cite is from a dubious Russian page. // Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Collins

    Someone (user: Intelligentdesign) just deleted an entire section at Susan Collins and it seems like it's clear vandalism. Cluebot reverted the change, and it seems to be a deletion war. I'm new to the community, so I'm not sure how this should be handled, but the material in question may be somewhat controversial, but it was fully sourced and relevant to the article of a public figure. It looks like a clear edit by a campaign or supporter to sterilize the article of any unfavorable material. What is the next step? H acton (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reversion of those edits as vandalism was totally inappropriate. This is an inexperienced user clumsily dealing with a genuine BLP/NPOV-concern. I've left a note on the user's talk page and watchlisted the article; I think we'll probably be able to reach a useful solution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure removal of the section was the best idea, but I too get concerned when I see a list of votes tabulated as such, as such a thing clearly can be selectively synthesized from public records and annotated to color the subject, perhaps inappropriately. The language of the annotations as well as the plentiful outside criticism do suggest an attempt to negatively paint the subject. Some significant cleanup would be preferred to either blanking or to keeping as is, I would think. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback from both of you. I understand what you are saying, but the much of the section just preceding the NPOV could also be construed as NPOV (only highlighting the positive), political branding of sorts. What suggestions might you have? H acton (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think the sections should be merged - there's no discernible NPOV reason to have two separate sections like that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I just gave the disputed section a big cleanup and removed the tag...I have no objection to a merge of sections and toning down any promotional language in other places. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Update) I merged them and tweaked some language. The other section wasn't nearly as problematic, though, so things are looking reasonable. I think its talk page should suffice for future discussion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Shown Mills

    The subject of the bio essentially deleted anything that gave her claim to notability in an article she basically created - was flagged as COI. I speedied it (A7, almost a G7). An anon has posted the following on my talk page: 

    Elizabeth Shown Mills is a real person who is well known in the field of genealogy. Despite the fact that she created the pages on herself and her novel, Isle of Canes, she probably meets the notability criteria for biographies. Recently someone tagged her autobiographical page with a COI tag because of its self-authorship. Eshown got miffed, and twice blanked the page, first using the userid Muse2 and then Eshown. (Eshown has used at least 5 different userids to edit her pages: Eshown, Chezbienvenu, ClioGen, Muse2, and anonymously as 76.18.149.123. See the sockpuppetry comment on her user page.) Because she is notable, I think the Elizabeth Shown Mills page should be restored to the last version before she vandalized it, with the COI tag and Talk pages intact. That would allow independent editors an opportunity to do some objective editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.140.190 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I did the deletion, I'll let another admin decide whether to restore, and which version to restore, and what to delete from the subject's bio. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullshido.net

    I just deleted a large section of "investigations" by this website that were using dead links or references to the website itself as support for the inclusion of names. I would not be surprised if those deletions are readded without sources so people interested in this subject might want to keep an eye on the page. But I'm coming here because of :David Bannon. Bullshido.net did an investigation of a questionable martial artist. The investigation of the martial artist was reported in the Rocky Mountain News. The RMN article rehashes the allegations made by Bullshido.net without commenting on the accuracy or reliability thereof. It doesn't use other soruces. While the RMN is generally a reliable source, I'm not sure if the David Bannon section should be kept or deleted. I would not consider Bullshido.net to be a reliable source. Thus, I'm bringing it here for people more familiar with the subject of BLP.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lurita Doan

    The Lurita Doan article currently contains a number of inaccuracies and in general is in need of a clean-up. Additionally, it appears to me to be suffering from bias/neutrality issues in the controversy section. As a friend of the family I believe I may have a conflict of interest. However, I am concerned that current editing may be partisan, and I’d like to enlist the help of some editors with BLP experience to make this a better article.

    I’ve outlined some of the issues I see with the article as well as additional resources below:

    Inaccuracies:

    The opening paragraph currently states the following: “On April 29, 2008 Doan submitted her resignation in accordance with a request from the White House after her use of the General Services Administration to help the Republican party became known.” This is not accurate, not supported by the citation, and what is more it is damaging. A.) This sentence states an allegation as fact. In fact, there is nothing in any record stating that Doan used the GSA to help the GOP. B.) The White House took no action against Doan on these allegations. The White House never formally disclosed the reason for requesting Doan’s resignation, but it was widely reported that disputes between Doan and GSA Inspector General Brian Miller resulted in “a distraction.” [1]

    The final paragraph of the controversy section contains a similar problem. It reads, “In the face of recommendations by the United States Office of Special Counsel that Doan be "disciplined to the fullest extent" and an ongoing congressional investigation, on April 29, 2008 Doan submitted her resignation in accordance with a request from the White House.” This passage falsely suggests that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) recommendations and congressional hearings were relevant factors in Doan’s resignation, when there is no sourcing to support those assertions and Doan herself has stated otherwise. [2]

    NPOV:

    My main concern is that the controversy section does not tell the full story and in the process, by focusing on what were often partisan allegations, contains neutrality problems. The section does not look at what was a wider issue of friction between Doan and the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG). These frictions were largely the result of Doan’s efforts to combat what she considered to be an abuse of power by that office and her efforts to protect whistleblowers within GSA. [3] [4]

    While it is factually correct that the OSC recommended discipline of Doan for alleged Hatch Act violations, the current entry lacks context on this point. The OSC recommendation was predicated on a single question allegedly asked by Doan at a meeting of political appointees. Subsequent to the OSC recommendation, the propriety of the entire OSC inquiry of Doan came under suspicion. The FBI raided the office and the home of the Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, searching for documents related to his investigations of Doan. Bloch’s activities involving the OSC investigation of Doan are currently the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation. Additional questions concerning the OSC inquiry of Doan involve whether Bloch ordered government employees on government time to post online comments and blog in a manner to justify the investigation. [5] [6] [7]

    Clearly, the issue inspired partisan reaction that has been reflected in media coverage. I’m concerned that both sides of the story are not equally being told. The page contains a rather lengthy discussion of allegations against Doan and only a passing reference to other findings and materials, such as a report by Rep. Tom Davis, that place Doan in a more favorable light. It seems unusual that given the copious materials available on the issue and the numerous well documented developments questioning the conducts of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that even the external links give undue weight to questionable sources. For example, there are five blog posts from the site “Think Progress,” the “best liberal blog” of 2006 in the external links.

    Additional materials that may help with the controversies section: GSA chief scrutinized for deal with friend – Washington Post[8] Waxman’s witch hunt – Town Hall[9] Statement of GSA Administrator Lurita Doan to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – Think Progress[10] Allegations of Misconduct at the General Services Administration: A Closer Look [11] End of the Doan era – Federal Computer Week [12]

    Other Notable Material It seems to me that the article focuses on the controversy but misses one of the things that Doan is most notable for – her management successes. Numerous publications say that Doan’s approach to management was unique and successful. Her successful manner of handling employees and customers was also cited in numerous management books. Her career efforts were recognized by the private sector in 2008, when she was recognized by The Network Journal as one of the nation’s 25 Most Influential Black Women in Business.

    References to help in the Other Notable Material Section: A high tech honcho who says no to hyper-growth - BusinessWeek[13] Executive Intelligence by Justin Menkes, Bootstrapping Your Business by Greg Gianforte and Marcus Gibson, The Naked Truth: A Working Woman's Manifesto on Business and What Really Matters by Margaret Heffern, The million dollar post-it note – Inc.com, [14] 25 Influential Black Women in Business – The Network Journal[15]

    Shakespeare1616 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    C.K. Raju

    Recently, there was some discussion on charges of academic misconduct made by C.K. Raju, an Indian scientist, against Michael Atiyah, a British mathematician. The controversy was whether to include a line in Atiyah's bio mentioning these charges and is, in fact, mentioned above. To recapitulate briefly

    Atiyah gave a research seminar and delivered a public lecture discussing a possible link between functional differential equations and quantum mechanics. He was informed and acknowledged the similarity of these ideas with previously published work. The dispute arose because subsequent to this, he personally approved the publication of a large article in a prominent journal that reiterated his priority.

    The question was whether this constitutes academic misconduct and whether there were sufficient reliable secondary sources to include a line to this effect in Atiyah's bio. In fact, several editors seem to favor waiting for more mainstream media attention and this is reasonable given the BLP policies.

    However, several mathematics editors took it upon themselves to contest this by means of ad-hominem attacks on C.K. Raju himself. For example, the user User:Fowler&fowler stated (emphasis added)

    1. "Wiki-mischief by supporters of an unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
    2. "Pure Wiki-mischief by supporters of a scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
    3. "C. K. Raju incidentally is the same nutjob who has been claiming that calculus was invented in India and, through Jesuit contacts, made its way to Europe..."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)" from here
    4. "That CK Raju is no Ramanujan is amply evidenced in the pathetic correspondence to be found in this package prepared by Raju." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) from here
    5. "Raju is not even remotely in the league above (be it red-linked or blue). A JSTOR search reveals only one paper, not in pure or applied mathematics, but in the philosophy of mathematical education. I won't say that it is a piece of unmitigated fluff, but I would strongly encourage you to read it." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
    6. All Raju has (if he has them) is a bunch of historians who couldn't integrate sec3(x) to save their lives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from here
    7. "I'm sure Raju could bend some hapless journalist's ear in India and get something mentioned" from here

    As far as I understand, BLP policies are applicable (if, to a lesser extent) on the talk page. The comments from F&f above were not relevant to the topic; several were false and none was backed up with reliable sources. An appropriate application of BLP should require the immediate deletion of these comments and steps to ensure that F&f cannot repeat this. However, at a RFC I initiated, a set of editors has jumped in and absolved F&f of wrongdoing. I feel that a few more neutral contributors will help.

    F&f's response on the RFC page, in fact, only serves to exacerbate this case. For example, Raju has propounded the theory that scientific endeavor is collective and that scientific credit is often misallocated. Furthermore, he has discussed the role of politics and power in the writing of the history of science -- particularly in colonial times -- where scientific and mathematical advances from India were often attributed to mathematicians from Europe. This is similar to Martin Bernal's work on architecture in "Black Athena" and to a lesser extent to the ideas that Said and Foucault have championed. It is possibly to reasonably agree or disagree with these views. However, by reading F&f's misrepresentation of these views on the RFC page, you would come away with a completely different impression: that Raju is really -- as F&f puts it -- a "nutcase".

    I would like to request a few more outside views on this BLP violation at the RFC page. It is very reasonable that BLP policies should be applied strictly in the case of Atiyah but they should apply equally to Raju. thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    F&F may be using unecessary flavor in describing his opinions, but purely qualitative opinions about public individuals do not violate the spirit of BLP, which also seems apparent from the RFC. In certain circumstances, they may violate any of a multitude of other policies and guidelines, but BLP is not an issue. Furthermore, now you've brought this dispute to at least three venues, you may wish to stop here lest you be accused of forum shopping. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perusnarkp, please stop forum shopping or you are likely to be blocked from editing for disruption. This is the fourth time you have brought this matter up at a public noticeboard and you have already received warnings from administrators. Perhaps at this stage you could clarify your exact relation to C.K.Raju. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for comment at CfD: Terrorism etc.

    Hello, I'd appreciate further comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_25#Unqualified_"Terrorism". I've nominated several categories largely because of concerns about BLP contained in these categories. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanessa Collingridge

    Created this article about eighteen months ago, and it's been a fairly low activity page. A couple of days ago, an editor added the following paragraph to the page about this TV presenter and author:

    A recent article in the Guardian (March 2, 2007) identified her as presenter of a series of DVDs promoting a UK buy to let "advice" company Inside Track. The company has been featured in a number of programmes and articles as using high pressure sales techniques and obscuring the facts from would-be investors; BBC Radio 4's Face the Facts episode Bye Buy-to-Let (broadcast 25 July 2008) investigated the company.

    I reverted, pointing out several problems on the talk page, about WP:Not#News, WP:Undue weight, but mostly WP:BLP. To me, the paragraph above is more about Inside Track than Collingridge, who has no apparent involvement beyond being hired to present their DVDs. As written I think it implies a connection between Collingridge and the company (and its business practices) which simply isn't there.

    Nevertheless, rather than start edit-warring myself I thought I should get feedback from uninvolved editors. --DeLarge (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're precisely correct. I'll hop over to the talk page...Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Former GSA Chief says she was ousted because of inspector general feud http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/043008rben1.htm
    2. ^ Federal News Radio http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=318&sid=1397090
    3. ^ Doan Picked a Good Fight http://www.fcw.com/print/22_13/comment/152461-1.html
    4. ^ Doan: ‘I lost the battle’ http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0508/050508rb1.htm
    5. ^ FBI Seizes Doan, Rice case files in raid of OSC chief’s office http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39961
    6. ^ Federal agents raid office of special counsel http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1474150261.html?dids=1474150261:1474150261&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+7%2C+2008&author=Carrie+Johnson%3BChristopher+Lee+-+Washington+Post+Staff+Writers&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=
    7. ^ OSC’s Bloch made his subordinates post online rebuttles to negative publicity http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080613_7035.php
    8. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801758_pf.html
    9. ^ http://www.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=f1315f72-9a07-428f-a598-745118cdb9d0&t=c
    10. ^ http://thinkprogress.org/doan-testimony/
    11. ^ http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Reports/20070328GSAStaffReport.pdf
    12. ^ http://www.fcw.com/print/22_12/comment/152414-1.html
    13. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/0005/ma000502.htm
    14. ^ http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020201/23831.html
    15. ^ http://www.tnj.com/events/2008winners/2008ldoan.php
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=228973799"