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.

Are these talk page attacks acceptable?

See Talk:Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe#Reliable_sources where an IP calls Stafford Poole various names. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that reflects badly on the author in question.--Jarhed (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP describes Poole as "clearly a buffoon" and "an ignoramus". That seems like a negative reflection to me. --GenericBob (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A negative reflection on whom? In any case it is a personal attack, not a BLP issue.--Jarhed (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So extremely negative, unsourced comments about a living person (an academic in this case, so it is a hit on his professional reputation) would therefore also be ok in his biography, is that what you are saying? Surely that's not what WP:BLP says is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A negative reflection on Stafford Poole. Poole is (AFAICT) a living person; the lead sentence of BLP states that "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", and Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space specifically mentions talk pages. So, yeah, looks at least arguably BLP-relevant to me. --GenericBob (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

<==If I call you two buffoons, am I being rude or slandering your reputation? I don't think this is a small point, because I see a lot of instances where individuals try to clobber each other with the BLP sledgehammer in cases where they are really having a personal dispute.Jarhed (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you accuse me of writing a poorly-researched 'rag' in my professional field - which is what the IP appears to be doing to Poole - then yes, I think a lawyer could make a pretty good case for defamation (but it would probably be libel, not slander). --GenericBob (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am *not* a lawyer, but if you are trying to tell me that I can't call the author of a scholarly work a buffoon, you *must* be kidding.Jarhed (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you call them a buffoon in the context of an accusation of professional incompetence, then you are headed into dangerous territory. See e.g. Virginia defamation law: Where an individual is engaged in a profession, such as medicine, the law, or teaching, see 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander §§ 227, 229, and 231, "[w]ords charging professional incompetence are actionable per se." "When particular skill or ability is necessary [in the performance of the plaintiff's vocation], an imputation that attributes a lack of skill or ability [to the plaintiff] tends to harm the other [the plaintiff] in his business or profession." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 572, comment c. "Words charging professional incompetence are actionable per se." 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander § 216.

Or [1]: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation... The final element of slander or libel is that the defamatory statement damaged the plaintiff's reputation, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Certain defamatory messages are slanderous or libelous PER SE, meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the message damaged his or her reputation. Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent.

That may seem absurd and unreasonable to you. It may well be absurd and unreasonable. But it's the law. (There are certain exceptions under US law when discussing e.g. public officials, but probably not relevant here.) --GenericBob (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi thanks for providing so much great detail, but I already said that I am not a lawyer, and in fact, I take a very dim view of people trying to quote the law around here. International law is what you are looking for anyway, and I highly doubt that you nor I nor anyone else around here is qualified to comment on that subject, and if even if they were, that would be POV. So I think we should stick to the BLP policy, and in my reading of the BLP, I don't think is a violation to call someone a buffoon on a talk page. If you do it in an article, it is not a BLP violation, but vandalism. Now, if you were to accuse the writer of plagarism, that would be a professional attack. Buffoon? I don't think so.Jarhed (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused about several things here.

(1) NPOV is a policy concerning the contents of article space. NPOV has no relevance to talk pages.

(2) As I noted repeatedly above, the issue is not merely that the IP calls Poole a 'buffoon'. What brings it into dangerous territory is the repeated attacks on his professional competence. Which is the whole reason I quoted several sources and emphasised the bits pertaining to professional competence; I'm not sure why this concept is causing so much difficulty.

(3) You seem to be under the impression that there's a single 'international law' that's relevant here, and that national laws are irrelevant. That's not how it works. If any nation's law says that you've committed defamation within their jurisdiction, then you're in trouble - and as Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick showed, the 'within their jurisdiction' bit can be unpleasantly flexible where website publication is concerned. AFAIK, the relevant parts of defamation law are pretty consistent in most jurisdictions: attacks on somebody's professional competence are likely to be considered defamatory.

(4) The first two sentences of WP:BLP state: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States..." A talk page is a Wikipedia page. If you don't know anything about defamation law and don't want to hear what the law says, then you are probably not in a position to contribute usefully on this page; it's what drives BLP. --GenericBob (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) My point is that quoting this or that law around here is less than helpful, in that it must be adjudicated in court in order to be proven to be in effect, and that remedy is unavailable to us.

(2) It is causing difficulty because I don't think that making negative comments about an author rise to a BLP issue. If an author doesn't want negative criticisms, then he shouldn't publish a book. See one of about a bazillion examples here: [2]. This is not slander.

(3)And you seem to be giving law advice, which is illegal in the jurisdiction in which I live. Let's stick to the BLP, shall we?

(4) You seem to be saying that editors must become experts on international law in order to contribute here, and I am disputing that assertion. I agree that the original comments were rude, but BLP violations? I don't think so, and you are a buffoon if you think so. :-)

Jarhed (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) - You are correct in thinking that we can't establish here, to a legal standard of proof, whether a statement on WP is defamatory. But that's irrelevant, because BLP doesn't require that level of proof. All we need to know is that there's a risk that it may be defamatory.

(2) - You can think whatever you like, but it doesn't make it true. I'm not sure what the link you offer is supposed to prove; plenty of people do take the risk of posting defamatory material, and a lot of them get away with it because nobody bothered to prosecute. But WP policy is against taking that gamble. (BTW, 'slander' and 'defamation' are not interchangeable words. They have different meanings.)

(3) - Again, you seem to be confused. It's not illegal in any jurisdiction that I know of for a lay person to offer legal advice (and while I don't know where you live, I suspect you're wrong about that jurisdiction too). You might be thinking of laws that make it illegal for unqualified people to pretend to be qualified lawyers, or to be paid for giving legal advice.

(4) - Nope. I am saying that editors should at least have a vague understanding of the basics of defamation law, or be willing to learn them. 'Informed amateur' level, not 'six-year law degree' level. --GenericBob (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• One of the basic tenants of a libel action is that is has to be damaging. Any action has to demonstrate damage. If you can find the person who puts enough stock in what some anonymous editor on Wikipedia thinks that it somehow lowers their opinion of Poole (which means they'd have to know who Poole was and give a crap in the first place), please invite them here to express their concern. Otherwise, this is sounding like a whole lot of really petty wiki-lawyering. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the test here include whether this is Original Research and weight. If you can reliably source the statement that person x called person y a buffoon, and it is a significantly notable part of their public reputation then it may well belong in an article. But an unsourced negative statement about a living individual does not belong on wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't this about something said on a talk page, not something that is being put into the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well weight only applies within articles, so it would be perfectly acceptable to have a talkpage discussion as to whether a particular bit of information from a particular reliable source should be in the article and if so in which section. But per Wikipedia:Attack page unsourced negative statements about living individuals are deletable anywhere, not just in mainspace. For example a lot of the attack pages I've deleted have been in userspace. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Um, yeah, I understand that. But when you started talking about "it may well belong in an article", it didn't sound like you were talking about talk pages anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gary Lavergne

I have revised this article to address what seems to be an implicit argument to discredit this individual by arrangement of materials, serving to advance an implicit position in contravention of WP:NOR. Please compare this version with my reversion. I believe that the earlier version of the article suggested clearly that "we" (Wikipedia's errors) disagreed with Lavergne's conclusions, and it prioritized (by structure) the placement of materials from 1966 to do so. This is obviously not our place, and in a BLP seems completely inappropriate. I have attempted to reorganize the material in a more neutral manner. I note it here for transparency and to invite any contributors willing to review the material and help determine the most neutral method of presenting these facts. I should note that I'm traveling this weekend and will not be available after today to discuss the matter until the 22nd. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your version is vastly better; I would hope it resolves the issue. Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What you have done Moonriddengirl, is make a mistake of conclusion according to your own observations, after discussing it with another admin, Stifle. In fact, I removed the material from the Charles Whitman article due to undue weight and because it was more appropriate for Lavergne's article, and no one complained of it there to an admin after many discussions. You also added material from the same source that I did that includes speculation on Lavergne's part about the future legal process that Whitman would have gone through if he was alive at the time of Lavergne writing the Op-Ed in 2006, and Lavergne is an author - not an attorney. Whitman's tumor would have killed Whitman within a year from all the data and medical information from 1966, how would Whitman be alive today, as Lavergne reports in yours and mine source, if he was dead by 1967, or to expand beyond the medical evidence to 1997 when his book was published? An impossible scenario that Laverne advances because he has license as an author to obfuscate information (as your re-write does), have it passed off as fact (as you mention above - neutrally of course), and makes profits and gets his job at the University of Texas. Also, Lavergne has called the tragedy the worst mass murder in American History [[3]], which is untrue as Andrew Kehoe held that distinction since 1927 until McVeigh. You removed that fact, it is not an opinion and it was sourced. If an author is going to profit from his work, he must be prepared to handle his errors as well - there is nothing in the former version that he could possibly hold Wikipedia accountable for - like representing the information in a false light. He wrote it. The book was published by a company who the University of Texas is part of a consortium here [[4]], and here [[5]] and the book was never submitted to a peer review, which would have prevented it from being published as a "definitive work", which is the opinion of journalists, not the legal or medical community. Now it has errors that need to be exposed for the benefit "of all human knowledge", I believe those are Jimbo's words, correct me if I am wrong.Victor9876 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I have not discussed the matter with Stifle at all. I simply inherited the ticket and judged the material myself, as presumably Rd232 did in responding to this listing. I have rewritten your text in such a way that it does not supply a tone of skepticism to each of his conclusions, by presenting it chronologically. Your opinions on Lavergne's qualifications to make his judgments is as immaterial as my own; what matters is whether or not reliably-sourced, publish criticism questions whether he can understand the law or medicine involved. If you want to expose his errors based on your own reasoning, you will need to find a venue that publishes original research. To quote our policy on the matter, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." As to the fact that the press calls his book the "definitive work", you'll need to take that up with them. The statement easily meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and it does not slant material to take a position: which is not our job. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the fact that there are mass murders with higher numbers is really immaterial, as I believe is his claim that it was the "worst." Unless he plainly defines "worst" as "greatest number dead", your juxtaposing these cherry-picked facts seems as the former content was to imply one thing: that you disagree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are these "cherry-picked facts" - From Laverne's site on UNC,

"On August 1, 1966, Charles Joseph Whitman ascended the University of Texas Tower and committed what was then the largest simultaneous mass murder in American history. He gunned down forty-five people inside and around the Tower before he was killed by two Austin police officers. During the previous evening he had killed his wife and mother, bringing the total to sixteen people dead and at least thirty-one wounded."

From Andrew Kehoe's article on Wikipedia -

"The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history."

How is this juxtaposing? The facts are the facts. And Whitman did his killing in three different locations as well as there being three reported bombs in the Kehoe article. So don't try and tell me there is a difference based upon semantics. Both individuals were on a killing rampage to acheive the same results.

From you -

"Your opinions on Lavergne's qualifications to make his judgments is as immaterial as my own; what matters is whether or not reliably-sourced, publish criticism questions whether he can understand the law or medicine involved. If you want to expose his errors based on your own reasoning, you will need to find a venue that publishes original research."

The above is inconsistent and incoherent, can you clarify?

As to the "definitive work" and an unknown AP writer, your saying anything that can be extracted from the web is verifiable that supports a body of work whether it is false or not is what Wikipedia is about. So if someone publishes as a "ghost writer" that A said something to B about Martha Stewart, Martha Stewart would have to accept it because the "ghost writer" said so, and has A and B to back it up. That would be the most disengenuous argument I ever heard. You're obfuscating the issues by trying to make it seem that I have a bias against Lavergne and that I am "slanting" the material in a particular way, that simply is not true because I sourced the issues. Again, the original write was sourced and verified. If you think a person with a deadly tumor with a prognosis of dying within a year 43 years ago, would be sitting in a jail today, or have been prosecuted and executed a decade after the event, there is a serious problem with critical thinking there. That is not an attack or incivility, it is a fact.Victor9876 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Critical thinking isn't called for here; what's called for is good research skills. I'll see if I can make this clearer for you. We are not here to evaluate his arguments and pass judgment on them. Wikipedia's purpose is to produce a neutral, verifiable summary of what reliable sources say about this author, and that's the extent of it. Associated Press is regarded as a reliable source. Hence, what an AP writer says about this man is relevant for inclusion in his article. Your opinion about his veracity or the health of the subject of a book he wrote about is not. Perhaps you can take your views to a reliable media outlet and turn them into a reliable source. In the meantime, you seem to be attempting to write this article in such a way to make plain that you think his views are wrong. Whether they are or not, we are governed by our policy on original research and our policy on articles related to living people. You simply cannot use this article to imply that his conclusions are wrong, though you are welcome to report on it if reliable sources that meet WP:BLP have done so.

You obviously have strong feelings about this case. I wonder if they are coloring your ability to contribute neutrally on this topic. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see WP:NOR vs "what's called for here is good research skills." How does a person overcome this conundrum?Victor9876 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a conundrum to me; it seems pretty clear. Research skills are useful in finding what secondary sources have said about a subject; with proper use of secondary sources, we don't violate WP:NOR. To quote the policy, "Wikipedia is a tertiary source." Accordingly, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You can't analyze his books or conclusions or by arrangement of material suggest analysis. You can only reference what others have said about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Young lady; research is what I do. Albeit, without the restrictions of Wikipedia guidelines and policies which are not "research", nor do they support the founding principles of Wikipedia. In your header above, you ask for a comparison of "my" version (which was a collaborative effort of other Wikipedians as well) with your "reversion", which was at best a "revision", not a reversion. You consistently claim I am using my opinions to "color" the article (purposely} and try to discredit the author. If an author makes grave errors in the content of history and those errors can be exposed for the good of the reader, according to your tenacious use of WP policies, and there are no references on the misinformation highway, there should be no problem with calling a "duck a duck", if there is supporting evidence against the authors opinions, where there is evidence. But you won't see that way, as you have drawn your line in the sand, based on your interpretations of restricting policies. Therefore (now this is an opinion), Wikipedia becomes a repository for erroneous information, which is the exact opposite of what an Encyclopedia should be. All of the medical references used, say Lavergne was and is wrong. Dead wrong. So perhaps in the alternative, perhaps as you suggested before posting this discussion, the controversy here should be removed from the article and "reverted" back to before Stifles and my exchange, for the benefit of the reader who may conclude that the author is right in his opinions and errors of historical data and facts. Personally, in my opinion, this would be the best alternative as the rules of WP have posted a fence, that can not be scaled at this time.Victor9876 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did mistakenly refer to it as a reversion in my link. Above that, I called it correctly a revision. WP:NOR is, of course, one of our core content policies. Another one is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which addresses exactly this kind of situation: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." There are many fora for posting your primary research and opinions, but Wikipedia is only interested in information which has been previously published by reliable sources. As for your indication that this is collaborative effort, this material appears in the article at this point. If you copied this from elsewhere, then it seems you may have inadvertently violated the copyright of your collaborators. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the proper processes for copying content from one Wikipedia page to another. You must at minimum provide a direct link to the article from which you are copying in edit summary.

The section can be removed. Since it's more about the book than about the author himself, it does not seem essential to the bibliography. However, the Associated Press comment about the book speaks to the author's notability and should probably be retained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever! [[6]]. Victor9876 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying your point of copying. I will repair the licensing issue at the destination article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Moonriddengirl's statement above that the section in question can be removed, I will do so. Also, as to the Associated Press speaking to his notability and "probably" should be retain, that is not possible if the section is removed, however, the ISBN numbers of his books should suffice.Victor9876 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite possible. I've put it in the stub: [7]. These sources are quite reliable and lend to establishing notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would take the time to research appropriately, you will find that the books are already cited in the Works section and adding the phantom AP reference at the end of that would remove the redundant use of it in the stub.Victor9876 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility is also policy. Referencing notable works within the body is certainly in keeping with other author articles. Cf. David Bowker, John Dryden, Michael Moorcock, Richard Rorty and Rudolf Thurneysen, to name a few. In every one of these articles, a work referenced in the bibliography section is also mention textually in the body of the article. Evidently, this is not widely regarded as a redundancy problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you dare charge me with being uncivil here! Especially after some of your tongue in cheek remarks. Back to my point about the redundancy remark, I was merely noting that the un-named writer of the AP source, would have been better served at the end of the Published works section, following this entry - "A Sniper in the Tower (1997), about Charles Whitman, known for shooting people from within and without the University of Texas at Austin's 27-story tower in 1966. (add AP source here)." Lavergne's article is too small to repeat the same information, and actually, it would serve him better if the AP source was at the end of the above mentioned work. Some of your exmples I agree with, however, multi-paragraphed articles that are rich in text and visuals, need the clarification that repetition brings, a few of your examples don't, and neither does Lavergne's article. Just my opinion, edit as you like.Victor9876 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just one more thing to add that addresses the AP article that Moonnriddengirl wants to use as a source for notability and verifiability. This is not directed at Moonriddengirl, it is directed at the accuracy of the source. The University of Texas Tower, is not 27 stories as the article claims. It does have elevators that go to the 27th floor, which is two tiers below the observation deck that Whitman fired at people on the campus and Guadalupe Street. The first tier above the 27th floor is accessed by a staircase that leads to a narrow hallway that leads to another stairway where a doglegged stairway leads up to the observation room, which is inside the parapet or walk around observation deck. The killings inside the tower were on the doglegged staircase (the Gabours and Lamports) and the observation room (Edna Townsley the receptionist). The bell tower is above the observation room. So if the source can not get the facts right; what good is the source? Whether it be AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC or any other acceptable source, the information contains errors! The observation deck is the 29th floor, not the 28th! [[8]]. Victor9876 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I appear to have erred in the authors use of the number 27 - the author mentions the 28th floor, which has been used in other articles, so even though I erred here, it was because the observation deck is usually referred to as that, the obversation deck, parapet, sniper's perch, etc. I stand corrected by my own volition.Victor9876 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my claim of error, and again assert the error of the source above, after finding the verifiable source that was at rest in my memory, until I found it again. This is the second time I have errored in my life, and the first time was when I thought I was wrong, but I was actually right, just like above! lol! Is that O.K. Moonriddengirl? Victor9876 (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This would be more of a question for WP:RSN, but a reliable source is a reliable source, and I don't believe that an error would invalidate that. When reliable sources disagree, we typically note the discrepancy. However, that source isn't being used to substantiate the height of the tower. And even if it were, it wouldn't be alone:

"It was from the observation deck, 28 stories up, that UT student Charles Whitman opened fire Aug. 1, 1966"[9]

"Twenty-eight floors below, Dickerson and Walden saw the bodies and heard the shots."[10]

"From the observation deck on the 28th floor of the University of Texas Tower, Charles J. Whitman turned the campus into a blood-stained" Newsweek, Volume 68, Issues 1-13 p. 113

Not that it's a reliable source, but even the Wikipedia article on Charles Whitman says, "Three were killed inside the University's tower and ten killed from the 28th floor observation deck of the University's 307 foot administrative building on August 1, 1966" If you want to find a reliable source that indicates it was the 29th floor, you may wish to (as per WP:V), record and note that discrepancy there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I have corrected the Whitman page. The source is from the University of Texas historical web page. As to what you believe about an error invalidating source is irrevelant - Administrator or not. You take pride in flashing WP rules (which I know), as if they are written in stone. This is sad. I even posted an attempt to humor you on your talk page, and you respond with more rhetorical rules. I've tried to have a disussion here, all you respond with is a seminar of your interpretations of the rules and content. I still maintain that the error by the AP source should be removed as it is tainted by an error. As all of your other sources are. Victor9876 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules and the consensus of the community is what governs our content. I'm sorry if my idea of a discussion doesn't suit you. I have a lot of other work to do on Wikipedia and am focused on the goal here. It wasn't my intention to offend you by ignoring your humor.

I stand by my interpretation of policy on the question of this source: even if a fact is wrong, that doesn't make it unreliable. However, I have asked for additional feedback on the matter at the appropriate forum, as I had recommended above you might. It's at the WP:RSN now.

I'm not personally concerned with the Charles Whitman article since my sole involvement is with the treatment of this living individual, but I am concerned that your alteration to that article does not seem to reflect prevailing sources. In addition to the above, there's this 1966 source which says, "Then he struggled up three flights of stairs, jerking the dolly after him, to what is regarded as the 28th floor, about 280 feet above ground." Here's a 1970 source that also considers it the 28th floor. Indeed, there seem to be quite a few...certainly more news sources than those which regard it as the 29th. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And your point is??? You claim I was trying to discredit the author. We removed the information. Now you want to keep information that is not verifiable and raise his image. Are you associated, know, had contact with this author? Are you associated with the University of Texas or any affiliate thereof? These are legitimate questions at this time. Victor9876 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is crossing over from polite discussion into rather rude remarks. If you don't like the rules at Wikipedia, you're welcome to discuss changing them or contribute elsewhere, but as it stands, Moonriddengirl is quoting them correctly and the article must follow them. Whether or not you agree that the multiple sources provided are incorrect is beside the point. You seem to be quite passionate about the subject, which is good in some cases, but not so good when you're willing to bend the rules to have the article read the way you want. Present what other reliable sources say without adding in your opinion of the circumstances and you'll do just fine. Shell ^babelfish 19:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me supplicate the above with this [[11]] for a response. Victor9876 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for or how that relates; if you're suggesting that the AP writer may be biased, I'm not sure that's an issue. The article doesn't say we do or do not agree with the AP article. We just note that the AP said it. I do see now that I'm looking more deeply into the sources that the New York Times calls it "the authoritative account".[12] Perhaps you would worry less about the reliability of the AP source if we included that as well, particularly since its author, Frank Rich, is not anonymous and seems to have quite a catalog of writing.

Just for the record, I've never so much as been to Texas and have no affiliation with the author of any sort. I do, however, have a long track record of working at WP:BLPN, and I have an interest in making sure that our articles fairly represent their subjects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove that quote. I've restored it, but have added in the Rich quote that I think you meant to replace it with. However, Rich didn't say that, and you can't quote somebody inaccurately or without an inline citation immediately following. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I have taken the liberty to adjust the Lavergne article to your liking. Victor9876 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you through now? BTW, You answered my direct response to Shell. I do not appreciate your responding for her. It muddles the conversation and was none of your business. I wish nothing else to do with you. In the future, please refer any problems you have with my edits to another admin who doesn't put words in my mouth, accuse me of making mistakes on purpose and other allegations that speak for themselves on these threads. Thank you! Victor9876 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to communicate with Shell Kinney privately, you should not do so at a board where any contributor is permitted to respond. I have no intentions of going out of my way to interact with you, but I will not go out of my way to avoid you, either. I am fully confident that my actions and words will withstanding scrutiny from uninvolved parties. I will not be cowed into backing down on this issue by your umbrage. I do not intend to edit this article further unless material is added or removed in a way that seems biased, and then I will act transparently and within policy as I have all along. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)You meant "withstand scrutiny" - and of course, if a party is uninvolved - there can be no scrutiny - BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED!!! Your logic is your own! You constantly rant about "no opinions" then give opinions yourself. You remind me of the biblical parable about the wiseman arguing in public with a fool - passersby can't distinguish with who the wise one is and who is the fool. I'm sorry I fell into your trap! If I may suggest - change your moniker from Moonriddengirl to "Rulesriddengirl", it would be more fitting! Goodbye!!! 22:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

Talk:William Connolley

• Talk:William Connolley (edit | [[Talk:Talk:William Connolley|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

Removal of pressmulti: Again some editors editing heavily on the AGW issue (and typically share the same kind of view as William Connolley/William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)) are using every method in the book to get rid of political opponents and their views. Now Hipocrite (talk · contribs) and then Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) both removes the article The Opinionator: Solomon by Lawrence Solomon published in National Post, making unsound arguments about WP:BLP issues and not WP:RS (not true at all: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.") from the talk page header (removes {{pressmulti}}).

Removes the {{press}}-template/Solomon article by stating:

• 2010-02-21T10:13:10 Stephan Schulz (Undid revision 345389507 by Nsaa: Undo, not a reliable source, violates WP:BLP)
• 2010-02-09T13:11:54 Hipocrite (Undid revision 342917649 by Nsaa: - blogs aren't press, see talk.)
• 2010-02-09T12:10:13 Hipocrite (No mention of this article in this nn blog post.)

First the article do not mention WMC article, then it's break of WP:BLP? The logic is fine ...

As I points out at the discussion page Talk:William_Connolley#Press_.E2.80.93_Mention_of_Solomons_article_in_the_top_of_this_talk_page, this removal was just done to get rid of pieces from Lawrence Solomon (a hate object for these guys), just see the other BLPN discussion about the same columnist at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident with comments like "Taking out the trash " etc.

The so called BLP problems with the source above survived this talk page for nearly two years (or 646days to be precise)

• 2008-05-04T02:11:18 (add press reference), added by Samw (talk · contribs)
• 2010-02-09T12:10:13 (No mention of this article in this nn blog post.), removed by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)

, before Hipocrite (talk · contribs) started his mission to get rid of Solomon because he wrote something later ("Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor" / "Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”") that was not tolerated by these guys (see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#Press_coverage).

So is there any BLP problems in the article mentioned above? I don't see any, but will not add it again before it has been discussed here as our policy requires when we talk about claims about BLP. Nsaa (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize, you want to put an inaccurate hit piece that would never pass muster as either an external link or a reliable source in article space on the talk page of a living person for what reason, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please source your claims about inaccurate and Hit piece, and your claim about not passing WP:EL and WP:RS. This is just another attack on Mr. Solomon and his work. Secondly, this is a discussion about WP:BLP, not other issues you have with the source. Nsaa (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am beginning to think that the controversy surrounding the Global warming issues on Wikipedia is perhaps notable and has been reported enough by secondary sources to be worthy of its own article. Claimed bias in Wikipedia reporting of Global warming .. or something along those lines.13:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 2010-02-21T13:05:58 (UTC)

You know, one of the nice things about these noticeboards is their ability to solicit uninvolved editors to weigh in on disputes. I think it might be a good idea for involved editors wait until uninvolved editors can offer their opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon is a blogger with a demonstrated tendency to play fast and loose with facts and numbers where both Wikipedia and William Connolley are concerned. Trying to use William Connelley's article talk page as a platform for giving Solomon's blog posts additional exposure is a violation of WP:BLP — not to mention a none-too-subtle jab at the Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley, within whom Nsaa has had many, many disputes. It is also extremely inappropriate for Nsaa to attempt to use this noticeboard as a soapbox from which to promote Solomon's other factually-challenged blog entries. This request should be closed, and Nsaa should be censured for abusing this process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to point out that Lawrence Solomon is a wikipedia notable person and your description of him as a blogger is unsupported in the article. I really think that all of this controversy surrounding the reports of wikipedia bias in Global warming articles is notable enough for its own article, such controversy has been reported at multiple locations, hasn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is notable in itself, sources abound. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And THAT is a shame. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that there is apparently enough bias in our reporting of this matter that it has been covered in the media... and not just mentioned in passing, but covered to the point where it is notable enough to justify mention in our own articles. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, it is a shame and I would say, shameful. Other core, high traffic topics on en.Wikipedia are likewise flawed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only places our so called "bias" is mentioned are in pressure pieces by activists. No news source has addressed our... wait, actually, you should probably read the nature articles about the encyclopedia - doi:10.1038/443493a and doi:10.1038/438900a . Hipocrite (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I also support adding the mentioned in the press template to the talkpage of William Connolley as it was added with this supporting citation what the problem with adding it, if you have a strong viewpoint and edit the wikipedia articles on that subject and you have a wikipedia article that your claim of notability is asserted by this issue, so are are highly involved and get commented on then the press template is totally OK, not a BLP violation in any way, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Solomon article in question is an opinion piece. It blatantly fails WP:RS as a source for a BLP. It also mentions the article in question only in a snide side remark - mostly its an attack piece on the editor in question. There is no reason to support this in any way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"It blatantly fails WP:RS as a source for a BLP" That's not what I was told in this discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_Opinion_Pieces_in_a_BLP. In any case, it's not being used as a source for the article and WP:PRESS doesn't mention any requirement about being a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at the article and the previous AFD's, I don't see a strong claim of notability and find myself asking, if the subject was not a wikipedian editor would we even have a article about him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Solomon article url http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx indicates that this is a blog, hence unsuitable for a BLP. Calling it an "opinion piece" appears unjustified. . . . dave souza, talk 07:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  No, it's posted on nationalpost.com, and is under their National Post's full editorial control. I.e. it can be regarded as an "opinion piece". Please re-read Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and what I quoted in my initail post (as pointed out below, it's not required to even be WP:RS to be used on a talk page in the {{press}} template. It's just another argument to try to get rid of this unpleasant information. But anyway. Why is this relevant to the WP:BLP discussion? Please quote me some Wikipedia Policy to enlighten me. Nsaa (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the most productive way of looking at this question is to ask what purpose is served by adding this blog post as an external link. Nsaa hasn't given any explanation of utility. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#What_about_the_BLP_issue "Third point "and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.". Yes it is extremely relevant both for the article and Wikipedia as a project in itself. We have at least one main editor that is extremely closely related (appears in the leaked emails, has been at the blog RealClimate) to the part accused of wrongdoings. [...] Nsaa (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)" [13] and "[...] The problem here is that we have a set of two articles that clearly have huge inpact on the general population (Delingpole has millions of readers just one week in December according to the blog editor at telegraph.co.uk). [...] Nsaa (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC) " [14] ... so "Nsaa hasn't given any explanation of utility."? If you look at other post in the current discussion you will find a lot of "utility". But what do this have to do with WP:BLP? You need to explain it to me. Nsaa (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is no reasonable BLP issue at all here. The reason to collect media references to Wikipedia articles is so that we as editors can document and understand how those articles are perceived. There is a complex interplay between us as article editors, Wikipedia as a project, the sources we use and that sometimes use us, the subject of our articles, our readers, and the world at large. The more we understand these relationships, the more thoughtful we can be in creating an encyclopedia. Going forward with blinders on to hide negative opinions about our project and its editors -- or, worse yet, demanding that we all put blinders on because somebody has objected -- is censorship in the classic sense: removing content because the message is objectionable. I won't speculate as to people's motives in excluding the information, but the effect is censorious however admirable the intentions. In this case we have a prominent activist journalist writing about a very prolific, controversial Wikipedia editor and his article page, in the context of the climate change articles, one of Wikipedia's more difficult areas of dispute, in a moderately important, medium-circulation conservative newspaper. I want to know this stuff when I edit articles, and also when I want to make sense of the climate change disputes. To claim that BLP means this has to be hidden from me because we are not allowed to document negative, erroneous, or malicious swipes at Wikipedia is pure wikilawyering, an extreme interpretation of the peculiar wording of BLP that goes beyond any intended purpose of that policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you favour providing handy links to blogs lying about editors as though they're reputable press reports? It's one thing to discuss them in context, but simply linking them as something nice to look at is a clear BLP violation as well as damaging community spirit. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is posting "handy links to blogs" or saying that we include media mentions because they are "nice to look at"? Surely you know BLP and RS well enough to get the explicit distinction between a newspaper blog and a self-published blog. This is, more properly, an opinion piece. Opinion pieces do matter, they are a major feature of journalism. They are not good for verifying factual statements made in articles, but they are very helpful in understanding why things happen the way they do around here, even when you disagree with them. I said, only a few lines up, that I want to know media opinions about Wikipedia articles and disputes so that I can edit more thoughtfully. The proper context is a neutrally gathered list of such media mentions. Discussing news pieces is fine, but discussion archives are a poor way of organizing lists of citations. If I come to an article and review its history, it is very helpful to know that on a certain day a particular piece was published about the article. My benchmark example is the hit piece worldnetdaily did that led to mayhem on the Barack Obama article, and indirectly, an Arbcom case. You can't understand the history of the Obama article, or the Arbcom case, without knowing about that piece. Hiding it would give editors a faulty view of what happened. Here, as I said, we have "a prominent activist journalist writing about a very prolific, controversial Wikipedia editor and his article page, in the context of the climate change articles, one of Wikipedia's more difficult areas of dispute, in a moderately important, medium-circulation conservative newspaper". Major media opinion pieces by prominent writers are indeed worth knowing about, and within the scope of the pressmulti template. If a piece needs to be refuted, or a note made about it not being judged reliable, that's easy enough to add to the template. But you can't understand the world, or Wikipedia, very well if you simply erase and refuse to consider everything that's negative or mean. As for community spirit, censorship does far more harm than the existence of negative opinions. Classic free speech stuff, it's only by considering and rejecting dissenting viewpoints that you can have reasonable confidence in the community's consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting third-way ("If a piece needs to be refuted, or a note made about it not being judged reliable, that's easy enough to add to the template.") I'm sorry that no one thought of it earlier. I would be fine with the article in the template with a refutation and explanation attached. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Alas, I can't claim credit for coming up with the idea. Gamaliel first proposed it here in connection with including this on the Climategate (hacking incident) article. I suppose we could create a template or a flag on the pressmulti template that says that we are linking to a non-RS, not for purposes of shedding light on the article subject, but to document the response of outside journalists to our Wikipedia article. We could then link to the meta page where WMC was exonerated over this, and any number of essays, responses, statements, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a red-herring. Per WP:PRESS, there is no requirement that a source qualify as a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a red herring. We should not be promoting BLP-problematic sources without at least highlighting the issue and linking to a detailed response. Incidentally, BLP is policy, whilst WP:PRESS is not even a guideline; where the two conflict, it is clear which has priority. Rd232 ^talk 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I take a very dim view of BLP claims about Mr. Connolley, given the fact that he continues to be a substantial contributor to articles that are about him, and also to other BLPs involved in this controversy such as the Solomon one. This seems to me a huge COI issue, and I can't imagine why the editors on those articles tolerate it. I don't know of any other case where we have BLP issues that arise about an extremely active editor. Usually the living person needs our help, but he is here to defend himself. It seems to me that if Mr. Connolley needs the full protection of BLP, he should stop editing the articles in question.Jarhed (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's problematic with edits like this and this (tries to redefine who he is) in the Lawrence Solomon article. I suppose this is mentioned here to shred some light on why some of our editors are so keen on removing links to what Solomon has written and using WP:BLP as a "excuse"? Nsaa (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the very fact that such a question can be asked is a huge red flag indicating a conflict with WP guidelines and policy.--Jarhed (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to people whom you don't like. It applies to people who edit Wikipedia. It applies to people whom you believe are capable of defending themselves. William should, of course, behave himself, but that is a separate issue. Whether he does or not, BLP still applies to his Wikipedia biography. It saddens me to have to actually state these sorts of things, since they should be self-evident to any serious editor, but such are the times. MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be lecturing me and ignoring what I said. Once again, there is a very serious COI with regard to Connolley, and I have never seen an instance where that was tolerated by the interested editors. It is highly unlikely that he can contribute to articles in which he has a BLP interest in an NPOV manner, and it is almost impossible to AGF in this instance since his actions are harmful to the public reputation of WP accuracy. And you think that the answer is just to shrug your shoulders and claim BLP???--Jarhed (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To add to what MastCell said, the Biographies of living persons policy applies to editors with alleged or even actual conflicts of interest. In fact, it applies to everyone with a pulse. Cardamon (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So does COI.--Jarhed (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A few comments. First, BLP trumps COI. One clue to this is that wp:BLP is a policy, while wp:COI is only a guideline. Second, it is not always forbidden to edit on a subject on which one has a conflict of interest. See for example [[15]]. William M. Connolley is a subject specialist who has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia. Third, neither complaints about WMC's behavior, nor questions about COI, are relevant to whether the pressmulti template we are discussing should be on the talk page of the article about him. Cardamon (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you apparently believe yourself qualified to lecture me about BLP, perhaps you can handle a lecture on COI. The guideline is in place to enable people with COI conflicts to edit where they can make a contribution. Wikipedia has already received substantial negative press due to Connolley's continued editing of COI articles. The only reason I can think of that anybody would allow Connolley to continue to do this is that they are pushing an agenda at the expense of WP credibility.Jarhed (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful. I'm sure you don't want to make any personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I am sure that you don't want to make any threats.--Jarhed (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jarhed, the editor William Connelly has a clear conflict of interest and his continued involvement in editing the biographies of living people is a extremely contentious issue, imo it would be a lot better if he refrained from editing the biographies of living people from the opposing side of his notability. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Shifting to a more inclusionist policy on linking to provably false attacks on people would have a variety of bad consequences. It would make Wikipedia less of an encyclopedia, and more of a stick to hit people with. Wikipedia would become more unpleasant as attempts to place tit-for-tat links to factually challenged hit pieces proliferated. For example, how long would it be before the template some want to put on the talk page of the WMC article was followed by attempts, though not by me, to place another template, possibly also linking to false accusations, on the talk page of the Lawrence Solomon article? And, if we adopt this policy, why limit ourselves to press sources? Perhaps we could also note on the articles or talk pages about numerous prominent politicians that a notable author has accused them of being blood-drinking shape shifting reptilian aliens with predatory sexual habits? After all, " ... If a piece needs to be refuted, or a note made about it not being judged reliable, that's easy enough to add ... ". Finally, adoption of this policy would, in the opinion of this non-lawyer, increase the probability of the Wikimedia Foundation being sued out of existence. (No, this is not a legal threat.) Cardamon (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Omar Sharif

Let me preface this by saying that I think this is the single dumbest "dispute" I have been involved in here. A number of users are intent on removing any mention of Omar Sharif being of Lebanese ancestry. I have assembled a list of articles, each available through Lexis-Nexis, that explicitly say that Sharif was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family on the talk page. However, more than one user is intent on removing this info, and I aint really looking for a block for something this silly so would somebody mind lending a hand? nableezy - 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When there is a dispute like that, go with what the subject is cited as saying, he's Egyptian by birth. Looks to me like a case of him being such a nice guy that everyone wants to claim him, are there any quoted comments from the subject himself? Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times once quoted Sharif as follows: "You never stop being Lebanese," says Omar Sharif. However, that LA Times article goes so far as to claim he was also born in Lebanon, which is surely wrong (?). There are many book references to his being born in Egypt, to parents of Syrian/Lebanese descent: [16]. Google News: [17] Unless he or anyone else has ever credibly denied that his parents were of Syrian/Lebanese descent, I think we should follow these sources. --JN466 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All the bios I found are clear that he was born in Alexandria Egypt, a fair few do mention Lebanon/Syria decent but there is no actual detail as to how or why. Also they spell his birth name in two different ways, the article now says he was born into an Egyptian catholic family, which could well be correct on a nationality basis but may not mention genealogy which is the issue here. It would be clear if there was an interview with him clearly talking about it, the LA times was good but fell down with the claim of actual birth in Lebanon, I can't find anyone else supporting that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue with using "what the subject said" is there is no evidence that he actually said what is used in the article. I have tried to track down this interview and have not been able to even find a record of it ever being aired, much less a transcript or an exact date and time. nableezy - 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, JN, Variety has the same quote: Egypt's Omar Sharif, speaking on film in Daizy Gedeon's documentary "Beirut ... Imprisoned Splendor," said he is of local descent and that "you never stop being Lebanese." (Young, Deborah. "Glitz and pix rebound in Beirut", Variety. November 3, 1997) nableezy - 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is strong enough or clear enough to bother with, he is egyptian and was born to an egyption catholic family...do you accept that as correct? Do you know where his mother and father were born? Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not clear enough? There are over a hundred sources that say that he was born to either a "Lebanese-Egyptian" or "Lebanese-Syrian" family. How do you get not clear enough from that? The 7 listed on the talk page were just the first seven from a Lexis-Nexis search, if you ask me to waste my time citing the other 123 results I can do that, but it is clear that a huge number of sources explicitly say that Sharif is of Lebanese descent. nableezy - 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

this statement is in the article.... he is egyptian and was born to an egyption catholic family.... and is clearly correct.... you don't know where his mother was born and you don't know where his father was born, I have a cite...ok, but it is weakly claimed and there are differing reports, I can understand the editors resisting its inclusion. I had a look at the talkpage. , I am a bit like that, weakly claimed genetic ancestry bother me, imo it's better left out. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What differing reports? And I dont need to know where his mother or father were born, I am not making any statement as to where they were born. I am saying, and this is based on over 100 reliable sources, that Sharif is from a Lebanese family. There has not been a single verifiable source presented that disputes that. nableezy - 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, what source says that he was born into an "Egyptian catholic family" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the source, but it is anyhow a simple fact, his parents and all his grandparents were Egyptian nationals also born in Egypt, whatever their genetic make up, and he was brought up as a catholic and later converted to Islam, these thing are not disputed, it is the ancestral genetics that is disputed, I have found nothing that to me confirmed strongly what those ancestral genetics are, there are cites mentioning Syria Lebanon and egyptian, personally as I said, I am not keen on inserting claims of genetic ancestry when there are differing claims without some details of who it was or when, but that is me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on now, where are you getting this information: "his parents and all his grandparents were Egyptian nationals also born in Egypt" Where is the source for this? How is this "simple fact" if you haven't seen the sources? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, excuse me, I thought that wasn't disputed and I thought Nableesy was leaving that in, but on second look I see he is removing, there is this Lebanese site or I think it is Lebanese that says his parents lived in Lebanon and moved to Egypt, with no mention of Syria, anyway it is reported differently around, or it that disputed? When the article was created in 2003 he was Egyptian born and then by 2005 he became Egyptian born of Syrian origin then by 2006 he had become Egyptian-born (of Lebanese and Syrian origin by august 2007 he parents were Lebanese immigrant and timber merchant, and Claire (Saada) an Egyptian of Syrian descent by may 2008 there was no mention anymore of his parents roots but they were roman catholic by 2009 his parents were Jews of Lebanese descent and so on, so there clearly is a variety of ideas about it. As I originally said he is such a nice guy that everyone wants to claim him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Egyptian born" is redundant to "born in Alexandria". He is an "Egyptian actor", I dont think there is any dispute about that. The sources also say that he was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian (occasionally Lebanese-Syrian) family. These things are not contradictory. nableezy - 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well now we can get to the bottom of this and follow what the reliable, published sources say, and what do they say? you can see them I have presented here and them nablezzy has presented here: all of them say either "Lebanese-Egyptian" or "Lebanese-Syrian" family/descent/parents. There are no sources saying his family is "Egyptian" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is all a bit vague if you ask me, citations are often mirrors of each other, there does appear to be a lot of weight with supporting cites to his father being Lebanese and his mother perhaps Syrian, is anything at all known about his grandparents? Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Omar Sharif himself makes clear that his parents and up to his grandparents' generation were Egyptian in his autobiogrpahy, The Eternal Male, and in numerous interviews, most notably the interview on a program called "Roots" on Nile Cinema on 4 September 2009. These were all properly cited on the article and then were later removed by Supreme Deliciousness and his proxies. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode and Template:Book. Add a line that says it was previousley reported otherwise. Problem solved.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nile Cinema (4 September 2009). "Al-Godhour with Omar Sharif". Al-Godhour. Nile TV. Nile Cinema. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |episodelink=, |serieslink=, |transcripturl=, and |seriesno= (help); Unknown parameter |began= ignored (|date= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |ended= ignored (|date= suggested) (help) like this? This is very close to how it was originally cited in the article before they removed it. The autobiography reference remains in the article at a different location, but reference to Sharif's family's origins in the book have been removed. What else needs to be done? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The program that I see mentioned online originally aired on 4 September 2009 so I do not understand your use of the began and end parameters. Fix that up or clarify. The mention of Al Godour was lacking before and that makes it much better. The book template would benefit from a page number and ISBN. Those two should easily pass as reliable and verifiable. Making a mention somewhere in the article that it contradictory information was published elsewhere would tie it all up.Cptnono (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There were 30 episodes to that program starting on 22 August 2009 and ending on 19 Sept, all with Omar Sharif, and I followed it. On 4 Sept 2009, he made the statements about his origins. I had placed that source in the article before and it was subsequently removed. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a record that these interviews were aired? Is there any way of getting a transcript (Arabic is fine)? And where in the autobiography does he contradict what the other sources say? nableezy - 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Arab Cowboy is now blocked: WP:AGF, WP:Access to sources, and (not binding) WP:OFFLINE. An email might need to be sent to the airing station. Dude seen here watched the same program but that more than likely is not RS.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is almost a complete copy of the article as it was at the time. nableezy - 00:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably circular then.Cptnono (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is copied from the text AC added to the article.

To Cptnono and others. I don't want to start this shit here, but I feel that I have to say something about this, it will hopefully be my only post about this subject. AC is a sockpuppeteer and a user who has from ever since he came to wikipedia never followed what sources say and what mediators say:[18] [19][20] and based on his behavior concerning viewable sources, why should anyone trust what he claims about non-viewable sources that contradicts 30-40 published sources including the New York Times? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, I completely understand what you are saying SD. It appeared that two editors (although a sock was an obvious possibility) were introducing a concern and a possible source was being completely disregarded. I would recommend that someone that speaks Arabic send that email and get a transcript. I am usually pretty good with Google translate but am running into walls here. It would be good form to try to verify the reference but there is of course little motivation to do so when an editor has a history of screwing around. Maybe after the block he will come back with some info.Cptnono (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Firstenberg

I have repeatedly attempted to remove unsourced libelous material from this article only to have it repeatedly reinserted by a user who seems to be avoiding the 3-revert rule by using multiple pseudonyms: Vary, Verbal, Pharaoh of the wizards, Uncle Dick, Ninetyone. This has got to stop.Bearguardian (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't WP:SPI, and your edits aren't supported on the talk page. Please explain how the material you are removing is a BLP violation, as I don't see it. This has been discussed on the article talk page. Verbal chat 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is whitewashing. There probably is abuse of multiple accounts, but not by those named above! Bearguardian should be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaearlygreyhot (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Edward Walsh

• Lawrence Edward Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the Wikipedia page for Lawrence Edward Walsh, user 66.25.93.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly has edited the page to include inaccurate and biased information. Though a request was made to stop posting the inaccurate info or to provide a reference, there has been no response beyond another effort to repost. // Mklobas (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I second the above - this IP is clearly here with an agenda and is not responding to any attempts to discuss. I'm also submitting this to WP:AN3 since he/she has violated 3RR too. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction - not 3RR (yet) but still submitted there due to edit warring. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong support, I have just reverted him, how many times, disruptive IP unwilling to talk, inserting contentious uncited content into a BLP, pass the banhammer Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's watch the WP:BITE, people. The material is uncited, but it's factually correct. Add the cite and explain the rules, and assume good faith. THF (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

John Yoo

John Yoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone strip this BLP mess down to a stub? Full of factually false and libelous statements, original-research of primary sources and speculation, unreliable sources, and violent violations of NPOV and WEIGHT and UNDUE and COATRACK. THF (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Yoo, BLP atrocities are not torture. But I'll take a look.--Milowent (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed 30 percent with one bold edit, removed excessive linkage to primary legal documents. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pan-Arabism

There are some issues with the discussion taking place at the talk page of pan-Arabism, the one most pertinent to this board is that a user (Toothie3) insists on repeatedly writing that Jimmy Carter is paid by the supposedly radical Arab Muslim lobby. The only "source" presented to back up that assertion is an editorial by Alan Dershowitz. Could somebody inform the user on what WP:BLP requires as he refuses to listen to me. nableezy - 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You also dont mention that another user also stated that Daniel Pipes was paid by the radical Zionists for the Zionist lobby? How is that any different? The person was using that as example for a persons objection to using Jimmy Carter as a realiable source and daniel pipes (who btw I do not support) as not one 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If I had a button I would simply ban both of you from editing any Arabic related articles, I assure you none of it will alter the real world and the view out of your window. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat or just a refutal to answer a clear double standard? Ban both of us ? who is both of us? what on earth are you talking about? ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Or why not do some editing on some South American articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

nope like it or not I'm sticking to this reigion =) Why don't you instead attempt to answer a question instead of resorting to Cheap whit to cower from your own double standard? btw its not just toothie who has objection to Jimmy Carters credibility just like Daniel Pipes other ppl also question his credibility ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The view from my window is very nice indeed thank you. This is the wikipedia, perhaps you hold such strong views on arab issues that it would be more enjoyable for you to edit some new areas. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one pushing my view here or attempting to hide & cover up facts. Arab issues? The middle east doesn't exclusively belong to Arabs this is something Pan-Arabists and their apologists like you need to get into your heads and poor attempts to imitate us wont change that♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but all that POV is tiresome to me, I don't have a position about that, we just want a decent neutral reported article and imo that is better achieved by editors who are less involved in the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All of this is missing the point (one of which is the Carter is not even cited in the article). You, or anybody else, cannot say such things about living people on Wikipedia without multiple independent, high quality sources backing it up (and an editorial is not a reliable source for statements of fact, the source brought would be sufficient to say that Dershowitz feels that way, not that it is true). You cannot say these things about Carter or anybody else. This has nothing to do with the actual content of the article. nableezy - 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, time to move to discussion, the article has been fully proteted for editwarring/content dispute Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The violations are occurring on the talk page. nableezy - 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked Daniel Pipes is still alive too, so why is it okay to question his credibility and not Jimmy Carter? where have I stated my person opinion of Cater? Both pipes and Carter dont mean anything to me but the fact you clearly have a double standard here is the point ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say it was ok, nor did I say that you have made any opinion of President Carter known. And deflecting from the issue is not the best way of going about this, the comments made about Carter are in violation of the BLP policy, if you think another violation was made fine, but that does not change the issue here. nableezy - 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I really do think the advice given at WP:ANI also applies here, WP:DR is the location for this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not for a user writing that about Jimmy Carter, that is a BLP issue if it happens on the talk page or in the article. nableezy - 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have removed it haven't you? These sort of issues are commonplace on talkpages, warn the editor and if it continues then report him to ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Yasmina said, the entire issue shows nableezy's double standards of blindly accusing a person then reporting some users for the making accusations against another person (both of whom are alive, by the way). I would suggest that monsieur nableezy stick to the talk page and focus on bettering the article, rather than drag himself into side battles - useless side battles if I may say, since nobody wants to mention Carter in the article itself anyway. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how the two can be compared. On one hand you have a respected former US president who won the Nobel peace prize and on the other hand you have a fraud (Dershowtiz) who employs a high school girl's website as a source and whose work has been proven to be fraudulent by Norman G. Finkelstein.George Al-Shami (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot call Dershowitz a fraud as a statement of fact (you can say that X called him a fraud, with a source), and to do so here of all places is not wise. nableezy - 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So what if he won a Nobel Peace prize? So did Yasser Arafat lol,calling Dershowitz a fraud is POV and proof of the double standards here just like calling Finkelstein Bias would be.Using Norman Finkelstein is not wise either (another controversial figure) who professed his support of Hezbollah (a recognized terrorist organization in the states) during a College protest stating their fight is one for freedom and Democracy (LMAO many people in Lebanon would disagree with that) and said that Lebanese who did not want their country destroyed had no self-respect,in that case neither does the 200million arabs who keep pushing Lebanon to be the battle arena to fight their wars, while they dilly dally in peace. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please take this somewhere else, it has no place here or anywhere else on the wikipedia for that matter. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Slater

This is a blogger who has allegedly named a former politician accused of indecent assault. Publication of the details is suppressed in New Zealand, and I have been removing links to the google cache of his blog entry. The blog entry itself was encrypted and is now deleted. Also relevant is the sixth entry on my talk page archive for last month, where it is suggested that a reliable source confirms the accuracy of the blog posting. I believe this is synthesis and thus not acceptable. Am I overreacting here, or am I underreacting? The defamatory posts to the article of the former politician have been oversighted. Should we also oversight the posts to the article of the blogger, and similar posts at New Zealand blogosphere.-gadfium 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you are overreacting. Courts rule like this for a reason, and I think it is most often a mistake for us to second guess a court in a matter such as this. I would watch these articles for BLP edits and if you need help ask here for semi-protection.--Jarhed (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's synthesis and a clear violation of BLP policy forbidding the use of blogs when they concern 3rd parties Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I did not get a reply to a request for oversight for more than 24 hours, and no oversighter was available on IRC, I used deletion and selective restore to remove the posts.-gadfium 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

John Gibson (political commentator)

John Gibson (political commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editor Gamaliel is repeatedly reinserting an external link to a left-wing advocacy organization, FAIR, into the BLP of John Gibson. Doing so contradicts BLP policy on reliable sources and the use of external links. Please address this as well as the extensive use in the article of another left-wing advocacy organization, Media Matters for America, not to mention the use of primary source material (Keith Olbermann show material).--Drrll (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed link as disputed content should be better kept out of a BLP during discussion. Here is the external that may violate WP:ELBLP Off2riorob (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• "He's Being as Hateful as He Can: Why can't John Gibson make the big time at Fox?", Peter Hart, Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September/October 2005

There needs to be a consistent Wikipedia decision on the use of partisan media-watchdog organizations. Newsbusters, a project of the Media Research Center, which is run by L. Brent Bozell III, is consistently deleted from articles on the fictional grounds that it is an "extremist" or "far right" organization (in fact, it, like Bozell, is mainstream conservative); it remains in only a handful of articles. However, the same editors that would delete newsbusters.org have little qualms about inserting fair.org into articles, though Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is on the Naderist left. Media Matters for America, which is mainstream liberal, is frequently cited, as well. I can see rejecting all three as sources; I can see accepting MMA and Newsbusters as opinion sources and rejecting FAIR as UNDUE except when it is cited by tertiary sources; what I can't see is the current Wikipedia quasi-consensus of deleting Newsbusters and regularly citing to MMA and FAIR. The effect of the double-standard by the same editors, intentional or unintentional, is POV-pushing throughout the encyclopedia: Newsbusters' POV is considerably closer to the median American voter than MMA or FAIR is. (Disclosure: In reading these articles, I learned that a MRC affiliate asked me to write two op-eds for them a few years back. I didn't realize at the time that it was associated with MRC. Go know.) THF (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly inserted the link because Drrll has been repeatedly removing it without discussing on talk. This is pretty much his normal method of operating, so to actually get him to use the talk page you have to get his attention in this manner. I would have been perfectly willing to discuss this there had he actually shown up there. As I've repeatedly said on talk I don't think this link violates the policy and I don't believe anyone has actually demonstrated this, merely asserted this. I respectfully disagree with THF's views about Newsbusters and MRC, especially his unsupported and irrelevant assertion that they are "closer the median American voter" than other organizations. I also note that THF's discussion is largely about sources, while here we are discussing an external link. We don't have the same standards and policies for both. I'm not currently advocating using FAIR as a source, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to link to a long article discussing his career in its entirety. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your argument distinguishing between "sources" and "external links", unless it's based on 2006 Wikipedia standards. These days, WP:EL is quite clear that if something isn't good enough for a source, it's not good enough for an external link. See WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELNO #1. This is a change of policy from the days of Wikipedia yore when the external links sections were battlegrounds for linkfarms where partisans of each side would try to load up an article with pointers to articles and websites supporting their point of view: now the EL section is supposed to be tight and concise. The most neutrally-written of Pulitzer-prize winning biographies would be inappropriate in the EL section; a partisan critique definitely does not cut it. The place for biographical material is cited within the article. Consider it demonstrated that the FAIR article does not belong in the EL section.

With respect to the respectful disagreement, 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 40% as moderate, and 20% as liberal, give or take a few percentage points in any given poll. MRC is in the conservative mainstream, MMA is in the liberal mainstream, while FAIR is on the left side of liberal, frequently objecting to the lack of (or citing as credible) "Marxist" voices in the mainstream media. E.g., [21] Again, I would agree to using MRC, MMA, and FAIR as sources; I would not prefer, but would agree to banning all three as sources; my personal !vote is to allow MRC and its affiliates, MMA, and to bar FAIR as UNDUE except when noted by more reliable sources. What's clearly not acceptable under NPOV or WEIGHT is barring MRC and allowing MMA and FAIR. THF (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, while I am willing to concede that standards and policies have evolved since I started editing many years ago, I had a look at the guidelines you provided links to and I don't see any language that makes it clear that we now have the same standards for sources and links. I also disagree with your contention that the MRC represents the mainstream of anything, while I do concede that FAIR is fairly left, and I try to avoid using it as a source of article citations. I don't see any reason to not link to them purely for opinion though, and we've always had the standard that sources that are not acceptable for citations of fact are acceptable for citations of their own opinions, within the limits of NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that it was not a correct position to link in the external links section to people that were writing very opinionated negative pieces about the subject of the biography? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, should we not extend that policy to all opinion? If we excise only negative pieces we are violating NPOV. Another thing is that I'm wondering if people aren't just looking at the provocative title and freaking out. The piece itself is pretty tame. Maybe if we just change the name of the link to "FAIR article about John Gibson"? Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wel, I read the whole thing and it did read very negative about the subject,do you think we could add an external link to Sarah Palin spouting about Obama on the external link section of the Obama BLP, no . If there was worthwhile notable criticism then we could report it and cite it in the article. I would say that this particular link would perhaps not get past the RS noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone wants to use it as a source. The fact that it is negative shouldn't make a difference, unless we are also willing to excise links for being too positive. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gamaliel are you really saying that we can add whatever negative op eds that we like to the external link section? This article has more issues than this link, the bio is six lines long and then starts the criticism section which is twenty six lines long, basically it is pretty much an attack situation so this negative op ed external is not really needed, saying that he does appear quite a controversial character. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think within reason, the EL section can and should contain critical assessments of the subject of the article. This wouldn't include op eds that denounce one comment or incident or only mention the subject in passing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why we have WP:ELYES #3 's requirement of "neutral" if it remains alright to include partisan attacks in the EL section? I simply don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that WP:EL supports this link. THF (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that as a content guideline that encourages links of a certain type, while you seem to be (and please correct me if I am interpreting your comments incorrectly) looking at it as a policy that directly excludes anything not precisely covered by those three bullet points. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I view ELYES as sufficient, not necessary. ELNO #1 explicitly excludes what you're looking to include. Can you identify where in EL you base your support for inclusion? And would you object to including Bozell's op-ed as an external link in the Nina Totenberg article? If so, why? THF (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That's a pretty broad brush and it's open to a lot of interpretation. You could put up a convincing argument about pretty much anything under that vague statement. I believe it does provide a unique resource that is otherwise lacking, namely a critical overview of Gibson's entire career to the date of writing. Your opinion may differ, of course, so using such a broad guideline to include or exclude particular links is pretty pointless, IMHO. As far as your second question, yes, as long as the op ed (I have not read it) covers a whole career and not one or two transitory controversies. I do not support including it in the article, just as I do not advocate putting the FAIR link in the Gibson article. I believe external links are different from article content and sources and should be treated differently. Gamaliel (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Media Research Center is the leading conservative media criticism organization. It's not a neutral source to be sure, but there is no difference between it and Media Matters for America: they both provide partisan takes on their perception of media bias. They have a notable point of view, and WP:NPOV explicitly states that notable points of view should be included in articles. I'd like to get consensus on treating the two identically, or a sound reason why it continues to be acceptable to include criticism from the MMA blog in articles, but MRC/Bozell/Newsbusters criticism gets scrubbed as a violation of one policy or another. COI disclosure: I'm going to pitch friends at MRC an article about bias in Wikipedia, so I'd make more money if Wikipedia continues to have a double-standard. THF (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have today have a look at them both and I would keep them both out unless there was perhaps dialogue between the subject and the writer of the article, or an exceptional situation, they both are extremely opinionated, verging on activism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I started to scrub Media Matters for America and FAIR from articles? I don't want to do it unless there is consensus, and I'd have other editors backing me up. THF (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with that position regarding BLP articles, but for such a scrubbing there would need to be more support here or at the reliable source noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A discussion between a handful of editors who frequently discuss the same topics is hardly a consensus for a site-wide change like this. Gamaliel (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, media matters is at what looks like hundreds of locations on the wikipedia, clearly not a way to go . Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote User:Mao, consensus starts with a single editor. But I'll start a new thread at WP:RSN. THF (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is another organization that goes by the name of FactCheck. They're non partisan and have a good reputation. --TS 00:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FactCheck focuses on politicians, not media claims. I've also noticed errors by them in my field of specialty, where they unthinkingly took sides on contested empirical issues, proclaiming one side "right" and the other side "wrong." THF (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Armando Pacheco Matos

Armando Pacheco Matos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Armando Pacheco Matos received a BA and MS from City College of the City of NY. He also received an Administration and Supervision Certificate from Fordham University in NYC. He was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico in 1952. In 1967 when he was 14 years old his parents moved to the Bronx, New York. He attended Morris High School.

Armando Pacheco Matos published the poetry book "Padre Nuestro que te escondes en el cielo" in 1990. In 1998 he published the bilingual (Spanish-Emglish) biography "Dr. Ramón Emeterio Betances: Father of the Puerto Rican Motherland". In 2004 he published the novel "Jesús Pedro del Campo Montes: La Conciencia de Puerto Rico Asesinada". In 2010 the second edition of the novel will be published in Spanish and English with the title "The Conscience of Puerto Rico" "La Conciencia de Puerto Rico". comment added by Armando Pacheco Matos (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored for readability.Jarhed (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Added internal link, author, bachelor of arts, no refs? Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Hussain

Rashad Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article devotes way too much weight to the controversy-of-the-week about Rashad's comments on Sami al-Arian. I'm posting here in the hope that someone feels like dealing with it, because I don't.Prezbo (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It was looking a bit excessive, I have boldly trimmed out 5000 bytes to the talkpage and left a note. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mazher Mahmood Undercover Journalist

Mazher Mahmood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please remove the picture, it is not of Mazher Mahmood. This image is copyrighted to the Anti Ageing Clinic. It is of a Doctor with a similar name who is completely unrelated to Mazher Mahmood. Please can you remove this image as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrost2010 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have removed the image link at the beginning of the article. The article does however have other BLP issues: various of the "stings" and "exposés" that he has been involved in are completely unreferenced in this article - David Mellor, Gary Pennant and James Nesbitt to name just three. BLP applies equally to the other parties in these stories and the allegations and other similar comments must be sourced. – ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Anderson

In hoping to avoid a potential edit war, I have reverted the article on Jordan Anderson, a mid-level pro racing driver, to a stub, as the original article was blatant PR advertising and potential copyvio. However, it was recently reverted (by what I assume is a SPA PR firm). While I understand that the stub isn't the perfect state for the article, the reverted version here [22] is much worse than a stub. I was hoping to get some eyes on this to bring it up to WP standards and avoid having an advert on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion as an unsourced BLP.--Jarhed (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Threatened removal of photograph for violation of copyright rules

Hans Baruch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The photograph Robot Chemist.jpg was taken by me as CEO of Research Specialties many years ago. It was probably used in company advertising. However, please note: RESEARCH SPECIALTIES HAS NOT EXISTED since 1964 and therfore it is not possible to request any emails regarding permission to use this photograph, except, possibly from me. I hereby grant permission to use this photograph by Wikipedia for any purpose it desires. The photograph now appears as a separate entry and as a link to the article Hans Baruch

Sincerely, Hans Baruch 71.139.2.171 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, you need to email to confirm your identity and discuss this with the OTRS team , here is the mail..email to talk to OTRS is here , thanks. I have also contacted the editor that nominated the picture to comment. I have also saved the picture at my locality in case it should be deleted and you confirm your identity so as to re upload it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Identity will not be enough. Mr Baruch has granted "permission to use this photograph by Wikipedia for any purpose it desires". That isn't enough. Wikipedia's content is released under the GFDL, and thus can be reused by third parties (including commercially). The photograph would need to be released under a suitable Creative Commons licence.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, if Research Specialties owned the original copyright of the image, what happened to it? Did it really pass to Hans Baruch? Or did Hans Baruch always retain the copyright? These details aren't clear from the above to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PERMISSION and follow the instructions outlined there to learn how to obtain and send sufficient permission for the file to be used on Wikipedia. I have deleted the file for now, as at this point it is in clear violation of our image use policies. No worries however, once you have sent the permissions, leave me a note at User talk:Fastily and I'll be more than happy to restore the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bunning

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

The article about Senator Bunning seems more like an editorial than a biography. The author's tone suggests disapproval to me, which seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William.quay (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick read and it looks quite NPOV and cited. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Kohli

Hardeep Singh Kohli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- This biography appears to contain a disproportionately large amount of subjectively negative material, rather than a fact-based biographical account // 78.145.153.168 (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Controversy section could be better cited, but the rest of the page is actually positive and correctly cited.reiknir (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Guru (rapper)

Guru (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject has recently been left in a coma following cardiac arrest. Editors are haphazardly reporting his alleged death here at Wikipedia, which is both libelous and damaging to Wiki's credibility. Please look into this, perhaps locking the article until further confirmable news develops.

Thanks, I have trimmed it back, it's reported now that he is recovering, I don't think we need to lock it for now as the moment has passed, I will keep my eye on it. It is now semi protected. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Simon Ghahary

Simon Ghahary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I find it really unusual to find autobiographical material like this on wikipedia, especially since it is written in the third person but from a first person perspective. Most of the material also comes from someone called Orbman12 and his only contribution to the project are the Simon Ghahary page, a link to Simon Ghahary's homepage on the Blueroom Released pagee and a removal of a minor criticism and citation needed tag on that same page, which I find a bit suspicious. As far as I can gather he designed the external look of the original podspeaker and had a hand in running BRR and may have designed some of their album covers but not much since. reiknir (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article has been prodded for notability. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Esam S. Omeish

Esam S. Omeish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working to bring this article in line with WP:BLP. I'd like to ask people's opinions about this quote, which is included in the article in full:
"Such explanations are presented after a terrorist act or a radical is exposed. Radicals also have been known to lie, especially to "infidels." Omeish claims his remarks were "taken out of context." The context appears clear to anyone familiar with the language of the Middle East. Most rational people understand "the jihad way," especially when it is associated with Israel, as meaning the violent overthrow of Israel (and other democracies) and the destruction of the Jewish people."

Is it appropriate to include an extended quote of this kind in a WP:BLP? It is attributed to its author, Cal Thomas. Is that sufficient? Or is this something that should be a cause for concern? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I summarized the quotation but there is some edit warring going on and this article might need some more eyes.Jarhed (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested persons should read User talk:EsamOmeish to see that there is a serious BLP dispute with this article. Attention from editors uninvolved in the issue is recommended. Zero^talk 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that Omeish has a serious dispute with the article, but he has been blocked. No BLP issue jumps out at me, so what dispute are you talking about?--Jarhed (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A person who was claiming to be the subject was complaining about the cherry picking of inserted comments and general missrepresentation of certain issues that he disputed were true. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check everything in the article, but it looks pretty well sourced to me. In any case, if changes need to be made to the article, they can be handled incrementally. I don't see any blatant BLP problems and I don't think anything drastic needs to be done.Jarhed (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Capleton

Could we get a few more eyes on this page, please? There are problems with sourcing to youtube and a personal webpage of an activist. The latter is being used to source some vile lyrics attributed to the subject. While I think it is most likely accurate, I'm not sure it passes our standards, and would like some other opinions. LadyofShalott 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm renewing my call for more eyes on this article, please. Oops, I just realized I forgot to sign that, and sinebot didn't come to my rescue. LadyofShalott 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, the charge is a serious one and the cite must be reliable or it should be deleted immediately.--Jarhed (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you commented on the article talk page. Thanks. LadyofShalott 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Digby

Kristian Digby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Information about his death has been repeatedly removed despite being supported by definitive references to 4 national papers that make clear statements supporting the nature of death. The matter has been discussed on the talk page.

• diff of most recent removal.

Some independent views would be welcome on whether to include this information or if Wikipedia must wait for a final coroner's report rather than repeating statements from national newspapers.Ash (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All reports are attributed to an unnamed source close to the event, there is no pressure on us to add sensationalist claims without verification, there will be an official report from a named source soon enough. For example, the editor has recently added this citation to the article, wikipedia does not need such citations , in this one the writer is not even named, never mind the name of the source allegedly close to the scene. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe a "named source" will be making an "official report" soon (in the next day or the next month)? Is this based on any real information or just your assumptions? The four reliable sources included to support the statement you deleted were not based on assumptions. Ash (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why have you added this citation I have linked to here? Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement was supported by four sources, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Mirror. I see no reason to exclude the Mirror, the statement it made was identical to the other three national newspapers. You have made no clear argument to justify removal of this information about the cause of Digby's death. Surely I do not need to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? Ash (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:NOTNEWS - there is no verifiable information on his death. Speculation in newspapers on the day following is not in itself encyclopedic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement was not "speculation" it was reporting items found at the scene of death. The fact that the story was based on a statement from anonymous sources is not grounds for ignoring these multiple reliable sources. Consequently the guidance of V and NOTNEWS are met. Ash (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You have added multiple citations and still felt the need to add that mirror citation, sorry but it's clear that me and you are on different planets. Its all unnamed claims, we have no magazines to sell here and are lucky to have the freedom to rise above such reporting, anyone that wants titillating can read the speculation and unnamed reports from people close to the source at one or two of the citations but we have no obligation or need to report like that, wait for at least a named person commenting, someone who will at least put his name to the claims. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous sources may be notable enough for the daily newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. "unexplained" is what the police are saying. We don't need to give a blow-by-blow of press rumours and uncorroborated allegations, we take a long term view. If this ends up being more than a newscycle then it can go in with better sourcing later.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the Mirror as a source if you feel it does not meet RS. There are three other reliable sources that support inclusion. Ash (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You added them, they belong to you, it's better if you own it and take them out yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, as you wish. In my judgement it meets RS so it stays. Ash (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your judgment is blinded by your desires and personal activism in this field because it clearly is not a reliable source and is imo far beneath our standards Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However as I explained, the Mirror is quoting the same information as the other three sources and the inclusion of the information in the article does not rely solely on any information from the Mirror. You are trying to "win" your argument based on your dislike of the Mirror. If you wish to have a policy that Wikipedia bans all use of The Mirror as a source, I suggest you raise that on RSN, it is not the topic of this thread.

Speculating as to my "desires" and making statements about "personal activism" reveal more about the fact that you are prepared to stoop to making ADHOM arguments rather than arguments based on the article and even breach the guidance of OUTING. If you persist in such attempts I shall raise your behavior for further action in accordance with those guides, though I am aware of your previous positive contributions to Wikipedia and so am puzzled by your threatening tone here. Ash (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feel threatened or outed , I assure you that is not my objective or desire and also just muddies the waters, I have made my point clear, I object to the insertion of this content until there is a named source, simple. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

{undent}The article quotes BBC and The Mirror for the death. These are reliable sources and I saw the same news on CNN yesterday. I am unsure why these are not reliable enough for this article? These are reputable news sources, not tabloids, BBC and The Mirror have much greater liability for wrongly reporting a death than does Wikipedia, if they're satisfied with their source why aren't we? I don't see anything in policy that leads me to believe that we must wait for a coroners report. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any BBC source speculating on the cause of death. (Or more accurately speculating on items found near the death scene.) No one is disputing that he died, and there is sufficient sourcing to report he died. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely concur with keeping the speculation out until there is better information. If we get a coroner's report that's picked up by reliable sources that's one thing, but what we have seen so far is rumour that has been picked up by the papers. The fact that a paper may generally have a repuatation for fact checking (and therefore deemed reliable) doesn't mean that we should pretend that anything that they print should be included when the reporting itself makes it clear that the fact checking has not occurred. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I have to agree, even with multiple sources this still seems to be speculation and best left out for now. As the story develops and more information is revealed, we can reconsider. In particular, it would be extremely unfortunate if we add this information, but it turns out that it had nothing to do with his death (in such a case it's rather unlikely there would be any justification to keep the information even if it was widely reported at the time of his death). However I would point out technically this isn't a BLP issue. Although many feel we should take care with the recently deceased, particularly the extremely recently deceased (i.e. people who died a few days ago) like this, BLP still only really covers living people. We do consider other living people involved, but in this case, there's no one directly involved so the only BLP concern would be for the person's family which is no different from most people. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N seemed the most appropriate notice-board for matters pertaining to the facts about a recent death. Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate alternative if you feel this thread should not continue here. Ash (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson

Gretchen Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can folks please chime in about the recent back and forth. There is a citation used from MMfA about Carlson's bias and basically links to every article that mentions carlson. An editor says this is a compromise, instead of using individual articles. I know there is a whole thingy going on at reilable sources about partisan sites, ect. Anyways, thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article does not appear to be in compliance with BLP; however the statements about her are pretty tame so I don't think there is a lot of urgency. Right now there is a discussion on the RSN over the suitability of using MMfA references in a BLP. I propose waiting for the outcome of that discussion before doing anything on this.--Jarhed (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to the debate such that it is: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting.2C_Media_Research_Center.2C_Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Newsbusters.--Jarhed (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Nithyananda

Paramahamsa Nithyananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently there's some speculation on a scandal, and all sorts of BLP vios keep getting added to the article and talk page. I semi-ppd the article, but the talk page is still problematic. A couple of users have removed some unsourced defamatory content, but others keep adding it back. I'd like for some others to monitor this please. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not speculation of a scandal. It's all over the news in India.

For eg, these are from 2 big news sites in India.

http://sify.com/news/godman-s-intimate-moments-with-tamil-actress-telecast-news-national-kddpA5gedhh.html

http://www.ndtv.com/news/cities/bangalore-swami-in-sex-scandal-17142.php

While I'm not sure yet if this info should be in the main article, why is it that any mention of this being repeatedly deleted from the Talk page?

--vvarkey (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The utube video will not be going in the article so there is no excuse to post it on the talkpage, what have we got, a claim that this man is the guru and he kissed a beautiful woman, sounds good to me, the content if it could go anywhere it would be in the reaction of the local people perhaps in an article about sexual morality in Bangalore or some other such article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on the talk page was BLP problematic. Other stuff was not. Please be more selective in your archiving. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

After some back and forth in the talk pages, the following edit has been arrived at. I am neutral about adding this to the article and would like to wait a couple of weeks to see what happens. Comments are welcome whether to add this or not.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Controversy

On March 3, 2010, Nithyananada's ashram on the outskirts of Bangalore was attacked by a mob,[23] and there were protests and attacks in Tamil Nadu as well.[24] These were in response to video footage that was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News the previous day, purportedly showing Nithyananda having sexual relations with Ranjitha, a Tamil film actress. The whereabouts of Nithyananda were not known after the incident.[25]

Amidst police security which was subsequently provided, some huts on the Bangalore property were burnt down, which police suspected to be an attempt to destroy evidence. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour".[26] According to his press coordinator, Nithyananda encouraged the pursuit of both hedonism and spiritualism, because he believed his disciples ought to "live intensely".[27] On March 4, Nithyananda moved a civil court in Chennai, seeking to restrain the telecast of the video footage and prevent newspapers from publishing anything about him.[28].

I'm questioning the necessity of including what I consider superfluous details, we're trying to put together material for a BLP here; not an investigatory newspaper account. In keeping with an expectation in policy that a BLP should be edited 'conservatively', why not something accurate and simple like: "On March 3, 2010, allegations of impropriety regarding Nithyananada appeared in several south Asian media sources. The allegations are based on what is claimed to be his appearance in a video purportedly showing him engaging in sexual activities with a young woman. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". On March 4, Nithyananda made application to a civil court in Chennai, seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material[29]" cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are a few superfluous details, that don't seem to be actually about the subject, I also see other BLP issues here, although Decon's edit is the best I have seen yet, I am actually for waiting to see what settles as the real notable long term content, to me the controversy is actually the illegally acquired claimed video of what is claimed to be him, allegations of impropriety? in who's opinion and why, sex is a normal adult thing. Is he claiming to be celebrate? ...also purportedly is the key word, an illegally obtained video that is claimed to be the subject of the BLP. I suggest leaving it out for now and letting the dust settle. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said sex is impropriety. If the Pope wants to have sex, let him at it. But if he is caught on video, it is notable. --vvarkey (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vvarkey, this is an encyclopaedia biography, and not a news report. So we have to take a long range view here. No harm in waiting a couple of weeks to see how to put this in. Decon's version don't mention the protests/burning at all. It should be included.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a sentence or two about the protests is necessary. Also, part of the official response of the ashram (including the hedonism bit) seems to have been unnecessarily kept out of Decon's version. Besides this, South Asian media seems to be over the top - I doubt this has been reported significantly beyond South India. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is much better to wait, all the publications that have to sell their publications are running the content, so it is available for people that want titillating claims, we have a duty of care to living people to take care, I notice that in the latest citations they are now starting to question the identity of the claimed actress, [30] "what they said was footage of the godman in a compromising position with a Tamil actress whose identity is still in dispute." The protesters also have been reported at first as angry disciples and later as local villagers angry about a land dispute. The fire at the ashram described as the disciples destroying evidence and as an arson attack and the godman as in the video and not the person in the video. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The details about the godmans philosophy like, "Nithyananda encouraged the pursuit of both hedonism and spiritualism , because he believed his disciples ought to "live intensely". Should be cited and clearly be added to the article but in a section about his beliefs and philosophy, not as some tag on to a illegally filmed claimed video of him. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Related to this is Ranjitha. I've semi-protected that one and it needs more eyes. —SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If I was to add a comment about this, it would be something very simple and neutral....

March 2010

A video that claimed to show Nithyananada in a compromising situation with a woman was broadcast on the Tamil television channel Sun News in March 2010. This resulted in protests outside the Ashram during which a fire broke out. The Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam's website called the video defamatory, terming it "a mix of conspiracy, graphics and rumour". On March 4, Nithyananda made an application to a civil court in Chennai , seeking an injunction blocking further broadcasting of the video material. [31]

There has been a general consensus on the talkpage and no objections and this comment has been added. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Erik Schinegger

Resolved

 – Article is now sourced and WP:UNDUE does not appear to be a problem

Firstly, I can't believe this article has been tagged as unsourced for over two years. How is it that BLP articles are allowed to be created with zero sourcing? This is not a case of "x is a skier" stub with no references. This is a case of "x is a skier" with "disqualified", "intersex" and "transgender" as qualifiers - all unreferenced! With that off my chest, could a couple of people review the Erik Schinegger article? The majority of the information appears to be accurate from a brief google search, however I think this is a case of WP:UNDUE. The subject is notable as a result of their downhill championship, but the rest of the article consists solely of information regarding their disqualification from the Olympics and subsequent transgender journey. I was starting to add references, but cancelled my edits in order to garner opinions on the content. I would prefer to have the skiing record (fleshed out if possible) with a sentence or two regarding the chromosone testing and subsequent sex change, which would explain the name change. Thoughts? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look, I don't see any obvious WP:UNDUE problem here. A quick look at Google and Google Books suggests that the gender identity issues are at least as notable in the subject's life story as the skiing results, probably more. He wrote a book about it himself and was the (apparently willing) subject of a documentary, both of which apparently have been mentioned in the article since its creation, so I don't know that it's exactly accurate to say that this article had no sources at all. I don't read much German but it does appear that the article at German Wikipedia has more extensive citation.[32]--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's accurate to say the article had no sources as none were included in the article. "Unsourced" is not the same as "unsourceable"...the article is clearly sourceable, but my concern was that the entire weight of the article was based on Schinegger's Olympic disqualification and transgender status. It doesn't appear to have made any ripples here though, so I will assume that there is no overlying concern with WP:UNDUE and will carry on with sourcing the content. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaun White

Shaun White's article's infobox currently has a picture of him standing next to Richard Branson. Is this a violation of WP:BLP in any way? (I can't find any info.) I feel like that particular image would fit well within the article body, but because the article is about White, and because the infobox is directly related to White, the image should only be of White (cropped or otherwise) and not of Branson and White. Am I wrong in my thinking? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be considered a BLP violation with the photo. That doesn't mean that there might not be a better picture to use, but unless there's something i'm missing I don't know why it would be a BLP concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was merely curious. If it's not in violation of anything, which is doesn't seem to be, I was simply double checking. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

With BLP it is not an issue, regarding pics is that they should not portray the subject negatively here is the guideline/policy your question is more related to MOS and specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images I would also say that the picture has issues, the infobox picture should be of the subject, not the subject and another person that may or may not add weight to their notability, adding a picture to your infobox of you shaking the Queen of England's hand is not correct and if there is any picture of him alone it should be changed, it should be chopped to show him alone.Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Shaun White cropped and centered Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, MOS:IMAGES, I'd never seen that section. Thanks so much, this seems to be a more proper. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fraser Doherty

Fraser Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Within the biography of Fraser Doherty unsubstantiated claims are made with regard to his product "Super-Jam" and its sugar content which - given the claims that this product has no sugsr -are extremely dangerous to diabetics. Further claims to his products superior status are made by his references to up-market supermarket chain Waitrose.

I have sought to challenge the claims made in this biography for the subject of the biographies products with references to tbe scientific nutrional information provided in the edits I have made. I have done so openly under my user name. There has been a constant reversion of these edits by non memmbers/non-logged in individuals.

Can anyone please advise me on whether I am acting within the spirit and rules of Wikipedia and if so how to go about stopping these reversions.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlechterwolf (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could start by remembering that the article is about Doherty, not the jam he makes. That should have a small mention, not be most of the article. Kevin (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted most of the information about Superjam. It has no place on a BLP article. If you wanted to discuss it more I've started a section on the talk page Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Peter Woroniecki

Michael Peter Woroniecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is highly biased and defamatory. It has been marked as non-nuetral but has not been subjected to any substantial editing. Reading the discussion page on the article clearly shows the problems therein.

I quote the Wikipedia Guidelines about biographies of living persons. “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is un-sourced or poorly sourced- whether the material is negative, positive, neutral or just questionable- should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.”

Based upon these guidelines I am removing all the contentious and unsourced material on the Wikipedia page about Michael Peter Woroniecki. The administrators of Wikipedia have made a commitment to me to edit this article into an unbiased and neutral state. I see my efforts as assisting them to make this happen. This article incites hatred against living persons in their day to day lives, jobs and relationships. I will add nothing to the article at this time that might seem to promote a favorable image of said ministry. I will simply remove the defamatory and libelous contentious claims.

I would also like to inform whoever edits this page that there is a cyber bully who has been constantly monitoring and editing this page for the past 6 years. This one individual, who is not a relative, lawyer, reporter or in any way, shape or form related to the article, is using the Wikipedia space to vent his own vexation of hatred by exploiting the controversial nature of such a preacher. He is using many IP addresses and user names to do the edits, but if anyone knew who this individual was he would be discounted from making any reliable edits to the article. Vindictive opinions are not substantiated facts. Concerning any notable individual one could gather up all the negative gossip (especially on the internet) on them and write a Wiki article as if it were a tabloid. I do not believe that this is the purpose of Wikipedia.

I am looking for experienced Wiki editors to help rewrite this into a nuetral and unbiased article.

208.64.64.44 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody with the username of JoshuaWoroniecki is editing this article. I have taken a look, and generally speaking, the above criticism is correct. Every negative reference possible has been dredged into that article. On the other hand, there are several high quality sources as well as court testimony that document the negative statements. This article needs to have the negative information streamlined and clarified. That said, I personally will not touch this article so long as Woroniecki is editing it. If he gets himself blocked, let me know.Jarhed (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's not talk about blocking. In his correspondance with me (ticket:2010022110023583) Joshua has said that he realises that his preferred version is biased, hence his plea here for help from experienced editors. His frustration is understandable, as I have not yet been able to give the matter the attention that it desrves. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that anybody should be blocked, certainly not Mr. Woroniecki.Jarhed (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is a bit excessive, could use some trimming back or working on the phrasology a bit, there is one editor there that likes it the way it is and the article is cited a lot to a couple of books making it harder to see the paragraphs in the book to write it from a more neutral point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that too, it makes the article hard to work on and rates a bold edit.--Jarhed (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

charles pellegrino

Charles R. Pellegrino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently Charles Pellegrino - author - is experiencing attacks upon his professional integrity related to his most recent book "Last Train from Hiroshima". His page on Wiki is being used to raise old, discredited and disproved attacks on him. I am asking for a temporary block on changes to this site so that libels and slanders not become part of Charlie's site. I have attempted to remove certain words and ancient proven wrong accusations be removed from the site but they are restored daily.

Your help would be appreciated in this case. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.174.82 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about the false PhD statements. Unfortunately, such statements appear to me to be well sourced. Actually, it seems unusual to me that a university would make a public statement about such a thing, so the fact that they did so means that they are really intent on setting the record straight. In light of this, what assistance do you think would be helpful to you?Jarhed (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pyrros Dimas

User:Sulmues is disruptively inserting material [33] sourced from a self-published essay [34] on some guy's website and adding his own OR interpretation on top of that. He is also guaranteed to follow me here and start ranting about how this guy is a great professor and this and that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a self-published essay (in Albanian), and that it doesn't even mention Pyrros Dimas. Athenean (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Memushaj holds a PhD and is a regular professor at the University of Tirana. He has published more than 10 books and you may read the CV here ([35]). He has lectured in the Beijing University, China and in the University of Palermo, Italy. You may see his articles published here [36]. Furthermore he very well argues about the Dhima last name in pages 10-11 (along with others) that is associated to typical Northern Albanian first names and composition of triple names, that is typically done in Northern Albania. He is also asserting that it is historically proven that Skanderbeg's people went to see off John Kastriot II from Kruje when he landed in Himara in 1481, citing an article of catholic Bishop Gjeto Kola. --sulmues (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like I predicted. I don't care how many Ph.D's he has, it still is a self-publication, without ANY editorial oversight, and it STILL doesn't mention the actual Pyrros Dimas by name. Athenean (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The article, as stated in the first paragraph follows and tries to give extracts of a book "Himara (2004)": Himara në dritën e të dhënave historike, gjuhësore dhe ethnologjike By Rami Memushaj, [37] Publisher Botimet Toena, 2004 ISBN 9992717971, or ISBN 9789992717974. The book has been peer reviewed, because Toena is one of the best publishing houses of Albania. Memushaj is editor in chief of the Journal "Studime Albanologjike" since 2004 and "Gjuha Jonë" 1995 - 1998, the two most important linguistic scientific magazines in Albania. I think this article has been published in Studime Albanologjike and is not self-published. Pirro Dhima, who has been redirected, belongs to the Dhima family from Himara as you, Athenean strongly have supported. --sulmues (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove that? The book is not viewable online [38]. Athenean (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use your google translator gadget to translate the first paragraph of the article. --sulmues (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? It says no such thing. I thought this was the English wikipedia anyway. Athenean (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens that Albanian scholars know better Albanian patronyms than English scholars. The first paragraph clearly says that it is the continuation of the monography dedicated to Himara patronyms. Have a good night, dear Athenean! --sulmues (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It also happens that they may be less than impartial on such issues, particularly if they are the self-publishing type. Athenean (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time User:Sulmues claims a personality as ethnically Albanian. He already tried to name Napoleon Bonaparte [[39]] and Evangelis Zappas [[40]] Albanians. Since he is under civility supervision due to aggresive national enthousiasm [[41]], I've informed him [[42]] [[43]] to avoid edits that can be considered wp:trolling.Alexikoua (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that it doesn't really matter how great Prof. Memushaj is nor whether his book is the most reliable source in the world. If the book doesn't mention Pyrros Dimas then what sulmues is doing is WP:Syn Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I had not read WP:Syn. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll reconsider. --sulmues (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A group of IPs These IPs [44], [45], [46] is now tag-teaming on the article. The 92.75 IP is almost certainly User:Keep it Fake (edited the same articles in the past, e.g. Gjin Bua Shpata, uses hostile edit summaries). Can someone semi the page? Thanks, Athenean (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a request has already been made at WP:RFPP which would probably get a better response (while admins to check this page out, it isn't an admin noticeboard and it's generally better to make a specific request for admin intervention in an appropriate place when necessary). However there's nothing wrong with mentioning it here, I'm just noting it so people don't go to RFPP to make a request Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Kissel Trial

Resolved

 – article trimmed and tweaked and cited to independent reliable sources

Nancy Kissel murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with this entry. The subject's conviction for murder was quashed in the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. Yet the entry continues to cite the facts of the case as presented in the original trial even though the interpretation of these is in dispute. I tried to clean up the entry by replacing "murder" with "alleged murder" but a more comprehensive clean-up is really required. A retrial is planned for later in the year. Ironically, keeping the Wikipedia page in its current form makes it more likely that a successful conviction can never be achieved since the defendant will have a strong case that she can never obtain a fair trial due to biased reporting of the case in the media. I suggest that this whole entry be re-written in a much more neutral way that does not presume Nancy Kissel's guilt or removed from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longster22 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there were issues, most of the content was from primary court records and presented as if fact. I have removed the most of it and left a note on the talkpage linking to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

semiprotected article

Hi all, I semiprotected Biological_warfare due to this section which is unreferenced at present. An IP asked me to unprotect but hasn't given a reason nor discussed on the talk page. I am happy for another admin to unprotect if they promise to watch it, and folks want to source it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great catch. I will watchlist it.--Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of British supercentenarians‎

There is a dispute here regarding the supposed death of someone on the list, and it also applies to List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 and List of living supercentenarians. According to the GRG (about halfway down the page, or search for "Fish" on your browser) Margaret Fish died on 31 January 2010, while an IP editor claiming to be a family member disputes this. It is verifiable that she was alive last year, and I cannot find a news story that confirms she has died. My belief is that while the GRG may be adept at proving or disproving longevity claims by researching documents, they are not an adequate source for saying a person has died in the absence of confirmation by a reliable secondary source especially when the death is being disputed in this way. I find it quite bizarre that the IP editor is expected to provide a news story about her 111th birthday to prove she is alive, but we are supposed to take the word of the GRG that she is dead without a news story to corroborate their claim. In addition people are claiming this Yahoo group verifies it (I cannot access the message), this whole situation seems to me to be using wholly unacceptable sources to claim people have died. There are now cryptic references to information coming from a British government source, this is downright bizarre now. The admission that a mistake may have been made but that we will have to wait until a reliable source confirms she is alive seems to me to be the exact opposite of what we should be doing. O Fenian (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, many anonymous IP addresses have, in the past, claimed that supercentenarians on Wikipedia lists have died, only to be undone as vandalism. While this particular IP address sounds/seems far more credible, considering that this woman was born on March 7 1899 and today is March 7, it stands to reason that the best resolution to this situation is to have PATIENCE and, rather than make scurrilous accusations, consider the situation appropriately. The GRG has, in the past, been the death date source for many supercentenarians, including hard-to-reach cases from Japan. In this particular instance, the information about a death date came from a source in the British government. Anyone dealing with bureaucracy knows that mistakes are sometimes made...in either direction. For example, Alphaeus Cole died in November 1988 (see http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/26/obituaries/alphaeus-cole-a-portraitist-112.html?pagewanted=1) but is not reported deceased until May 1989 by the Social Security Administration:

Name: Alphaeus P. Cole SSN: 130-05-3991 Last Residence: 10011 New York, New York, New York, United States of America Born: 12 Jul 1876 Died: 2 May 1989 State (Year) SSN issued: New York (Before 1951) up arrow Save This Record Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Number: 130-05-3991;Issue State: New York;Issue Date: Before 1951.

Which is correct? I would assume that the New York Times article is closer to being right.

However, in the absence of news report, reports of deaths of supercentenarians are often not made (for example, Elsepth Wood of the UK died in 2009, sans news report). Are we to assume those people live forever, when a government report is to to the contrary?Ryoung122 12:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What government report? An anonymous "Deep Throat" informant was it not? If that is the case, it is also likely that he gave you the information in breach of the Data Protection Act. The whole point of BLP is about patience, it is about getting it right. There should be no need to rush to declare someone dead unless it is confirmed, from the discussions I have seen there was even doubt about whether GRG got her death right to begin with. When a person claiming to be a family member is disputing the death, I see no benefit to Wikipedia in claiming a person is dead in the absence of confirmation other than the GRG. O Fenian (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reported date of death, January 31, 2010, was some time ago. I don't see this as a "rush to judgment." In fact, it was the edits that prompted a response and a confirmation that she was still alive. By the way, actitivies off-Wiki are not subject to Wikipedia policies.Ryoung122 01:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A false report of a dead person being alive harms nobody. A false report of a live person being dead very easily could. You should probably immediately revert this person to alive, and that probably should be the policy for the article anytime the editors are informed of a dead person being alive. If the information is wrong it will be corrected in due course.--Jarhed (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman MP And The Paedophile Information Exchange

I wish to include certain facts in her bio, the facts are on record but it has been suggested that it is WP:BLPN, here are the facts:

Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.

Thankyou for your time.Twobells (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your desired addition and the supporting citation, would you post it here please. Please also specify exactly how Harmen can be shown to have any involvement or support or personal attachment to this group Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if one has a professional involvement in promoting paedophilia and anal intercourse with a minor that is somehow acceptable?Twobells (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Here is the definition of 'affiliated: A person, organization, or establishment associated with another as a subordinate, subsidiary, or member —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help, but it looks to me like another of Twobells long-standing attempts to disrupt articles about living people, which has previously seen him blocked for vandalism of an article about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If by 'disrupt' you mean laying out the actual facts rather than using wikipedia as a personality platform then yes I am 'guilty' of that. Fenian has been rather remiss in not telling you that it was he himself who had me blocked, not for 'vandalism', rather the uncomfortable truths. As for 'long-standing' that is hilarious as I was only once blocked in all the years I have edited on Wikipedia by a biased editor..who name was fenian Twobells (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twobells#April_2009

This editor is transparently attempting to make the issue about me rather than the facts that Harman and her group were involved with the Paedophile Information Exchange, it is that fact which I wish to have added to the article.Twobells (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That right there says who was blocked, it was you for edit warring to include an unsourced claim that people said "couldn't happen to a nicer guy" about a living person received a death threat. Your block log suguest you have been blocked more than once also. O Fenian (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, twobells, you can forget about adding this content to the Harman bio, its extremely controversial topic with almost an invisible wire connecting harmen to it, so unless there are people that add there agreement to the addition you may as well forget about it.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg Rassmussen

Resolved

 – Wikipedia informed of article error

The article states that Greg went to Falcon College. That may be, but he was definitely at St. Stephens College first. I can verify this as I was in his class.ERICWAR (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which can back your claim up? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your information.Jarhed (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Vasil Bollano

User:Keep it Fake, after unsucessfully trying to insert questionable material in Pyrros Dimas [[47]], a initiative that provoked an edit war and ended up here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pyrros_Dimas, is editing now in a similar fashion in Vasil Bollano (another living Greek-Albanian), this time removing sourced content and replacing it with wp:or [[48]], using hostile edit summaries in his edits [[49]]. Above user is repeatedly warned to avoid this kind of activity [[50]]. It seems also he is tag teaming with ip editors.Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I examined their edits and to me it seems that you are trying to present his criminal activities as"unjust". If you want to do such a thing do it elsewhere maybe in a forum, not here. He has been convicted for his crimes.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested semi protection [[51]], since ip activity [[52]] continues to be disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushtrim123 hasn't opened any discussion in the article's talk page. A personal opinion isn't enough explanation to initiate edit war.Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Things seem that have settled now, thanks to Off2riorob's & Future Perfect at Sunrise's intervention.Alexikoua (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Oaten

Resolved

 – Wintonian (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Oaten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - On the articles talk page is a WikiProject tag for 'LGBT studies.' I relise that this is not what is ment by a category but it does categorise and in that respect I feel that WP:BLP (Categories) could apply here. My objection is to the inclusion of this Wiki progect tag on the basis the there is no evedence that the subjects experiance with homosexual activity would lead to an appropreate classification of LGBT and in fact evidence would seem to point to their hetrosexuality with this being a temporay Parallel transgression. Would it be appropreate for me to remove this tag? ' // Wintonian (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's talk page.--Jarhed (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The tag should stay. The tag is appropriate as the history of the political scandal, press reaction and his subsequent retirement due to his use of male prostitutes is of interest to the LGBT project. Being tagged of interest does not mean the individual is "gay" (or lesbian, bisexual or transgender either). If he were gay then there is a category for LGBT politicians that would be appropriate. Ash (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article's talk page.--Jarhed (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Edit warring partly over whether a subject has died or not. Latest edit made the article an unmarked BLP. Is it a BLP? Need a ruling/assistance as no RS found regarding death. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Esowteric+Talk 14:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See this edit diff (and previous history). Esowteric+Talk 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a wikipedia reliable citation for death or he was born beyond what the reasonable term of maximum life expectancy is, the article should be treated as a Biography of a living person. (there is a specific number of years but it slips my mind) Without a clear reliable citation for his death any date should not be included at all. the most we could do if there are reliable citations commenting that he may of died we could add a comment about that but as unconfirmed reports or something like that and until there is a reliable report the article should be treated as if it is a BLP and as such content added to it about controversial issues such as his unconfirmed death would require exceptional quality sources. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Have added living people cat to article and living=yes to talk accordingly. Esowteric+Talk 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Brandstatter

Is up for good article review. The reviewer and I have agreed a fresh set of eyes would help address the issues he raised at the review. Please help if you can. Thanks TomCat4680 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK and List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured

List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured

There is a DYK hook proposed for this article, see nomination page Template_talk:Did_you_know#List_of_New_York_Legislature_members_expelled_or_censured:

• Did you know ... that in 1781, New York State Senator Ephraim Paine was expelled from the Senate for neglect of duty?

---

There is a discussion about whether to highlight this particular article through the DYK process. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_hook_about_fact_of_history_from_over_200_years_ago. Editors that contribute here at BLPN are encouraged to contribute there at the thread at WT:DYK. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)