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.

Ray Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Chenge - missing source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Chenge

Missing reference for the last sentence ("UK's Serious Fraud Office has however confirmed that... have closed the file for investigation."). Also a citation would be better here.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn - Victim's Name

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What's the policy on putting in sourced information about the victim's (just assume it's alleged every time I say it) name? I reverted an editor who added the victim's name and other identifying information to the article based on a French source. I didn't check the source, but assuming it's reliable, was I right to revert? I also posted something on the editor's Talk page. I don't believe that American media are publishing the victim's name based on the rape shield law, but we live in a world where countries, uh, disagree, and I don't feel very sure of my ground here as to Wikipedia's policy, if there is one, on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On general principles, wikipedia would not be bound by any specific nation's restrictions, leaving us free to consider identification in terms of BLP. I think that at this stage of the legal process, there would have to be strong reasons as well as strong sources for the naming of the complainant, and since in this case WP:1E would apply, I think you were right to remove it. Martinlc (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree -- this is a person with no public profile. If she starts selling her story, then fine (and more power to her -- something good for her should come from this), but until then there's no enclopedic interest in using her name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if French law doesn't have a similar victim shield. However, it probably doesn't extend to those cases in foreign jurisdictions. John lilburne (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

clearly doesn't violate anything Wran (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In such cases with a victim we always err on the side of caution - in such situations I suggest we follow the BBC - one of the most respected and responsible sources - if the BBC names her then we can look at it again. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is reported in the French media, then it should be reported. Wikipedia coverage of the event and accusations are incompletely because they do not reflect the information available. There is no legal reason not to mention her name and bibliographic details and it is noteworthy and therefore is clearly an "enclopedic interest" to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.229.2 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What is US law on reporting the name of an alleged rape victim, and where are the WP servers located? John lilburne (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't researched the issue, but I don't believe there is any law in the United States prohibiting the publication of a rape victim's identity. Or any law that is still on the books has been declared unconstitutional when challenged. The U.S. media do not generally publish the victim's name as a matter of practice, not as an obligation. Also, to whatever extent there are such laws in the U.S., they would probably be state-by-state rather than a federal law. Finally, where WP's servers are located (I believe they are in Florida and in the Netherlands, but that's based on a recollection of something someone told me), may not have any bearing on any legal liability WP has for "publishing" such information. The whole thing, like most legal issues, is rather complicated, and I don't think I'd hang my hat on the proposition that Wikipedia is legally prohibited from reporting the identity of a rape victim. Just my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems more of a BLP issue than a legal one at this point. WP:BLPNAME recommends caution in identifying individuals in relation to a single event and specifies that appearance in news media does not necessarily mean inclusion here ("when deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media ... should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.") January (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both there BBb23 and January, as I understand it is not illegal in the server location or the US in general - as I remember a couple of the quality responsible publishers in the US follow the same kind of victim protection procedures as the BBC and Wikipedia. Its more of an editorial decision based in a desire to report responsibility and is in general supported in policy. Off2riorob (talk)

I also believe there are some commonsense relevancy issues here. This is an article about an American prosecution of a person charged with attempted rape. The victim's name and her background are hardly relevant to anything in the article. Prior to trial, if her lawyers or responsible American media begin talking about it, then, if it's otherwise relevant, we can report on it. But at this point, regardless of the BLP issues, which, of course, are important, it doesn't make sense to include it. Also, a small quibble with Rob - I'd rather not go on record now as supporting inclusion of the victim's identity just because at some future date the BBC reports on it. Just something in me that rebels against (a) deciding an issue before it happens and (b) giving that much power to one news organization.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We are safe with the BBC, from my experience they will never report it unless she gives interviews etc, they have never let me down yet. I understand and appreciate your comments though. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To say that more weight should be given to one type of source is not say that weight is not given to others, nor does it address the issue of how widespread the info is; also only certain types of material are likely to interest academics, and the time lag for academic publication is considerable. Her background is clearly relevant as it may well become the leading issue in the trial, as may her appearance to some degree; also her name is very widely available in the european press, and by the time the trial starts , if not much sooner, it will be in the USA too: so there's really no issue of protection Wran (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just tallying up (for posterity), right that's 6 editors (7 if you include myself) to Wran's 1 (discounting the ill-informed ip's opinion) of the opinion that this information should not be included. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, there's also a discussion about revealing the victim's name on the DSK Talk page. I know Wran believes the count there is in his favor, but it's a bit harder to assess than here because the discussion is less focused and has devolved into shouting matches, accusations, and complaints to ANI. One of the problems with this issue is it's not just a consensus issue, it's really an intersection of policy and consensus. The threshold question is whether policy prohibits revealing the victim's name at this point. If so, consensus doesn't matter. However, if someone challenges the interpretation of the policies involved, you can't really move forward unless editors agree on the applicabilty of the policies in the first instance. Personally, in complex issues such as these, I prefer to fall back on common sense. At this point, the victim's name is not necessary to the article. Some (like me) could argue that it's not sufficiently relevant. Others might disagree. But because it's not necessary, in the exercise of editorial discretion based on the possible applicability of Wikipedia policy, it should not be included. I also think that if we wait, the whole issue will become moot because the victim and/or her lawyers will publicly reveal who she is to the American media.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that consensus to misapply policy is not a valid argument to include stuff in an article, and one editor correctly applying policy trumps ill-informed consensus (especially in the case of BLPs, BLPNAME, BLP1E and so on). This post was basically about trying to tie up loose ends as some editors do not accept tp consensus and then post the same stuff all over the place to gain more sympathy from uninvolved editors who do not have a good grasp of what's going on, keeping track of this becomes extremely time-consuming, as I'm sure you well know.

Whether it be her name or that she was brought up in a mud hut is totally irrelevant to the case (and thus the article) for the moment. One day it might be, for example if her background is heavily evoked during the trial to prove what a humble person of good charcter she is but I'm for the "exercising editorial discretion" option too. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that we are discussing the name, but the name is related to other characterizations of the person. I think this is a well-titled section-heading: Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#Should we characterize the accuser? It includes discussion of the inclusion/exclusion of the name. Several of the other aspects of characterization are discussed in that section in addition to the name.

Rather than me repeat all the factors reported by reliable sources—just read the section of that Talk page. These are characterizations of the person. The sources are prominent. I am not convinced that the name should be omitted; but I am even less convinced that the other factors should be omitted.

The question has been asked: what is the relevance of these facts? We are not the sole arbiters of relevance. Reliable sources are also exercising discipline. They too have to decide what to include and what to omit. Inclusion by reliable sources of these facts is reason for us to believe that these facts are relevant. I think our only obligation is to approximate in our article the degree of the free flow of information as prevails in the general world. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. If her name is not widely disseminated we can leave it out for now. If the many other factors are fairly commonly made available to the public by very prominent sources then I think it represents a contrivance for us to be omitting those factors.

Interestingly—none of the factors under discussion are glaringly defamatory. I'm slightly puzzled by the impetus to omit extremely common and unextraordinary attributes of identity. Reliable sources probably evaluate information for its potential to do harm in an instance such as this. I think we should be taking our cue from the precedent set by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What do the BBC say about the womans details? Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me. What do you have in mind? What does the BBC say in this regard? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13519035 - from the external for discussion - "His accuser, an immigrant from the West African state of Guinea," ... as per our policies and guidelines and the standards of reporting of the BBC, I would have no objection at all to us repeating this simple detail about her. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would we follow the bbc and not the new york times or cbs news or the sf guardian or msnbc or reuters? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that the standards of victim consideration in reporting details is of the highest quality at the BBC , the BBC is also not interested at all in selling papers or anything at all for that matter.(apart from themselves perhaps - as such are a similar entity to wikipedia) as I said, as per my (high standards) of interpretation of BLP policy and such situations regarding one event living victims, I would support adding this detail, you might have a different opinion and feel free to discuss your position, mine is clearly stated here. I have boldly added the content and the BBC citation to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are both missing the point here. Article content isn't determined by 'reliable sources' but by Wikipedia policy, and by talk-page consensus. A reliable source is necessary for inclusion, but it is never sufficient in itself. Neither this article, nor the 'assault' one are about the alleged victim, and what details (if any) about her are to be included should be decided according to Wikipedia standards and requirements, not those of the NYT or the BBC (neither or which is compiling an encyclopaedia AFAIK). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If our standards were held project wide as high as the BBC we would be doing extremely well. Its a widely reported simple fact about the housekeeper that she is an immigrant from Guinea. We report all and sundry about the accused and we need to remember he is innocent until proven guilty. Simple well known details without naming or exposing her seem to be informative detail that to exclude is verging on censorship.note - I boldly added it and I can see there is no consensus on the talkpage and Andy has objected here already and I have no objection to it being removed, if requested I will remove it myself to allow for more discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

George W. Romney

FYI - Born under The Act of Congress dated February 10, 1855, "persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States." "That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen"

Also may have affected

Sen. Barry Goldwater was born on January 2, 1909, in US Territory (Arizona) that was won in the war with Mexico, as defined by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo signed February 2, 1848. He was born under the Act of Congress of February 10, 1855 (Repealed in 1922).

See video: Act of Congress 1855 Derivative Naturalization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdF_O_R17kY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.95.233 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

George W. Romney died in 1995, so this isn't a matter appropriate for the Biography of living persons noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ibrahim Shaheen and Inshirah Moussa

This new article contains a lot of information about a pair of alleged spies - apparently one is still living. Only one reference is cited, and it certainly doesn't look independent or reliable. As a new article this one was not patrolled. I have just reviewed it and removed the "New unreviewed article" banner. Dolphin (t) 13:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• It sat there seven months without being reviewed, and without a talkpage being created, that is a system failure. It was a copyright violation from a wordpress location and the external that was there was a webblog and also not reliable - I have ragged it to within an inch of its life. Perhaps someone will improve it and include some reliable externals, if not it needs deleting in the foreseeable. Off2riorob (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I will keep an eye on it and nominate it at AfD if no progress is made after a suitable time. Dolphin (t) 11:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo new section

Why this BLP is not neutral or fair to Palazzolo.

5 examples of the present author's mistakes or one-sided view.

From the BLP: :Italian and US intelligence officers estimate that Palazzolo helped to launder more than US$1.5 billion in drug money through Switzerland. Actuality:

The figure was $6m which, under threat of his life, he returned to the men who, from October 1982, he knew were in the Mafia. Before then he was blameless. Excerpt from the Lugano sentence 26th September 1985:

"The transfer of 3 million dollars taken from the Acacias’ account and converted into 200 kg of gold for Rotolo and Tognoli, and the transfer of the remaining 3 million dollars from the USA through the Frigerio channel, do however constitute conduct that is punishable according to article 19 number 1 para.7 of the Federal narcotics law." --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

State witness Antonino Giuffrè claimed that the Sicilian Mafia's interests in the drug trade in Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Canada and the Far East were managed by Palazzolo.

Actuality:

Guiffre admitted in court that he never met Palazzolo and his "evidence", as evinced by a letter from the Attorney General in Palermo in March of 2005, produced nothing. He was totally discredited.

"With this background, Giuffrè specified that he had never met Palazzolo personally, but that he had heard a lot said about him directly from Provenzano, and this in talks they had taken place quite recently before his arrest (2002)."

From a letter written 23rd March 2005 from the Attorney General in Palermo to the deputy AG, Domenico Gozzo:

"With regard to the request made under Note dated 16 March 2005, which is attached herewith, we hereby advise that the search conducted in the informative memo drawn up by the state witness Antonino GIUFFRE’ in relation to the accused Vito Roberto PALAZZOLO, has produced negative results. Palermo, 23 March 2005." --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

Investigations into Palazzolo restarted in 1995 when police in the Cape received inquiries from Italian police, who were after Mariano Tullio Troia, a Sicilian mafioso wanted for the murder of Salvatore Lima, an associate of former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti.

Actuality:

One Dr Morettino, a resident of South Africa and a cousin of Troia’s, was being investigated for money laundering. In order to divert attention from Morettino, who was related to a right-wing parliamentarian who was part of the Anti Mafia Commission, they put the spotlight on Palazzolo. Needless to say, when Troia was arrested in Palermo they found a baby born of the woman who had hosted him since becoming a fugitive. It was unlikely that he had the time or the opportunity to have slipped away into hiding, meanwhile, in South Africa. When the police raided a house in South Africa they found not Troia but a law abiding, ordinary South African citizen, who reported them to the Police! The Italian Police were ordered by a highly embarrassed Attorney General in Palermo to fly back to Italy immediately.--Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

On the strength of a new passport in this name, he obtained resident status in South Africa – but all files relating to the application are missing.

Actuality:

Peets de Pontes was convicted and fined R35,000 because, amongst many other things (including attempted theft from Palazzolo), he got rid of the files.--Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

He hired a public relations adviser, Aldo Sarullo, a former actor, playwright and director, who advised Palermo's Antimafia mayor, Leoluca Orlando, and later Silvio Berlusconi's party Forza Italia, to change his image as Mafia boss.

Actuality:

Sarullo travelled to South Africa to meet Palazzolo and was prepared to pay to secure his authorised biography. Palazzolo turned it down. That was it. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

These are a few of the many errors and allusions that DonCalo makes about a man convicted of nothing except negligence. I propose a BLP, therefore, centred round his actual court convictions and acquittals, all of which were considered and judged by qualified magistrates using all the facts. This will give an equal hearing to the defence as well as the prosecution. So as not to impugn a man who has not, after 29 years, been irrevocably sentenced for the crimes of which he is continuously accused.

Before reading my proposed BLP, from wiki guidelines please consider three things:

Harmful and sensationalist: From Wikipedia on Primary Sources, etc

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The present BLP flies in the face of everything written above. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional Claims: From Wikipedia Verifiability

When proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them (as Palazzolo has claimed for many years) they are exceptional claims that require exceptional, high-quality sources. In other words his case contradicts the prevailing, mainstream view, which has been created by a conspiracy against him. "... claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources. They need Red flags)"

Palazzolo's case is Exceptional and requires better, more even handed judgement than we witness in the present BLP, which relies for it's sources on newspapers.--Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Specialised Claims: From Wikipedia Reliability

Palazzolo, after 29 years and 5 countries courts with an equal number of allegations, sentences and acquittals, is a very specialized subject. "Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong."

Palazzolo's case is highly specialized. Banks of lawyers have been poring over the minutiae of it for 29 years. The present author is not an expert, evidently. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed BLP:

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (born July 31, 1947) is an Italian businessman living in South Africa and Namibia. Born in Terrasini, Sicily, he moved to South Africa in the mid 1980s. He also goes by the name Robert von Palace Kolbatschenko. Caught up in a drug money-laundering scam for the Mafia in Switzerland and the USA in the early 1980’s, which became famous as the "Pizza Connection", he was tried in Lugano in 1985 and sentenced for having acted in “dolus eventualis”. Which means, loosely, for being negligent. But since then, emanating from Palermo in Sicily, a storm of allegations have been levelled against him. Mostly for money-laundering and Mafia association. All of which he denies, claiming to be the victim of a conspiracy.

The narrative of which can be viewed in court documents in 5 different countries, starting in 1984.

Switzerland

His first trials took place in Switzerland, on 3 different judicial levels, over 10 years. During that time, there were multiple charges and appeals, including the following:

In March 1985 he was given a “Nulle Prosequi” (no prosecution), but in September of that year he was sentenced to 3 years in prison for having acted in “dolus eventualis”, which is a legal interpretation “pitched somewhere between intent and negligence”. In April 1986 his sentence was increased to 5 years and 6 months for additional transfers of US$ 1,5 million and US$ 28 million respectively. In August 1989 when he was acquitted in respect of the $1.5m and his sentence was reduced to 5 years. Likewise, in January 1992, he was acquitted on the charge of having transferred the US$ 28 million. In November 1993 the 1992 acquittal was upheld by the Court of Cassation and Criminal Review, and his penalty was reduced to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment. This last sentence was declared to be final in the Federal Court (the highest court) in May 1994.

Italy

The Italian judicial saga began on the 16th April 1984 with a warrant of arrest from Rome. The narrative in Sicily began when, also in 1984, the most prolific Mafia informant in history, Tommaso Buscetta, gave the legendary prosecuting magistrate, Dr Giovanni Falcone, enough evidence to prosecute 350 Mafiosi in the Maxi Trial (which resumed in 1986). Palazzolo was never mentioned by Buscetta but 11 months later, on the 11th June 1985, Falcone issued a warrant for his arrest too. This was based on the testmony given by Paul Waridel to the Attorney General of Lugano in Switzerland (where Palazzolo was being tried). It was for the same evidence under consideration in Switzerland, therefore, that Falcone motivated his warrant of arrest. Since then there have been multiple Italian warrants and court cases concerning Palazzolo, generated in Palermo in Sicily, including 6 warrants issued to South Africa, where he lives.--Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Of note, however: On 26th March 1992 the High Court in Rome convicted Palazzolo for the crime of “association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking” and sentenced to 2 years prison. But he was acquitted on the charge of Mafia association because the facts to prove such association, the judge said, “do not exist”. This conviction was suspended, however, on the 31st January 1993, because Palazzolo had already served 3 years in prison in Switzerland, for the same facts. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) In December 1994, the Court in Palermo (under Judge Scaduti) reopened their account by issuing precautionary measures against Palazzolo, stating that, “Palazzolo had been involved in the trafficking of narcotics…” and, “…actually belonged to the structure of the Mafia organisation”. In February 1997 they upped the ante with another warrant of arrest, the motivation for which was generated by a report written by South African Police officers (Smith & Lincoln), identifying Palazzolo as a well-known criminal affiliated to the Mafia, and a dangerous fugitive from justice.

In respect of which on 25th March 1998 Interpol (Pretoria, SA) told the S.C.O. (Central coordinating unit of the Italian State Police) to return the documentation from the Smith Report that had been acquired illegally by Smith & Lincoln, against whom criminal proceedings were pending for crimes committed in South Africa.

On 12th October 2000 Palazzolo was convicted by the Court in Palermo, in absentia, to 12 years in prison, again, for narcotics trading and Mafia membership. In March 2002 Palazzolo received more precautionary custody measures from Palermo, this time (using intelligence gleaned from the South African police) for aiding and abetting Giovanni Bonomi and Giuseppe Gelardi (who had visited Palazzolo's farm), as fugitives, in South Africa.

It became evident, however, that they only became “fugitives” (issued with warrants of arrest by the Court in Palermo), on the 29th May 2006, eight days after they left South Africa, where they were staying with Palazzolo.

In July of 2003 the Court of Appeal in Palermo annulled Palazzolo’s October 2000 conviction. And a month later they set aside Falcone’s warrant of arrest, (issued June 1985).

Back to Rome: On 9th January 2004 Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome revoked the February 1997 Review Court Palermo judgement with the words: “…the judgement being contested is annulled, since it is flawed and it contravenes the law, and is lacking in motivation.” As a result the Review Court in Palermo, on the 6th April 2004, were forced to revoke their warrant of arrest of February 1997 and the precautionary custody measures of March of 2002.

On the 5th June 2006 the court in Palermo, changing tactics, handed down a sentence of 9 years for "external complicity" (to committing a crime in a Mafia type association). "Mafia association" therefore had been changed to "external complicity". This was confirmed on the 5th July 2006 by Judge Puleo in Palermo and on 11th July 2007 Judge Salvatore Scaduti of the Court of Appeal in Palermo, overuling the acquittal judgement in Rome (1992), confirmed the sentence but reformulated it in peius (made it worse) so that his crime was now for “full association”. The motivation for this new charge was based apparently on the evidence of Antonino Giuffre, a Mafia informant, who stated that, “Palazzolo belonged to the Mafia association called the Cosa Nostra round about the eighties, and remained therein permanently after this date.”

It transpired that Giuffre had never met Palazzolo, however, and neither had he mentioned him in his first informative memo, which he was bound to do, by law 45/2001, within 180 days. For 6 months then, having decided to spill the beans, he never mentioned Palazzolo. Added to which none of his evidence found any corresponding proof in the proceedings.

In Rome on 13th March 2009 the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the sentences given against Palazzolo, in Palermo, sentencing him to nine years imprisonment for full blown Mafia association.

Which is where his case hangs, at present, except for an outstanding application by Palazzolo to the European Court of Human Rights (submitted on 18th November 2009) to hear his case and consider the fact that, subsequent to his trials and sentences both in Switzerland and Italy, no new substantiated evidence has yet emerged to reconvict him. and in October 2011, in an effort to overturn the above judgement, Palazzolo’s case will be heard by the Appeal Court in Caltanissetta in Italy.

--Fircks (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Comments

From an outside viewpoint, the above proposal (or some synthesis of it) doesn't seem unreasonable. I became aware of the disagreements when I stepped in as a reviewer, but could not get a couple of the parties to agree to a compromise.

Regarding the allegations that Fircks (talk) outlines above, they seem (to me) most vulnerable in reverse order. For example, the hiring of a public relations director should be public record, and if it isn't, it shouldn't be included. A missing passport application could but both ways and is probably little more than a curious footnote in Zuma's corruption-prone administration.

If the parties can be brought together regarding this, I support the effort.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is ridiculous. First of all, the sources are only from Palazzolo's own website in a text that has been written by a self-confessed friend of Palazzolo. We have a serious conflict of interest here. We might as well copy Palazzolo's own website into Wikipedia if this is allowed. I do not have the time at the moment to go into detail of all the misrepresentations, but as it stands this is not acceptable. While I do not oppose certain modifications in the existing BLP, we cannot simply ignore all the other reliable sources that have completely disappeared in Mr. Fircks version, just because Mr. Fircks does not like them or does not understand them. He only uses primary sources which have to be used in Wikipedia with extreme caution: I quote "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed ... to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." The current BLP is based on secondary sources and should be considered as the basic text. The above proposal of Mr. Fircks is against the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - DonCalo (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wish to deal with this matter in a civilized fashion which, as Unicorn Tapestry suggests, means "coming together". I hope we can do this.

• I have just picked a few holes in examples taken from your BLP, pointing out that some of the offensive allegations you make are unproven and unfounded, and you respond by saying that my proposal is "ridiculous".

All my so-called "offensive allegations" are properly referenced by reliable sources. - DonCalo (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "reliable sources" are newspapers reporting allegations that never stood up in court. Take any example, take Giuffre: having turned State Witness (Pentiti) he never mentioned Palazzolo in 6 months of discussion about the Mafia. When he was being questioned about the D'Anna case, the Prosecutor, Dr. Paci, asked him if he knew Vito Robert Palazzolo, to which he answered, "Yes indeed, he is from Cinisi and is the brother in Law of Provenzano." Another Palazzolo, a different Palazzolo, and Dr. Paci knew exactly who Giuffre was referring to. So it's not complicated. Without substantiated evidence you are implying and suggesting that a man who was only ever substantially convicted of acting in "dolus eventualis", is guilty of multiple other charges.

• OK, lets move on. Let me say again - I don't know if he's guilty and neither do you. He certainly hasn't been found guilty in court. But what you have printed, whether or not it comes from Newspapers, is untrue and never stood up in court.

Not been found guilty in Court? Even Palazzolo website admits that he has been convicted. He was convicted twice, in Switzerland (for money laundering with the Mafia) and Italy (for collusion with the Mafia), while going to the highest courts. Three times judges looked at his case in two countries. In other words in six trials he was convicted. - DonCalo (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo was convicted in Switzerland, yes, when he was caught up in the Pizza Connection a year after he met Della Torre and Rossini (who were already money laundering), but he was convicted of having acted in "Dolus Eventualis", which is a "crime" pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. It was the best they could do, and that was because, under threat from Tognoli and Rotolo (Mafia), he returned to them $6m. That was his single, substantiated "crime". As to Mafia membership, from the judgement they noted that, The same examining Magistrate did not consider that Palazzolo was associated with a Mafia organisation, --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A conviction is a conviction, especially when the sentence is confirmed in appeal twice, whether he acted in "dolus eventualis" or not. - DonCalo (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A conviction is a conviction, you say. Sure it is. But a conviction for money laundering and Maffia association is one thing, whereas a conviction for acting in "dolus eventualis", is something else. You seem to think that he has been sentenced, irrevocably, for money laundering and Mafia assoc, but he has not. --Fircks (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In Rome in 1992 he was convicted for the crime of “association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking” and sentenced to 2 years prison. This conviction was suspended, however, on the 31st January 1993, because Palazzolo had already served 3 years in prison in Switzerland, for the same facts. (See Dolus Eventualis, etc) But he was acquitted on the charge of Mafia association because the facts to prove such association, the judge said, “do not exist”. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So you observe his convictions. Why not list his acquittals too? Then you (and the BLP reader) will get the full story, not just selected incriminating itmes from newspapers. The legal reel is still rolling. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean the BLP does not mention his acquittals, I quote from the article:

• In 1992, a court in Rome had found him not guilty of being a member of the Mafia. "I was acquitted of Mafia charges, but I am always the 'alleged Mafia don' and it is disturbing to be portrayed that way to family and friends," Palazzolo maintains.
• In March 2003, he was acquitted of contravening South African law when applying for citizenship in 1994.
• In June 2010, the High Court of South Africa blocked the extradition of Palazzolo due to lack of double criminality requirement as South Africa does not recognize the crime of Mafia association as conceived in Italy. Moreover, the Court also found double jeopardy as Palazzolo had already been acquitted of Mafia association in 1992 by a court in Rome.

But you cherry pick. You have to mention the full story, in order to get the neutral view. You have left out most of the story.

• Why not mention his Nulle Prosequi (no prosecution for lack of evidence) in March 1985?
• Or his acquittal in August 1989, in respect of the $1.5m conviction?
• Or his acquittal of January 1992 for the charge of having transferred the US$ 28 million?
• Or that Tommaso Buscetta, the most prolific Mafia informant in history, in 1984, mentioned every Mafiosi in existence, but not Palazzolo?
• Or that Palermo's warrant of arerest in February 1997 came about using the informaton of 2 South African police officers, one of whom was consigned to a loony bin, afterwards, and the other got a 9 year prison sentence for crimes in South Africa?
• Or that Interpol had to intervene to tell the Sicilian police that they were acting illegaly?
• Or that the precautionary custody measure he received from Palermo in March 2002 were for aiding and abbetting 2 "fugitives" who only became "fugitives" (got warrants of arrest) after they visited his farm in SA?
• Or that in July of 2003 the Court of Appeal in Palermo annulled Palazzolo’s October 2000 conviction? And a month later they set aside Falcone’s warrant of arrest, (issued June 1985)?
• Or that on 9th January 2004 Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome revoked the February 1997 Review Court of Palermo judgement with the words: “…the judgement being contested is annulled, since it is flawed and it contravenes the law, and is lacking in motivation.” (Kind of strong).
• Or that the 11th July 2007 judgement from Judge Salvatore Scaduti of the Court of Appeal in Palermo, was founded on the evidence of a man (Antonino Giuffre) who never met Palazzolo and never mentioned him in his first memo (which by law is final, after 6 months); but who did refer to another Palazzolo?--Fircks (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This stuff, which sentences a man in the Press (where you get your information) is too serious not to be done properly. You have singularly failed to give the full story. --Fircks (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I use these primary sources, to quote you, "carefully" ("though primary sources are permitted if used carefully".) Which is my single, abiding point and please excuse me for repeating myself: In court he was never convicted of those things (I gave a few examples. There are many more).

Press reports of mainstream media with a record of fact checking are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. You quote only from your primary sources when it suits you. This kind of cherry picking is in contravention of WP:NPOV. - DonCalo (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoting ALL the cases, for and against Palazzolo, in their entirety, is not cherry picking. There are many allegations made from many sources, and they're all there. But I won't just print the allegations without the acquittals, when they exist. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• You use newspaper allegations and I debunk them, where I can, with court documentation used carefully. In other words I don't "interpret" them, but deliver them for anyone and everyone to read. Let the people decide!

You debunk nothing, you do "interpret" everything in such a way as to minimize serious criminal activity that has been confirmed in Court. In the current BLP, the opinion and denials of Palazzolo have been given ample space. - DonCalo (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Minimise criminal activity? What criminal activity? The ones written in the Mail & Guardian? Criminal activity, by definition, comes from a court of law.

Don't make sweeping, unsubstantiated claims. Look at each point, in turn.

I have debunked the figure you say Palazzolo laundered; Giuffe as a witness; Troia's connection with Palazzolo; Peete de Pontes and the missing files; and the public relations adviser rumour. With time and space EVERY SINGLE ALLEGATION will be answered. --Fircks (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for certain if it's true that Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy, but I do know for certain that what you write about him is unsubstantated and probably untrue.

I hope we can resolve this.

--Fircks (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve this unless you start recognizing the basic facts that he was convicted for money laundering in favour of the Mafia and has been convicted for Mafia association. What the future will bring, we will see. - DonCalo (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He was convicted of that, and then he was acquitted. The he was convicted, then acquitted. Etc, etc. Why not mention both, and be neutral? --Fircks (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you may be 80% right, you may be 100% right, but participants promulgating a hostile environment gives those of us trying to resolve the issues a headache. A few months ago when I proposed on the talk page trying to find a reasonable synthesis, the door was pretty much slammed in my face.

I understand not everyone is a great communicator and I further understand emotions can rise when someone's frustrated while certain they're right. Kindly tone down the invective to reduce the toxic cloud of dust.

I'm involved in casework right now and can't help negotiate even if I were so brave. You two (and others) know the history far better than I, and it's troubling to see parties so far apart.

May I suggest laying out points you are firm about and those that are negotiable. For example, I believe an appeal is looming. If so, the article should either state that or leave the conviction/acquittal issue pending until it is resolved.

To be clear, my stance is that I don't want to see a good man trashed nor a bad man whitewashed. I don't know which Mr. Palazzolo is (or even both), but I would error on the conservative side of caution about any questionable points.

Best of reason to you both, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned intervention. Just to know that someone has seen this elaborate story is heartening. An Appeal is looming (Italy and the ECHR), but what do you mean by leave the conviction/acqittal thing? As it stands it is one sided. Shouldn't it be balanced, Appeal or not, with acquittals as well as convictions?

I know that you can't "intervene" but with a BLP like this, which is a Special Claim and an Exceptional Claim requiring specialist and exceptional knowledge, and yet written from newspaper articles. But it's like being caught between a rock and a hard place. No one can intervene or, frankly, has the time to really check out this arcane stuff. I won't bore you with more narrative except to say that I am with you entirely when you say you don't know if Palazzolo is good or bad, but there is nothing I wouldn't do to allow a man or woman to be given a NEUTRAL BLP. Thanks and regards. --Fircks (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Eamon Zayed

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

Hi some vandalism occurred on the page of Éamon Zayed/Eamon Zayed, Derry City FC footballer in the wake of a racism allegation row in the irish media. I undid the vandalism to revert to the previous edit(i wasnt logged in for those corrections) however it seems that my corrections only applied to the page found under the search term >Éamon Zayed< (with the accent on the E), upon accessing his page by searching for his name without the accent >Eamon Zayed< ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_Zayed, I found that the vandalism is still evident on that page. I am not as savvy with the wikipedia system as others may be and am unable to fix this page, could someone please correct this?

Repeat: Vandalism removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éamon_Zayed but still evident on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_Zayed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft24 (talk • contribs)

• It looks ok to me, it likely was a cache problem, you were likely viewing a previous version. Wikipedia:Bypass your cache I am not seeing any remaining content from the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Same here, it was likely a cache issue. I don't see any of this content so it is likely you saw a previous revision as stated above.  JoeGazz  ▲  20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Aelita Andre

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

Hello, I'm writing here because I want to clarify a few things regarding a recent series of edits made on an article that I wrote and am maintaining, Aelita Andre. Earlier today, User:Cramyourspam made four successive edits to the article, the end result of which was:

(1) The addition of critical information about the article's subject sourced only by a private blog.

(2) The addition of an autobiography tag justified with a statement that I, the article's author, "seem" close to the subject because there isn't really anything negative about her in the article. I contested this on the article's talk page, because it isn't true and because nearly every sentence of the article is followed by 1 to 3 inline citations from reliable sources, so the accusation was sort of ridiculous.

Because this user made four uninterrupted edits in a row, I undid them with four uninterrupted edits in a row. I'm afraid now that someone might see this as more than 3 edits in a 24-hour period, but this was actually a single edit in 4 parts (since the other user did not edit between my 4 edits). Additionally, these edits were done in order to remove contentious material in a BLP. Curiously, this user's page explicitly states that edits to the user's personal talk page are not welcome. Because I wanted to draw the user's attention to the article's talk page so we could have a discussion, I simply reverted the next edit that he (or she) made with an edit summary stating "Cramyourspam, I undid this only to let you know I want to talk about this on the Talk Page since you don't want messages on your page." If anyone here is interested in the full chronology of events and in everything that was said on the article's talk page, please take a look. I hope for two things from you:

(1) I'd like some form of confirmation that the situation is understood in case anyone sees, at a quick glance, that I made the three uninterrupted reverts in a row, and in case that person doesn't notice that these are all really a single change undone in the same consecutive steps in which they were created in the first place. Moreover, I want to point out immediately that the motivation behind the edits was to remove contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP. I strongly encourage anyone interested to view this page in detail.

(2) Although an uninvolved rollbacker chanced upon the page, reverted it to its original state (what it was before Cramyourspam's first edit), and helped to resolve the issue by now, I would like some feedback on how I handled the situation so I can improve my response in similar situations in the future. Of course, if you don't have time to do that, I understand.

Thank you for your time, Armadillopteryx^talk 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:3rr has an explicit statement in it somewhere to the effect that consecutive reverts are all counted as one - you won't have any problems there. The other user's talk page looks pretty weird - it's not something I've seen on a talk page before and seems pretty strongly contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'm going to notify them that there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them - which would normally be polite but will probably be interpreted as rude in this situation but seems a good thing to do anyway. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I'll check this page regularly to see when more information is added. Thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You did well. (Incidentally, any statement on a user talk page that comments in general aren't welcome may be freely ignored. After all, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

cramyourspam here. on the article discussion page, arm'x asked for real research. it was already in the article i used originally ("Reports of Art World Acclaim For 4-Year Old Artist Dupe Global Media" http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9002.html ) which you deleted --the article on that art writer's blog. from that article (and i'll just copy the art writer's references):

[blockquote] Wikipedia sums it up well: "A vanity gallery is an art gallery that charges artists fees to exhibit their work and makes most of its money from artists rather than from sales to the public." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery ) According to an article by artist/gallerist/critic Lenny Campello: because a vanity gallery rents out its walls, "the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ ) Campello continues, critics and curators ignore such venues "much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use 'vanity publishers'." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ )

Lest they incur bad publicity, vanity galleries don't generally admit to being pay-to-play venues, but enough information appears on Agora's website to connect the dots. From Agora's submissions page: "Please note that Agora Gallery charges an annual fee for its representation and promotion services." ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/postal_submissions.aspx ) From Agora's FAQ page: "If I am accepted what is the cost of the annual promotion and representation.... We offer a few options starting from $2950."( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/faqs.aspx ) For a solo exhibit, "Please email sales@agora-gallery.com for more information" --note the telltale email address: sales. ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/gallery2/ ).

To split hairs, Agora doesn't officially require fee payment to exhibit, but instead does require purchase of promotional services. No such purchase: no exhibit. It is therefore pay-to-play --just paying for required "promotion" rather than for exhibition. There is little real difference.[/blockquote]

so there's some research. you can see that the gallery's own website explains the requirement for exhibitors to pay promotions fees to be allowed a show; wp and others explain that pay-to-play venues are vanity galleries. if you're going to argue that the gallery's own website doesn't count, you should step out of the loop and leave the article to less biased-looking writers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already described at Aelita Andre as being a vanity gallery, so I'm unsure as to what the point of your post was. I don't mean that sarcastically - please clarify what you meant/what action you were trying to bring about. Kevin (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I just posted this on the article's talk page, but it appears the same reply is relevant here: I don't know why Cramyourspam keeps insisting on using that private blog as a source in anything on Wikipedia, much less a BLP. It's not a reliable source now and will never be, so I would like to understand why there has been so much insistence on blog use here. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Cramyourspam's post here is copied and pasted from the article talk page, I'm also going to copy and paste the second half of my response here:

Listen, I'm a patient person, but I don't take kindly to your repeated personal attacks accusing me of bias, being close to the subject, etc. I would mind less than most people if you actually justified any of what you've said about me, but so far your only arguments have been variants of the fact that the article doesn't include the fact that it's a vanity gallery (which it now does, by the way) or say many negative things. Well, at best, that's a weak argument for NPOV, but nowhere in there is it justified to attack me as a source close to the subject or as a biased writer. Moreover, even your NPOV ideas can't go anywhere because until a reliable news sources publishes a critical story about the subject, we can't put in anything more negative than the fact that the Agora is a vanity gallery. We can't go into criticism of her without explicit sources of the criticism. Please read WP:BLP. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

( ... However, this is secondary to what Kevin noted above, which is that the Agora Gallery is already introduced as a vanity gallery in the article, with the citation being from the gallery's website, as it has been since 01:07 on 17 June.) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Schoenfeld

The article on the LP Wayne Schoenfeld has a rather curious editing history and makes some claims that seem extraordinary. (I say "seem" because they are not entirely clear.) No, there's nothing potentially libelous or remotely similar; but a few additional, disinterested eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this looks like a straightforward COI matter. (Yes, it's a BLP, but this is by the way.) So I've brought it up here on the COI noticeboard. It's better discussed there than here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

mohamed faarax aidid

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

family kocovic

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

Rob Todd

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

This article contains false and libelous information about an alleged extra-marital affair by Todd. The sources which Macwhiz has used as authority are not credible for the following reasons: (1) both articles which he is using as authority are columns....not actual news stories. Those columns do come out of publications which have hard news stories which can be credible, but which also have columns which may not be credible. The columns which Macwhiz uses contain no supporting facts of any sourt. They simply repeat a libelous rumor. The use of a unsubstantiated column as a fact source violates your editorial standards if that opinion contains no witnesses or other supporting facts (2) Neither source contains an interview with Todd, his ex-wife, Keller or his ex-wife, or any other witness. There are no emails, or other documents cited as authority. There are no photographs or any other documents provided. A thorough web search will show that neither Todd or Keller or their ex-wives were ever interviewed about the rumors. Furthermore, a thorough web search will reveal that there are no interviews with any third party witness to any events that would tend to support the allegations (3) The particular articles were written by colummists for the publications, not reporters. A column is only credible if it contains supporting facts. There are none here. These articles were prompted by rumor and gossip only. Furthermore, If you do a thorough web search, you will find that about the time that the articles Macwhiz is relying on were published, the Houston Chroncile accidentally released an internal memo in which it detailed a plan to discredit Todd and other opponents of Rail by attacking their personal lives(summary of this athttp://www.bloghouston.net/item/7). The articles which Macwhiz is using as authority were published as part of that plan (4) A thorough web search will reveal that the particular columist who wrote the Houston Press article Macwhiz has cited was subsequently terminated from the Houston Press for violating their editorial standards and for repeatedly representing facts to be true without any supporting facts of any sort. His article is generally thought to have what started the gossip chain. (5) The writer of the Chronicle column was not working for the Chronicle or living in Houston at the time of the alleged affair. His column also contains no supporting facts and he was likely relying on the veracity of the Houston Press column. As with the other source Macwhiz has cited, that column contains no supporting facts, interviews, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkgurugal (talk • contribs)

Pinkgurugal, a single-purpose account that has no edits other than attempting to blank Rob Todd and, when that was reverted by another editor, remove all mention of this incident in Todd's life, is asking editors to believe that the paper of record for the Houston area—the Houston Chronicle—was engaged in a conspiracy with the local alternative newsweekly, the Houston Press, to discredit Todd. As evidence, she cites an archived copy of a memo posted at The Houston Review, a defunct blog that described itself as "A conservative student monthly serving the Houston area". This alleged conspiracy involved both papers making supposedly libelous statements about Todd. Oddly, in the many years since, Todd—an attorney—has apparently neglected to file any lawsuits against either publication for this alleged conspiracy.

The section in question was recently discussed on the article's talk page and Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo had some concerns about it; I worked with him to create the version that Pinkgurugal wants blanked. I highly recommend that concerned editors read those discussions before commenting.

A number of SPAs have made this objection recently: Politicianfriend (talk · contribs · count), Deaftruth (talk · contribs · count), and Democratsunited (talk · contribs · count) have all made pretty much the same edits. Interestingly, very similar—in some cases, identical—edits with curiously similar edit comments were made by Robertpercytodd (talk · contribs · count), the self-admitted subject of the article, earlier in the year. I intend to open a sockpuppet investigation on this.

The material in question is sourced, and per WP:WELLKNOWN, belongs in the article, even if the politician in question doesn't like it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have trimmed it back, its clearly disputable, we don't know what was going on or why he was phoning her, it just seems to be trivia designed to attack and demean. Readers can click on the externals if they want the titillating dubious claims of phone record speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Rob, I disagree. It's sourced; the statement you removed is backed by official records and therefore highly verifiable; and Jimbo approved of the edit]. Removing the information leads the reader to make an incorrect assumption. Plus, WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Does an SPA with an obvious POV make something published by two newspapers with very different editorial agendas "disputable" now? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the incorrect assumption? What users think such speculative trivia is even worthy of a mention is beyond me, this stuff is press excitement for real life campaigns not the kind of long term biographical notable content. As fro the single purpose accounts - if you write a decent balanced article I find such accounts don't come reverting and complaining.Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, there's the assumption that Keller's wife was "estranged" at the time of the relationship. The evidence suggests that the relationship started well before Keller moved out of the house. What makes this notable is that Todd campaigned heavily on being a supporter of family values, and fervently so; for a politician taking such a stance, it's politically notable if they then start calling someone else's wife dozens of times a day, daily, for months... using their taxpayer-funded cellphone... at a time when the most charitable thing a reasonable person could say would be "that can't be doing good things for Keller's marriage". The statement you removed is not speculative; it is backed by a reliable source (and yes, I checked, there's precedent at WP:RS for calling the Press reliable), and that source is reporting on an objective document obtained from a government agency that can be readily verified by anyone wishing to make a FOIA request. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The speculation that as he had called her previously to the separation is a record of fact - after that it is pure journalist speculation. - (I got the estranged detail from the citation) - Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation here: [1] // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect my position if they are all the same person. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By request, I took another look at this. My feeling is that the Houston Chronicle editorial about "our inferior sex scandals" expresses belief in the affair, but because it's both an editorial and written somewhat flippantly, I'm not entirely sure it's being "presented as true", i.e. that the paper is staking its reputation on the accuracy of the story. Unless there are other good sources out there about this which haven't been added, it's probably a thumbnail summary of the Tim Fleck stories in the Houston Press. Maybe it's usable as a source to say it wasn't viewed by the Houston Chronicle as a very serious scandal. I'm not saying to take it out, but I wouldn't want to lean on it for support.

Now Tim Fleck's stories are another kettle of fish. It's easy for people to equate "scandal" with "gossip", but especially [2] is a pretty serious investigation with FOIA requests and redactions and lawyers and dollars and cents. In combination with the more poetic [3], it might be "salacious", but it is pretty convincing. Personality factors do have a role in politics - especially when the "other man" works in the same office - and it is relevant and important for the biography of this well known individual.

I'm not that comfortable with saying Todd "admitted" to having an affair based on this source, however. The story says that Keller said Todd admitted to having the affair, which I think is distinct. Either we should say exactly that, or just say the story said he had an affair. I also think that because of the narrowness of the media coverage, it's best to name the author and paper and describe their methods of investigation. Wnt (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An additional source for consideration: Mason, Julie. "Local politicians provided us plenty of entertainment in 2000". Houston Chronicle, 31 Dec 2000, p. A32. [4] "At City Hall, where politics is most like making sausage, Councilman Rob Todd's theatrical divorce and subsequent romance with Councilman Bert Keller's estranged wife, Susan, may yet prove his own undoing. ¶ Todd, a family-values conservative who has fought such affronts to decency as the distribution of condoms by city health officials, plans to run in the 2002 Republican primary race for commissioner of Harris County Precinct 2."

This one isn't tagged as an editorial. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I could care less about Todd; I don't know the man, I don't live anywhere near him, he's just another BLP subject that need a copy-edit. I found additional information about him while fact-checking the article, and I felt that a complete and true picture of the man would not be told unless the information was included per WP:WELLKNOWN.

It seems to me that, when you have a politician in the deeply conservative American southwest who makes a name for himself as a... let's be kind and say staunch instead of militant... family-values conservative, it's inherently a notable event in their political life if there's media coverage of them doing something contrary to family-values conservative ideals. While Fleck at the Press definitely isn't making any attempt at being neutral, he does seem to have done his research: It looks like it was a review of Todd's phone bills to the city [5] that started the ball rolling. He claims Todd spent $3,929 of city money talking on his cell for 21,353 minutes between January and October 2000, but only reimbursed the city $52.54 in that time. The later article established that the bulk of those calls were to Keller's wife. Fleck's narrative is that Todd rang up huge cell bills that dwarfed those of his colleagues, claimed they were all legitimate reimbursable calls, but was actually spending that taxpayer money calling Keller's wife, with whom Fleck claims Todd later admitted he was having a relationship with. The records indicate that the relationship, if not "the affair", started before Keller moved out and while Keller and his wife were still married. (It's not clear to me whether the Kellers actually divorced; his wife literally stood by him when he was subsequently charged with DUI, and was mentioned when Keller later got charged for violating probation on that DUI.) As the Chronicle story I just mentioned points out, this is not something that would play well with Texas voters. That's why I am concerned that we don't whitewash it... especially when the "complaints" are coming from a run of suspiciously-similar SPAs that started with edits apparently by Todd himself. I think Wnt makes good points, though. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute at all that they had a relationship. As I read - all parties admit that. The only dispute is that there are press speculations that they were having a sexual relationship while with their partners.From that citation Rob Todd's theatrical divorce and subsequent romance with Councilman Bert Keller's estranged wife, Susan, - Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I do have to ask where you're getting "sexual" out of the sentence "Although Keller was estranged from his wife at the time Todd admitted to the relationship in September, the Houston Press asserted it began before Keller moved out of the couple's home in May: The Press obtained the call records for Todd's city-issued cell phone, which showed calls to Keller's wife Susan starting in February"; I'm not seeing it, but I did write it... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - add content I was adding to the previous post - Yes, I think we clearly have the basic details in the article now without need for the speculation as to exactly when it started, researched to the fact that he had telephoned her. The issue is from eleven years ago and the fine details of it are celebrity magazine style titillation. As for the where am I getting sexual from - that is what the addition is to assert, isn't it? As such showing him in an additional negative light because he stuck up for family values. Personally I would remove it completely, having an affair unless you resign over it is just unencyclopedic personal intrusion anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I find that to be a leap that may say more about the reader than the text. As phrased, it doesn't say they had a sexual relationship. However, it does say that the Press believes they had some kind of relationship based on objective evidence; if and when it became sexual isn't established by them or us. However, for one who believes in family values, spending hundreds of government dollars a month ringing up your colleague's wife at their marital home, often in the middle of the night—even if it's just to be a friend and supportive—is unlikely to help your colleague's faltering marriage. I would like to meet the minister that would endorse blowing $900/month worth of taxpayer-paid airtime in that fashion as a way to help. One not need bring sex into it to see a pattern that speaks to a pattern of saying one thing while doing another. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave the speculation and assertions as to his hypocrisy and bigotry and involvement and responsibility in a divorce to the op eds and the journs - the press believed some kind of relationship was going on because he had telephoned the woman - I can see this is important to you, I can't for the life of me understand why, its dated (eleven years ago) titillation and speculation alleged to assert negative implication, its not for me. As such the speculation and its value to the reader is also unworthy of all this discussion. Although I can live with it as it currently is without the speculation, as I said, having an affair unless you resign over it is just unencyclopedic personal intrusion, if you have no objections I would prefer to remove it completely. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there you're going the wrong way. Like I said, it's of biographical relevance. I think it's more than morbid curiosity to ask: what do people in that situation do, when they work together in public service? How does it get resolved? This is somewhat important as a sociological examination of our society. I mean, we all know that two centuries ago Aaron Burr ended up in a duel over the sort of ordinary innuendo and namecalling that is routine politics today - though at the same time we expect better ethics from reputable journalists. We know that centuries, even several decades ago a sexual issue like this would have been very likely to lead to bloodshed even if not publicized. It says something about the maturity and civility of society when things like this are no longer catastrophic. I think history will care about things like this, and how they changed, and when they changed. There's no point saying it's too old - if it were recent people would be saying it's recentism! The time doesn't matter. Only what happened matters. Wnt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for the sociological examination of our society article, or the interpersonal relations in twenty first century public service workers article - anyway as I said, I can live with it without the speculated additions. Off2riorob (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good grief skip. This isn't an article about the sociology of people working together, its a BLP. Also it isn't about some 200 year old duel either. Its about some city councillor, who happens to have tupped a colleagues missus. One big fucking *yawn* mate. John lilburne (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sooooo anyway, the question of Rob's edit and my objection now being resolved at least so far as I'm concerned... this article has seen rather a spate of SPAs coming in lately to "sanitize" the article, often blanking sections or calling for its outright deletion. Would an admin consider making the article semiprotected, to discourage the creation of new SPA accounts to continue the campaign? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps after the recent edits any objections the user/users had have been resolved. Without current disruption I don't see a need to semi protect, lets leave the article unprotected to see if there is an ongoing need to raise the level of protection. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with Off2riorob (talk · contribs). We don't publish all the gossip that is fit to print just because someone printed it. --causa sui (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris DiMarco

The photo in this person's biography is incorrect. It is a picture of Lucas Glover, not Chris DiMarco. I don't know the process of correcting this, could someone help out? Aviator569 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Chelsy Davy

I've just hacked personal life on this back 90% - nearly all sourced to Daily Mail and The London Paper. I've already had to revert a blind re-addition once and no-one is posting on talk apart from me. More eyes needed. Exxolon (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to assist with keeping an eye on this article for you. I do agree that having such a large amount of content written and based on one single source is not right. Especially with BLPs, we should see the same content released in multiple places to verify it is true and not just "modified" and "created" by the one source. We all know newspapers are capable of doing such, so I agree with the removal but also support the restoration of this content should more than just this source be found. I am not against listing this as a source again for the content, just that the content needs to be sourced with another source as well.  JoeGazz  ▲  17:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Bainwol

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

Obvious puff piece, needs to be tagged for neutrality.

The article is poorly written and poorly sourced. I've removed one entire section about the RIAA (because it's not about Bainwol or even connects him to the comments about the RIAA). I've also removed the so-called "public reputation" section as mostly original research without good sources (one doesn't seem to work at all). That leaves little left (I did some tidies of remaining) except a kind of resume. There's nothing really to establish his notability other than his position at the RIAA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clifford Vaughs

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

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

Alexander Ghindin

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

Very subjective, using wikipedia as an advertisment. Two of many quotes: "is one of the most inspiring pianists of this generation" "Ghindin is a tremendous talent whose honors at major competitions span"

One editor removed some of the puffery. I reformatted and copy-edited it, removed some material, and tagged it as not having any sources and reading like a resume. Assuming he's notable, I wouldn't say that it's using Wikipedia as an advertisement, though. It needs more work.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Cassidy (composer)

I would like my biography to revert to 14 March 2011 version. Someone has made changes that are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Cassidy (talk • contribs)

Could you be more specific about what you feel is incorrect? (Also, please sign your posts by placing 4 tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Patrick, feel free to remove anything that does not cite a reliable source. Biographies of living persons should not have a bunch of unsourced information in them, and you are under no obligation to leave the information in there if you feel it is incorrect.. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of the unsourced information (any of it that is correct can be re-added if reliable sources are included along with it). Please feel free to suggest any other changes, or reliable sources that you feel might be useful for expanding the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Patrick, the difficulty here is that Wikipedia does not allow the subjects of biographical articles to choose an "approved" version of their article and then keep that in place; articles are generally open to editing by anyone. In fact, we generally discourage people from editing the article about themselves, unless there is a serious concern about unsourced negative statements. Much of what you have removed from the article (on several occasions) appeared to be well referenced material. It might be better, rather than wholesale deleting and re-writing of the content, if you indicated the incorrect facts on the talk page for the article (or here if you prefer) so that other editors can fix them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Niger Innis

Resolved

 – deleted - WP:G8

Do we really need this redirect to Niger Innis? Previous RfD discussion here. --JN466 03:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No - the section in question is no longer in the article and the redirect now has no context and can be speedied as an inappropiate redirect. Exxolon (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for a speedy delete. Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

ina garten

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

Javaweb refusal to include factual information, i.e. Garten's refusal to meet with Make A Wish child is based solely on personal opinion and not on the regulations of wikipedia (see discussion page); therefore, the page should be edited to include the stories widely reported re: Make A Wish. This is NOT a fan page and should not be regulated by someone who clearly has a personal interest in presenting only flattering or what they perceive as "neutral facts" about this person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.78.155 (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My advise would be to reword your paragraph to minimize any inadvertent editorializing. Wikipedia should report that people have criticized Garten, but it itself should not criticize her, even in the tone of how it reports events. Gamaliel (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Concensus on the talk page seems to be not to include it at all - it seems to be very much a manufactured gossip-rag type of "controversy", rather than an event that reputable sources see as significant to Garten's career or notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic or noteworthy that a person doesn't do something. Every person doesn't do countless things. There are only 24 hours in a day and a limited number of years in a person's life. I see no need to mention this whipped-up controversy in our bio of Ina Garten Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would also advise the IP editor to discuss the matter there. I was only attempting to assist what appears to be a new editor with issues of BLP compliance, not take sides in a content dispute. Those here who wish to discuss the matter of inclusion should also join the talk page discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The following editors with actual user names and edits outside of just Ina Garten are part of this consensus:

• User:Freshacconci
• User:Zenswashbuckler
• User:Ale_jrb
• User:Aecamadi
• User:Demiurge1000
• User:Javaweb

You can see their edits/discussions on the article page or talk page. I am not a fan of Ina Garten. I am a fan of reliable sources that do not manipulate their reporting to make a mundane incident into a story. You can see the discussion here and here. Anonymous IP 76.205.78.155, I do not see even one word from you on the discussion page. The discussion page is the first place to discuss, not here. If you have answers to our concerns, please provide them there.
She is a 63 year-old lady with a show and books to produce and, according to your reference, gets about 100 requests/month. She helped out Make-a-wish before. It is physically impossible for anyone on a TV network available to tens of millions on basic cable to fulfill every request made of them. To berate them for, in the words of Make-a-Wish, not doing the impossible and not fulfilling all worthwhile charities's every request, is an unrealistic expectation. It is not notable because that is true of practically everyone in Wikipedia whose name does not begin with "Saint". --Javaweb (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Anna Nalick

Resolved

 – picture has been returned and accepted. Commons compatible picture upload page is here if anyone has a higher quality picture they want to release

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

Reference photograph was removed by a user, Californiagrl, who claims to be an official representative of the subject (I cannot verify this). She states that the subject did not like the photo. She offered to provide an official photo but has yet to do so. Californiagrl appears to be a new user at Wikipedia. user:Uncle Milty has done great work keeping this in check, but for now the photograph remains removed without replacement.

For reference, the photo that was removed was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AnnaWiki23Feb11.jpg, which was my work, and to the best of my knowledge, does not meet criteria for removal (not of the subject, compromising/embarrassing, defamatory, etc.). If the reason is that the subject merely did not like the photo, it is not grounds for removal, though it is something I can work with if requested in the Discussions section. RachGreen (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a page somewhere that shows publicity folks how to donate photos to Wikipedia? Someone should direct User:Californiagrl to that. We can leave the photo off the article for right now and restore it later if they don't come through with the photo. Gamaliel (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think user:Uncle Milty has already done so. Additionally, the French and Italian versions of the article have a different reference photo - the English article used to use that other photo, also my work, until I decided the smiling photo (that was just removed) looked better. Another Wikipedia editor, user:Dcoetzee, had even corrected colors to make it look even better. RachGreen (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced it, the picture is fully policy and MOS compliant and there is no excuse to remove it. If the user wants to provide an alternative one thats great, but until they do the picture stays, if its removed, replace and warn and report if necessary. The user should be assisted if requested to upload their commons compatible picture. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope the removal was really about the user being new to Wikipedia and not understanding its rules. RachGreen (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I will keep an eye on the user in question and if they return I will try and assist them. Off2riorob (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Meyer

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

This article is continually edited by individuals who wish to hide the controversy, exposed in the Daily Telegraph and Independent on Sunday, surrounding Catherine Meyer and her assistant being paid some 50% of the income of charity in pay and considerably more in expenses. Whether Lady Meyer likes this or not, this is information that has been covered by newspapers for a long period and is relevant to any biography of her. The expose of this information is not, as those around her suggest, a vendetta. It is purely information that journalists have found via Lady Meyer's charity's accounts being published by the Charity Commission.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk • contribs)

I just removed the "material" since I haven't seen how really notable or encyclopedic it is or if it constitutes original research, ect. I know folks are in a rush to add "material" but will this really be notable a year or 5 from now? I commented on the talk page as well. Maybe the folks on the right side of the pond will have better input :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted you. You clearly do not understand policy if you justify removing material sourced by the daily Telegraph and the Independent because it is "not notable". Notability doesn't even have anything nothing to do with article content. Also, your comment about it maybe being original research can only be interpreted as that you did not bother to read the source before making your misguided removal. Yoenit (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability is often a shorthand for saying that information isn't sufficiently relevant to include, and relevancy is a standard for inclusion or exclusion of content. Here, the article says: "In May 2011 the finances of Parents & Abducted Children Together were called into question." (It also has some gibberish after that, which makes no sense.) The first thing that struck me was who called it into question as the assertion doesn't say and is written in the passive voice. I got a quick response when reading the Telegraph article. It was the Telegraph itself that accused her of impropriety based apparently on their review of public records. The Independent article, of course, is redundant as it's simply reporting that the Telegraph reported it. An allegation of this kind does not belong in the article. If it turns out there is some confirmed irregularity by Meyer, then we can report on it. In my view, this material violates BLP guidelines, or at least borders on doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bbb23, that is what I meant to say/mean regarding "notability". I have removed the accusation again and would hope that others will chime in and consensus can form either way. Thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree keep it out until such time there is a substantiated investigation by the Charity Commission. John lilburne (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems consensus is swinging against me, so be it. I assume nobody objects if I otherwise gut the article to remove promotional crap? Yoenit (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if we have to gut it per say, but yes, any non notable promotional "material" should be reduced. Maybe use the talk page. Also, I have no idea if you are a fan or detracter of the subject, but if so, I would try to get an editor who has zippo interest in the subject to do the weed wacking, ect. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have in fact zippo interest in the subject and never heard of her or her organization before. (it must have had it on my watchlist though, although I have no idea why) Yoenit (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, not that that would preclude you from editing ect, but you seemed "passionate" about including the accusation material. Anyways, hopefully you or others can improve the article by reducing any non notable/relevant material ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To give this a tail: This little controversy is still mentioned in Parents and Abducted Children Together and as only the organization is referred to and no individual persons the BLP policy is not a valid excuse to remove it there. wp:UNDUE might, but that is a separate discussion. Does anybody disagree with that? Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care either way. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Marina Tsvigun

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

Read the first sentence of said article. It's an obvious WP:COI. Please refer to this case -- important!! It turns out that after this person's user page got deleted, they transferred the information to the Marina Tsvigun article, which also seems to have her allegedly new and shiny name.

If you want more info read this short-lived sockpuppet case. This chick is clever. --Motherfrakker (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I reverted back, what can I say I had a look at some of the externals and I am speechless, very out of this universe stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bristol palin

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

I'd like some help sorting out Palin's page. There needs to be some consensus or clean up and neutral POV. I feel some backstory from her own memoir to her sexual encounter is worth noting because she knowN for being a compensated spokesperson for the subject. Her surgery completely altered her appearance as now she no longer looks the photo in the bio, I feel it is worth at least a small notation. Other info like her house purchase and the price she paid may not be worth noting; other notations may not be worthwhile. I'll walk away from edits until things get sorted out. Thanks all. --Cohen2011 (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit undue to be reporting how she lost her virginity in detail just because it can be found in a book doesn't make it the kind of addition that complies with the BLP request to write conservatively about living people. At first look there seems to me to be coatracking of her mothers issues on that BLP. Her mother campaigners allegedly wanted a wedding, that is so wrong, I would remove that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed "material" about her bum jaw. I would remove the details of her first sexual encounter, but thats just me :). Cheers,ps, and no, I am not a "hyperprude" as I saw the word used during the santorum debacle :) ...--Threeafterthree (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Carolyn Biddy Martin

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

The controversy section regarding her role in the creation of a UW Health Clinic that performs late term abortions keeps getting removed despite the fact that this was front page news (February 2009) in the student newspapers, The Badger Herald (http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/12/13/uw_to_stop_efforts_o.php), for weeks as well as Wisconsin's leading newspapers, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/39245702.html) It was also reported in the national news. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/secret_university_of_wisconsin_plans_for_midterm_abortion_clinic_revealed/) Also, her departure as chancellor was also related to a controversial decision she made to attempt to make the UW-Madison campus autonomous from the UW System. This is documented also in all of the major newspapers including the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (6/19/11.) A few people keep deleting the controversial sections from her biography by calling them "trivial."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.25.71 (talk • contribs)

Regarding the abortion clinic - The three citations you provided - in two of them Martin is not mentioned at all and in the third, the badger one she is mentioned only once and to say that she was one of eleven people that voted in support of this situation, so looking at that it doesn't assert she played a major part in the issue. The addition you have added seems undue to me, mentions baby killing and the comments are not even in the citation you have provided here. IMO you are soapboxing pro life POV. I trimmed the soapboxing and added the online support as well - this is the quote that I have removed as unduly attacking - the board and Martin’s vote put UW’s “good name on murder.” “Biddy Martin … will be forever remembered as the woman who caused the university to do something that no other clinic in central Wisconsin would do … and that is kill a baby five months [after] conception,” - I also removed the journalistic speculation from the lede. If it is to be returned then it should be added to the body of the article and cited to one of those major newspapers and attributed as whoever opinion it is, although I doubt if I would support its inclusion. Here is the uncited comment I removed from the lede - According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, " When Carolyn "Biddy" Martin abruptly announced last week that she was leaving the top post to become president of Amherst College, it was clear her relationship with the Board of Regents and UW System President Kevin Reilly had soured over a battle for campus autonomy, hatched behind her bosses' backs." Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

J. Patrick Capps

J. Patrick Capps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Patrick Capps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Oleg Seriy

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

Amazon source added http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Oleg%20Seriy

Hope it would be enough --Natuzzi mandus (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I added a few ref tags - needs some kind of editing, content supported by Russian wikipedia external links - in Russian! - might need proding or AFD or improving if anyone is Russian and thinks there is enough WP:RS coverage ... Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Wright (physician)

Jonathan Wright (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of IPs and SPAs have edited this article recently, some claiming an association with the subject. Their edits have been somewhat problematic as they've replaced some sourced text with something of an unsourced whitewash. While I think some of the content added may be properly source-able, I don't have much time at present to devote to sifting through everything. Any help in improving this BLP is welcome... — Scientizzle 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially Special:Contributions/AndreaEstar - they have been warned by me and others several times about COI editing. How should one next proceed? Mato (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lombardi (businessman)

Michael Lombardi (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw some discussion about edit warring on this article at a help desk and am bringing it here - I've removed quite a bit of extraneous information about the company and the ranking of the university he attended, but I'm not sure about some of the material about the company that I've left in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Now at...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lombardi (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trimmed/copy edited some more. Not really left with much. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chuckle Brothers

More eyes at Chuckle Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be appreciated, especially when the semi expires in a month. The issues are relatively infrequent, but when they do pop up, some of them are quite nasty libel. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Abdel Latif El Menawy

Abdel Latif El Menawy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography was created a few days ago, probably by a conflict of interest account, and continues to be a site of edit warring. I'm attempting to retain sourced content regarding the gentleman's amply-covered dismissal from Egypt News, while other parties continuously remove it. I'd prefer to have other objective parties look at this--if it's deemed that he doesn't satisfy notability guidelines then perhaps a deletion proposal is in order, which would make this academic. If the article stays, I'd appreciate a hand in overseeing this, with page protection if necessary. Thanks, 76.248.147.81 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ernesto J. Cordero

Ernesto J. Cordero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

nadia yassine

the article talk about the leader of an islamic party an I found the following expression mispalced : << Nadia does not represent Muslim women nor Islam, see how much make up she is wearing which contradicts with the modeste image of a muslim woman >>. the comment on her father are defamatory.

This has been fixed, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Exxolon (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Naajid Nawaz

Maajid Nawaz has been fully protected for a week due to an edit war primarily between User:Ksmith009 and User:K8_fan. I would suggest that the page be returned to the 12:19, 7 June 2011 version before recent edits by either party. Could third parties look at this and evaluate the various edits for bias? Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Jeffcoat

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

Unproven hearsay and potentially defamatory/libelous material added [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Yesberg (talk • contribs) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-written to be slightly less contentious. The source used does seem to be sound, but the former contents of the article seemed to misrepresent it somewhat. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

Daniel Cohn-Bendit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The English version of this article in Wikipedia is completely libelous, accussing Daniel Cohn-Bendit of being a pedophile without proving it. I can't even understand how such an important website like is Wikipedia can allow an article which doesn't give any actual information and which is defamatory and partial. Please, erase this article as soon as possible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.93.89 (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes, but this article definitely needs more attention. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done Demiurge1000 for the improvements. It still needs a lot of improvement. Lots of uncited. I considered moving three quarters of it to the talkpage for citing and replacing ... a nice project to improve for anyone interested in French German political issues. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rich Hill

Rich Hill (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a mistake in Rich Hill's biography. My name is Larry Hill, Rich's older brother. I played baseball at Boston College and graduated in 1985. I did not play for the Pirates. Please correct this error. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.22.220 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

David Hahn

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

The article David Hahn needs attention from an expert, at the moment it appears that someone attempted to add some sort of clarification to the article and I have no idea what to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.141.11 (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncited commentary removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

numerous @ bg.wikipedia.org

• - Bulgarian wiki (translated via Google translate)

bg.wikipedia.org is being blatantly politicized and used to tag people via their biography pages, based on lists published by the country's political apparatus. Furthermore this tagging is being performed by Wikipedia Administrator(s) and Editor(s), which aggravates the situation further by tarnishing and discrediting Wikipedia's image.

The Bulgarian government recently published a list of prominent academics who were both members of the national committee that awards doctoral and other advanced academic degrees and also had files with the Bulgarian department of homeland security dating back to the Cold War period. The implication of this list is that these committee members were collaborating with the communist establishment to steer the decisions of the committee along political instead of or in addition to strictly academic lines. As you can imagine, this comes as no surprise. During that period Bulgaria was a totalitarian state and the political apparatus controlled every aspect of public life. I don't necessarily object to the publication of this list, but I do object to the fact that no details were published as to what these people actually did that comprises collaboration with the apparatus violating academic principles. As it stands, it is a list of "the accused" of having files with the apparatus but no substantiation of what exactly each of them did that was in violation of academic or moral principles. As such, the list is mere propaganda on part of the current political apparatus with the most likely purpose of discrediting prominent folks who probably disagree with the apparatus' politics.

The same day that this list was published (June 16) the Wikipedia biography pages of the folks on the list (who had such pages) were edited most inappropriately to reflect their membership in this list. In most cases the sentence/paragraph indicating the membership on the list was placed at the very top of the biography page immediately following their date of birth, as if this was by far the most important aspect of these folk's lives and careers. Even more disturbingly, it turns out that all these edits were in fact performed by a Wikipedia Administrator.

Yet more disturbingly a Wikipedia category "homeland security agents" was created on May 23 (note 3 weeks before the official publication of the list) and the people form the yet unpublished list were added to the category by a Wikipedia Editor who clearly advertises his political opinions and affiliation on his Wikipedia page.

These Wikipedia publications are extremely disturbing to the targeted people and damaging to the image of Wikipedia by turning it into an instrument for retribution and political propaganda. I really don't know what the best way to handle this situation would be, but I would recommend disallowing BLP pages, as well as categories and lists consisting of living people, in highly politicized locales such as Bulgaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atswim (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If what you suggest is indeed occurring, it is disturbing. There is nothing that can be done about it here, however, as en.Wikipedia has no control over bg.Wikipedia. I think you will have to debate this there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, primary complaint to the local wikipedia and if serious issues are unresolved you may feel a report to the wikipedia foundation may be required. wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact us - Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hefty CoatRack

James Arthur Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This guy accidentally killed three people and sickened dozens after a botched sweat lodge ceremony. Half his BLP is spent discussing the incident itself and what everybody and their brother thought of it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's one of those articles where subsequent events are arguably more notable than the subject. The question becomes whether those events are sufficiently notable to justify their own article. If not, then although they still may be relevant to the subject, the level of detail is not. Instead, it should be summarized.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Its one of those that could go either way. The subject was marginally notable prior to the event and now is notable mostly because of the event. The event itself seems scrape WP:EVENT but just barely. Seems either one might get deleted on its own but the combined two create enough material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that kind of synthesis is (should be?) acceptable. And if that's the way it's going to go, I would still argue that there's way too much detail about the events in an article about the person, not the events.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No I more than agree. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives include splitting out the material on the sweat lodge incident or the "Spiritual Warriors" organization, or deciding that the subject isn't notable and moving the entire article to some other title and deleting the biographical info. But just deleting well-sourced material on a widely covered incident that resulted in multiple deaths would not be a good solution.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Carma Rose De Jong Anderson - living person

Carma Rose De Jong Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

title is a WP:Redirect - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carma_Rose_De_Jong_Anderson&redirect=no - to ...

Richard Lloyd Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carma Rose de Jong Anderson was born in Provo, Utah Mar.6, 1930 [therefore today is age 81}. I am that person. The report on me says I was born in 1932--that date is a fiction. I lived in Provo all my growing up years,and attended the BYU K-6, then Jr and Senior High Schooland then had three years of college classes before marriage. I lost my mother to a car accident when I was in the middleof fourth grade.I was born to sweet Rosabelle Winegar de Jong who was married in the Salt Lake Temple to Gerrit de Jong, Jr. by Pres. Joseph F. Smith.Gerrit had come from Amsterdam, Holland with his parents and younger sister, Katherine. Rosabelle was born in Salt Lake City to Rosa Eliza Shaw who was married to William Winegar. Rosa had brown eyes and dark brown-red hair. The Shaws came from Stafforshire, England, and the Winegars were Germanic who arrived in America in 1710, slowly colonizing westward. They were converted ny early missionaries in 1833.Carma de Jong Anderson loves her ancestors very much for they worked very hardto build up the Church they dearly believed in. Carma's English grandmother,Rosa,was born in Salt Lake City in 1855, just a few years after the Shaws had arrived in America.Carma's Dutch grandmother was Lida Mariana Kuiper from near Apeldoorn, Holland. She met her husband Gerrit [III] in Amsterdam where both were working. They have a very interesting story of how thay came to America and why they joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after they had arrived in Salt Lake City! The Shaws have a dramatic story of tremendous sacrifice for the same Church and did not reach Salt Lake Valley until 1852. Eliza Wilding and Osmond Broad Shaw joined the Church sparately and did not dare tell each other that they were "Mormons" until just a week before they were to marry in an ancestral cathedral. Osmond's father, Simeon Shaw, a linguist and great historian of the English Potteries and was educated in the cenistry of glazing the houshold potteries, and Spode and Wedgewood gorgeous dishes. He was a aschoolmaster so his son Osmond was very well taught and Simeon saw his philosophical bent, and wanted him to be a minister of the Anglican faith. The early Mormon Apostles came to England in 1837 and two different groups of themconverted Osmond and Elizaa Wilding,who was a corset-maker with her expert hand sewing.Carma deJong was the only daughter in the family to have red dhair, but her Great Grandfather Osmond Shaw had red hair, and his son, Lewis C. Shaw had bright red hair. He was a fine carpenter who had worked on the Mac Cune Mansion in Salt Lake City. Carma demanded to be taught to sew when four years old,and learnedmuch by hand sewing. The last half of her life she has researched and designed and cut all the historic clothing and household textiles for the LDS historic sites, with the knowledge she continued to gain, until she finished a PhD in 1992. After marriage she continued to attend formal credit classes everywhere Richard Lloyd Anderson and she lived afrer their marriage on May 22, 1951. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.143.159 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have amended Carma's year of birth from 1932 to 1930 as requested above. Diff. Dolphin (t) 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice she is in the 1930 births category on the redirect page. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Rattner

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

It appears that the edits of Alexfro are intended to remove references to the Attorney General investigation of Steven Rattner. The neutrality of Alexfro is in question due to the use of phrases from http://stevenrattner.com/bio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.18.45 (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Have your tried talking to the user on the article talkpage or his userpage and asking him why they are making the edits and explaining why you object to them instead of reverting and reporting. As a side note it seems some of this disputed content was added by User:Freakshownerd in Nov last year. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Karl Denninger

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

"Trades4beer" is continually adding edits to the above page that are false, slanted and defamatory. I removed them and added requested cites yesterday and they were added back this morning once again. I am the person referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickerguy (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a little note for User:Trades4beer, and I'm also going to request some temporary semi-protection for the article, since this seems to be a recurring problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I also left User:Trades4beer a note letting him know about this report and requesting him to discuss here and not to replace the content, seems to be cited to chat forums and other not reliable externals. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Loredana Brigandì

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

The article was edited today to include, "(redacted)" The addition isn't linked to any supporting information. I found the edit and the entry on Wikipedia because of a weird posting to Yahoo. I comments on Yahoo have gotten very contentious/weird in the last several years, but this was kinda especially wacky. On an article on how to calm a colicky baby someone under the name Loredana Brigandì posted this today: (redacted)Her username was Loredana Brigandì so I looked up the user and the account was created today. I don't know the person but this seems hinky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuziGenerous (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entirety of the unsourced "Personal life" section from the article, and blanked some of your comment here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article could use a bit of help, its uncited since 2006. I found a copy of it on a website claiming copyright from Jan 4 2007, anyone good at working out which way this was first created? I think we either need to cite the article, perhaps stubbing it back to remove the fluff or AFD it. The possible place it was cut and copied from is here... thoughts?Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20070104112834/http://www.musicacademyonline.com/performers/brigandi.php

Dan Savage campaign against Rick Santorum

(move from BLPN talk) --JN466 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeking consensus here as to whether we should be linking to the personal website Dan Savage set up about Rick Santorum, the former senator for Pennsylvania. For those of you not familiar with the background, Savage is an American freelance columnist who set up a website intended to spread a vulgar definition of Santorum's surname. He did this in response to comments Santorum made about homosexuality that the gay community and others found offensive.

We have several articles that refer to the controversy, including Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The question is whether we should be linking to Savage's website directly, or whether we should only cite secondary sources that refer to it. WP:BLPSPS is clear on this point, namely that self-published sources must not be cited for material about living persons. But when I remove the site, I'm being reverted, [7] [8] so fresh input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another process fork? Can we please direct conversation to that page so it does not spin out again across the encyclopedia? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ wikidemon. Assuming that we are forced to continue discussion here, I'll repeat what Is aid in the other venue: the above is a strained reading of policy which as written applies to articles about persons. Obviously BLP applies (potentially) to any page on wikipedia but broadening that application requires that we interpret the policy accordingly. The subject of the above article (Campaign for "santorum" neologism) includes the website in question and it is perfectly reasonable to link to it in the course of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This is a noticeboard for highlighting violations of the BLP policy, and we have one on that article that has been restored twice by an admin. Input from editors used to interpreting the policy would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point you will choose to reveal this rogue admin and let us all know what their sysop status has to do with the discussion at hand. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sysop status is relevant, because admins are meant to uphold the BLP policy, not revert someone who is trying to do that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a fine opinion, and probably relevant were someone using the tools rather than simply editing normally. We still haven't revealed the identity of this mystery sysop. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in the article talk page discussions. Linking to the site is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of WP:BLPSPS –

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). ... External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

as well as the letter and spirit of WP:ELBLP –

"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP."

We are talking about a self-published website that equates a living person's name with the mixture of shit and lubricant produced in anal sex. I am having trouble seeing how anyone can argue in good faith that linking to it should be in line with the policy and guideline wording above, regarding self-published derogatory sources. --JN466 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't load the other page at the moment, so posting here: I strongly feel that the site should be included and that to not include it amounts to censorship, but can't see how policy allows it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning it is one thing; linking to it is another. --JN466 16:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS. So it is ok to say spreadingsantorum.com but not link to it in the article? Protonk (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. What is the problem with that? If secondary sources mention the name, so can we. What's so important about having a clickable link to it? --JN466 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important because the campaign is the subject of the article. Refusing to link to the campaign is, frankly, a method of asserting an opinion about it. Second, it is frakking absurd that spreadingsantorum.com is ok but add a few square brackets and it is a completely forbidden string of text under any and all circumstances. How can you not see this? Protonk (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the policy, take it to the policy talk page—but don't break policy just because you would like to. --JN466 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but we can ignore stupid rules. Furthermore, the decision to strip the link is based on an interpretation of policy, so discussing it here is perfectly reasonable. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the policy doesn't stand in for argumentation. The BLP policy was written primarily for articles about living persons. It has been adapted to articles which deal in some respect to a living person (that is to say, nearly every page on the wiki) but such an adaptation demands that we also think about the text of the policy before applying it. Specifically "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" is nonsensical where an article like Campaign for Santorum is concerned. If the article is a BLP, who is the subject? Savage? Santorum? Neither? How do we strictly and unambiguously apply policy in this case? We can't. What we need to do is utilize that space between our ears and come to a solution. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP!!!" bit is getting to be a pretty weak hand. Don't you have another card up your sleeve by now? 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not using information from that self-published source, we're linking to it as the primary vector for the attack which the RFC determined the article was about. It's not a random attack page, it's a primary subject of the article. BLPSPS does not apply in this case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest this discussion be moved to the actual noticeboard, instead of the talkpage? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --JN466 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is about Savage's campaign, it makes sense to provide an external link to the campaign, as we do with other articles. I would not however recommend providing an EL to this site on Santorum's BLP article. TFD (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, it doesn't belong on the Santorum article at all. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I have been slightly involved in discussion, but withdrew for the most part because of the convoluted contentious nature of what should have been a pretty simple situation:

BLP includes living persons referenced on Wikipedia in anyway. We split hairs if we suggest an article whose title says something else, but includes text on a living person does not fall under BLP and BLPSPS. Further the site is not obscure, and can be mentioned in secondary sources, so those wanting to look at the site won't have difficulty at all in finding it with out Wikipedia compromising its own standards. Once again this is simple. The policy tells us what to do so that we do not do unnecessary harm to living persons. Linking to a personal site perpetrates harm. Citing secondary sources means the source may have already created the harm, and we are merely as editors reporting what has already been written.(olive (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

The policy is clear on this point: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..." See WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Dan Savage has a link to his website, which includes the santorum campaign. How is this any different? We also provide links to all kinds of websites for articles about subjects, such as the American Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And who is the subject of Campaign for "santorum" neologism? Protonk (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of days ago the article was called "Santorum Google problem", which was a valid title describing its content, and discussions about the title are still ongoing. It's not comparable to an article like Stormfront_(website), which is specifically about that website, and could not be called anything else. --JN466 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The title is a semantic mapping for the article and isn't determinative of the subject or nature. I would also submit that the space for discussion about the subject of the article should hint at the limitations in strictly applying BLPSPS. If we have to jump through hoops in order to justify a claim to policy then that claim is itself diluted. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the campaign is Rick Santorum, but the subject of the article is the campaign itself. (Note two different meanings of the term subject.) TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying to keep the link to the primary page of the campaign off-wiki is absurd. It violates the basic idea of the WWW. From a BLP point of view, it most likely also is counterproductive - see Streisand effect. Finally, Santorum is not some innocent private guy - he is a public figure - indeed, he is running for President. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The website is an attack site about one person, Rick Santorum, and the creator acknowledged he was setting it up for that purpose. Linking to it clearly violates the BLP policy. The name of the articles that house the link is irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So under what circumstances would we be allowed to link to spreadingsantorum.com? Protonk (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Our role is not to defend people from cold hard facts of what is out in the real world. Merrill Stubing (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the name of the article, it's the contents of the article. The RFC determined that the article was about the campaign/googlebomb/whatever. SpreadingSantorum.com was the focus/method/whatever of the campaign. Therefore, it is encyclopedic that we link to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)