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.

Tom Riall

The Tom Riall article is out of date - Tom Riall is now the Chief Executive Officer of Priory_Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of mental health, learning disability and specialist education services. He joined the Group in April 2013. Please see relevant links to corroborate this:

http://news.sky.com/story/1009380/exclusive-priory-seeks-help-from-serco-boss http://www.priorygroup.com/investors/management-team http://www.healthinvestor.co.uk/(S(2fynm545r4srox45lrl5fj45)A(aqr6ycmMzgEkAAAAN2U0MDk5NDUtZTk2Yi00ZWRmLTllMDktOTk2MGE1ZmM3OGUy96JUzb-Pemj3c5S6kb3-bmm3YqA1))/ShowArticleNews.aspx?ID=2547&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Please can you update his biography?

Zeitgeist: The Movie

• Zeitgeist: The Movie
• Edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist%3A_The_Movie&diff=564455778&oldid=564452015
• Discussion: Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Peter Joseph Responds to "The Marker"

An Israeli news service called TheMarker reported on their interview with Peter Joseph, maker of the film, Zeitgeist: The Movie. In the report, they said Joseph is now "distancing himself" from the movie. Peter Joseph responded to this via the film's website, saying that he was misquoted and denying that he was distancing himself from the movie.

The addition of Joseph's self-published response (diff above) is the subject of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page. I'm presenting a condensed version of the discussion below (I've made every effort to present both sides without bias. If any involved parties have anything to add, feel free):

• Some of those against the addition state that WP:SPS prevents the self-published source from being used in this case, as Joseph's website and the statement in question are unduly self-serving and promotional, and the statement furthermore makes claims about third parties (TheMarker). They reject the BLP issue because there is no right of reply on Wikipedia. They say a secondary source must pick up Joseph's response before it is added to the article.

• Some of those for the addition say that the alleged misquote shouldn't be presented without Joseph's rebuttal. This is in addition to the statement simply being relevant, and its absence would make the story incomplete. They reject the SPS issue because an SPS is not being used to source the claim itself, ie. that Joseph was indeed misquoted; but is being used to source the fact that Joseph made this claim, for which it is reliable.

I myself am on the side of adding the response, assuming TheMarker's report is kept in the article. Some have suggested removing it altogether, which I would also find acceptable, though that removal has been tried and warred over as well. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:47, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

• Include Joseph's response Including mention that Joseph has "distanced" himself from the film, while excluding Joseph's own statement that he did not, would be wildly inappropriate. WP:PSTS make it clear that primary sources can indeed be used for things like mere statements made by a person, as long as there is no interpretation, and WP:SELFPUB also says self-published sources can be used, as long as the claim is not unduly self-serving. Contrary to what those wishing to exclude the material have argued, pointing out that you did not say what someone says you did is not "unduly self-serving", since "self-serving" means to not merely address your own interests, but to exhibit a preoccupation with them to the extent of disregarding the truth and well-being of others. Nor would including Joseph's statement, as it has been argued, serve to "promote" Joseph's film, simply because it comes form his website for it, any more than citing the creationist Discovery Institute's website to source their date of founding, or citing their About page in order to source who their president is, as the DI article does, serves to promote creationism. Nightscream (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is that clause about third parties, though--a self-published source can't be used if it makes claims about third parties. Claiming that he was misquoted is a statement that a third party lied or erred, and as such cannot be used if you literally go by our policy. Although I am more inclined to think that the policy is broken; our policy with respect to self-published sources, especially in the Internet era, is pretty bad. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on that is that SPS doesn't guard against the use of statements about other people, so long as we're merely reporting what was said versus claiming those statements as fact. In other words, the SPS point about third parties is meant to guard against the obvious: An SPS is only reliable for information about their author, and no one else. We're not claiming anything about third parties that would need to be sourced though. We're just saying "Peter Joseph said [something about third parties]." That's the only fact being presented -- that he said this. SPS' current wording might invite confusion between the two cases, but even strictly speaking, the statement doesn't actually violate SPS. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:52, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Stating that you've been misquoted is not a statement that anyone has "lied" or erred, in and of itself, and even if it is, how is merely suggesting that someone "erred" a contentious claim? Reporters make mistakes all the time. In any event, stating that you did not say what has been attributed to you can merely be a clarification of your position, without any direct reference to the reporter. Those of us who argue for its inclusion wish only to include Joseph's clarification that he has not distanced himself from the claims he mad in the movie, without any elaboration as to the persons who reported otherwise. Including the statement that he has distanced himself from the claims made in the movie, but not his public statement that he in fact as not, would be wildly inappropriate, and justifying this on the basis that secondary sources stating the former are oh-so unimpeachable, but that his own words to the latter on his website are not because that's a primary source, is not rational. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

^What he said. I'll also just add that there are no actual facts in dispute here -- no specific facts that anyone has pointed out as requiring further verification. The WP:SPS argument is therefore quite vague and unfalsifiable. We're told we need secondary sources, but we haven't been told which fact(s) in particular require them. The contents of the quote is all I can think of, and V doesn't apply to those. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:42, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude, for three reasons. It's "unduly self-serving" (phrasing in WP:SPS), not notable, and of questionable sourcing. It's the film's web site, not Joseph's. If he did distance himself from the film, it's possible that someone more closely associated with the film is now editing the film's website. Other reasons for exclusion presented in the summary may also apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability refers to whether topics merit their own articles. It has nothing to do with reliability of sources.

Joseph wrote, directed, edited and produced the movie, and owns it. Therefore, both the movie and its website are both his. The idea that there can be someone "closer" to the film than him is fatuous. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:SPS. The material the editors are wanting to include are making claims about a third party by saying the author of the article mis-quoted or lied in a self-published source. The author of the article in TheMaker is a living person, hence covered by BLP. That's the basis for the "No claims about third parties" in SPS - you must have secondary sources for claims about BLP's. Ravensfire (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include Articles should be accurate and written from a neutral point of view. As a totally uninvolved editor, my perspective is that if an article attributes a particular view to somebody, and the person in question is known to have denied it, that should also be included. How that should be done will, of course, vary. My concern here is that editors are allowing their clearly very strong views on the subject to cloud their judgement, and that reasons are being sought to avoid the primary requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. --AJHingston (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include for the reasons detailed in the original discussion and above. Sorry I took so long to weigh in. I thought the idea was to leave this to uninvolved editors, rather than drag out the argument to another page. nagualdesign (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude Self published material must be used carefully. In this case there is a claim that the RS reporter took "extreme liberties" with the author's words in an interview. While I am sympathetic to the problem of journalistic mistakes, we have a policy that seems to preclude the usage of a self-published source that makes claims about another, which it does in this case. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That points to a reason to keep the whole thing out altogether, doesn't it? Here we have a dispute between two sides - NPOV suggests either we have both or neither! --AJHingston (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it points to having solid secondary sources for everything. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Solid secondary sources are only required in order to establish the veracity or notability of a quote. In this case there is no doubt (is there?) that the quote is correctly attributed, and it is automatically notable by virtue of the fact that Peter Joseph is the subject of the article. Before anyone says that the article is about the film, and not the filmmaker, try reading the article. nagualdesign (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the obligation to maintain a neutral point of view is not optional. There are different ways of achieving that, as discussed on the talk page, but nobody is seriously arguing that Joseph is not disputing the view attributed to him so the article must reflect that. --AJHingston (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include; reasons as follows:

Maintaining neutrality has been problematic on the Zeitgeist article for some time. If the page can accommodate, as it presently does, assertions by Zionist columnists that the film is "anti-Semitic," it seems unfair to exclude assertions to the contrary, even or perhaps especially those made by the film's producer. In other words, to exclude Joseph's own comments would be a contradiction in point; moreover, if we are to exclude his comment, then, we would do well to be consistent and exclude a great many others. While this latter option is indeed feasible, I am not sure if it is desirable. NPOV doesn't mean no POV - or does it? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

On the issue of which comment came from where, can we please take a gestalt view and honestly say "Who cares?" I mean, surely at some point we have to give primacy to the content and not to the source of that content. Wikipedia would be deluding itself to suggest it took every single one of its citations exclusively from valid, reliable sources. Resorting to the "necessity" for secondary sources is, in this case, deliberately bureaucratic, an intentional knights-move defence against the threat of a balanced perspective.

Vis-a-vis SPS and BLP, I fail to see any clause which would automatically categorise any comment from an SPS as inherently self-serving. Surely there exist circumstances where temporal constraints mean the only worthwhile comment is found in an SPS, and I think this is one of them. I'm disinclined to counter Rubin's semantics, because there's just no reason why we should even need his magnifying glass. Digressions into pedantic deconstructions of clauses are superfluous and hideously distracting.

Finally, Nightscream is one of very few administrators to challenge the status quo at the Zeitgeist article, and that is a good thing. Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin and most unfortunately Earl King Jr. appear to patrol this page more or less constantly, and in my view they are untrustworthy (with all due respect to Rubin's admin status). I am not meaning to make an argument ad hominem so if you like, you can consider this a sidenote, but I have personally witnessed this trio consistently reverting edits and starting edit wars on the page, whenever an editor does something they don't agree with. The end result is the page looks much like it did a year ago, with an ever-growing talk page. These three are the principal usurpers in most edit disputes, and throw their weight around in order to preserve a far-right, Zionist presentation of the article. This surreptitious behaviour is heavily disruptive and, in my view, seriously diminishes the worth of their opinions in any matter. I will go out on a limb and guess it's one or more of these three who are responsible for warring over inclusion of The Marker's perspective at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

While we're at it can we get these three banned from editing the page altogether?

Thank You. sabine antelope 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Zionist"!?! The above is entirely wrong and inappropriate. I have made only two edits ever to this article. One in May, the other after I was asked to get involved in this discussion by User: Nightscream. I have never gotten into an edit war on this article, period, much less "consistently". I am not an "usurper" creating a "far-right Zionist" presentation, and suspect that your accusation says far more about your editing and point of view than it does about me. Why don't you take your theories about other editors and bury them somewhere deep? This page is about policy and content issues not personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I've frankly had it with you lot. sabine antelope 01:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "include" position notwithstanding, Sabine, the remarks about "Zionist" columnists is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as is the remark about "excluding assertions to the contrary", as that is not what the conflict is about.

As far as patrolling the article constantly, well, I don't know if they do or don't, but I myself do keep it on my Watchlist, and have never noticed any edit wars by them, or any other questionable behavior, until now. I'm not saying that they haven't been involved in previous editorial conflicts on regarding that article (I'm not well-informed on that question either way, so I don't have an viewpoint on it), but this is the first I can recall encountering any of them, and Capitalismojo only participated in the consensus discussion because he was one of the many people I contacted for doing so.

While I don't disagree with that they have employed intellectually dishonest arguments and other behaviors in the course of the discussion, Capitalismojo, I would point out, at least had the decency to point out at ANI that Earl King's false accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was inexcusable, and warranted a apology. I think your assessment in summary is a bit overreaching, Sabine, and in any event, it doesn't belong here. At the very least, I think we should relegate such complaints to the article talk page, ANI, or some other avenue like RfC or ArbCom. I would suggest that we narrow the scope of t his this discussion to the strict Include/Exclude BLP discussion. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose Mojo is a rung above the other two when it comes to honesty. I guess Zionist is strong wording, but I'm only using it in a discussion. Aforementioned troublemakers have no qualms hurling around "anti-Semitic" on the page proper when it suits their peculiar (some would say odd) requirements. Anyway, I've given my five cents. I'm not alone in asserting the afore-named tend to cower under policy umbrellas they themselves invoke when someone challenges the anti-Semitic flag they themselves import (from columinists I would have no hesitation calling Zionist). My assessment may be overarching, even base, but I think there's a crux to the matter. sabine antelope 02:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude, for three reasons. It's "unduly self-serving" (phrasing in WP:SPS), not notable, and of questionable sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include As I stated on the talk page, when his view is being presented one way and he says that is wrong then it should be included or the offending claim removed. Either the Marker's comments about Joseph go or his objection gets added and I prefer the latter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• I happened across this from another page, though an actual RfC might not be a bad idea. To address some of the points above:
  • The "unduly self-serving" part of SPS means we can't source "X is the most successful $INSERT_HERE in history" to a self-published source by X. In this case, however, we're sourcing a simple fact ("X states that this is not correct and he was misquoted") to the source where X, well, says so. We're not presenting that "in Wikipedia's voice" or taking a position on who is correct, just factually noting that X disputes the claim.
  • The BLP concern would seem to fall on the side of X in this case. If X states that the claim is potentially false, we are improperly presenting the claim as though it were not in dispute, when in fact it is. BLP concerns about saying "Y was wrong" are misplaced, because, again, we're not saying Y was wrong, only noting that X claims Y was wrong, without taking any position on which one is right. We may certainly report that someone said something when they verifiably did, and that doesn't mean we're endorsing or agreeing with what they said.
  • Additionally, neutrality demands that we do not present a disputed claim as undisputed. That presents only one side (point of view) of the story to the reader, and by silence, improperly implies that it's the end of the story.
  • If there is tremendous concern about the quote, it is not absolutely necessary that we present the dispute in direct quote form. "X disputes having said this", with an appropriate citation, would be fine too. But we must, in the interest of neutrality and fairness, note that a disputed claim is in dispute, while being careful to take no one's side in that dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude, and remove the contentious attribution BLP is clear that contentious material should be removed. Peter's quote about himself qualifies as a credible source because he is talking about himself. Stating one's own feelings is not self-serving. People haven't been getting this so I'll give a simple example: If Sally says "John is sad," and John says, "No, I am happy," John is not doing anything "unduly self-serving" and, assuming we know only what each had said, we should assume John is the better source of information about the matter. Given that two credible sources disagree the attributed quote is contentious and should be removed. Also, this article comes to mind when people claim we can't use Peter's response until a third party writes about it: http://www.zdnet.com/wickedpedia-the-dark-side-of-wikipedia-7000004731/ Dustin184 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC) EDIT: This might be the better link:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html#ixzz25q0FlTTA Dustin184 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I had a feeling that for this to have become a simple include/exclude !vote might make this board discussion confusing. The alternative, of excluding both the disputed assertion and the subject's denial, would probably satisfy many of those who have pressed for inclusion. The history is that various alternatives that would satisfy NPOV have been suggested on the talk page, but a number of voices there insist that the disputed interview should be referred to in the article. Several uninvolved editors have advised that in that case NPOV requires that the subject's denial must also be included, for reasons now very cogently set out above by Seraphimblade and others. That was the state of things when the discussion was raised here, but several of us have continued to point out that there is more than one way of satisfying NPOV; what is not permissible is to forgo it. --AJHingston (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude both (first choice), or include rebuttal (second choice). The reliability of the source on this point is in question, and sourcing of biographical material has to be solid. Andreas JN466 15:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

waje

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

there is no Evidence of notability on the article of WAJE. there is no relieble references that proof the Awards or her Nominations... this article need a relieble independent source.Strongvibration (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Recommend posting Waje on WP:AFD -- which is a better place to resolve the threshold question of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North (economist)

Gary North (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the section title

Support for executing homosexuals and other sinners

proper in the BLP Gary North (economist)? Alternatives were proposed for "Biblical punishments" and "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" as being valid per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and covering the actual content of that section. Is the wording of that section proper per the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in general? There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Wikipedia's voice concerning this controversial person. Collect (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's POV. What about "Support for executing homosexuals and others"? Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Highly doubt that North is calling for the death of people who eat pork chops or shrimp. or for those that wear polyester-cotton blends. Like most of his ilk, he is selective as regards to what he considers sin, so "Biblical" or such would be misleading. Agree with Coretheapple's point, though. "Sinners" should not be in WP's voice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As "homosexuals" are the minority of those in the category, why specify "homosexuals"? I would note one editor added a comment that North viewed stoning as "cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones" despite the fact that the source was clearly not asserting that such were his words or direct sentiments at all -- which I also find problematic no matter how loony North is, Wikipedia requires that WP:BLP be followed. --

I agree, why specify homosexuals? Why not simply, "Support for capital punishment", and let the paragraph speak for itself about the 'biblical' nature of his beliefs? nagualdesign (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Conservative Christians have a particular antipathy toward gays and lesbians, to the point that it even is offputting to younger conservative Christians, according to the Barna Institute. North is no exception. I don't see what the BLP problem is. North clearly holds these views, and whether you or I or anyone else considers them "loony" is beside the point. He himself doesn't, nor would he consider them himself to be embarrassing. The material about stoning is well sourced. Again, you seem to be whitewashing in order to increase the palatibility of the subject for public consuption. As I told you just a couple of hours ago, that is not what WP is for. There are other places for that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading your post correctly? You know that conservative Christians hate gays, therefore WP:NPOV and WP:BLP cease to apply to their biographies? Gosh, I think that, if anything, it is more important to follow policies, even if we "know" someone is an axe-murderer, much less a "conservative Christian"! And as for your claim that changing the section title is whitewashing -- that is simply an idiotic argument here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your snarky link to "conservapedia" is idiotic, asinine, and totally put-of-place on this noticeboard. Redaction is recommended for such totally off-the-wall remarks to other editors. Collect (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexuals" was highlighted because there was a specific (primary source only) quote about it. There is no other reason for doing so. The rationale (such as it is) is that all the capital punishments in the Old Testament should still be used today. There seems no good reason for emphasising the punishment for homosexuals, and the comments here ("he is selective as regards to what he considers sin" / "Conservative Christians have a particular antipathy toward gays and lesbians") show how misleading it has been. Also, I have no idea why "sinners" was in WP's voice. The heading is appalling, and I can't understand why people are arguing for it. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap did the same thing in the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article emphasizing in two topic areas that he mentioned homosexuals while ignoring other groups of people also mentioned; (this was regarding time preferences and who might be excluded from a private community). But Steeletrap obviously is singlemindedly promoting one group's agenda, while ignoring the need an NPOV Wikipedia presentation. See the talk page, it's disgusted ad nauseum in several sections. User:Carolmooredc 20:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc -- The purpose of this noticeboard is to seek assistance and resolution from the community. Your stream of off-topic remarks, personal attacks, and diaristic rationalizations is hindering the purpose for which this noticeboard is intended. By extension your behavior is hurting progress on the North article for the improvement of WP. Please stick to content on topic. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. Keep your comments focused on the Gary North biography and how we will follow Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Comments by S.Rich – Introduction:

The particular section title posted by Collect is but the latest of a continuing series of BLP problems.

IMO, much of the BLP problem in Gary North (economist) comes from editing efforts by User:Steeletrap. "Steele" has made 79 edits to the Gary North page. See [1] for the stats. Of these, 20 have been to section headings (section titles) and 2 or 3 have been to remove the BLP template. This listing of edits (below) focuses on the section heading changes by Steeltrap. They are listed as follows:

• 'Date'
  • 'Edit by Steele. Only the diff is provided as these edits are focused the section heading changes by Steele. If more info is pertinent, it is listed after the diff.'
    • 'Edits by other editors. Pertinent info is listed before the diff. (Most of these diffs are section heading changes.)'

As stated, these diffs focus on the section headings/titles in which Steele has added, IMNSHO, they are POV. Steele has made repeated reverts to non-appropriate headings. Much discussion has taken place on the article talk page (and on User_talk:Steeletrap#North_RFC) about the need to follow NPOV, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:NDESC, WP:HEADINGS, WP:BALANCE, etc. So, this listing of headings does not include problems in article text where Primary Source into is used (improperly) and templates such as quote, verification, OR, etc. are removed without resolving the problems. In many cases, Steele is responsible for the addition of this material.

Steele has been less than cooperative with very experienced (and previously non-involved) editors who have come in recently to edit the article. E.g., Steele has reverted their edits and argued about the rationale cited by these editors. Indeed, much of Steele's response as been WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (While I have cited WP policy and guidance, the response has been that I have misquoted policy. And when I've asked for examples, I have not received any meaningful responses.)

• 24 April 2013
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
• 16 July 2013
  • [8]
    • User:OnlySwissMiss Changed "Support for murdering nonviolent people" to "Support death penalty for specific sins" [9]
  • [10] Edit by OnlySwissMiss reverted
  • [11]
    • User:OnlySwissMiss Changed "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, other nonviolent people" to "Support for stoning sinners to death" [12]
  • [13] Edit by OnlySwissMiss reverted
    • OnlySwissMiss changes to "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, and other sinners" [14]
• 23 July 2013
  • [15] Adds "North Americans as savages"
  • [16] Copy edit of "Support for stoning ..." heading
• 25 July 2013
  • [17] Restores Savages, Stoning, Homosexuals headings & text which had been removed for lack of secondary source support
  • [18]
  • [19]
• 26 July 2013
  • [Bullet for space holding]
    • User:DiligenceDude modifies "Opposition to religious liberty" heading [20]
    • DiligenceDude modifies Savages heading [21]
    • User:Carolmooredc removes various headings, citing BLP issues [22]
    • User:SPECIFICO changes "Controversial views" to "Societal punishment of blasphemers" [23]
• 27 July 2013
  • [Bullet for space holding]
    • Carolmooredc removes Societal punishment heading and different portions of text citing BLP [24]
    • Srich32977 restores Carolmooredc material, citing the ongoing RfC [25]
    • Carolmooredc replaces {{BLP sources}} (which had been posted in the past, but removed). [26]
  • [27] BLP template removed.
    • Srich32977 restores BLP template [28]
    • User:DiligenceDude adds to "Opposition to religious liberty" heading [29]
    • User:StAnselm modifies section headings [30]
    • DiligenceDude modifies Native American heading [31]
    • StAnselm removes disputed Native Americans heading & section, citing BLP [32]
  • [33] Restores "Executing homosexuals" & "Opposition to religious liberty" headings
• 28 July 2013
  • [34] removes {{BLP sources}}
    • User:Collect modifies section headings [35]
    • DiligengeDude modifies "Opposition to religious liberty" section heading [36]
    • Collect does ce & modifications on headings [37]
  • [38] Restores "Execution" & "Opposition to religious liberty" section headings
    • Collects reverts "Executing" heading change, cites NPOV & BLP [39]
  • [40] Reverts edit made by Collect
    • StAnselm modifies "Executing" heading, keeping the term Support etc. [41]
    • StAnselm restores "Religious liberty" heading w/o "Opposition to" [42]
  • [43] Restores "Opposition to" change by StAnselm
  • [44] Self reverts previous edit
    • StAnselm changes "Support for executing homosexuals etc" to "Support for capital punishment" [45]
    • User Dominus Vobisdu reverts StAnselm edit [46]
    • User:Binksternet removes primary source material (latest diff provided, but not the current version) [47]

– S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• The matter is pretty simple—if there is reason for Wikipedia to report that someone is a fruitcake, there will be reliable secondary sources to make that assertion. Editors are not free to pick sentences from past statements and add them to Barack Obama, and they are not free to do something similar on other BLP articles, no matter how worthy is the recipient. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Srich - Srich, this board is to discuss application of policy to content, not editor behavior. Please consider hatting your log of editor actions and your comments about editors, above. Please share your BLP concerns in specific terms that relate WP content to policy. I believe that it's clear that there's been excessive and unresolved revision of these problematic section headings. Part of the problem with this article seems to be that editors have differing understandings of the relevant WP policy statements. Let's try to be clear and specific about our understandings of policy and how policy applies to the text in this article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This board is free to act against an editor who continually violates the BLP policy. The discussion is valid. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First it's necessary to specify the policy violation. That was my concern. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Per above: User:SPECIFICO and USER: STEELETRAP have repeatedly been told that cherry picking primary source quotes to make BLPs look bad (plus things like WP:OR/Synth, using hostile self-published sources, etc.) is against WP:BLP policy; policy links and quotes have been given to them. Yet they continue to insert and even revert back such material. They were repeatedly informed at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.(They do sometimes recognize the policy as being valid if someone tries to use proper Self-Published CV or other material that is neutral or makes the subject look credible.)

See also these BLPN Discussions on other BLP issues a few of us have had at BLPN discussions in May 2013 and June 2013. The editors don't seem to realize that a BLP subject's having obviously absurd views - or views that editors personally think are absurd - is not a license to go to 700 page documents and take a few sentences (which may be partially or entirely out of context) and throw them in the article. Both have an extremely strong negative POV against certain economists which has been discussed this ANI (as well as several previous ones) and and this NPOV notice. User:Carolmooredc

This discussion is regarding the section titles for North. Let's not get distracted by problems/discussions on other articles. If the section title issue can get nailed down, then the subsections can be addressed on a case by case basis. A proposed, 'carved-in-stone' article outline is below. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are confused, Srich. Read the above: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. BLPN also can be used to ask editors to come to a discussion on an article talk page and/or b) clarify some policy dispute. I was responding to its main purpose. User:Carolmooredc 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not confused in the least. This notice started off focused on the heading question. I've provided information that focuses on the headings and I've proposed a solution. Endorse the solution, and we can implement it. Then we can move on (perhaps on the article talk page) to the other issues. I strongly recommend against expanding this BLPN to include edits beyond the Gary North article. Worse yet would be to expand the scope of this BLPN into the general pattern of any particular editor. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section title revisions

Presently the article has the following structure. Headings subject to revision are italicized:

Contents

1 Education and background

2 Career

2.1 Ron Paul curriculum

3 Christian, Bible-based economic methodology

4 Political, economic, and religious beliefs

4.1 Support for executing homosexuals and other sinners

4.2 Religious liberty

5 Y2K catastrophe prediction

6 Publications

6.1 Institute for Christian Economics

6.2 Books and newsletters

6.3 Documentary and educational film

[Footers]

I propose that sections 3 & 4 be combined and revised to read:

3 Political, economic, and religious views

3.1 Christian, Bible-based economic methodology

3.2 Capital punishment

3.3 Religious liberty

The "methodology" section is one paragraph – a subsection covers it well. The "capital punishment" and "religious liberty" section titles are WP:NDESC. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are correct to get out the specific mention of "homosexuals" but the section heading should make it clear this is capital punishment per the Old Testament. It's hardly typical of advocates of capital punishment in general. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not really "capital punishment" but more about "capital crimes" or "capital crimes and modes of punishment" right? SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Capital crimes" fits the bill by definition. Nobody gets executed for having committed a non-capital crime. (We gotta leave out any section heading description that attempts to parse Old Test. definitions of capital crimes vs. modern views.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Wikipedia's voice concerning this controversial person.

The other question presented at the top of the thread is repeated above. There have been differences among various editors' understanding of WP policy concerning primary sources in BLP. The article talk page discussion is here.

It appears to me that some editors are conflating the prohibition on "primary documents" written by third parties with "primary documents" written by a BLP subject and expressing only the subject's own views. This question should be discussed and guidance sought here so that the same dispute does not arise repeatedly on the article and talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Much as individuals may disgust us we can't read through their 700 page books looking for those one or two sentences that can be used to support our mere wiki editor point of view on the individual. User:Carolmooredc 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have just made exactly the error which I described above. The link you cite refers to primary documents such as public records, commercial records, and other primary documents not written by the subject of the article. It does not refer to the subject's statement of her own views in her own words. If you don't understand the distinction, seek guidance here. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And cherry-picking "embarrassing quotes" which have not been reported by reliable secondary sources is also quite clearly covered by BLP - sorry -- primary sources so cherry-picked make for very poor pies. Collect (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All I did on this thread was to copy the second point you raised in your notice posting above, in the hope that the discussion could be separated from the question of the OR headings. I don't recall having added any primary-sourced text to the article, which I have edited rather little over the past 7-8 months. I would be interested however to hear your take on the distinction I raised to carolmooredc concerning the two different kinds of reference which might be called "primary source." SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no such distinction. If there is you'd be able to quote the relevant policy. (Also long section titles like this are very disruptive; feel free to shorten it now.) User:Carolmooredc 21:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it is... self-published primary sources usable subject to various limitations which do not pertain to the current iteration of the North article: WP:ABOUTSELF. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" - it's about what they can say about themselves not whether we can cherry pick and use their primary source quotes anyway we want to show what's notable and what the overall view point is. User:Carolmooredc 22:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding my point and acknowledging the WP policy. I have no further concern. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean conceding your point and don't know if you understand what I'm saying. About self is not about cherry picking quotes of writings. See Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[4]" This is what is relevant to the reliable source issue. User:Carolmooredc

Omitted facts as to why title is appropriate

I am very distressed to see that my peers Carol, Collect, and Rich have decided to focus on the alleged personal flaws of editors rather than engage in an even-handed policy-based discussion as to why the title may or may not be appropriate. The case for the current title is threefold: 1) that North, as confirmed by numerous RS, supports executing gays and 2) The secondary RS are responding to this very point in their criticism of North. 3) The section as written focuses on North's views about homosexuality. I am deeply disappointed that OP did not note these facts at the top. Steeletrap (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding misleading description by OP OP implies that my title fails to "cover the actual content of that section." This is an apparent untruth, insofar as it falsely implies that either North does not favor executing gays or the section does not focus on his views on gays (it does). I ask OP to explain why his statement isn't an untruth? Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside party here. "Capital punishment" seems like weaksauce to me, but could you briefly let this noticeboard know why you think other proposed alternatives are insufficient, such as, for example, the "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" suggested by User:Collect above. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think my proposed title is better because it is more specific and descriptive. People know what support for executing gays is; views on "capital punishment" is hopelessly vague and support for "Biblical standards for execution" is just an abstract way of saying what the current title says.

I am happy to have a discussion on these issues. (if you look at the talk page, all you see are vague, unspecific (unquoted) references to policy and erroneous allegations that this does not represent North's views). Despite the regrettably misleading remark by OP and regrettable diversions by other users from the subject at hand, some good points have been made regarding use of a term like "sinners." Steeletrap (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. User:Carolmooredc 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity for editors outside this conflict, can we keep this section of the discussion limited to the title of the disputed section only? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed my quote only because I temporarily got confused and thought this was another paragraph based entirely on primary sources.

The problem here is POV pushing. [Added later: I feel like] Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals. Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Xians might want to execute.

As a woman who had an abortion I'm quite offended myself. But I'm not suggesting we call it Support for executing women who had abortions and other sinners. Because I care more about wikipedia NPOV than pushing the abortion rights agenda. User:Carolmooredc 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you have already been reprimanded by an admin (after which you apologized) for your personal remarks on the North page. Your unfounded slight that I "thinks [sic] the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals" is in my judgment bigoted; I have never said I regard LGBT issues as more important than, for instance, gender issues, and saying that is an assumption based on nothing other than my sexual orientation and support for LGBT rights. (Your bigoted remark is akin to someone accusing a black wikipedian who favors racial equality of caring about "rights for blacks" above and at the expense of all others, on the basis of no evidence) Steeletrap (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The homosexual remark was included because RS focus on the particular issue of homosexuals/homosexuality, as did the (regrettably and inexplicably deleted) well-sourced primary source material by North himself. Steeletrap (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm expressing how I feel and I added that so it doesn't look like some absolute and accurate intellectual judgement. Women do get angry for having their concerns downplayed, after all. As may sinners of other classes that some nutty xians may want or have wanted to execute. Obviously it's an emotional topic - another reason we have to use secondary sources and not interpret ourselves.

That said, I really don't have time to see if that is accurate about what the sources say. Being NPOV means not reflecting biases of sources in any case, looking for less biased sources to get a better viewpoint. It certainly is not encouraging people from sexology wikiproject to opine on this topic, which an admin chastised you for recently. User:Carolmooredc 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose me hatting this and redirecting it back to the Gary North page? It seems to be a continuation of the debate at Gary North's page, so for the long term would be better if this discussion was held there. I think this board can now consider itself to have been notified.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, I believe that is not only permissible but appropriate given how this thread omitted key facts in its original post and has been derailed from the question regarding the sub-title into personal attacks on editors. Steeletrap (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You should ask the Original Poster. IMHO, regarding the purpose of this noticeboard, longterm BLP abuse, it has been useful in clarifying another issue that has been so disruptive over a couple articles and thus is helpful for future endeavors to solve the problem. But the focus mostly has been the WP:OR and title issue which, for now, people are working on. We'll see if two weeks from now when others are finished with the article there isn't yet another attempt to use it for a partisan agenda. User:Carolmooredc 03:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, please do hat this. The question of problematic section headings is almost resolved. Also, I do not think any assertions in the article text lack secondary sources. Progress is being made on the article and Steele's TP. Slalom. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What is "TP". WP:TP leads to Help:Using talk pages and I don't think that's it. If editors of seven years don't get allusions, new editors may not either. Let's keep Wikipedia user friendly. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 13:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic

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

Per Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons, we are under strictures to make their biographies adhere precisely to severe guidelines, including legal accuracy. Has Ana Ivanović changed her legal name from "Ivanović" to "Ivanovic"? Could anyone provide a source, that this has happened? Can someone quote Ana Ivanović from a reliable source on this subject? She is a resident of Switzerland now, so perhaps this occurred when filing for residency there? If not, we would seem to be breaking the strictures of WP:BLP by inventing rationale to spell her name other than her actual name.

I also remind everyone that other Serbian (former world no.1 Jelena Janković who resides in Dubai, or Ana Jovanović who resides in Munich, Germany), Czech (eg., nearly the entire content of Category:Czech female tennis players), Slovak (e.g., nearly the entire content of Category:Slovak female tennis players), Polish tennis players (including world no. 4 Agnieszka Radwańska and her Top40 sister Urszula Radwańska), or even Australian player Jarmila Gajdošová -- are consistently spelled in their BLP articles with their actual legal name spelling. At most, we provide redirects from names without diacritics to facilitate search for those who simply are unaware of these precise spellings, thanks to WTA, BBC, CNN, etcetera. Right now, as I am typing this, the 2013 Bank of the West Classic singles final is being contested by Agnieszka Radwańska and Dominika Cibulková. I am sure that hundreds of news dispatches in the English-speaking world and WTA publications online and elsewhere will omit both player's diacritics, but we are an encyclopedia, and I don't see us doing it. So why is a group of editors doing it to Ana Ivanović (redirect since 2012, spelled correctly on Commons)?

My attempts to copyedit Ivanović per this reasoning earlier today have been forcefully and repeatedly reverted by one of those editors.

Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug has posted the same question in two places. As there are replies at talk:Ana Ivanovic#Duty to accurately spell Ana Ivanović's name per WP:BLP, I suggest that all additional replies are posted there to avoid repetition and confusion. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I posted the requisite template on the talk page, below the question there, directing discussion here, to a wider community. It is you and one other persistent advocate of misspelling Ivanović who chose to write below it, and now you are squirreling the discussion once again, away from the mainstream. This is a BLP issue, and should be decided on the BLP noticeboard, if not elevated to Jimbo himself. --Mareklug ^talk 12:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If the first reply had been here then this would have been a convenient forum. However as the replies are on the talk page of the article, anyone who has read this thread will know that the discussion is going on there and can read the discussion there and reply there. Nothing is being hidden, but trying to encourage replies in two places is disruptive (see forum shopping). -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose User:PBS opposition to discussion here - User:PBS is highly WP:INVOLVED as a vocal (if not the most vocal) opponent of the universal en.wp editor consensus and practice of using unicode (i.e. full spelling) for BLP titles (Talk:Édouard Deldevez etc.). Threatening User:Mareklug with the stick that it is "disruptive" or "WP:Forum shopping" to bring a BLP problem to BLP Noticeboard is inappropriate behaviour.

The problem with Talk:Ana Ivanović is that a poorly attended quickie RM (which failed to reference a much longer oppose RM in Archive 4) moved it to be the only basic-ASCII-ized BLP title as the first shot in the Tennisnames Diacritics War. Once moved it got watchlisted since it is the only modern BLP where a foreigner has been stripped of accents and given an Australian/British/American name - thus treating the Serbian tennis player as if she had an exonymic name like the Emperor Napoleon or a monarch.

All pages have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues, but I would imagine that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors who watchlist Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is a broader or more helicopter view than those who have watchlisted Talk:Ana Ivanović.

Even if editors at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard don't themselves like foreign accents on foreigners names, I imagine there's enough interest in WP:CONSISTENCY here some may ask why this one particular Serbian woman BLP, alone among all the BLPs on en.wp, is being made into what appears a xenonymophobic trophy? Why pick on her? And why deny Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard notification of the oddity. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What additional citations does Lilith Love need??

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

I don't understand why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_Love needs additional citations for verification. To my concern there are no links missing. The controversity of Lilith's work has a link to the newspaper that wrote about it, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only part of the article that needs citation - or am I wrong? Please let me know how to complete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CortezNL (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. The sources need to be inline and most material in the article should be sourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Georgian mafiosi

This list states that certain people are members of organised crime. This is in direct contravention of BLP issues. For such claims to be made the people so listed must, surely, self identify as members of the organisation, if, indeed, organisation it be. Nominated for AfD, but I think there is an urgent issue here. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is potentially huge, of course, but all the references are un Russian, so no non speaker can see if these folk have self identified as Mafiosi, or if the list accuses them of being. Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I quickly checked some of the Russian sources, and they seem to generally qualify as RS and support the assertions about the criminals who belong to "Thieves in law". My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin has been the subject of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories advanced by a fringe group of right-wing activists and politicians. Their claims have been widely discredited in mainstream media and are considered false and pernicious. User:BingNorton is attempting to whitewash this fact by removing well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories from the Washington Post and Anti-Defamation League, which has the effect of making the conspiracy theories seem more credible and important than they really are. Omitting the mainstream consensus (that the claims are evidence-free, politically-motivated attacks) gives those claims undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the comments of NorthBySouthBaranof ("NbySB") are simply not true. NbySB demands that the Abedin article state that one of the groups that have been critical of her is as NbySB states "Need to make *absolutely clear* that these Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories are fringe nutjobbery". You can review that POV pushing statement from NbySB here. That statement is very indicative of POV pushing. Also, the wording that NbySB wants is not supported by a reliable source. I have removed the commentary because there is no reliable source to support the claim. NbySB has removed it and makes many different comments similar to the one above--POV pushing comments. Finally, NbySB's claim above that I removed "well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories" is simply not true. I removed a statement by a Wikipedia editor that one group was a MB conspiracy theory (without RS) and I removed one very, very long from John McCain, that was not needed. I did not remove all of the information, I merely trimmed it down. The substance of the Abedin's defense remained in the article. However, the goal of the editing is to provide a NPOV; however, NbySB's belief that the group quoted is "fringe nujobbery" has led him to believe that his POV must be pushed into the article. The article needs a NPOV, not POV pushing and POV pushing is exactly what NbySB is doing and he is attempting to use this BIO Noticeboard to intimidate other editors from disagreeing with him.--Bing Norton 19:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For example, Sen Grassley sent a series of questions to Abedin to answer. He also sent a series of questions to the State Dept. Both Abedin and the State Dept responded to Grassley. This is verifiable fact and it is supported by a reliable source by me (the RS is CBS News). NbySB reverted my edit which indicated that there are two responses to Grassley. This is factual information. This is NOT opinion. NbySB. Unfortunately, NbySB has a goal of pushing his POV onto the article and he does not even take the time to review my changes he just reverts them without reasonable comment. The only comments that one gets when he reverts is similar to the the quote of above where he flat out states that he is going to impose his POV on the article. Yes the BIO noticeboard is the correct place for this discussion, but the editor that needs to be watch is NbySB. He is a POV pusher.--Bing Norton 19:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

The difference is that my POV is supported by a wide variety of reliable sources as being the mainstream viewpoint. NPOV does not require that we treat all claims with equal weight - in fact, a specific part of the NPOV policy directs that Wikipedia articles should reflect viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Overwhelmingly, the most prominent viewpoint in this "debate" is that the Muslim Brotherhood claims are scurrilous, politically-motivated conspiracy theories lacking any substance or veracity. They have been refuted, rebutted and dismissed by people and groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League to John McCain, and an editorial from the Washington Post calls the allegations a "baseless attack" and a "smear." That you do not like the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources consider the claims to be nonsensical and false is irrelevant. Wikipedia ought to and must reflect the fact that those claims are fringe theories rejected and given no credence by anyone outside a small group of extreme right-wing conspiracy theorists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Standard 3rr warning issued to Bing Norton. Update: and NorthBySouthBaranof. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My edits were not disruptive and they were based upon editing reasons. There was no need for the standard warning issued to me. If there was a need for the warning then the warning should have also been given to NbySB. However, Gamaliel did not issue the warning to NbySB also. I don't know the reason for the lack of a warning to NbySB, but I do find the fact that Gamaliel completely agreed with NbySB's edits to be suspicious in nature. I find it highly inappropriate for Gamaliel to both edit the article and to act as the enforcer of an editing dispute, especially an editing dispute that Gamaliel is part of. Highly inappropriate.--Bing Norton 22:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this was standard, and issued to you to inform you as per standard procedure. You are a relatively new editor involved in an edit war, and this warning was solely to inform you of a major policy involving edit wars. If you perceive judgment in this warning, it is not due to anything I said or did. Such warnings are not given to experienced users as they are presumed to already know the rules. I had seen NorthBySouthBaranof edit a different article and thus assumed s/he was a more experienced user, but s/he is relatively new as well, so I will issue the same warning. Fair is fair. As for your claims about my alleged involvement in this editing dispute, as an editor on this noticeboard it is perfectly appropriate for me to both edit the article in line with Wikipedia policies and inform you of those policies. Even so, your claim is incorrect as at the time of this writing I have never edited that article. Please retract your claim. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, NbySB editing is disruptive and he is engaging in an edit war. I noticed that you have since edited the article since the earlier posts. I will give you an example of one of NbySB's edit war edits. I made an addition to the article. I added the comments of two very, very, very well-known writers from the Washington Post concerning Abedin's decision to support Weiner. This is a notable topic and the people who comments were added are two writers that are known through journalism--whose opinions are also notable. However, NbySB merely reverted the additions and stated in a POV pushing manner that Sally Quinn's and Ruth Marcus's opinions are "random" which of course they are not. Once again, NbySB is the editor that began this discussion on this page, being critical of my edits, and you have warned me of engaging in an edit war. Nothing is further from the truth. I did misspeak about your editing of the article. However, I now understand my confusion. NbySB has been following me from article to article and reverting my edits. You edited one of those articles and of course your edit in that article supported NbySB just like your edit in this article supported NbySB. I apologize for the confusion but my general point still stands--most of your edits align directly with NbySB's edits. I also admit that you did warn NbySB after I mentioned it. However, his side of the edit continues. Also, my edits do NOT violate BLP. I have not seen any real support for that claim other than this complaint, which seems to be designed to intimidate me from editing the article. Abedin's handling of Weiner's mayor campaign is a notable topic and I will continue to cover it in the article, which I have done in the past. I have been careful to only use reliable sources (commentators from the Washington Post) and use straight forward wording that relies as much as possible from the original sources. However, I must point out that NbySB is reverting and engaging in an edit war. I would appreciate that you apply the same rules to him. You can review his war edits here: war edit #1 and here: war edit #2.--Bing Norton 22:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

The purpose of this noticeboard is not to quell edit wars, but strictly to ensure that BLP articles adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. One rule that you might want to look at is WP:UNDUE, because I think that bringing in quotes from random commentators probably overwhelms such a short article. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my original point. You are using your admin position to enforce subjective choices about editing the article to support NbySB edits, which of course, is highly inappropriate--an article that you have been editing. There still is no reliable source to back up the claim, by NbySB, that the Center for Security Policy is "right wing".--Bing Norton 12:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What paranoid nonsense. I have used no administrative powers in regards to this article. Gamaliel (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, BingNorton, you are just flat-out making things up. I specifically sourced the "right-wing" statement to a dead-tree published book which is a reliable source. You might quibble or disagree with the source, and we might debate the source, but the statement had a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is simply untrue, BingNorton. I did not "merely revert the additions." I removed the comment from Sally Quinn, leaving the comment from Ruth Marcus. Marcus' comment focused on her perception of the very-much-public press conference, which I feel is a reasonable subject for questioning. On the other hand, Quinn made a number of speculative, unsupported and invasive pseudo-psychoanalytic remarks about Abedin's personal relationships, a subject for which she has absolutely no demonstrated expertise or training. One of those comments is fair and well-founded, the other is scurrilous tabloid fodder. So I removed the latter.

Furthermore, you might note that Wikipedia's own article on Sally Quinn states that she is considered to have an anti-Clinton bias and may be thought of as grossly hypocritical when criticizing someone else's marital problems given that she engaged in an extramarital affair with Ben Bradlee that ultimately broke up his second marriage. In that light, Quinn's comments are astoundingly ill-founded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Alice Walker

Alice Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Some extra eyes on this BLP may be necessary. Walker has complained about inaccuracies in the article in the past and she is already controversial figure to some. However, to makes matters potentially worse, the BLP is now being targeted by blocked user AndresHerutJaim via sockpuppetry. Their latest sockpuppet User:Silmeter has been blocked, but given their extensive history of block evasion they are likely to return. I think it is necessary to add that judging from a trivial search, AndresHerutJaim appears to be a pretty fanatical Israel supporter who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. So, a blocked user with extreme views who uses sockpuppetry extensively and is probably not a fan of Walker. Exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept away from a BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month and watchlisted. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Doven

I have concerns about the appropriateness of some of the material related to scientology that is currently included on Michael Doven's page. Although it's reported in reliable sources, I don't think that mentioning that he was involved in some form of confrontation with someone once is due weight for a BLP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The claims were worded quite inaptly for what the sources actually stated. And the "confrontation" resulted in no civil or criminal actions - and, per the source, consisted of Doven saying "we have to talk" which is pretty weak for a "confrontation" to get into a BLP. What we are left with is that the person is a Scientologist. Collect (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Donald Arthur

• Donald Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of a back and forth with Legal a few months ago, the bio was a mess of OR, primary sources and clever editing by multiple SPAs with what appeared to be an agenda of some sort. The article was protected while the legal issues were worked out and then bounced back to OTRS with the recommendation that we bring it into policy, so that's what I did. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate a few eyes on this in case the "OMG YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS FOR GREAT JUSTICE" crowd shows up for edit warring without reliable sources and the usual undue weight. I also left a comment on the talk page with more detail about what was wrong with it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"OMG YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS FOR GREAT JUSTICE" should be the title of a Wikipedia essay. Can you imagine the shortcut? Gamaliel (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

An acronym would be awkward. I'd leave it at WP:GREATSJUSTICE §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Storage Wars

The Talk page at Storage Wars contains a troubling comment under the "Dave Hester" section, specifically this thread. It begins "Dave Hester should be removed completely." I won't repeat the rest. What concerns me is that the statement is signed by one user, but a bot has indicated it is an IP that left the comment. Is it possible the registered user didn't make the comment or the IP piggybacked on it? Either way, it looks like a BLP violation. I'd have removed it myself but am unsure of protocol involving talk pages. 70.76.69.162 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere - I have removed the comment from the talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fort Augustus Abbey‎

This is a heads up, rather than a complaint. I think that I've edited the article so that it's current state is acceptable.

There have been allegations of abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey in Scotland. Understandably, there was quite a lengthy section inserted in the article recently. I'm concerned that while there were a lot of "allegedly"s and "allegations of" in the sources, this was not reflected in the article itself. I have amended the article accordingly, but considering the current newsworthy status of this article then this could become a magnet for BLP issues. JASpencer (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've rearranged the order to prevent the superficial impression that the school was closed because of the allegations. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

John Menard, Jr.

Could someone please have a look at these recent additions to this article? Although they're sourced, I'm concerned about balance (e.g., WP:UNDUE). Another set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. 70.134.226.151 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've paired down most of the additions. One non-neutral statement was about his company, not him; removed pending civil litigation filed by disgruntled former employees (if the allegations had any real merit it would be in criminal court); and removed unnecessary personal details, we don't need to know which of his children were born out of wedlock. -Wine Guy~Talk 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Montgomery Police Department (Alabama)

Question for you BLP warriors. I've been working on the (existing) list of "Misconduct" in this article; I've removed the alleged offenders' names and added some proper citations. But the more I think about it, the more I am coming to the conclusion that such a list of alleged misconduct is not OK in the first place--all of them involve alleged misconduct and they are followed by a resignation. None of those cases (as far as I can tell) went to trial. So it strikes me as similar to the "person X got arrested" kind of thing we see popping up in BLPs (but person X wasn't tried and convicted, where convention (I think) says we don't include such information unless it was hugely important and widely covered. So I think the whole section should go, since it's a variety of name them and shame them (well, I took out the names, since there is no encyclopedic reason to include them--the article is about the MPD, not about individual cops). See also my comments on the talk page.

Anyway, I don't edit a lot of police department articles and I don't know if there are any guidelines and conventions there; in no way does this compare to a section like Los_Angeles_Police_Department#Controversy, for instance. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete the section as it stands; unless there's a controversy involving some systematic misconduct there's no reason to report on what are really routine disciplinary issues. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say there needs to be 1) More than trivial media coverage of the incident to establish the validity of inclusion and 2) Some kind of conviction, official investigation, findings of fact, etc. (and subsequent media coverage of that) that explicitly name the subject(s), if at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both--that's enough for me to remove it, but I'll let this sit for a couple of hours to see if there is dissent. PaulinSaudi has not responded to any comments or the invitation to this discussion; perhaps they will. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I just woke up. I think you are correct. Convictions ought to be included, but not allegations. On the other hand, including the names of police officers who are convicted are critical for two reasons. First because it helps ensure we are not listing one bad apple twice. Second because it lets us see if one policeman is involved in several incidents over time. The Sanford Florida Police Department article is closer to what we ought to be shooting for. It shows one or two officers whose names come up time and time again. Thank you for your edit. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback comments: a potential BLP nightmare

Okay, so what do we do about the Article Feedback Tool and comments that violate BLP? I had my first look at the system today and, well, there are some issues.

• We can hide comments, but how do we delete them? Hidden comments can still be seen, just with some extra clicks.
• What do we do about editors who make defamatory comments and the editors who mark them as useful?

Thoughts? Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO this feature is useless, as it largely attracts feedback from people saying they didn't find a bio useful because it didn't tell them where to send fanmail to, and other similar things that are not the purview of wikipedia. As for the question above, I would agree that non-BLP-compliant comments ought to be redactable. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Admins can suppress comments, and you can ask them to by marking a comment as inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I can hide comments marked inappropriate, but they can still be seen by users with an extra click. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

At least all of us are forbidden from leaving nasty comments on BLP feedback, even as Anon IPs, I assume :-) Does NPA apply there and does that also need to be made explicit on the relevant talk page? User:Carolmooredc 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume all Wikipedia policies, including BLP and NPA, apply to the feedback as well. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Monty Roberts

Yesterday I posted correct information under the ==Controversies== section on the Monty Roberts page and provided multiple sources for the information. Today I see it has been deleted. I believe the fact that you deleted correct information on this very controversial person is suspicious and that you are being controlled by Monty Roberts himself to have such correct information promptly removed. There was absolutely NO libel involved in the information. I can add additional source material to prove the information true if need be but I am certain you will only delete it again. I have noticed on the talk page regarding this subject that you have elected to avoid all the controversy. Interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidGiver (talk • contribs)

• It's probably a conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Correct, maybe, but unverified, to paraphrase the user who reverted you, Montanabw--who, for what it's worth, is a pretty well-respected editor here and knows horsies very well. In their edit summary, they invited you to present your evidence at the talk page and rather than start hinting at conspiracy theories you should accept that invitation. That's all. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  LOL and FWIW, it wasn't more than a few months back the Monty Roberts people were on my case and upset because they thought I was part of the anti-Roberts cabal. So long as everyone is pissed off at me, I must be following WP:NPOV perfectly! Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Osnat Tzadok

Not notable enough. Outdated information about one of the "eBay Artists". Not present in any art galleries. No exhibitions. No references. Subject to removal.

Prima facie she would seem be notable enough to avoid speedy deletion, so your options are to WP:PROD it or take it to WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osnat Tzadok but there isn't a link to it on the talk page. Does anyone know how to add it? I would say WP:BIO is met. 80 paintings and 30k a month is far more prolific than many of our author articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Added the link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

The above named article is about the ex Stiff Little Fingers drummer Jim Reilly, however, a significant proportion of the article is taken up with information about his brother. Whilst his brother may be notable for being shot by the first British soldier to be convicted of murder, I don't feel the information belongs on the above page. However, I can imagine the information being put back as soon as it's removed, so I bring it to your attention, to try to avoid an edit war. Jcuk (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel it doesn't belong on the article? It's poorly worded and badly sourced (Xanga??) but that can be fixed. However it would be helpful if you were specific as to why it shouldn't be there, since it's not injurious to the subject at all, on the contrary. A bit offtopic I suppose, but not overly so. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If the sourcing improves to where it can be proven to be relevant to the subject, then maybe it can go in the article. For now, it's out. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be relevant to the subject. How can the controversial death of a close relative in his prime not be relevant? See: Sylvester_Stallone#Personal_life and John_Travolta#Personal_life. Although Jim Reilly is a small article I don't think coatrack should be an issue unless the material goes into huge detail about the incident. Is Death of Kidso Reilly worthy of an article? A link to the new article should avoid any coatrack issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning name of suspect widely reported as having been arrested in a murder case

Is it true that we cannot or should not normally mention the names of (living) crime suspects in articles, even if they have been widely reported as having been arrested on suspicion of a crime? The article in question here is Yamaguchi arson and murders, which is about a recent incident in which five people were murdered in a short space of time. The name of the person arrested as the suspect in these murders has been widely reported in both English language and Japanese media, as was added to the article. It was however removed (twice) by another editor with the comment that we should not imply guilt, and that this is covered by WP:CRIME. Maybe he meant WP:BLPCRIME, as the former is concerned more about whether or not persons suspected or accused of crimes are sufficiently notable to justify self-standing articles. Anyway, I have read the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, and while I understand that it says that editors should give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured, is this a blanket rule that applies even when the person's name has been widely reported in reliable news sources and the person has already confessed to the crimes? Hoping someone can clarify the situation. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, and thanks for framing it so clearly and providing all the relevant links. I cannot speak for WP precedent regarding this subject, but as I read WP:BLP, it seems clear that normally the name of the person who has allegedly committed a crime, especially a serious one, should not be used unless they have been convicted. BLP’s must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy. . . . . the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement. Wikipedia has a broader audience than Japan Today and, should the person named be found not guilty, the spread of the news of his implication in a crime would do substantial harm to a possibly innocent person. Even if the person named had confessed, we must consider that confessions are sometimes coerced and later legally disallowed. Bottom line: including the name of an unconvicted accused would seem out of synch with the spirit of BLP, even if the letter does not categorically prohibit it. EMP (talk 23:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In cases where the name is *widely* reported, I don't think we need to wait for a conviction, but we should still normally wait until charges are brought, unless the suspect is already famous. A good example of why is Murder of Joanna Yeates where a suspect was widely assumed to be guilty, vilified in British newspapers and given a WP article, but soon turned out to be innocent. That's notwithstanding confessions - we are presumably talking about a reported confession at the present time. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to echo EMP's praise for the way this issue has been framed. Thanks, DAJF. I think the case (and name) have now been so widely reported that WP:BLPCRIME's counsel that serious consideration should be given to not publishing the name is being satisfied here and on the article talk page. I think the name does belong on the page, because it's been so widely distributed, but since we have no deadline the time devoted to serious consideration provides a buffer against moving ahead precipitously.

As to "Wikipedia has a broader audience than Japan Today", I mean no disrespect, but:

ABC News

The Hong Kong Standard

Agence France Press

That's three of the six inhabited continents. I'm just sayin' :) David in DC (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. Given how widely the suspect's name has been reported in the mainstream (not just tabloid) media in and outside Japan, I personally think it is odd that we cannot report the name in the Wikipedia article, but since BLP-related guidelines generally suggest erring on the side of caution, I guess we should go along with that for now and wait until a former conviction has been made. --DAJF (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Steve Spinner

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

Edit-warring over the addition of material about his alleged involvement in a "scandal" related to Solyndra's bankruptcy, which or may not be accurate. However, if nothing else, the references need very careful checking as at least one of them does not verify the assertion made, and the current wording which is being repeatedly inserted strikes me as clearly slanted to present him in the worst possible light. Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've cleaned it up a bit, removing the section devoted to the Solyndra issue and adding a few sentences under the public service section. I've also left a note on the article talk page where this issue can be discussed further if necessary. That is the ideal place to discuss the issue for now IMHO, but I certainly agree with the need for POV watching on this article. I will also leave a friendly note on the talk page of our POV pushing anon. -Wine Guy~Talk 14:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Holly Lisle

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

Hi, Folks,

• On my page, the book and writing course list is out of date, (Bibliography, http://hollylisle.com/bibliography/ is missing all of my current frontlist courses, my new short fiction, and my newest novel,
• Mugging the Muse is now in a second edition, and is no longer free. (http://howtothinksideways.com/shop/ )
• How to Write Flash Flash Fiction That Doesn't Suck, a three-week complete online classroom writing course, IS free, but unmentioned, http://howtothinksideways.com
• the links to the writing courses go to a dead shop (the current shop is http://howtothinksideways.com/shop/ ),
• I no longer own the Forward Motion community: http://fmwriters.com (I gave it to my friend Lazette Gifford about five or six years ago), (I don't check my own entry very often)
• the writing community I do own (Holly Lisle' Writers' Boot Camp (http://howtothinksideways.com/forum/) is not listed

First I tried to find a place to ask for help. Couldn't locate it.

I then checked the material on fixing your own page, decided my changes fit the terms of doing this, and attempted to correct the errors, but the bot keeps reverting to the old, wrong information.

Finally, when tracking the info article on the bot, I found this page. I hope you'll be able to help.

And thank you for your time, and any help you can offer.

Holly Lisle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.95.84 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little to bring it more into compliance with our rules and Manual of Style. Any suggested improvements should be discussed on the talk page (i.e., Talk:Holly Lisle), and should include reliable, third-party sources. (If you see me at a Wiscon, ICON [the Iowa one], Chattacon or Worldcon, or on LiveJournal, I'm always delighted to discuss these matters with anybody.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Vlad Chiricheş

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

The sources that are cited and the actual text are not in accordance. The Romanian sport tabloids quote the owner George Becali saying he rejected the offer because "it was too early, and he doesn't understand why Tottenham is in a rush".

There are no sources to confirm that the deal was off because Tottenham wouldn't allow Vlad to play for Steaua in the Champions League. LaZ0r (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Volodymyr Viatrovych

• Volodymyr Viatrovych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 'Critique' section here was incredibly biased and peppered with original research and POV pushing. The article was reported to OTRS (ticket:2013073110012623), and rightly so. I removed the entire section and re-worded the intro as well, and invited the creator to discuss here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you throw this accusations without any reason. The section 'Critique' is not more "biased" than attitude of reliable experts on the field to Mr. Viatrovych: John-Paul Himka, Taras Kurylo, Per Anders Rudling, Grzegorz Motyka, Czesław Partacz, Andrzej Zięba, Franziska Bruder, all quoted in this article. I hope you are aware who they are. Contence of this section is not OR or POV - all of this are opinions of the experts about Mr. Viatrovych. I will quote some examples and I hope it will close the case. Please do not waste my work and time. GlaubePL (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The review examines the source base and methodology of Volodymyr Viatrovych’s book on the attitude of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists to the Jews. It shows that Viatrovych manages to exonerate the OUN of charges of antisemitism and complicity in the Holocaust only by employing a series of dubious procedures: rejecting sources that compromise the OUN, accepting uncritically censored sources emanating from émigré OUN circles, failing to recognize antisemitism in OUN texts, limiting the source base to official OUN proclamations and decisions, excluding Jewish memoirs, refusing to consider contextual and comparative factors, failing to consult German document collections, and ignoring the mass of historical monographs on his subject written in English and German. (Kurylo and Himka, Iak OUN…, p.265)

Viatrovych told an interviewer that UPA should not be condemned for killing civilians because it is hard to tell civilians apart from partisans. Such argumentation only continues the crimes. (Himka, Unwelcome…, p. 93)

Czołowymi falsyfikatorami tego nurtu są: Wołodymyr Serhijczuk, (…) Jarosław Caruk, (…) Wołodymyr Wiatrowycz i inni ze Lwowa, Tarnopola i Iwanofrankowska. [Translation: Main forgers of this stream are: Volodymyr Serhiichuk,… Iaroslav Tsaruk,… Volodymyr Viatrovych and others from Lviv, Tarnopil and Ivanofrankivsk] (Czesław Partacz, Przemilczane…, p. 154)

Wiatrowycz pisze pod z góry założoną tezę, odrzucając lub pomijając wszelkie argumenty i fakty, które do niej nie pasują…. „Drugą polsko-ukraińską wojnę” należy uznać za książkę zdecydowanie nieudaną: napisaną poniżej zdolności jej autora. Co gorsza, jest ona szkodliwa dla dialogu polsko-ukraińskiego… Zamiast… uprawiać solidną historiografię, postanowił napisać książkę z tezą… [Translation: Viatrovych writes under the presupposed thesis, rejecting or omitting all arguments and facts that don’t fit to it…. “Second Polish-Ukrainian War” should be considered as far abortive book: written below the capacities of the author. What is worse, it is harmful to the Polish-Ukrainian dialogue... Instead of practicing a reliable historiography, he decided to write a book with [presupposed] thesis…] (Ґжеґож МОТИКА, НЕВДАЛА КНИЖКА, Polish version: [48])

Перед нами работа: 1) невосприимчивая к достижениям других историографий; 2) выборочно использующая источники не для исторического познания, а с целью политической по¬лемики; 3) пресыщенная ОУНовской риторикой вместо аргументации по сути; 4) вторичная по концепции, поскольку она поверхностно прикры¬вает до боли известные схемы ОУНовской пропаганды; 5) обремененная враждебностью и историческими комплексами. [Translation: The work in front of us is: 1) resistant for achievements of other historiographies; 2) using the sources selectively, not to broaden the knowledge of history, but for the political polemic; 3) saturated with OUN’s rhetoric instead of essential arguments ; 4) secondary when it comes to the concept because it masks superficially painfully known patterns of OUN’s propaganda; 5) burdened with hostility and historical complexes.] (Анджей Земба, Мифологизированная..., p.404)

As an account on the OUN–UPA murder of the eastern Poles, this reviewer would not recommend Druha pol’s’ko-ukrains’ka viina [“Second Polish-Ukrainian War”] either to scientists, lecturers, or students. However, with a critical introduction Druha pol’s’ko-ukrains’ka viina could perhaps be used as an object of inquiry in a higher seminar on comparative far-right revisionism and obfuscation. Like Stavlennia OUN do ievreiv [“Attitude of OUN to the Jews”], it illustrates a culture of historical denial that, in combination with self-victimization, fuels the rise of the extreme right. Against the backdrop of current developments in Ukraine, it is disturbing reading. This reviewer strongly recommends this book to the TsDVR’s North American partners, particularly to the administrators at Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, which funded V’iatrovych’s research in the Lebed archives and helped make this book possible. They have good reason to ponder the implication of associating Harvard University with this sort of activism. Ukrainian studies have long struggled to draw the line between scholarship and ultranationalist activism. This book raises serious questions, not only of academic integrity but also of fundamental human rights. (Rudling, 379-380)

Individuals [i.a. Mr. Viatrovych] who position themselves outside a system of universal values and openly demonstrate this through their actions should be denied a platform in academic and other circumscribed forums where minimal standards prevail and are agreed to be requisite. (Franziska Bruder, Strasti za Banderoiu)

GlaubePL (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added many more critical opinions on Mr. Viatrovych on the talk page Talk:Volodymyr Viatrovych. I'm not going to paste it all here, so you can read it there.GlaubePL (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@GlaubePL: I am sorry you feel I'm "wasting" your time. I suggest you go through WP:BLP and WP:NPOV carefully, because your "criticism" of the subject is in breach of both those policies. You may add criticism of the subject, as long as it does not represent undue weight against the rest of the article, and it is written in a neutral tone, without soapboxing or synthesis. You may either tone it down, or it can be removed wholesale from the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am really helpless. You throw accusations without giving any specific example what is wrong, just linking to the Wiki rules. I know them. I cite reliable sources, reputable historians publishing in per-viewed journals like The Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies, Ab Imperio or Ukraina Moderna. The undue weight rule does not mention what you wrote. It simply requires that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and not minority. The section "Critique" represented the opinion of the experts, not minority or unreliable sources. Sorry, but it is you who violated the Wiki rules - you did the revert 2 times in one day. I cannot believe that Wiki (or some people on Wiki) could censore informations about Holocaust and other war crimes denier who violate human rights. GlaubePL (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@GlaubePL: "Undue weight" means, in a nutshell, that you can't have two paragraphs of biographical data followed by eleven thousand characters of wholly negative material. You added in your edit (towards the end) that Reviewers of Viatrovych` works point out its redundancy and limited – or no – scientific value. If your sources are so reliable and respected as to render that absolutely true, then why bother publicizing the man at all? I note you created the article, so it must have been with the explicit intention to write negatively about him, which is also against policy. And that includes calling the subject an "apologist" in the intro. Again, in order for the article to be balanced and within policy, you must either tone down your negativity, or balance it with positive coverage of the subject. Finally, the policy you (incorrectly) believe I breached is WP:3RR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed your comment above, so I answer only now: war crimes deniers are the object of inquiry, moreover Viatrovych one of the most known activists of Ukrainian historical policy. This is proven by numerous sources that I cited, so no doubt, he deserves the article in Wiki. And tell me why I cannot use the word "apologist" when it is used by the sources? Why should I give positive opinions on him? What if they hardly appear in the reliable sources?GlaubePL (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@GlaubePL. This version and criticism section use non-neutral language and clearly designed to disparage the subject of article. Moreover, this section is poorly organized. I do not understand what exactly and why he claims. How to fix it? First, make a separate section entitled "Historical views of Vyatrovich" (or something like this) and describe in neutral fashion what exactly his views are - without any criticism in this section. This section must be written from his (Viatrovych) position - he used some arguments and logic in his books to justify his position - describe his logic and argument. Then make second, "criticism" section to describe views of his opponents. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:FreeRangeFrog: You force me to reproduce Viatrovych's forgeries, the things that violate universal values and raise moral protests of the experts? (FYI: this sentence is not my OR or POV, they simply write so). You force me to repeat things that constitute crime in Poland? No, I will not do this. GlaubePL (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) (sorry, this comment was directed to User:My very best wishes, not to User:FreeRangeFrog.GlaubePL (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No one cares what constitutes crime in Poland. We only care what reliable sources tell and about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am helpless with you. The article was built on the best sources, articles of reputable historians published in per-viewed historical journals. You will not find better sources. I wonder how you can judge that I did OR and POV when apparently you haven't readt these articles. What you do is simply censorship. GlaubePL (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not censorship, but rather observing Wikipedia policies. No one is denying you can add well-sourced negative information to a biography, you just can't do it this way where the article is 90% negative and the criticism is tinged with your own views (and those of the sources) on the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• comment - Why do non English speakers also write in "broken" English? Trying to assume good faith here, but just curious. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

Is it appropriate to label Andrew Sullivan as a "self-described" conservative in the introduction to his article? There is no real doubt that he is a conservative. He is almost always described as conservative, he says he is conservative, he espouses conservative philosophies. There are some WP:FRINGE elements who deny he is a conservative because of his sexuality or some nice things he said about Obama or whatever, but we should not pretend there is any doubt that he is conservative outside of a small subset of a particular political party in a single country. I don't think it is appropriate to seed doubt regarding obvious descriptions. This issue can be covered later in the article if there are the sources to support this. Gamaliel (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been a matter of some discussion. In that Business Insider piece the author spends some time discussing conservatism and concludes that

I've never quite understood Sullivan's attachment to the term "conservative." It seems to me that conservatism is whatever ideology is shared by most of the people who call themselves conservatives — roughly, that taxes should be low and non-progressive; that the safety net should be strictly limited and particularly should not include a universal health care guarantee; that more financial risk should be shifted away from the government and toward individuals; that the government should promote some concept of "traditional morality."

I don't believe those things and neither does Sullivan, so I'm not a conservative and neither is he.

Broadly, Sullivan's sexuality has nothing to do with his conservatism or lack thereof. That hasn't been the focus of the "Sullivan isn't a conservative" public discussion. His shifting ideology evidenced by his positions on domestic and foreign policy have been the basis for his no longer being viewed as "conservative". Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He has been disowned entirely by the American right. The Atlantic news wire refers to him as a liberal. [49] Huffington Post describes him as a liberal as well. Sullivan Officially a Liberal Forbes describes him as one of the nation's top 25 liberals. Forbes' Top 25 Liberals The Daily Caller describes him as a liberal writer. [50] He has also stated that he can't take neoconservatism seriously.A False Premise Hard-right news organization The Blaze refers to him as "liberal blogger". Liberal Blogger Andrew Sullivan It is actually quite easy to find him described in articles as a liberal, not so a conservative. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think The Atlantic, Forbes, The Huffington Post, the Business Insider, and the Daily Caller are WP:FRINGE elements as you suggest. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I agreed that he was "disowned entirely" by the American right and not just the louder fringe elements, the American right does not represent worldwide conservatism. Gamaliel (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well...this is a biography of an American (originally from UK) so of course the definition must be and can only be that of the milleux of the subject. So when he says "I am a conservative" in the context of 21st century american politics it is judged in that context. He can't be judged against French conservatives or Russian liberals that is out of context. Furthermore it is RS from left, right and center describing him as "liberal" or "not conservative". Some refs of which I added above. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that he frequently writes about Michael Oakeshott and the like, his milieu is not limited to 2013 United States partisan politics. Cherry-picking a few sources from here or there is insufficient, and most of them are irrelevant anyway. (The Blaze?!) A Lexis-Nexis search will produce literally thousands of sources calling him conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion here: Talk:Andrew_Sullivan#Andrew_Sullivan_a_conservative.3F. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of his political positions to determine whether he is a conservative or not is OR. However, if many RS dispute Sullivan's self-characterization, it might be appropriate to label him "self-described" conservative (Though I personally think :identifies himself" as a conservative" sounds more neutral.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Luis_D._Ortiz

Luis_D._Ortiz This page has been consistently vandalized and was placed under semi protection some months ago. One of the same users who was consistently vandalizing the page has created an alias LuisDOrtegaand has started copying the same messages to the following pages:

Million_Dollar_Listing_New_York and Keller_Williams_Realty

Senencito (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In particular, there is a dispute at Luis D. Ortiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on how to cover the "controversies". Some specific issues:

• An interview with Ortiz is used as the only source for "controversies" about him using his father's credentials to obtain a loan and about him using "bait and switch" with rental listings. There are no secondary sources for either event, and the primary source obviously doesn't call these events controversial. Is that appropriate?
• A Bravo TV video, mirrored by the New York Post here, is used as the source for the statement that Ortiz claimed he and his twin brother faked IDs while in college. I cannot watch that video, possibly it's restricted to US viewers. US Weeky cites Ortiz as saying that only the brother, not Ortiz himself, faked IDs.

There have been rather obvious attempts to misrepresent sources at that page (see for example fake allegations of intended murder) and to engage in synthesis, so I'm very reluctant to trust a source I cannot watch. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we remove date of birth if subject requests it?

Moved to Talk:Tammy Duckworth § RfC on providing full date of birth

 – – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Tammy_Duckworth#RfC_on_providing_full_date_of_birth for discussion. The subject asked for DOB and mother's maiden name to be removed in 2007, and has again confirmed that she'd not like DOB published as of 2013. Others argue this is public information and should be there. Please weigh in. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, yes, remove it. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it Duckworth is the only one of the 535 Congressmen which are listed on Wikipedia requesting his/her birthday to be removed? Seeroftruth (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because the others don't care, or don't nkow they can request? I don't see how your question is relevant. There is no clause in the policy that states "if other people with the same job haven't requested removal, you should deny the subject's request."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Matter of record on her official biography, and for Wikipedia to be the only place not to mention it is ludicrous. She should start with having her official bios redacted first. [51], The date is in a huge number of reliable sources, and thus she should show us that she is serious about removing it from view on all of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if it was necessary to really dig to find it. Having been a victim of identity theft in 2000 cause I put date of birth of an apartment application in 1985, I know how annoying it can be to have to deal with it. However, if the date is all over the place and you are a high powered congress person who can get the FBI after identity thieves, I don't see that's a real concern. User:Carolmooredc 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Tammy Duckworth, her full date of birth is published in her official congressional bio [52] (which is one click from our page), so the request appears somewhat frivolous to me. To me it seems that WP:BLPPRIVACY should be restated more clearly, e.g. "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources. Dates published by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the publication can also be used. In the second case, if the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." We don't take out relevant information if it is reliably sourced, just because it is inconvenient to the subject. That would cause plenty of problems, from O. J. Simpson to Jay Bybee and from Robert Mugabe to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And I suspect that congress.gov had her consent to be sure ... else she should ask for her official bio to be redacted first. Collect (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would consider her congressional bio as a widely published secondary source for such basic facts, if she likes it or not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I normally argue that we should be "nice" and remove any PII if the subject requests it and there is no reliable secondary source for it. However in this case, the subject's age is actually a legal issue - Article one of the Constitution establishes that no one should serve in Congress who is under the age of 25. If by virtue of some miracle her official Congressional bio should suddenly be bereft of a birth date then sure, but that's not likely to happen any time soon. Her age became a constitutional issue the moment she ran for and was elected to the House of Representatives on behalf of the good people of Illinois, and the Wikipedia bio should rightfully reflect that. This is not an actress who wants to appear younger to get more roles or a relatively unknown person who has nine different birth dates across the internet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Only the date is proposed to be redacted, not the year, so your point is somewhat irrelevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not, my point is that the official website of the United States Congress publishes her full DOB, so should we. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove date of birth if subject requests it. This is a matter of policy, specifically WP:DOB: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... simply list the year." This goes for all cases, regardless of the persons position. That the US Congress publishes this information is irrelevant. Our policy is clear on the issue, and that policy is dictated by a consensus of the WP community, not by congress. If you don't like the BLP policy, feel free to begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Until that policy is changed, we simply list the year of birth if the subject requests removal of the exact date. –Wine Guy~Talk 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Roland De Wolk

Replacing legal threat posted here with a note that there has been a complaint of unspecified nature regarding the Roland De Wolk article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland De Wolk. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Walter Block etc; On adding WP:OR material

Request unclear

 – What article or diffs should we be looking at? – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a problem on a couple biographies (living and dead) of individuals inserting material from WP:RS that do not mention the individual at all challenging their intellectual viewpoints from the editor's alleged "mainstream" viewpoint. However, WP:No original research is mentioned repeatedly in WP:BLP because allowing such non-related debate could result in conflict and chaos on biographies, among other reasons. If this was allowed, any of us could run through all sorts of bios adding our favorite counter-quotes from our favorite WP:RS that don't mention the subject of the BLP.

This has been a problem in Jesus Huerta de Soto, Murray Rothbard and now someone is suggesting more of the same in Walter Block (even as that article's reliance on primary sources has not been fixed). I just wish we could get some BLP-oriented opinion on this topic here - or even make it more explicit in WP:BLP policy page; it would be a great relief. User:Carolmooredc 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see (above) that the instructions for adding a new thread say "To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:". What is the relevant article that you have in mind? Do you wish to discuss all three of these BLPs? (Indeed, do you wish to discuss BDPs as well?) – S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines on original research are clear and they apply to BLPs even more so because of the potential of injury - we as supposedly neutral editors cannot and should not, under any circumstance, attempt to introduce material (positive or negative) that advances our views on the subject, which is implied if the source(s) do not discuss the issue. "John Doe said X" followed by a counterpoint of "but Jane Doe said Y" better be about Jane Doe specifically discussing John Doe. The guidelines against soapboxing and NPOV also apply in these cases. It's a simple concept that many editors apparently are incapable of understanding or simply ignore because they can't find the sources they like, or because they're emotionally invested in the topic. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty obviously inappropriate. Can you identify these sections for us? I will gladly remove them from those articles. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FreeRangeFrog, all of what you say is true. We know we have guidelines & policies that we must follow. But how does this post help with any particular article? Or are there individual editors who should be discussed? Clarification from OP might help. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, and I have no visibility into any conflict between you and Carolmooredc or anyone else that might have prompted this post - she asked a general question about BLP policy and I provided a general answer. Discussion of BLP issues in general is within the purview of this noticeboard, but if anyone has concerns about a specific article then they can raise the issue specifically as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Block case, this was a proposal by an editor. This editor who works with another editor and, while I can't remember which one did it in Rothbard and de Soto, both support it. In any case, there has been so much drama regarding these editors elsewhere I will have to decline in mentioning their names. User:Carolmooredc 19:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Carol, this BLP post serves little purpose. Everyone knows that OR is banned on Wikipedia. The question is: Does OR actually occur in the Huerta de Soto and Rothbard articles? These are important questions, but posts need to feature specific content in order to answer them. Please reference the above policy on noticeboard postings. Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't go any further until specific content is identified. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I also kindly request, Gamaliel, that when Carol (per proper procedure) specifies specific passages, that those unnamed editors who do not believe OR occurred are able to state their case. I am more than open to be proven wrong in this instance, since it helps the encyclopedia if an error is corrected. Steeletrap (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are always welcome to discuss any matter here or on the article talk page. However, if I or another editor finds problematic material, since BLPs are involved generally policy demands we remove violating material first, discuss later. Material can always be restored to an article after discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alleged SYN on Jesus Huerta de Soto Since OP did not raise a specific question in her original post, and appears to be currently occupied, I don't mind detailing the situation regarding edits on at least one of the pages. S/he is encouraged to speak out if s/he believes I mischaracterized the situation in some respect.

It was noted on the page of Jesus Huerta de Soto, who is characterized on his entry as an economist of theAustrian School, that 1 Huerta de Soto has stated that only the (fringe) Austrian School of economics predicted the stagflation of the 1970s. (This statement is well-sourced and not objected to.) It was also noted that, 2, Milton Friedman a mainstream (Chicago School) libertarian economist, foretold the 1970s stagflation. The sourcing here is not objected to, but the inclusion of this fact is alleged to be WP:SYN.

It is not SYN, for, while fact 2 may discredit 1, this conclusion (that Huerta de Soto was wrong) is not drawn in the text. The text simply constitutes a set of two facts, side by side, with any inference drawn about how one bears on the other being that of the reader, not the text. It is to my mind no different than (to borrow an example from user:Stalwart111), citing the fact that Obama was really born in the United States on the BLP Donald Trump entry. Noting the fact of Obama's Hawaii birth, so long as it is noted neutrally and without commentary, does not constitute synthesis, even if it implies that Trump's assertion that Obama was born in Kenya was false. That inference is drawn by the reader, not by the text. Steeletrap (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: The difference is that this is a notable issue and lots of WP:RS will have written about what Trump said and the fact that Obama was born in the US. We have thousands of bios of far less notable people who have expressed opinions that no WP:RS have commented on. And everyone one of them will have SOMEONE who has commented on the same topic without mentioning the subject of the bio. Bios could become filled with a lot of material by people who do not want to see certain opinions expressed without debunking them, even if it is basically irrelevant to the biography of the individual which Wikipedia is trying to present. Can you spell "edit wars galore"?? User:Carolmooredc 03:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Context regarding walled garden. I argue that this information is not only not SYN (since no conclusion is explicitly stated or inference drawn regarding Huerta de Soto's position), but necessary for NPOV, per WP:Fringe. Huerta de Soto belongs to a fringe group of libertarian anarchist "Austrian" economists associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute; these economists reject the scientific method (statistics/econometrics and all forms of empiricism) applied to economics, and instead adopt a purely "deductive" approach which somehow always leads to the same conclusion for all Austrian economists (anarcho-capitalism). As uninvolved user Stalwart111 has observed, a number of these economists have formed a walled garden on Wikipedia, with their pages sourced only by other Mises scholars who, being their co-workers, typically only praiseful of their peers. This has led to a number of fringe scholars having misleading hagiographies for WP entries, a problem that User:SPECIFICO, User:Stalwart111, and myself have begun to address over the past three months. Steeletrap (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is a terrible example of WP:SYNTH. We shouldn't be disproving the statements of BLPs in such a manner, nor should we be cherry-picking statements out of primary sources. If it isn't important enough for a secondary source to document and/or disprove the statement, it isn't important enough for an encyclopedia. Allowing this sort of material allows the article to become a tempting target for detractors: cherry-pick a primary statement that makes the subject look bad, make him look worse by proving him wrong in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, thank you for your reply. I will take your remarks into account in future editing. However, can you explain why this is synthesis, but the hypothetical Trump example (presumably) would not be? I did not make either of the original edits, but I am also curious as to why you believe the primary source was cherry-picked? Steeletrap (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with User:Nil Einne's comments below and we should continue the discussion of that particular article there. In the case of Trump, there are abundant secondary sources describing his comments and their inaccuracies, so there should be no need for primary sources or synthesis. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Another day another noticeboard, ay? I'm here because I got pinged but most of what I have to say on the de Soto issue (which can be expanded to Block and others) has already been said - see this discussion, which went nowhere really. FRF's analysis is pretty spot on but I really think it depends on the context of what is being proposed, as per my Trump and flat Earth examples. My comments/queries there didn't receive much of a response from the OP but I'd still be interested in her opinion. Stalwart111 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's the same four editors arguing the same WP:RS/WP:OR/WP:BLP policy issues article after article, what else are you supposed to do? It's better than me losing my temper and saying slightly snotty things that get me taken to WP:ANI, end up in long discussions where other editors say even snottier things, and people are warned not to say snotty things or bring questionable accusations. Generally speaking the other option is notifying individuals who have pointed these policies out to problematic editors at various different articles where they've engaged in various questionable editing activities so they can explain them and revert problems; sometimes you need 6 people saying things 3 to 4 times and reverting things 2 or 3 times before some editors figure it out. And that's less stressful for me than have the same argument for the 8th or 15 or 25 time with the same editors on yet one more BLP. (And one wonders why I have quit watching most of them.) User:Carolmooredc 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a veiled rationalization for canvassing allies to a content dispute. If there is in fact a policy violation, the violation should be reported to the appropriate noticeboard, not "explained" by six different editors on a talk page content thread. If on the other hand it is a content dispute then the canvassing is verboten, even if those canvassed come over and (as editors often do) cite policy in defense of their preferred text. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me on going to noticeboards. That was my point, after all. {smiley|wink}} User:Carolmooredc 04:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifics on WP:OR synth for Block et al

Request unclear

 – This subsection deals with different, past edits to 4 different pages concerning both the quick & the dead. Too confusing. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus Huerta de Soto: This was brought to this noticeboard and ignored by editors in mid-June at the BLPN archive. It then was brought to WP:OR Noticeboard where a couple people, included Stalwart111, said it was ok to add a response from Milton Friedman, even if it doesn't mentionRothbard, because Friedman's so mainstream and Huerta de Soto is so fringe. Sounded crazy to me, but only opinion that came forth.
• Murray Rothbard: In this diff User:Steeltrap adds information that does not mention Rothbard but smears an associate of his who Rothbard agreed with on some aspects of historical revisionism. As I told the editor, there probably are WP:RS on Rothbard and this individual which it would be appropriate to use, but of course those academic sources won't drip with vitriol like the WP:OR ones used. (The editor also splits a Rothbard statement in two so it looks like Rothbard is replyng to these charges, two of which were made after he died.)
• Walter Block: When Steeletrap said at this diff s/he wanted to add to add material evidence that happens to contradict Block's views stated in the article, writing: "We can make this assertion without WWP:SYN by simply asserting the facts without drawing a connection to Block's views." Again, there's no attempt to find sources that might critique his actual views, just an editor's WP:OR attempt to counter them. User:Carolmooredc 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Per Carol's BLP notice and what I learned therein, I'm certainly inclined to tread carefuully on WP:SYN, which is evidently going to be enforced very stringently and technically. So don't "worry" about the Block piece , Carol,as I'll only be adding secondary sources. Given your strong positions on WP:SYN as well as regarding the use of secondary sources, I welcome you to join me and other editors in removing a whole host of primary-sourced or unsourced hagiographical material from all of these LvMI walled garden articles. We certainly have a lot of work ahead of us! Steeletrap (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Also please note that my "smear" consisted of a discussion of Barnes's documented Holocaut Denialism and support for Hitler's foreign policy from an Emory University historian, Deborah Lipstadt. I think SYN is particularly bizarre in this case since there is no clear conclusion implied (That Rothbard supported the work of a Holocaust Denier does not imply that he himself is a denier; this is the reader's OR). "Smear" also doesn't fit, since this is an RS description of Barnes that matches that of his Wikipedia page. Steeletrap (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• To be fair, Carol, that's not really what I suggested with regard to de Soto. What I suggested was that where he had made an obviously questionable claim and where many others had refuted that claim (even without having mentioned him) it might be permissible to include the "mainstream view". In the same way that President Obama responded to Donald Trump's silly claim without mentioning him (which is in Trump's article) or in the same way that we might respond to a "flat Earther" with a comment from NASA that doesn't necessary cite the person making the flat Earth claim. Stalwart111 08:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard not a living person Please refer that complaint to the proper forum, per WP Policy. Steeletrap (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out myself; by synth is synth whether its living or dead bio. User:Carolmooredc 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction on Rothbard please refer to this (4) latest diff on the Rothbard/"smear"/Barnes issue, from earlier tonight (as opposed to weeks-old version cited by Carol). That version, as opposed to that cited by Carol, is cited by secondary sources (with y primary sources only used to augment claims made in secondary sources.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[[Insert: Glad to see at least some secondary sources used (Rothbard biographer Raimondo). But still question in general the idea of sticking in partisan pro-Israeli WP:RS factoids that aren't relevant to a bio (living or dead) that doesn't mention the subject. "Rothbard liked Barns work (not possible Rothbard caveats mentioned and I'm sure I saw one or two relevant ones now have to go look for). Barnes was a big holocaust denier (but no mention of Rothbard)." Implication: Rothbard, a Jew, is a big holocaust denier. This is planted so the reader will assume it and it unnecessary and highly pov.

When secondary sources NOT mentioning the subject can be used to imply thing and then force editors to go looking for contrary evidence, it can lead to hours and hours of disruption, conflict, etc. That's why we're agin it... User:Carolmooredc 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment On the Jesús Huerta de Soto issie, the statement is either SYN or irrelevant to the article which is on Jesús Huerta not on Friendman nor on the 1970s economic problems nor on economic theories. Of course if so few sources have commented on Jesús Huerta's views then it suggested those views are not notable enough to mention in the article either. Remember we should focus on views discussed in reliable secondary sources, not on views random editors find interesting sourced from primary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, exactly right (the second part), and that's exactly the context in which it was discussed at OR/N. Stalwart111 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, when you have to spend time trying to defend from deletion comments by academics because the editors opine they are "nobodies" as here it can cut down the time for editing. Also, when editors have declared that any professor or economist who happens to know the person or have similar views to the person should not be used (unless of course they're critical of the subject) that also can cut down on the availabe refs - and on the energy available to look for more. Or make one so disgusted one quits the article and doesn't bother to find them, leaving the article to those who don't like the person very much.

The Soto statement about Austrians being the only ones to predict crises was initially sourced to the following secondary document: [53]

The famous Friedman prediction is also cited to a secondary source. Subsequently an editor added other instances of similar assertions by Soto, giving primary documents as the citations, for example: Soto repeated the assertion at an invited lecture at the London School of Economics [54]. So while the sources do not prove that mainstream economists or the world at large finds Soto's statements significant, they do seem to show that he shares them on important occasions when he has a wide audience. It's reasonable to conclude that they are a significant part of Soto's thinking. At any rate, they did not get into the article due to WP editors scouring Soto's life work searching for nonsense to mis-cast him as an ignoramus or a fool. However, Carol's oft-repeated canard about WP editors going through BLP's to "cherry pick" and intentionally misrepresent the views of fringe academics seems to have gained some traction among those who are not familiar with the details of each article. On the larger issues of notability and sources for these articles, I believe that Stalwart, EllenCT, LK and others have clearly identified the issues we face, even if there are no simple solutions. SPECIFICO talk 09:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant discussion was removed here. I only object to the Friedman line. SPECICO wants to use a ref where probably some grad student or whoever listens to a speech, takes notes and writes "Soto says only Austrians predicted so and so". But then you have two quotes from Soto, one saying Hayek/Mises were the only ones to predict 1929; another saying "Austrians predicted" stagflation. (No "only".) Yet SPECIFICO feels it is critical that we say that Friedman predicted stagflation too. Pure and irrelevant synth to counter what some unknown person thought they heard in a speech. Ridiculous. User:Carolmooredc 13:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The primary reason for the failure to reach consensus on many of these fringe articles is the literally hundreds of statements such as the preceding on the talk page. It fails WP:COMPETENCE in several respects. BTW, can you provide the diff wherein an editor argued for a section header "Hoppe advocates violence against gays" per [55] ? Arguing from vague, false or undocumented statements will quickly fragment and confuse any discussion of complex or contentious issues. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with some informal discussion on my talk page, this is not the place to bring it. This discussion is what I was referring to. Will put a diff there to may you happy. User:Carolmooredc 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, let's all keep prior conflicts off this page. It is for outside intervention, not another battleground between the same players. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I mistook that for a primary source. Regardless, it's little better than a press release and in my opinion not sufficient to hang an entire section on. He may be fond of repeating certain statements, but for us to take note of that would be original research and we must wait for secondary sources to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gamaliel. I agree with you that WP should not be stating editors' inference that Soto is fond of repeating certain statements, however I believe that his having included it in two of his most significant and prestigious public addresses does support its being mentioned as his view. I think we all agree that this article does need more secondary sources. They have so far been difficult to locate, particularly from sources or writers independent of Soto. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Again this is User:SPECIFICO using a perhaps inaccurate sources to give a WP:OR interpretation of two sentences: In 2009 he wrote, "It is not surprising that the only theorists to predict the Great Depression of 1929 were Austrians, namely Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek." and He also stated that Austrian School economists predicted the stagflation of the 1970s that followed the so-called oil crisis of 1973, as well as the "credit bubble" which he said began in 1996., claiming they are so fringe that we need a quote from Milton Friedman to debunk them.

Also, if Soto can't be commented upon by people who may have some tangential relation to him through one or more institutes does that mean that anyone who writes for Cato Institute or even more so anyone on the Faculty of the University of Chicago can't comment on any of their associates? Such an assertion was shot down by noninvolved editors at Talk Murray Rothbard, but here it pops up again at Huerta de Soto. Sigh... And people wonder why I have to keep coming to noticeboards to try to get eyes on these articles... User:Carolmooredc 23:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

But how many other claims has he repeated in his 'most significant and prestigious public addresses'? And how many other significant and prestigious has he been involved? BTW, I agree with Gamaliel that the first source (FA.ru), although secondary is barely better than a press release and not the sort of secondary source we should be aiming for. What we need are more mainstream news sources, or journal or review articles discussing his views. If these don't exist, perhaps we have to accept he's not particularly notable and although possibly notable enough for an article, his notability is low enough that our article is naturally going to be limited. (I would add if his most significant and prestigious public address have really received so little attention, this supports that idea.) incidentally, from what I can tell LK as per their comment on the talk page also thinks the view should be removed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't entered material I have or had time to search for more material because of the constant assault on these three articles and several more. When you put in perfectly decent material and people revert it and you have to spend hours arguing for it and going to noticeboards etc, 3-5 hours a day, it can get quite tedious. I got so frustrated and disgusted I had to take three weeks off. So just getting in a few decent bits of sourced material into the article (unless it's negative and derogatory) is difficult.

This example from the Rothbard article would not be any different if he was a living person, i.e., at this diff replacing info from Sage Publications, an academic publisher, as the framer of the issue with material from a source the editor dismissed as non-WP:RS just a few weeks before, as well as completely WP:OR info not mentioning Rothbard at all. See details Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Replacing_WP:RS_sourcing_with_personal_WP:OR at the talk page. That WP:OR will have to go to WP:ORN if an insufficient number of commenters besides the usual four editors pitch in. User:Carolmooredc 05:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned this was removed from the article. These are exactly the kinds of sources we should be using. Given that Rothbard is not a BLP we should continue this discussion there, as I'll be watchlisting that article, and I think other editors should be as well if that's the kind of thing that's going on over there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: Another editor put it back, but if attention wanes in a few days it probably will be removed again. It's a constant battle. A new section will elaborate below. User:Carolmooredc 04:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nil Eninne - I think you're correct that the FA.ru description of its own award ceremony, while factually accurate, is not as strong as a full press coverage of the speech with a competent reporter and editor evaluating the speech and reaction to the speech. On the other hand, like Don Rumsfeld, we work with what we have. The lack of strong sources for de Soto does raise the question of his notability and whether there should be an article about him at all. It's a close call in my opinion. It seems worth the effort to find sources and establish notability but it may turn out that, months from now, future editors will look at our best efforts and end up deleting the article, as was discussed earlier this year. FYI, regarding the Friedman bit: It was discussed at (excessive?) lenght on the article talk page, on BLPN, and on ORN here editor LK initially supported the Friedman bit an was one of the editors who re-inserted it in the article. Then, after an extended discussion in which a minority of editors continued to insist on removing Friedman, LK wrote what you apparently saw on the article talk page, that the entire matter -- prediction and Friedman was not important. At that point, I think it's fair to say that the consensus was indeed that it wasn't worth all the discussion. Anyway, back to the FA:ru -- one possibility is that we remove all the material about this honorary degree, the speech, and the prediction since none of it received any comment or coverage from independent sources. It's on Soto's CV but one could question, as you do regarding the speech, that it's OR to include it as an important part of Soto's narrative. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

At this diff a user already removed the whole section. I don't have a problem with a section on the topic if it is introduce by a credible WP:RS. Several Austrian economists have discussed his views at length and probably have something in there about them, so it shouldn't be that hard to find something if someone cares to look. User:Carolmooredc 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Block:Removing relevant WP:RS material

While the good news is the editor does not want to add the synth material any more, there are two examples of what I discussed above, removing positive WP:RS material which has been a chronic problem in all three articles:

• In this this diff User:SPECIFICO removes something positive Stossel says about Block’s book, but the edit summary only refers to the perhaps more debatable separately ref’d Stossel comment that one Fox Business news show was “inspired” by Block; it also was removed. I now have a much better, longer Stossel opinion piece praising Block. Not to mention a quote from the Harvard Political Review. Hopefully those will not be removed too.
• Material from his faculty page about his publication history and media appearance is challenged as primary source this section. I could use other sources that state the same thing (like a WP:RS book with a chapter by him), but most of them come from his faculty page anyway. Mises.org lists him as having more appearances. Aren’t such faculty pages, where one would think a professor would not inflate his resume, WP:RS any more?? Should these factoids be removed?? User:Carolmooredc 13:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to do more than a drive-by here, but I wanted to say that his faculty page is a perfectly acceptable source for non-controversial information like media appearances and publications. Gamaliel (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Block:Edit warring with controversy section for POV reasons

I quoted explicit policy on the Block talk page for why Steeletrap should not put back a subsection of "Viewpoints" that I had moved out of it's own a separate section a few days earlier as being POV in BLP. In true edit warring fashion Steeletrap did it anyway, again pushing his incredibly negative POV expressed at this diff the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview.

The purpose of this noticeboard is written above as: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Now obviously it usually is used for lesser purposes, but I don't think the sentiment should be lost: Don't turn Wikipedia into an outlet for every organization and activist pushing their agenda to smear people and destroy their reputations. Remember: WP:IS_NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" or for "Scandal mongering."

Yes, some of these economists have said stupid or deliberately provocative things to prove the point that economics is a hard science that should not be manipulated by politics; they hold politically incorrect or non-mainstream, non-Democratic/non-Republican Party, non-leftist/non-conservative views. Does that excuse using Wikipedia to push different agendas?

I don't know how this individual can be allowed to keep making the center of BLP after BLP these minor brouhahas or partisan criticisms while removing properly WP:RS information from mainstream or academic sources that make the individual look credible. (See talk pages of articles mentioned above or at Steeletrap's contributions page.) Should this user be banned from working on Austrian economics (and libertarian) BLPs? Perhaps an administrator watching will opine. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 04:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

Hey, BLP folks,

I posted about this Brett Kimberlin's page on the NPOV board in order that it receive a "NPOV check" but there doesn't seem to be a formal process to this. I don't like to cross-post but a editor there said it might be more of a matter of BLP than NPOV.

Here is the discussion so far

Basically, Kimberlin is part of one side of a tenacious, online political dispute that has raged on on blogs and on Twitter for close to 4 years now. It also involves lawsuits. Kimberlin committed a serious crime 40+ years ago and it seems like the slant of the article serves to prejudice anyone who would Google his name. I'm not pro- or con-, I'm just interested in fairness. Hopefully, BLP folks will have a better handle on how this is to be judged that those who have weighed in on NPOV. Thanks. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly he is incredibly notable for his bad acts, and not much else. There is very little sourcable information about him to flesh out a pseudo-biography. If he was only involved in one notable incident, he would be a prime candidate for WP:BLP1E, but he has been involved in many (And there is likely going to be another shortly). The unreliable blog accusations against him are beginning to bubble into the mainstream, now that he has been formally charged additional crimes. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This page is for BLP incidents or issues. What specifically is the blp article problem or issue you think needs to be addressed? Did you try to resolve it at talk? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors participating there, the BLP issue is accusations that Kimberlin likes his women indecently young. News accounts at the time of the bombings raise his relationship with Julia Scyphers granddaughter as a motivation for her murder and the bombings were a distraction/coverup for the crime. Kimberlin is currently going through a messy divorce and his wife's charged him with statutory rape in Maryland. The current Wikipedia article does not even note that he is married and has two children, which is a relatively innocuous edit that I have tried (and failed) to get included. So I think we have a real BLP issue on the one hand. How do you deal with pedophilia accusations on a cold case of murder where the BLP was the primary suspect but the only witness died before trial and again, during his divorce. It's currently legitimately out for lack of reliable sources but somebody's going to put together mainstream news report on this. You can't be the head of multiple nonprofits and have this hanging over your head without RS remark forever. At the same time, fear of the explosive nature of the issue is deforming the article in his own way. Right now, the closest the article talks about Kimberlin's sex life is his activism in favor of gay marriage. That doesn't leave a correct impression either. TMLutas (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You tried adding material to the article based on the unreliable right-wing weblog of Neo-Confederate Robert Stacy McCain, who has made something of a hobby the past year or so of using his blog to attack Kimberlin.[56] Your claim that the article is being "distorted" by Wikipedia's BLP policy is concern trolling nonsense. — goethean 23:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr Gay World 2013

This article is about a current event. Most of the references are to facebook and some of those references are used to support claims of orientation of living people of people living in countries where homosexuality is repressed (see for example LGBT rights in Burma, LGBT rights in India, etc). I'm not 100% sure of what's allowed here and what's not. I've previously removed material from Mr Gay World. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Is the "Dickinson School of Law" prior to merger with Penn State properly called a "it's a laughingstock, a non-existent institution" [57] as suggested in an edit summary which dissociates that school from Penn State of which it is now a part? I noted on the talk page that Wikipedia practice is not to make such a distinction where a merger has taken place (Carnegie-Mellon, Jackson College and Tufts, inter alia) and suggest that it should be identified as "now Penn State Law" as that is how Penn State itself refers to it on its official web site. Is it proper to imply that a living person attended a "laughingstock, a non-existent institution" in an edit summary, or is the edit summary per se a BLP violation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary referred to the (earlier) edit -- the idea that someone could have attended an institution during a period of time when the institution did not exist. I have no opinion on the institution itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"laughingstock" =/= "did not exist." GiantSnowman 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Klinton Spilsbury

This was brought to my attention offsite: it's a bio about an actor who was plucked from obscurity and thrust into a botched production, his only screen credit as far as anyone knows. The only sources are articles about the filming, and the biographical material about any other part of his life is quite minimal (basically, where he grew up and went to school). I'm thinking that this article should be merged into the article on the film, but I'm open to other suggestions. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klinton Spilsbury. --GRuban (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Shinzō Abe

THe "Return as Prime Minister" "Constitution Reformation" section needs to be revised, as it is heavily biased and includes many typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.33.129 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do-Ho Suh

This artist may be a fabrication, or at the very least the Fallen Star installation may have just been a prank. Can this be confirmed? Check http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/almost-factual-news/2011/nov/17/exclusive-ucsd-best-prank-ever/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.33.129 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné

Raven-Symoné (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would folks like to chime in about categories here and wording about the subjects possible coming out and revealing her sexuality after a long period of not wanting to comment or discuss such? For all intensive purposes, the subject has self identified without actually saying "I am gay". I know this has been covered before many times. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source has said that she has come out and announced her sexuality. Should that be sufficient? --Malerooster (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't listed any of those sources here. You should. I haven't found anything with enough specificity to support categorizing her.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "so happy gay marriage is legal so I can get married but I don't want to right now" (which seems to be the gist of what she said) is enough to categorize her. I don't believe she said explicitly that she is gay, so that fails the verifiability test and falls into gossip territory. I don't have a problem making note of her comment in the bio since it has obviously received some coverage, but I don't think it qualifies as "coming out" and thus cannot be used to categorize her. Let's brace for the "WELL OBVIOUSLY SHE IS GAY" edit warring though. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

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

Allegation of plagiarism has once again been added to Cassandra Clare despite semi protection. Furthermore it has been added in such a way as to appear to apply to her professionally published work, with a claim that her work is controversial, which is entirely misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.155.102 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Looks like this unsourced assertion was already removed.[58] This probably could've been handled at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the accusation of plagiarism because it was very poorly sourced to blogs. I also removed the same accusation from the City of Bones article for the same reason. Both instances were from the same editor, User:Rosemackie, who was doing this in late June. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. There is a long multi year history of edit warring on this. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz knows the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.155.102 (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young

Having a bit of a conflict over at Robert Clark Young, where we have five self-published sources acting as references for "other writers" discussing the User:Qworty controversy. Those links:

• Other writers soon added their commentaries about the situation.

All five of these are self-published for our purposes, and run afoul of BLP sourcing, but at lest one person disagrees. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As I'm explaining to Thargor Orlando, a "relative" newbie here, he's taking a few words from the policy out of context and then misapplying the policy. Whatever they might be, the sources aren't "self-published" according to policy.

Thargor is attempting to remove existing content by misapplying policy. Just because a source isn't as notable as the New York Times does it suddenly become "self-published".

I suggest that interested editors come and discuss this at the talk page, where this should be happening. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)