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.

Robert Kagan

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

User:Wixifixer, who is the subject of the article, is attempting to remove ethnicity information from this page. I've had conflicts with him in the past and would rather defer the case to other administrators. Owen (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Labelling people as Jewish etc. falls into the topic of WP:BLPCAT where unless the person self-identifies as Jewish, we do not do so. Collect (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the page in question, self-identification seems to be required for religion, but not for ethnicity. Or is this guideline given elsewhere? Owen (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the Robert Kagan article, the disputed statement was entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell ya what - look at the prior discussions about "Jewish" on all the noticeboards - and note that categorizing a person as "Jewish" invariably is viewed as contentious where no self-identification is made. Trying to assert that "Jewish" merely is an ethnicity has not flown here before, and is unlikely to fly now. Collect (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per Collect's argument - labeling persons without self-identification or other high quality sources is not acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see this is already here. Article has no sources regarding Kagan being Jewish; no mention of being Jewish at all. Agree with Collect. Must be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Jewishness, in the final analysis, is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are discussing is whether or not unsourced material should be removed from a WP:BLP. As we read at WP:V: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." I disagree with those who might say that this material is "contentious". It is merely unsourced. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussions all reached a different conclusion than that, however. Collect (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Any time the subject of an article indicates in good faith that they do not wish to be labelled with a given ethnicity, we should respect that. It's a matter of courtesy and logic before we even get round to considering WP policy. Same goes for religion and sexual orientation. (Caveat: I have no idea if Wikifixer actually is the article subject in this case, and I have done nothing to check). Formerip (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cannot somebody stop the Jew-labeling, about which the subject has complained since 2008 with more patience than anybody should expect. is a 19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Also, an editor currently appealing sanctions for repeatedly removing Jews from a list of indigenous peoples has plastered the talk page with his thoughts about the Kagan and alleged relations to "the Israeli lobby", alleged "double loyalty" (Israel and US), etc. Shouldn't such BLP violations be removed immediately? is a 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To benchmark the high standards for categorizing by religion, consider George Benson and whether or not he should be categorized as a Jehovah's Witness. He is not because we have yet no statement by him stating that he is a Jehovah's Witness---although we have statements praising the name of Jehovah and stating that he donates money to Watchtower Society, etc. is a 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The article again had problems with misrepresentation of sources, which were reliable but rather mediocre quality---a short book review/notice in Foreign Affairs and a profile in The Guardian. Nonetheless, these sources state that he is often called "neoconservative" but that he prefers to call himself "liberal and progressive". His books are concerned with liberal civilization and use a realistic perspective, rather than "neoconservative theology", in the words of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, I have classified him as a political realist and as an American social-liberal. The liberal category has 2 subcategories, classical and social: There seems to be no evidence that he is a classical liberal; in American politics, a progressive (liberal) is a social liberal. is a 10:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH. Stick to the sources, which by and large demonstrate that the mainstream reportage of Kagan characterizes him as a neoconservative.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH refers to edits made in articles (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research) - not to comments on noticeboards. So far you seem hell-benthighly interested on labelling Kagan as neoconservative when your sources should only be used for opinions cited as opinions - which I believe I have stated a number of times in a number of places about a number of people of all political persuasions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement addresses adding/deleting of categories to the article that are outside of the scope of this thread. The basis for that was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, apparently.

The "hell-bent" comment is out of line, because the issue related to how to characterize Kagan had been somewhat stable until recently, with the statements being attributed (as opinion) only under the "Ideas and Career" section of the article. It was not me that started deleting sourced material and adding/deleting categories without support in RS.

Though the sources are strong enough and plentiful enough to characterize him as a neoconservative, that was a compromise based on his shunning of the label. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is clear that it doesn't matter if he doesn't like the label as long as RS apply it to him, however.

The categorizations are unsupported and need to be restored to their previous status.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH apply only to articles, not to noticeboards or discussion pages of any ilk. "Highly interested" seems fair as you, indeed, added Frederick Kagan to the List of Neoconservatives, and reverted removal of the other names. [1], [2], [3]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You left out the part that Robert Kagan was removed along with Victoria Nuland. When I searched for more sources, I found two one for Frederick as well. And one of the sources is a recent scholarly source published by an academic press, and pertains to both Robert and Frederick, as mentioned in a thread below. I am of the opinion that all three individuals are described as neoconservatives in RS in a manner compliant with Wikipedia policy, as Mr.X has indicated as well.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And the others agree that opinions must be cited as opinions. I fear you missed that part. Also look at your "sources" for categorizing a person: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/ Neocons and the Ukraine Coup, Robert Parry,February 23, 2014 - self-published by the only employee of a non-profit. And opinion piece to boot. Your "source" for Nuland is http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4f13052-18ca-11e4-80da-00144feabdc0.html She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.. and you use it as a source to call her "neoconservative! Sorry - this is getting very old very fast. Collect (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (2009), published by the very reputable firm Anchor books, a division of Knopf, Doubleday, has 25 references to Robert Kagan as a leading neocon. In addition, in 2014 Heilbrunn wrote articles for the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html and Politico http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-neocon-surge-108021_Page2.html about the neoconservative phenomenon, featuring Robert Kagan front and center, accompanied by large photographs of same. So attempts to disassociate Kagan from the phenomenon he founded seem somewhat ludicrous, not to say futile, to put it kindly. Wikipedia should not be in the business of distorting the historical record. Leave that to the publicists and other interested parties. 108.54.227.81 (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

|}

Steven Emerson part 2

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

There has been some serious controversy at the Steven Emerson page over the following sentence:

Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia,

References

It appears that one group of users believes that because this sentence documents the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, it is a violation of WP:BLP. The most recent position against it posted above is as follows:

There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per WP:CRITS and Featured articles on persons like Barack Obama do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. Verifiability does not mean inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please advise. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

on a completely related note, the article itself has been locked until we get a consensus and both positions appear to be willing to listen to what you have to say on this matter. Input would be appreciated so that we could get the article unlocked and back to normalish operations. Thank you and Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The first and third sources appear to be reliable secondary sources which would support mentioning that Emerson has been criticized for his views and inaccurate statements about Muslims/Islam. The second source is a little weak, but somewhat supports the fact that Emerson has been criticized. I can't access the full text of the fourth source, but would note that it has been cited elsewhere [4] [5]. Generally, I don't agree with ChrisGualtieri's above statement. WP:NPOV would mandate that Emerson's biography acknowledge that his views on Islam have been criticized and discredited. It's not a fringe view and it is well-sourced, as far as I can tell. Comparison to Obama is not apt.- MrX 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also mentioned elsewhere that cherry-picking the Obama article is not apt as criticisms are present in articles spun off to keep the length of the main article manageable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This source adds perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs)

• The first source verges on WP:SYN, since it does not mention islamophobia. The second fails to identify who made the accusation - was it agenda-driven extremists? Some people will denounce as islamophobic anyone who dares to mention the association between militant Islam and terrorism (domestic and international). The quoted text also does not accuse him of fomenting islamophobia. You give no text extract for the third. The fourth has the same problem of WP:SYN. So on the face of ot none of the sources support the statement and two of them fall a long way short of even a direct accusation agaisnt him, let alone one of fomenting. If, after this much effort, you have not managed to find a single slam-dunk reliable independent source that openly and in as many words accuses him of fomenting islamophobia, then you had probably better drop it. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The first source, Guy? I'm confused - it specifically uses the adjective "Islamophobe" to describe Emerson. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The first source says "Congressman King cited Islamaphobes Steven Emerdon [the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh]...". No synth required. The author is making the assertion. The only thing that may be debatable here is the specific wording proposed by Coffeepusher. - MrX 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The text the source purports to support is: "Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia". It does not mention fomenting, and I don't see any such mention in the others either. The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial. You seem determined to go much further. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not determined to go anywhere. I'm not editing this article. I am curious though: Are there sources that state that "he has been accused of islamophobia by islamists"?- MrX 00:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- reading all the sources one would suggest the most encyclopedic claim to be ascribed to them following Wikipedia policies is:

Some people, including A, B and C, have called his positions Islamophobic in their opinion.

as covering the material without getting close to any BLP violation, and making clear that this is a matter of opinion which is then properly cited as opinion. I am sure any claim of a person being a (pejorative) is generally a matter of opinion rather than a statement of objective fact. Collect (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to be quite so jejune with our prose. We can simply state that "Distinguished professor of Islamic studies Carl W. Ernst, __credentialed person B__, and __credentialed person C__ has characterized Emerson as Islamaphobic, in part due to his discredited claims about Muslims." Or something along those lines.- MrX 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually - no. Wikipedia does not suggest adding honorifics and parenthetical praise about persons where the intent is to present a claim in any non-neutral manner. Or we could have, by your suggestion "Nobel prize winner A thinks George Gnarph is a Loon" We must present opinions as opinions, and not imply that a particular opinion is fact because a specific credential is shown. Also note that you seem to forget that "discredited claims about Muslims" is in itself opinion, and you appear to strongly state it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It was widely circulated that it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was quoted as identifying it has having the hallmarks - not being "Muslim". Muslim is not Islamic terrorism. For additional context on this please see this source (ctrl-f to Oklahoma if you wish) Emerson is not discredited but the man needs to stop being "in the moment" and making gaffs on TV - which is definitely accurate and certainly indisputable fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Attribution is best served by acknowledging the expertise of the person being attributed. Actually, at least some of Emerson's claims have been discredited. That is a documented fact.- MrX 21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would make sure that the source is the correct "discredited claim" in the first place. A strawman was made and attacked - Emerson was still wrong, but wrong for a different reason than the one the source provides. The best sources (1000+ words) all refer to it and provide context that these trivial mentions don't. Use Fear Inc. (in article already), Right Web, Middle East Quarterly, and Gale Research (HighBeam required). Each one of these sources are much longer, more detailed and more suitable to properly apply criticism and context than all four of the sources combined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked the "more suitable" RightWeb link you provided, and it says of Emerson right in the third sentence of their profile of him:

Although he has been repeatedly criticized for producing faulty analyses and having a distinctly anti-Islamic agenda, Emerson is a frequent guest commentator on news programs, particularly right-wing outlets like Fox News, and he has been invited to give testimony to Congress.

Should our article lead be worded similarly? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, Xenophrenic the Fear Inc. report by CAP is problematic because (1) CAP is a think tank not unlike Emerson's IPT, therefore COI and bias comes into play, (2) the report condemns Zudhi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy because he “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim-American organizations as subversive.” which is off the charts, [6] and (3) it is a self-published source, and BLP policy clearly states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person. It can be used as a "referred to" in the body of the article but doesn't pass the smell test to get past UNDUE to cite a contentious statement. Atsme☯^Consult 22:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) No. Being a 'think tank' does not disqualify use as a source, nor does being WP:BIASED. (2) You'll have to explain what "off the charts means. (And no, I will never click a link to the anti-Reliable Source frontpagemag.com, as I have weak virus protection enabled. (3) No. The Fear, Inc. report isn't self-published; it's published by the Center for American Progress. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fear Inc was a CAP report, and the fact you didn't know that ends this discussion. I consult you to read the information before you insist on its inclusion, particularly when you don't even know who wrote it or what it contains. VERIFIABILITY [7]. --Atsme☯^Consult 01:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Me: Fear, Inc. report isn't self-published; it's published by the Center for American Progress.

You: Fear Inc was a CAP report, and the fact you didn't know that...

I tell you the Fear, Inc. report is from CAP, and you immediately accuse me of not knowing that the Fear, Inc. report is from CAP? So, surely you jest. Reading is fundamental, Atsme. That's some weird Wikijitsu right there. If you wish to back out of a lost argument, just say so. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dividing this discussion into 2 parts is confusing and diluting. You could have simply performed an arbitrary break or hatted some of the discussion (repetition and irrelevant) so it would have been easily accessed. There is important information in Part 1 that should not be dismissed, including the reasons the sources that were used to add contentious material fail the RS test. Now I am reading suggestions that fictionally support a contentious label, so if that's the procedure now, how about this - hypothetical article in Breitbart about Muslim Professor A who was denounced by Jewish Rabi B who said Professor A teaches anti-Semitism and is trying to make Islam dominant over other religions at his university. Professor A also supported building a mosque at Ground Zero in the wake of 9-11 and was widely criticized for his views on Islamic terrorism. Next you find a book written by a Christian author who calls Muslim Professor A an anti-Christian because he supports Islam and denounces Christianity. You cite those two sources for the following statement in Wiki voice: Professor A has been widely criticized for being anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, and for fomenting Islamic terrorism. That isn't far from what has been proposed for Emerson which was clearly spurred on by his blunder about Birmingham. Have you seen the articles about PM Cameron's mistakes about Islam and Muslims? And while you're at it, read the following local news report dating back to 2009 - [8] Don't you think that article is a RS because it actually presents both sides of the issue without UNDUE. VERIFIABILITY. NO SYNTH. NPOV. BLP. The following 2nd paragraph for the lead is policy compliant:

Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.[3] Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged for inaccuracies, including a recent statement he made during a television interview wherein he incorrectly stated "there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in."[4][5][6] Emerson retracted his statement, and extended a public apology.[7]

Statements that Emerson's critics have referred to him as an Islamophobe should be interwoven in the article, WP:MOS, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and not included in the lead because it represents a minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. For example, you can use the Oklahoma bombing incident wherein Emerson (and lots of other news outlets) theorized it as having a Middle Eastern trait. That would be a good place to include criticism wherein Professor A, an expert in Islamic studies, referred to him as an "Islamophobe" (with the inline citation). Simple. Balanced. NPOV. Dispassionate tone. There are already criticisms in the Birmingham section. Readers will get the point. Thank you for taking the time to read my proposal. Atsme☯^Consult 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would steer clear of describing any living person as an anythingphobe in the lead of any Wikipedia article.- MrX 01:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to it on principle if that is what they are known for (to take an extreme example, Fred Phelps was known almost exclusively as a raving bigot), but int his case the claim relies on some rather obscure and obviously pro-Islamic sources that make an allegation of islamophobia, and that is then proposed to be presented in Wikipedia's voice as a statement that he has fomented islamophobia, which is not even in the sources. I don't have a lot of time for bigots, but we have to be fair and accurate. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JzG because what he said is verifiable. [9] page 25 under A Current Topic - UNC-CH has been the site of debate over Islam before. In 2002, it chose for its summer reading book a text about the Quran - Islam's holy book. The choice prompted lawsuits and some public outcry at what some felt was the university's attempt to indoctrinate students to the Muslim point of view. It relates to an AP article published March 14, 2011 in news observer.com, titled Imam's UNC talk to draw opposing voices by Eric Ferreri. A subsection titled One view of Abdul Rauf quotes Omid Safi, co-author of the book that contentiously labels Emerson an Islamophobe. Safi's quote states, Connecting Abdul Rauf and all of Islam to the 9/11 attacks is a vast, inaccurate misstep done to stoke fires and create division. Hmmm, sounds exactly like what he's doing by connecting Emerson to Islamophobia and calling him an Islamophobe which is also a "vast, inaccurate misstep done to stoke fires and create division." Just look what it has done to Emerson's BLP. Sorry, but the sources are biased, the support a fringe notion, and the contentious labels are unverifiable, UNDUE, and POV. Safi's own book cites sources that are equally as biased and/or partisan, and don't pass the smell test for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources which requires multiple mainstream sources. Atsme☯^Consult 19:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. X, but I also agree with JzG that there should not be objection to accurately describing Emerson in the lede if quality reliable sources convey that information. I do not agree, however, with the assertion made by JzG and Atsme that the reliable sources produced thus far are in any way "obscure", "obviously pro-Islamic" or "biased". And I say that after having carefully reviewed the cited sources, the AP story in NewsObserver.com and RightWeb.com piece linked just above, etc. As clearly demonstrated in part 1 of this discussion above, and in the related Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion on the same matter, the Cambridge University source is exactly the high quality reliable source required for factually stated descriptions of a living person. I remain open to hearing any substantive reasoning behind any claim to the contrary (something other than "Hmmm, sounds exactly like..." personal commentary, please). Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, it is a minority view, a biased slur, unsubstatianted, unverifiable, contentious, undue, and I could go on repeating the same reasons that I and numerous other editors have already provided. It's unsubstantiated defamatory name calling. For your convenience, I will again recite one of the sections in WP:VERIFIABILITY -

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Cherrypicking contentious labels from a single sentence in a book co-authored by a controversial paid advocate of Islamic studies for the purpose of denigrating a BLP is not policy compliant. I explained above how such criticism could be included in a BLP in order to be policy compliant. Atsme☯^Consult 06:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"For our convenience" -- priceless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

... and I could go on repeating the same reasons...

Please do. Start with just one, if you'd like. Unsupported bluster and hand-waving ≠ reason. I'm sure you can understand why I'm left scratching my head when you throw a volley of words like "unsubstantiated!" or "unverifiable!" after high-quality reliable sources have been produced, or "minority view!" when it is actually an assertion of fact that we are discussing. So please, could you point me to the actual reasoning behind your position (or briefly repeat it here)?

As for your recital of the fringe theory section of WP:V, the assertion of fact and the corresponding reliable sources are in 100% compliance with all four of those "Red flag" bullet-points. Do you disagree, and if so, specifically why? And just so we are on the same page, would you be so kind as to specify which author you refer to as "a controversial paid advocate of Islamic studies" (I see multiple books and several authors), and where I can review that description of him/her? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll repost what an admin explained to me over a very similar argument (me in your shoes) at RSN - I struck thru the reference to MEDRS because it doesn't apply here: A second misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) If you can't understand the explanations, and why two biased sources are not acceptable for hanging a contentious label on a BLP, or for inclusion in the lead because you and a few biased sources think it is justified, then perhaps someone else can do a better job explaining it. Atsme☯^Consult 19:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with xenophrenic on this one. Unless you can actually say why (and back up with evidence) a source shouldnt be used, if its passes as a reliable source it can be used. Placing of the info from the source within the article is another matter, but hand-wavy 'biased!' shouts are not good enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand your explanations if you don't give them, Atsme. I'm not a mind reader. I've checked both discussions above, and the Emerson Talk page, and the discussion at RS/N, and your assertions have come up completely unsupported. It is unfortunate that you have now decided to defer to other editors to explain your assertions for you. Perhaps they can also answer the direct questions recently asked of you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the issue is "fomenting Islamophobia" none of the four sources state this - it fails WP:V. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a valid argument for that specific wording (which appears to fail WP:SYNTH), but I never addressed that. My response was to the assertions that descriptions of Emerson's penchant for misinformation and anti-Islamic stance were not backed by high-quality reliable sources, which they are. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how they are high quality sources when none even provides a single argument and Emerson has had personally sued and been involved in the government's investigation and ruling against the largest entity? Context is a funny thing because there has never been an argument - an in fact strong evidence against - Emerson being Islamophobic or discredited when he has served on the US Congress committee, been an expert and source of information in federal cases - more specifically against CAIR. Emerson may make mistakes, but I do not see why we need to include false information as per Atsme's evidence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't and should not ignore the sources, per WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The ""fomenting Islamophobia" was my attempt to summarize the sources. Of course we can use a different wording and stay closer to the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Again with the "testified before Congress" thing (and no, he was never on a US Congressional Committee)? I hate to break it to you, but so have Seth Rogan and Steven Colbert. As I explained to you at the RSNoticeboard:

::@ChrisGualtieri: I just checked each of those linked URLs you provided; it appears you have seriously misunderstood that information when you concluded "Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress...". In reality, anyone can offer to appear or be called as a witness at a hearing by contacting a committee holding a relevant hearing, and Emerson wasn't "cited by the United States Congress", his statements were simply recorded in the Congressional Record as required by procedural law. He's not a "recognized expert by the United States Government"; he is simply whatever he claims to be, as the Committee asks him how he should be described in the record -- and much of the flowery descriptions of him in your links are word-for-word copies from his personal website profile. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you could provide for me a single diff to "false information as per Atsme's evidence", I would VERY much appreciate it. I asked Atsme for this information, but he's leaving it to other editors to provide it to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your insistence to include contentious material to discredit a BLP in the lead is what needs validation, not the validation already provided to you by several editors for why it is not policy compliant. Atsme☯^Consult 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Provided to me by several editors? Really? Then why is it so difficult for you to provide a link to just one? (That is my 4th request; still waiting.) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay on track and Atsme is grating on my patience. The "fomenting Islamophobia" is false because it is not in the source. Make a new discussion if you want to accuse someone of bigotry because these four sources that were used to support the statement in the lead failed V and thus became a BLP issue. Removal was warranted and three other editors agreed. Let's not change the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Staying on track: The "fomenting Islamophobia" verbiage may be synthesized from the cited sources, but those sources certainly do not convey that it is "false". As for Atsme "wanting to accuse someone of bigotry", I don't believe he has stated that he wants to do that, so I would suggest that you refrain from making comments about your fellow editor's motivations and stick to discussing article improvement. The BLP issue I've been commenting on is from the opening post in this section: It appears that one group of users believes that because this sentence documents the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, it is a violation of WP:BLP. — so I agree, let's not change the subject. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding: Atsme isn't calling Emerson a bigot or advocating that insertion - Atsme is against calling Emerson an Islamophobe using Wikipedia's voice and seems to be against even including such a claim in the first place. Atsme stands a different point than me on the matter. This section with this inclusion has consensus to not be used - another discussion on the accusations of Islamophobia has some significant push-back from multiple editors, but let's take things in stride and stay as narrow in scope on this contentious issue.

Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia.

has no consensus because it violates WP:V. Let's move to the next iteration, where I do support the attributed and in-context attribution of the prominent claims with actual supporting arguments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Easily fixable:

Emerson has been accused of being an Islamophobe, or as belonging to the Islamophobia movement,

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Women and video games

• Women and video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Electronic sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to two editors, my (proposed) edits of two articles might violates the biographies of living persons policies. Scarlett is mentioned as an example of a female gamer, and I would like to add that she is a transgender woman. In my opinion it's relevant given the context. The related discussion is here. Input is welcome. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that IP 82 wants to imply that Scarlett isn't a "regular female" and therefore has an unfair advantage when playing against women. Reliable sources do not state this, and they wouldn't state it because it's bunk. Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed Scarlett has any kind of "unfair advantage", nor did I imply this in any way. WP:GF please. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why she's mentioned at all. If she's notable, then perhaps there should be an article on her -- and then the name wouldn't be redlinked. As for saying "transgender", I think this would have to be significant as per a reliable source (not just mentioned in passing) (and perhaps a matter of self-identification as per WP:BLPCAT). I can imagine sources getting into the general issue -- it wouldn't surprise me if trans topics were indeed covered in analyses of sport/gaming. It's less obvious for video-games, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The proposed text seems awkward and inappropriate. I'm referring to: "Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett), a transgender,[103] first gained notoriety in the open qualifiers of IGN ProLeague 4". If we're going to mention this, seems wording it something like "Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett), a trans woman from Canada,[103] first gained notoriety...." would be less awkward than saying she's "a transgender". However, it's notable that the source used to cite that she's transgender says she does not self identify as a trans woman gamer and that in fact she thinks that her trans status is irrelevant to her gaming:[10]The response ot her success from the gaming world was was mixed. Many people celebrated her wins. But a loud minority of fans attacked her gender identity at every opportunity. Hostyn herself rarely talks about this aspect of her life, even going so far as to say it’s disrespectful to even acknowledge the fact in online encyclopedia entries about her. “I have always tried to make it a complete non-issue,” she wrote, “and including this [in my player page] is subverting that and akin to mentioning someone is the best gay/black/etc player; something that has absolutely no relevance on how they play.”.

Considering the subject's stance on this, I'm not sure we should include it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If Scarlett was born a man, then this is a simple fact. As I wrote before, this is all about context. Both the sections in question are about women and video games, not about gays or blacks in video games. And, on top of that, the text mentions Scarlett in comparison with males, not with for example heterosexuals. If the subject does not like the word "transgender" we can use something else, but the subject's stance does not change reality. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Born a man" is actually not a simple fact, just because one has certain genitals does not mean that there is not cause to believe that they were born with the brain of another gender. Sex and gender are complex issues with more than one way of looking at things. Which is why I don't see the likelihood of finding a comfortable solution here; the WP:BLP concerns are valid, but to simply say that here's this woman who did thus well competing against men or that well competing among women is to take a point of view that self-identification is the only lens through which gender can be legitimately viewed. There are certainly people who hold to that, and understandably so, but it is not a universal belief. If we're dealing with how well she did specifically in gendered realms, it's hard to say that complexities in the view of her gender do not matter to what we're saying. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this is a sensitive topic. All I wanted is for the articles to say something more than 'Scarlett as a woman who; the end'. But I don't care enough about this topic or Wikipedia to continue this discussion. Thanks for the input though. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I read everything here and at the Women and video games Talk page, also Googled her name and read a few articles about her that mention she's transgendered. The German Wikipedia article did not mention she's transgendered -- they discussed it on the Talk page. If this wasn't a sports thing or gender-competitive or an article about "Women in video games" it probably should not be mentioned. If she's not mentioned in the article, many readers may wonder why. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unbelievable that the German article does not mention she's a transgender - or however it should be formulated. Apparently we're so politically correct that we're too afraid to mention this about Scarlett. This is an encyclopedia, but if the subject prefers not to talk about it, neither should we. Got it. Anyway, as I mentioned above, I'm leaving this discussion. Thanks for the input though. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that there's an article about her Sasha Hostyn and the article mentions that she's a trans woman, I don't think it's necessary to say anything about her transition in the two articles in this BLP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article on the subject should be the only place it is covered and I think the neutral single sentence is all that is warranted. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Things were so much simpler in 2005. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me that the very fact that she has repeatedly said to several interviewers that she doesn't want her gender status discussed or associated with her gaming, but they've asked because either they, their editors or their audience felt it was relevant makes it noteable for an article on Sasha. The fact that she's being discussed in a section related to gender "Women in video games" makes it relevant. Also she does identify as MTF transgender

Okay, to stop all this speculation — it is true I am MtF transgender, and I kind of expected this reaction. I have never tried to bring attention to myself for anything other than my play, so I don't feel like this should be a big deal

— Sasha "Scarlet" Hoysten, Global Post 16 July 2012

Also note that the article the above is from is entitled Starcraft 2: Transgender gamer quietly wins, in more ways than one

I don't think it's a BLP violation to note something which is context relevant which the subject freely describes themselves as to the press in expectation of publication.SPACKlick (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And as a matter of concern here, on the BLP board - your suggested edit is also saying that the subject gained "notoriety", which is not a term you want to use unless it's really well sourced, and I don't think it's the term you mean. It doesn't mean just "famous", but famous in a bad way. The adjective form of notoriety isn't notable... it's notorious. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that's still true, certainly in EN-UK. The web gives me

noun, plural notorieties. 1. the state, quality, or character of being notorious or widely known: a craze for notoriety.

2. Chiefly British. a notorious or celebrated person.

— Dictionary.com

notorious [adjective]

1. Known widely and unfavorably: common, infamous.

2. Widely known and discussed: famed, famous, leading, popular, well-known.

— Roget's Heritage Thesaurus

The definition, in modern english, is quite distinct from Notorious which (i believe but am not certain) still holds almost entirely negative connotations.SPACKlick (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're saying that it is "quite distinct from Notorious" when both definitions you give include "notorious"; in any case, even if it has gotten loosened up, it is best avoided because it can reasonably be read as having the negative connotation, and when there are so many words to use without that (she could have gained fame, attention, notability.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they are distinct. Notoriety could come to mean mango without the definition of notorious changing one bit. By distinct I meant independent. Anyway, point being Notoriety as a good thing is almost as common as Notoriety for a bad thing. I agree there's no need to confuse the issue in this article which is why it was a small aside for future reference. SPACKlick (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why the fact she is transgender should be mentioned. The sentence which might be supposed to make it relevant in the Women and... article is "She is well known for being one of the few non-Korean players who can play at the same skill level as male Korean players", but this wording isn't supported by the source, which mentions that she has beaten a number of highly regarded Korean players, but does not specify their gender. Formerip (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it's in a gendered article. If dividing gamers by gender and sex is a relevant consideration then the specific gender/sex and gender/sex history of the individuals is relevant.SPACKlick (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't tell us that the Korean players were male, though. So it is an unsupported fact. It also doesn't appear to be an important fact, or else the source would mention it. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The sense I get from reading over the RSes, though, is that the only group for whom this is an issue are anonymous critics, trolls, and the transphobic. Obviously if a transgendered person is the target of this kind of criticism/abuse and it's reflected in the RSes then an argument can be made that it should be covered in the article on the person. But none of the sources are supporting the legitimacy of that line of criticism. Unless RSes can be furnished showing that this is actually an issue for eSports performance rather than just an issue for transphobic fans I think we should hold off on spreading it to articles that are only tangentially related to Hostyn herself. -Thibbs (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Among certain StarCraft fans, her being a transgender woman is shorthand for having an unfair advantage against other women competitors. It would be like updating List of African-American inventors and scientists with information about multiracial ancestry: it may be reliably sourced and factually true, but it's an insidious POV and (potentially) BLP issue. Woodroar (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it can be included but the sentences need to be rewritten so it expresses what is verified by the sources. Excerpts from The Daily Dot article [11] "But then there's the curious case of Sasha “Scarlett” Hostyn, one of the best players in the world, who breaks the mold completely. She’s a 20-year-old Canadian transgendered female with injury-prone wrists and a penchant for beating Koreans at their own game. Known alternatively as “Korean Kryptonite” and “The Queen of Blades,” she’s built up an enormous fanbase that rivals any StarCraft player in the world." and "Hostyn’s impressive StarCraft talent combined with her singular personal story as a pioneer make her one of the most important people in eSports today." Whether that is notable enough to be listed, or whether more RS are needed can be debated. E-sports Earnings mentions that Hostyn has played in the women's leagues.[12] -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced, its not a BLP violation. The mere fact of being transgender, though, is unlikely to be WP:DUE. Her statements against the importance of being transgender may be relevant to a page about gender in gaming, though. That would be for the talk page consensus to determine. Rhoark (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Is scoping an article like this allowed under BLP? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We have far too many such articles already and this is simply an example of people using a controversy of whatever weight and stretching it into a separate article. Most BLPs with such sections would be well-served by substantial surgery without anaesthesia, and most such sub-articles would be well-served by actual deletion. The problem is that some editors are so determined to make sure the encyclopedia clearly makes readers aware of the intrinsic evilness of the person (yes - this includes scores of political silly season "issues" which are, in my opinion, of nil encyclopedic value except for the fact that people can source them to what are invariably non-neutral sources) and Wikipedia seems entirely too tolerant of such. Collect (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? No. It's impossible to do that job without controversy, but paring down the trivial and leaving only the genuinely significant is what makes an article encyclopaedic rather than just a random collection of facts. There must be a Wikinews category we could link to that would serve the same purpose without immortalising every instance on which a newspaper wagged its finger at him. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not clearly-enough defined to answer the question posed. The question reads: "Is scoping an article like this allowed under BLP?" But what does "like this" mean? And what does WP:BLP have to say about whatever "like this" means? Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot legislate clue. Hence we don't try. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see it was just renamed. I would suggest a further title refinement to Public image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which would then be in line with generally accepted practice. See Perception of... vs. Public image of.... Tarc (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the existence of the article is a BLP issue. The old title may have been, but that's improved already. I do think its a PoV fork consisting of a mix of things that may belong on Ahmadinejad's main page, the pages of the controversies that are notable enough to have their own, or in the deletion pile. Rhoark (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Norah Vincent

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

I am the subject of this page. It contains information that in many cases--as in the second sentence about the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies--that is more than a decade out of date and not relevant to the work I currently do as a novelist. Many of the sources cited are likewise to articles that I wrote in some cases almost two decades ago, and which do not accurately reflect my current work. My two latest novels are not mentioned at all, for example. I would be happy to provide the relevant information, as well as information about my date and place of birth etc, which I did yesterday, but have since seen it removed. Please let me know to whom I should write regarding the removal or at the very least reprioritizing of this extremely old content. Many thanks.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.111.53 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You can post links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (usually books, newspapers, or magazine articles), that write about your current work, on the article talk page, Talk:Norah Vincent, and volunteer editors will add the information to the article. (If the sources are not online, you can give their names, issue dates, etc., and they will be perfectly acceptable, but they will be harder for the editors to get hold of.) --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) and Ross William Ulbricht

Silk Road (marketplace) is a Tor-based online marketplace known as a place for illegal exchanges (drugs and such). It was operated, at least for some period of time, by someone who went by the name Dread Pirate Roberts. Ross William Ulbricht was arrested and charged with being Dread Pirate Roberts. But he has not been found guilty.

A few minutes ago Ross William Ulbricht had his own article. It's a WP:CRIME notability issue, first of all, but a whole lot more importantly it seems like a crystal clear example of WP:BLPCRIME. In the past it has been redirected to either the Dread Pirate Roberts article or to Silk Road. I've restored the Silk Road redirect.

The Dread Pirate Roberts article, I noticed, likewise is predominantly about Ulbricht, whose name appears in most of the sentences throughout. I've redirected that one to Silk Road as well. (Notability for this one is more debatable, though I would say that even if DPR were found to be the subject of sufficient reliable sources beyond those about Silk Road, it would still make sense to incorporate it into the Silk Road article as there just wouldn't be enough WP:BLP-friendly material to construct an encyclopedia article without turning that article into an article about Silk Road).

But I digress. The real issue isn't notability, and that's why I'm posting here.

I see this has come up a few times before here, the first two without conclusion and the third apparently also resulting in a redirect. Bringing it up because my redirects were initially both reverted, and given the relative popularity of the subject and the articles' histories, I imagine they will be again, so I'd like to get others involved. I've also requested page protection for both. --— Rhododendrites <sup>talk</sup> \\ 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I have not addressed, and would suggest discussion of, the coverage of Ulbricht in the Silk Road (marketplace) article. --— Rhododendrites <sup>talk</sup> \\ 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your objects in regard to WP:CRIME. We should probably wait for the outcome of the trial to determine whether Ulbricht should have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. If he is convicted, however, I think he should have his own article. This is a fascinating case, one that has been covered in major newspapers and news outlets. Ulbricht is a fascinating figure. He started out as an idealist, got involved in libertarian ideas, and (if his prosecutors are correct) crossed the line into facilitating the buying and selling of drugs and guns on the so-called dark internet. There's going to be a movie about him, you can bank on it. I don't mind holding off till the end of the trial, but after that, I'd like to see him have his own article. People will look for information about him. Chisme (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this. The Ulbricht and Roberts pages have been protected as redirects, but the Silk Road (marketplace) article still talks an awful lot about Ulbricht. Additional perspectives on how to handle this per WP:BLPCRIME are requested. --— Rhododendrites <sup>talk</sup> \\ 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's going to talk about Ulbricht. He's its founder, and if the prosecutors at this trial are correct, its guiding hand as well. I really don't understand this desire to remove Ulbricht from Wikipedia. I still think he deserves his own entry, but I'll defer to you unless he is convicted, at which case, I believe, he genuinely requires an entry. Chisme (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's true that he's admitted involvement, and for that we can include him, but let's try to find any rational way to reconcile WP:BLPCRIME with statements like Ulbricht faces charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and attempting to kill six people. Prosecutors allege that Ulbricht paid $730,000 to others to commit the murders, although none of the murders actually occurred. We're connecting him with paying for assassinations in our Wikipedia article despite not having been convicted. --— Rhododendrites <sup>talk</sup> \\ 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Terry Carter

Terry Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone changed this actor/director's page to say he has died. There are reports in the news that a 55 year old man called Terry Carter was killed by someone called Suge Knight. But the actor/director is in his 80's, so it seems a case of mistaken identity on the part of some reporters. The identity of the dead man is not even confirmed by the police yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.184.35.181 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is a different Carter, since the most reliable sources I could find have definitively stated the victim's age as 55. Seems like a for sure case of mistaken identity by people editing the other Carter's page. Canuck<sup>89 (converse with me)</sup> 10:36, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

An IP has re-instated the edits at the Terry Carter article. More eyes please. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be that "Suge Knight", though. Not too many of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has Knight's lawyer saying it was indeed the old man. Or at least they say they do. Not sure where they rank on the reliability scale. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait. It's them recycling Entertainment Weekly. They're at least established. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to semi the article given the persistent re-adding of the death rumor. — east718 | talk | 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also the actor has posted on their Twitter that they're alive so I think that settles that haha. — east718 | talk | 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He only said the rumours were exaggerated. He didn't say he wasn't dead. But yeah, safe to assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Jill Soloway

There is no place on the Jill Soloway page to report an issue with made up quotes. The information is not necessarily defamatory, but it is bogus. The quote "The fact that this story [the TV show Transparent] happened for me in my personal life at the same time felt kind of divinely inspired and I felt very lucky." Does not appear in < http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/transparent-boss-reveals-moment-she-758426 > at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:2000:27A:B428:EE4E:7432:2363 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that quote in the video at the top of the article, starting at 2:32. Woodroar (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance

I posted this question at another Board. Namely, here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. At that Board, I was told to come here with my question. The question is as follows. I was on the Talk Page of an article (Talk:Tom Brady). Per an "Admin Help" Template request, an administrator told me that I should come to this page with my questions and concerns. There is an article (Tom Brady) that is being edited in a very POV manner (in my opinion). Editors on that page will not allow any mention (whatsoever) of the word "Deflategate" in that article. Even though Tom Brady is a central figure in that topic; Tom Brady himself held a press conference on that very topic; and the topic has a million reliable sources. One editor in particular, in my opinion, is editing in a POV manner and interpreting Wikipedia "rules" to his convenience (User:Calidum). He says that, per BLP, we cannot "infer guilt by association". And, on top of all that, he keeps deleting a post that I placed on that Talk Page. He has deleted my post about 3 or 4 times now. My post contains nothing but (A) factual information; and (B) my concerns for editing that specific article. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro. I looked at the page in question. There's consensus on that page that mentioning Tom Brady and Deflategate on the same page could imply guilt by association, and I agree with that. You were advised that unless there are reliable sources that link him to deflategate, we can't post it, that's true too. In short, I agree with that was said on that page. I realize Tom Brady looks bad, however, no matter how bad he may look, no matter how obvious it may be, without a reliable source, we can't imply, assert or make any claims of guilt (or innocence) without some reliable source saying so. The best we can do (which was also mentioned on the talk page ) is state that this person was mentioned in regard to the above incident. That's about it.

The only thing I disagree with was the non-admin closing the admin help request. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Without a reliable source directly accusing a identifiable living athlete of cheating, we will not accuse an identifiable living athlete of cheating. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above me. The addition of the link into the "see also" section is also extremely awkward, and I agree that it implies guilt by association. The most I think you can do is mention that he has been mentioned in conjunction with the controversy but this isn't particularly relevant to a biographical article. — east718 | talk | 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Who says that he has to be "accused" in order for the incident to be notable? If it's not related to him, and he's not linked to it, why would he hold a press conference on this very topic? He's linked to it in about 8 gazillion sources. His being accused has nothing to do with it. To claim that there is no link/association with Brady to Deflategate is incredibly naïve. And POV. Wow. Just wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering you have now brought this up in multiple venues and no one else seemingly agrees with you, it may be time to drop the stick and slowly walk away from the carcass. Continuing to dismiss others as naive or harboring some sort of bias isn't going help either. -- Calidum 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It was brought up in multiple places, because I was directed to multiple places. By administrators, no less. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you count that "no one" agrees with me? Did you bother to read the other comments on the Talk Page? Clearly, there are other editors (at least, two) who agree with me 100%. How exactly do you equate the number two with "no one"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see both sides of this, but I agree with the "don't include it" group. Yes, Brady was forced to address Deflategate, but the fact he talked about the subject doesn't make him related to the subject, or make Deflategate relevant to understanding Tom Brady. That may change when the investigation concludes -- even if Brady is exonerated, the exoneration may be appropriate to include in the article -- but for now, a clear tie between player and incident does not exist. Townlake (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what you just wrote? "Yes, Brady was forced to address Deflategate." And, then, "A clear tie between player and incident does not exist." So, purely randomly, out of the clear-blue-sky, Brady selected some random topic (with which he has no link whatsoever) to hold a press conference about? Oh, OK. Cuz that happens all the time. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm with everyone else now. You're not really interested in discussing this, you just want to argue. Have fun with that. Townlake (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see that your reasons are logical and intelligent and well-thought-out ... and not in any way driven by emotions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bessora

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

In October, I updated this page to contain the text "Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema, better known as Bessora" with a reference included. Recently, I have been contacted on my talk page by two users who I think at the same person asking for the removal of the redirect for Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema which I also added at the same time. I noticed that the text was removed by anonymous user about the same time. (I have raised that issue as a possible sock puppet issue). However, I don't want to get into an edit war over this issue so I though that it would be better to raise it here. If it should be better raised somewhere else, then please let me know and I will do that. I don't really want to bang heads with anyone on this but neither do I want to be bullied into submission. --Big_iron (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard McKenzie (actor)

Richard McKenzie (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Julius Rose T. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has made a substantial change to the page of former actor Richard McKenzie, claiming that he is alive and well.(diff) The edit is sourced, on the talkpage, to a neice. Can this be confirmed?--Auric talk 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There were also changes to the spouse and children fields that seem questionable. OTOH, there is an Asa Cefkin McKenzie, as this edit says: https://books.google.com/books?id=J0N0KZX1gT8C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq="Aza+Cefkin"+McKenzie

I can't find an obit at the moment -- all the sites showing the 2002 death seem to use user-generated content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I found a Google Book "Exit Laughing: How Humor Takes the Sting Out of Death" published in 2012 to which he contributed (see here). In the text, he talks about his wife Aza who was fathered by Samuel Cefkin. For some reason, Google seems to think that he's dead but I'm not sure how it determines that. Sounds like he might still be alive to me. --Big_iron (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Google is taking the word of the Internet Movie Database. It's probably true, as the IMDB is widely followed and I'm sure McKenzie or his friends and relatives would have changed that if it wasn't. However, IMDB utilizes user-generated data and we can't utilize it for material that is potentially defamatory like calling a living person dead. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Social Security Death Index shows a Richard McKenzie, born 7 June 1932, dying 30 December 2002, the same date given by the IMDB. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and if there is a problem, could show the source of the problem (i.e., that someone with the same, relatively common name, died. We've certainly gotten details of two similarly-named people mixed before. Should be cautious on this, as this week's Terry Carter incident shows. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just noting it as the probable source of the IMDB death date. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Neoconservativism - Victoria Nuland

I've found a reference to her in a book, so I will describe that reference before the news media pieces listed originally. I would imagine there are more, but hope that this suffices. The book is by Craig Unger, called The Fall of the House of Bush

As for Robert Kagan, his father, Donald, a Yale historian, and his brother, Frederick, a military historian at West Point and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are both highly visible neocon activists, and, in the Bush-Cheney administration, his neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, server as ambassador to Turkey and ambassador to NATO.[13]

Do the following sources support characterizing Nuland as a neoconservative?
In the Financial Times piece, the notable author protects his government source and doesn't name the former colleague in the Obama administration state department quoted.

In an administration so eager to correct the perceived errors of its predecessor, it might be surprising that Ms Nuland has emerged as its point person for dealing with Russia. She was Mr Cheney’s deputy national security adviser before moving to be ambassador to Nato. She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.

“I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table,” says a former colleague in the Obama administration state department. “But she is also one of the most talented people I have worked with in government.”US diplomat Victoria Nuland faces questions over strategyby Geoff Dyer

Here's another potential source Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.

Both Dyer and Parry are notable, as demonstrated by their Wikipedia articles. --Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 04:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

En passant mentions about a person have generally not been allowed for making claims about that living person. You need sources specifically addressing the person and not use of a single adjective in a single sentence. Also claims based on an anonymous source are problematic, and in this case it appears to be an opinion which must be cited as an opinion. You might get away with:

An anonymous person in the Obama administration said he thinks she is a "neocon".

but not more than that from the sources you give. Collect (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, what is your opinion of statement in the Unger source?--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 14:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unger gives an en passant mention - "his neocon wife" is insufficient to label the living person as a "neocon" as he says basically nothing about her. Collect (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"En passant"... Isn't that a move in the game of chess? What does that mean in English? And where is the relevant policy?--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 19:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Where a sentence in a book is the only sentence the book mentions a person, and the mention is only an adjective before the person's name without saying anything else about that person, the mention isn't worth a tinker's dam.[14],[15],[16],[17], [18] etc. Collect (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The website of the Brookings Institution at which Kagan is a fellow has this to say:

POLITICO Magazine released a list of the top 50 influential people in Washington, D.C., including Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, described as "the ultimate American power couple."

The article goes on to say that Nuland supports her husband's tough policies.

Nuland, overseeing European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, has been a strong advocate of the engaged approach her husband favors as a crisis with Russia has unfolded on her diplomatic turf this year. The point was made, rather sensationally, in February, when a leaked audio recording of her F-bomb-laden diatribe about the fecklessness of the European Union, which she accused of not exactly playing a constructive role trying to end the growing conflict in Ukraine, appeared on the Internet.

108.54.227.81 (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Kagan

A webpage called Right Web hosted on the Institute for Policy Studies website has been characterized as an "attack piece" and deleted from the article. The reason being, apparently because categorizes the subjects as "militarists" with the caption "Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy". It is a profile of Kagan presented by the think tank, and contains 24 citations, many to pieces from the NYT and WP, for example.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 05:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IPS may be considered to have specific points of view, (see [19]) thus best practice is to treat any remotely controversial claim as an opinion, and to seek out less pointed commentaries for claims of fact about a living person. "Militarist" does appear to be an opinion, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't have a problem recognizing that they are liberals with a liberal POV, and their opinion that Kagan is among those they consider to be militarists is implicit in him being listed on that webpage. On the other hand, the pieces themselves are tertiary compilations of RS pertaining to the activities and the like of those profiled there, and what I read of it contained no objectionable statements, and was a balanced coverage, including this

Despite his GOP bona fides, Kagan has studiously maintained a number of bipartisan affiliations. He has visited the Obama White House, for example, and helped establish a bipartisan civilian advisory board for Democratic Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[1] According to a July 2014 New York Times report, "Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute" and has "insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism." In fact, Kagan has even shied away from the "neoconservative" label, saying he prefers to be described as a "liberal interventionist." - See more at: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Kagan_Robert#sthash.14JUYGI7.dpuf

Accordingly, what specific grounds, if any, are there for excluding that reference? That it is construed to be an opinion piece because it classifies Kagan as a militarist?

The following single sentence is the entirety of the removed text, including refcites, with the reason being the assertion that this Right Web is an "attack site". Here is a link to the series of edits removing material and sources, and here is a link to the talk page discussion.

Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, before joining the Brookings Institution as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010.

References

It seems that the only reason for removing that site is to prevent people from having access to a good tertiary source, as I don't see anything objectionable in the sentence in which it is cited.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Read my post. Opinions must be cited as opinions. RightWeb is an opinion source per se. Your Brookings link seems dead right now. Yale Daily News is a student publication, and such have routinely found to be problematic for BLP claims in the past (the only claim relevant to "neoconservative" appears to be " While some friends call him an open-minded maverick, Washington, D.C. has labeled him a neo-conservative." which does not label Kagan a neoconservative in itself.) (also note the correct link is http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/10/27/robert-kagan-80-follows-father-but-forges-own-path/). So much for your apparent belief that the sentence must have sources labeling a person as "neo-conservative". Sorry -- fails. I told you what your source could support - cited as opinion to the source holding that opinion. Collect (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is nothing at all in the sentence citing the sources characterizing him as a neoconservative. The citations are for factual biographical details related to his employment history:

1. Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
2. before joining the Brookings Institution as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010

What is there to site as an opinion in that regard? Note that I did not add the material, just think that it's removal is substandard.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 16:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In which case the opinion sources are not needed at all -- do you understand that a valid Brookings cite is sufficient for the Brookings claim etc.? [20] (Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan, along with his wife Victoria Nuland, has been named one of POLITICO Magazine's top 50 influential people in Washington, DC fact source) The Carnegie cite is sufficient for the Carnegie claim. (Robert Kagan was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. fact source) And so on. Use sources which are fact based for facts, and editorial in nature for opinions cited properly as opinions when dealing with living persons. Simple. Collect (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How does that address the fact that the Right Web piece contains relevant factual information to support the sentence. Is the fact that this apparently neutral tertiary source shouldn't be used because it is on an opinionated website?

As I said, I didn't write the sentence or provide the sources, and the sentence is still there.

Meanwhile, the questionable sources such as the student newspaper weren't removed, but one that the editor didn't like was, even though it also contained the relevant information on the Brookings Institute, and two paragraphs of test related to Carnegie Endowment, which are based on these two sources

1. [15] Robert Kagan, "The Power and Weakness," Policy Review, June/July 2002, [21]
2. [16] Howard Zinn, "Of Paradise and Power," Zmag.org, February 9, 2004, [22]

--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a nuanced case, something that WP does not handle well. There are numerous high-quality sources that refer to Robert Kagan as a neoconservative yet Kagan himself rejects that label. I'd suggest something like "Kagan is often viewed as a neoconservative, a characterization that he rejects" (with appropriate sources added). Unfortunately I doubt the partisans on both sides would accept it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with just about any opinion cited as opinion - on anyone by anyone (other than where a crime is implied etc.) I do not like opinions placed in Wikipedia's voice, ever. Collect (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does that mean something like the sentence I put in quotes above would be OK? It's not saying "Robert Kagan is a neoconservative," full stop, in Wikipedia's voice, but rather "Kagan is often viewed as a neoconservative" (italics added only for the current discussion). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs) That is basically close to what the status quo has been, but the characterization has been removed from the lead and diluted down in the Ideas section of the article, as follows

Kagan was called "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" by Andrew J. Bacevich, when he reviewed Kagan's The Return of history and the end of dreams, a book that was in the realist tradition of Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr rather than neoconservativism;[16] Kagan calls himself a "liberal and a progressive" and rejects the label "neoconservative", a label with which he has been labeled on many internet sites.

Recent removal of material from the article, such as the total removal of Kagan's affiliation with Foreign Policy Initiative, has required that sources be looked into, as a result of which I've found one academic book published in 2014 (described in the following section on Frederick and Robert Kagan), which describes Robert and Fredereick Kagan as "well-known neoconservative activists" on p.73, and other books being discussed on the Neoconservatism talk page. I think that there is an ever growing preponderance of high-quality sources that characterize the Kagans as neoconservatives in no uncertain terms, so the mention of it should be integrated into the lead and strengthened in the article, while retaining the description of his shunning of the label, of course. The examination of sources is far from complete, but the recent additions so far are significant, and scholarly books are far more important than "internet sites", which tends to belittle the sourcing.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 07:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Targetted by Lyndon Larouche?

"Aren't Kagan and Nuland both political targets of the Larouche movement?" asked Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs), to which Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) replied, "Yep" in this discussion - in which Ubikwit showed up and supported Joe Bodacious (talk · contribs), who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs).

Please examine the talk pages and see that the same issues have been repeatedly raised and that the articles have been targetted by IPs attacking the living subjects. Does Wikipedia try to protect biographies of living persons subjected to campaigns by the followers of Lyndon Larouche? is a 18:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that I am associated with Lyndon LaRouche?--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 09:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit (talk · contribs) used "Lyndon LaRouche" in a sentence and seems to have nothing in common with Larouche-person Joe Bodacious other than interests in agreement about Kagan's family [23]. Otherwise, I have zero evidence of and negative interest in Ubikwit's associations.

As I stated above, IPs have been attacking Kagan and Nuland for some time, and their interests coincide with the Larouche-associates Joe Bodacious (talk · contribs) and User:Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs). There should be protection.

Frankly, I would suggest blanking, given the years of abuse and defamation on these pages. If not blanking, perhaps a banner of apology for defamation to each should be added? Or a banner explaining that Wikipedia cannot be bothered to stop obvious campaigns of defamation?

is a 14:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Neoconservatism - Frederick Kagan and Robert Kagan

I have found another reference on p. 73 to Frederick and Robert Kagan as a "well-known neoconservative activist" in a book published by an academic, Jeanne Morefiel, on Oxford University Press called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon

For the sake of argument, is the following statement reliable for characterizing Frederick Kagan as a neoconservative? The source is from Consortium News, Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.

The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan “surge” strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that “an important way station in my ‘pilgrim’s progress’ from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
“I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam’s palaces in Baghdad.”

--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Again an en passant mention of a person without any other claims whatsoever about the person is an exceedingly weak source for labelling that living person. First one is tossed.

Second one is from "consortiumnews.com" discussed at [24] where there was no clear result other than that it is Robert Parry's site. While "owned" by a corporation, he appears fully in charge and it appears to meet the Wikipedia usage of "self-published source". More interesting is that it is specifically one with a political point of view (Though the election of Barack Obama in 2008 showed that the Right’s propaganda machine is not all-powerful, it remains the most intimidating political force in the United States.)[25] and also appear to heavily entwine opinions into its articles. As such, at best is could be used for opinion cited as opinion.

More than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America’s approach to the world in a more peaceful direction. at the start of his article certainly appears to not be a piece of "simple fact journalism" alas. It is editorial in nature no matter how one looks at it.

So the most you could use is:

Robert Parry believes Frederick Kagan is "an important neocon" who was "a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan 'surge' strategies"

To use Gates from an opinion article is difficult - you would need to cite Gates directly here, and his statements appear a tad memoir-like for claims of fact, and says nothing whatsoever about Kagan being a "neocon". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem attributing Parry's statement, if that is the consensus, but his site, it should be pointed out, is a non-profit, with him as the editor and a contributor. He is a recipient of the Polk Award, and there are three other notable contributors to his news organization's publications, which I assume includes factual reporting as well as opinion pieces, including Norman Solomon, David Swanson, and Martin A. Lee.

More importantly, what is your opinion on the statement from the book by Jeanne Morefiel?--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

He is apparently the sole editor as such, primary writer, fact-checker and factotum. [26] shows precisely and exactly one single employee in the 2013 report. One employee. His writings for an organization of which he is the sole apparent employee = "self published". He did not receive the Polk Award for this personal publication. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• My comments pertain to this and the #Neoconservativism - Victoria Nuland section. The sourcing is adequate per WP:BLP and WP:RS, but I don't think we should label the subjects as neoconservative per WP:BLPSTYLE and for the same reasons we should avoid value-laden labels like right-wing, liberal, fascist, and so on. {Full disclosure: A year ago I would have supported some of these labels, but my views on WP:NPOV have evolved}. I do think that the articles might discuss how Kagan's and Nuland's political views have been described as neoconservative, provided that some supporting detail is included. Including the label without some context would not be advisable in my opinion.- MrX 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I fear I demur - opinions must be sourced and cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If the view that the subjects are neoconservatives is contested, then we should (not must) follow WP:YESPOV and attribute the views to the scholars who hold those views, or simply state that they are widespread views, if they are. Biased opinions should definitely be attributed, especially in a BLP. I don't know if that's the case here.- MrX 16:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

BLPSTYLE includes WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- that does not make any claim that opinions should be cited as facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the term means different things to different people, sources will disagree over who is a neoconservative. Originally it referred to a group of Socialists who decided to back Nixon. It now also refers to their followers, although how closely they need to follow the original neoconservatives is unclear. Hence a list of neoconservatives is inherently non-neutral, with the possible exception of the pioneers associated with its beginnings. So I would scrap it. TFD (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen anyone refer to neoconservatives in the first sense you mentioned, but the above book by Jeanne Morefiel, published b y an academic press in 2014 is recent, and not an "opinion piece". By the way, I didn't even note that the sentence describes both Frederick and Robert Kagan as "neoconservative activists". I suppose I'll have to add this to another thread on Robert Kagan? Or could we decide both here?--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 17:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, will you agree to stop hunting for "neoconservative" sources with which to label living persons (as in your Google searches, linked above), and instead agree firstly to seek out high quality reliable sources on the person, and try to summarize important information per WP:NPOV and WP:Due Weight?

So we have three pages now at this noticeboard dealing with the same problematic BLP behavior---restoring contested BLP claims without having gained consensus. This has been going on for some time. [27] Ubikwit, will you agree now that you have been wrong in restoring contested BlP-claims without having gained consensus first and that you agree not to repeat this behavior again?

Would you also agree to stop accusing editors of trolling and to remove the trolling notice on your user space? is a 17:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, the article says, "The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States during 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's." Morefield alludes to this when she says, "Kagan's vision was forged in the midst of the neoconservative rejection of identity politics in the 1960s." You might find it easier to edit this article if you first became familiar with the topic. TFD (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I plead no contest with respect to your assertions, but maintain that most layman, like me, associate neoconservativism with the Reagan era and beyond. It is likely that he enabled the first popular manifestation of the groundwork laid by his theoretical predecessors.

Meanwhile, you address an obscure aspect (an allusion) of Morefield's book, without addressing the point of this thread, and you cast aspersions at me regarding my competence. I will buy her book and read it, and I suggest that you do, too.-Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 18:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Since Morefield's book is not about neoconservatism, and merely makes several passing references to it, it is not a good source for figuring out what is most important about the subject. I don't care what most laymen think, and neoconservatives were active in Democratic Party politics long before they became Republicans - some are still Democrats. Unless you have a good overview of the topic, you will find it hard to determine what weight to give to different aspects. TFD (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "passing" about the reference(s) Morefield makes to neoconservatives. She calls the Kagan family neoconservative dynasty, basically. Please read the sentence, and/or, don't misrepresent the source. You may not be a layman, so to speak, but ir doesn't appear that you are an academic authority published by an academic press, either. And you WP:OR about Democrats and Republicans is irrelevant. What is your point? How does your point relate to the source under examination? Etc.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

1) the Parry cite is self-published (he is the author AND the editor who makes the decisions on what to publish. That is not allowed by BLP. 2) the Morefiel cite is a half-sentence sentence unsourced rumor that gives no evidence & no footnote and fails the RS test for Frederick Kagan. Calling FK "a well-known neoconservative activist" is false on its face--is "well-known" were true there would be many cites of actual activism: talks, papers, quotes in newspapers and magazines. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I repeat (though I'd rather not have to...), you are not in a position to challenge the statements made by Morefield, and published by Oxford University Press, without good reason, which you do not present.

There is not a political science student in the USA that would not identify the entire Kagan family as neoconservatives, just like Morefield does. Morefield's statement stands over and against any unfounded protestations because you refuse to listen.

Morefield is RS, you, on the other hand, are not.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 20:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A person who in her entire career wrote one half of one sentence on Frederick Kagan, with no footnote or reference to any activity or writing on Kagan's part, is not what we call a reliable source on Frederick Kagan. The problem is that opponents of neoconservatism like to invent allegations that people whose policies they do not like are really secret neoconservatives. As a BLP guidelines make clear, the person is really neoconservative there will be plenty of explicit reliable sources available. Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I haven't read the book, that is does not seem to be a fair representation of what is readily viewable on the google books link. The section is titled "Intellectual Climate", and it appears to provide a thoroughgoing enough analysis of the background of Fred and Robert's father and contemporaries and the influence that had on the entire family. The treatment is anything but superficial or off-handed, and one wouldn't expect it to be so.

And you have neglected to mention that the sentence addresses Robert Kagan as well, giving it even greater coherence.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is not a political science student in the USA that would not identify the entire Kagan family as neoconservatives, just like Morefield does. It is wondrous that you have omniscience on the topic as you indicated you did not even know the origin of the term in this discussion. Your perfect knowledge is not, alas, usable as a source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just stick to the sources then, shall we. That comment was made in reply to a dismissal of a statement by a scholar (Morefield) published by an academic press (Oxford U.) because she claimed something was "well-known", with which I agree, and have since produced numerous sources that support her statement (even though her statement stands on its own, regardless what WP editors say).

I've produced numerous high-quality sources that describe both Frederick and Robert Kagan as neoconservatives, including peer-reviewd scholarly sources published by academic presses as well as others by Pulitzer Prize recipients, etc.

Your response has been WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI, and inventing rationales for dismissing sources that have no basis in policy. You have not produced a single source that states Frederick Kagan is not a neoconservative, for example. You have not produced a single source that says that Robert Kagan is not a neoconservative, though it is acknowledged in the article that he shuns the characterization.--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 09:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Here is a summary of findings from the first three relevant books, all by notable authors, including a Pulitzer winner, a former diplomat and academic, and three professors:

1. In The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War p.233, Fred Kaplan, recipient of the Pulitzer prize states,

   Fred Kagan …was now ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington’s most prominent neocon think tank… Now it would be through Kagan that AEI emerged as the nexus joining the neocon movement and COIN.

2. In The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End p.232 Peter W. Galbraith states,

   In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy was the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who had never been to Iraq.

3. In The Culture of Immodesty in American Life and Politics: The Modest Republic (2013)[28] edited by professors Michael P. Federici, Richard M Gambl, and Mark T Mitchell, Claes G. Ryn states

   The more prominent neoconservatives include… Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan…

   --Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 10:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And you seem not to have noticed the preceding sentence "a designation that can be shown to be rather paradoxical." Sorry -- quote mining seems not to recognize that we should start with substantive works dealing with a specific claim, and not insert sources which use a word in passing only where the result is misleading at best. Collect (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you try reading the text before making obviously erroneous assertions about other editors. Or perhaps I misunderstand you? What exactly is it that you are insinuating?

Insofar as "quote mining" pertains to taking statements out of context, it is you that is guilty, not me.

The reference to "paradoxical" has to do with the neocon movement's ideologcal orientation toward what Ryn refers to as "neo-Jacobinism", which he contrasts to "traditionally conservative concerns" and the moral-spiritual and political heritage that gave shape to the Constitution".

His list of specific individuals in the "neocon movement" that he considers to be "prominent neoconservatives" is not negated in any way by his pointing out there are apparent contradiction to Americans espousing neo-Jacobinism calling themselves "neoconservative", because he asserts that Jacobinism is contrary to traditional American conservatism.

But don't take my word for it, here is a quote from his article in Wikipedia with sources, not to mention the googlebooks chapter linked to above.

He[Ryn] has developed a philosophy known as value-centered historicism, which demonstrates the potential union of universality and historical particularity. In political theory he has been a sharp critic of Straussian anti-historical thinking and so-called neoconservatism. He has argued that in essential ways neoconservatism resembles the ideology of the French Jacobins and is neo-Jacobin.

Once more, that is from the Wikipedia article on the author of the bolded quote above, Claes G. Ryn.
--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an absolutely powerful source of the utmost reliability. Thanks for citing it. Collect (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone has added a reflist section, so you can check the sources for the cited Wikipedia article passage.
--Ubikwit <sup>連絡</sup> <sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 15:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more sources, one academic published by Routledge.

1. Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motivesp. 61 Avner Falk states

   Before the “surge” in the U.S. war in Iraq, American neoconservatives such as…the “military analyst” Frederick Kagan had been pushing for a surge for years…

2. Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia Note no. 3 Associate professor Vedi R. Hadiz states

   …another leading neoconservative, Robert Kagan, is a leading scholar of the Roman Empire at Yale University. His brother, Frederick, is also regarded as a leading neoconservative historian.

References

Liliane Bettencourt

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

A link to his persons biography in Wikipedia was in a pfshing email I got supposedly from this person. Please check to see if its a real person. Its the bio that was last updated on 1-30-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.69.47 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bettencourt is one of the principal shareholders of L'Oréal. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ANDREW GEORGE Politician

Andrew George (politician)

I liaised with HJ Mitchell in 2011 to have the defamatory,false and unencyclopaedic material concerning the MPs' expense account of Mr George removed. This matter was dealt with by the Commons Committee in question and Mr George was completely exonerated.

It is really politically-motivated spite, referencing -badly- only the inaccurate claims of the Telegraph about Mr George during the run-up to the 2010 general election. It is likewise being given another airing just before the 2015 election.

I hope you can have it removed again.

Many thanks

Graham Kerridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.158.224 (talk) 09:30 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the material as it seems WP:UNDUE based on the sparse sourcing.- MrX 13:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Rachel McCarthy

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

A google search for Rachel McCarthy shows an incorrect photo of McCarthy in the 'pop-out' wikipedia box (i.e. not the one on the wikipedia page for Rachel McCarthy, but of another person also called Rachel McCarthy). This needs to be changed, but I am not sure how to. It is a violation of biography in that it depicts an incorrect subject. The photo on the main wikipedia page for McCarthy is correct and should appear in web browser pop out boxes.

The Google bio window derives info from a variety of sources. Nothing we can do at our end. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Joan McAlpine

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

The user "Enlightened editor" insists on adding the line in the introduction of this article that "She has also been involved in several controversies". This is currently supported by a series of references to supposed "controversies", but does not directly support the assertion. I believe this is original research per WP:SYNTH. I have reverted the user a number of times, which I understand does not violate WP:3RR because of the BLP exception, but I do not wish to carry on doing this indefinitely. Thanks for your attention. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it (and warned the editor for 3RR). But it's not a BLP violation, and you'd run risk of being blocked for >3RR yourself if you did more reverts yourself. Any editor on a BLP believes they are doing what's best for the article, so you need to be careful in taking the view that only you are right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

Somalis in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been claimed at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom#Somali Education that BLP applies to this article (in relation to the use of an editorial as a source). I've not edited much lately so am a bit out of touch. Can I get views on WP:BLPGROUP in relation to this article? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, the debate is about whether using this Economist article to describe the educational performance of Somalis in the UK is compatible with the BLP policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Vinay Maloo

Vinay Maloo hi i want to get some defamatory ref links removed from this article. below are those links

Jump up ^ "Cover story: Is HFCL For Real? [Pg. 2]". Business today.
Jump up ^ "HFCL's Nahata and Maloo may part ways". Economic Times. 22 August 2006. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
Jump up ^ "Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd". The Times of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsuraj (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added line breaks to your comment to make it easier to read--220 of <sup>Borg</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Devilsuraj: I note that you have removed some references already, here, however you have not used edit summaries to say why. Please explain how the sources are defamatory? There also seems to have been some possible edit warring over references and the "controversy" on this page. --220 of <sup>Borg</sup> 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have restored 2 sources you removed here here. As per my edit summary they don't seem 'defamatory'. --220 of <sup>Borg</sup> 10:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sergey Zonenko

A new editor has created the article Sergey Zonenko, making all sort of extraordinary claims about him discovering a new law of physics, marching on the front lines of a protest in Moscow alongside famous scientists, getting chased out of the country by the police, etc. The references given don't support the claims. They may well be true, but are likely to be difficult to WP:VERIFY per WP:BLP, and the editor who created the article has repeatedly reverted my additions of maintenance tags, and seems uninterested in dialogue about it. I'd be glad of some help with this so I don't breach WP:3RR: if WP:RS can't be found then we need to delete some of what's written there, which includes potentially libellous claims about living people. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

False Image with link

Hello,

Sorry - i am new to this so please forgive my ignorance.

The image which appears on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Emmett in the google search results in the top right hand corner of the wikipedia results is not the Simon Emmet that this page reflects.

We don't know if this person has sabotaged the page or not but please could you advise how we remove this image with a link to http://www.simonemmettphotography.com as it is completely false and is undermining the credibility of the real Simon Emmett.

How has this person been able to insert this in the first place ? and please could you advise how i get to these images in future without bothering an administrator ? Is this possible ?

The real simon emmett that this page reflects can be found at www.simonemmett.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by THENUTS123 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy

Are these edits proper? [29] [30]

The entire purpose of these edits is to re-add the name of a living person (at great length) about whom the article was previously named. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy seems clear that the article is to be about the university and not about the living person herself and her deeds.

As no allegations of wrong-doing are made about the person, I find such stress to be improper per WP:BLP and the requirement that allegations be strongly sourced. Here the person appears to be the side issue at most and stressing her name appears improper and violative of our stated responsibility to be careful where we can harm living persons. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC) .

Collect imagines that he is closing the AfD; thankfully this isn't how it will go. Removing all mention of this episode from Bresch's biography is bizarre (given the volume of sources devoted to it) and not in keeping with normal practice here; likewise with removing her name from the article on the MBA affair. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the article was specifically renamed to remove the person's name. I suggest there is a reasonable inference that all those who supported a merge or rename did not assert that we should make sure we show Bresh's "complicity" in the affair. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Why the heck did someone add "a person" and "the person"? We're writing an encyclopedia not a mystery novel!- MrX 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Except the university officials at fault, that created the real scandal are not named in the lead, which leads one to conclude her name is not necessary there either. It may go on the body, until this article is merged as a POVFork and its all covered in the appropriate university articles and in the individual BLPs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If our sources name the university officials, we can add them to the article. If not, we have no choice but to generalize. The absence of some names does not justify suppressing the name of the person around which the controversy is centered.- MrX 14:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

They are in the body of article, and your suppression claim is absurd. Perhaps you did not read what I wrote about the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Garrison's name added. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note [31] the claim by an editor that Bresch was "complicit" in the affair. I suggest that anyone trying to assert "complicity" is violating WP:BLP on its face.

Profile stories on Bresch in Barron's and a local magazine both include the incident and in both source articles Bresch is the subject of the article. However, the controversy will have less emphasis when the rest of the article is filled out and if it follows WP:CRITICISMS by not having a dedicated section. As a minor copyediting item, some of the mentions of Bresch could be replaced with "her", but I find each mention of her in the controversy article to be needed, since the controversy is about her degree. I don't think allegations that Nomoskedasticity violated BLP on the Talk page are substantiated, as it appears to be a productive part of discussing the article and not trolling or attacking the BLP. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)