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.

Michael Ratner Template:Blpwatch-links

• Michael Ratner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A new editor has a remarkable interest in the real estate dealings of the subject of this article's brother, and wants to source claims of some kind of questionable financial dealings to their research into government records. Jkelly 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibes like "remarkable interest" and "wants to source claims of some kind ... to their research" are unnecessary, borderline-uncivil, and misrepresent the situation. Mywikieditor2007 (talk · contribs) is probably right about both the information and the references—they don't concern only the brother.

This dispute is a symptom of the larger problem: the article uncritically heroises its subject and is sorely lacking the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Athænara ✉ 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts on the matter:

• The article as it stands now is overwhelmingly uncritical. It frankly reads as if it were hosted by a left wing qua progressive website, not by an encyclopedia. That needs to change.

• In the context in which the subject's politics and activities have been presented in a non-neutral fashion, the subject's campaign donations in support of his brother's project(s) in a borough where the subject does not live are particularly pertinent.

• Wikipedia is a collaborative effort of contributors with varying skillsets to produce an encyclopedia. In this instance, the deliberate lack of cooperation with an inexperienced editor, by an experienced editor who is also an administrator, threatens to hinder attainment of organizational goals. — Athænara ✉ 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Colin Angus (explorer) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Colin Angus (explorer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A contributor is repeatedly adding the same libelous and unsubstantiated information to the biography of expeditioner Colin Angus. A warning has been issued, and changes made, however, the offender continues posting the same negative messages from different IP addresses. There is no information on or off the internet that supports these allegations."Kingfisher2"   — 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Kingfisher2 above, there is no libel issue. The content of which the report complained was encyclopedic, referenced and linked as per normal Wikipedian practice:

Feb 07 - Bayscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Feb 07 - 139.142.99.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Feb 07 - 139.142.113.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Feb 07 - 24.108.204.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mar 07 - 139.142.98.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

By comparison, the following edits (including Kingfisher2's) were less encyclopedic:

(1) Jul 2006 - Yeniseyriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Created the original stub.)

Note: What the BLP subject calls the Yenisey River is the Yenisei River, the site of one of his expeditions.

(2) Aug 2006 - 216.232.2.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Added the bulk of the content of the article.)

(3) Nov 2006 - 24.80.176.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Added "best friend" and his website.)

(4) Nov 2006 - Salsa29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Added—see 24.80.176.70 above—"who was the real brains behind the operation.")

(5) Feb 2007 - 70.66.194.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Added links to subject's own website to other articles, warned to stop.)

Note: It is a commercial website: store speakers tours

Note: While the subject's own website can legitimately be included in the BLP article's external links section, it cannot support the removal of encyclopedic material.

(6) Feb 2007 - Kingfisher2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Added subject's own website as reference for "circumnavigation of the planet" claim.)

(Added vandalism warning, normally used on user talk pages, to article.)

(7) Feb 2007 - Freddy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Again added subject's own website as reference.)

(8) Mar 2007 - Mustang13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Removed encyclopedic content.)

(Again added subject's own website as reference.)

(Again—see Kingfisher2—added vandalism warning to article.)

Two are what might be termed COI anti-SOCKs (see 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) post below)

(9) Mar 2007 - Harveyjt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Uploaded image of subject, experimented several times with placement in article.)

(Removed image from article next day.)

(10) Mar 2007 - Galiano kayaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Blanked article talk page.)

If, as seems likely, the subject and/or one or more of his colleagues have been editing the article in disguise, then conflict of interest and sock puppetry issues are involved which must be addressed appropriately. If, however, COI/sock editing ceases and the article is allowed to develop normally with the input of other editors, then taking the matter to COI and sock puppet noticeboards as well won't be necessary. — Athænara ✉ 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restored article talk page. Added tenth COI SOCK to list. — Æ. ✉ 06:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• A more recent post on the article talk page indicates that two of these (9 and 10) are COI anti-SOCKs, so to speak. Confusing. What's needed is editing from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Æ. ✉ 09:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes Template:Blpwatch-links

Source: Talk:Daniel Pipes The recent archiving of the talk page of this article has made the editing content dispute unclear. There are still problems with lack of balance and lack of full citations in this controversial article on a living person; earlier tags placed by editors alerting other users of this encyclopedia to problems of this kind were continually being reverted by some users and even administrators, making it difficult for Wikipedia users to be referred to the talk page for discussion. Then an administrator placed current discussion in an archive page (1) that was very difficult to follow. [I added a second archive page (2) to alleviate that problem; in that archive page 2 I placed my own comments from February 2007, which the administrator had deleted from the current talk page and moved to an archive of comments from 2003-2006.]

My comment in Talk:Daniel Pipes of March 1, 2007, explains what I find are the problems of that manner of archiving and refers to still easily-accessible full citations for the content of the current version of the article on Daniel Pipes, which can be used in improving the article's citations. The article is currently tagged with an "unreferenced" template (by another editor). I agree that the article needs the "unreferenced" tag, along with the tags that were removed by others alerting to the problems of lack of balance and lack of neutrality; these three problems are interrelated in my view. --NYScholar 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [moved here from talk page of this noticeboard; misplaced originally there. Sorry.]

Also, I just want to add that I believe that the citations problems that I perceive in this article are fairly easily resolvable; but I myself will not being doing any more work on it (due to the non-productive conflicts that I've already experienced there and future lack of time). I've provided the necessary citations information for other editors to do that work. Explanations are already in the talk page archive (2) of the article and in my own talk page archive (2).] --NYScholar 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)]

This article seems like there is way too much of people's opinions about the subject. Although there is some balance since both positive and negative opinions are expressed. Steve Dufour 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia editors' opinions or poorly-sourced other people's opinions that are supposed to be expressed in the article; the article needs "full citations" so that one can see exactly whose POVs are being cited in the external links. Without seeing full citations, it is not possible for Wikipedia readers to see for sure what the sources are, where and when they were published, what kinds of publications they appear in, when they were last accessed, and whether or not they are notable, reliable, and verifiable. Full citations are required in articles tagged as "controversial" and in articles on living persons: WP:BLP. --NYScholar 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the administrator has deleted my comments on the talk page and my archive page 2 from the talk page of this article. I have restored archive 2, adding my March 2007 comments to it, and I have posted a link to this notice on the current talk page. -- NYScholar (talk · contribs) 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What sort of outside intervention are you seeking? — Athænara ✉ 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess I don't clearly understand NYScholar's report here—it seemed to be about restoring talk pages which had been archived and a nonspecific complaint about references.

There is an excessive external links problem in the Daniel Pipes biography. For example, in the text of the background section, one external site is linked twenty or more times and a single article is linked four or more times.

However, the most obvious problem is patent Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight policy violation. Three quarters of the article's content (~76.5% by text length) is devoted to detailing other persons' antagonism toward the subject's views in the praise, criticism and controversy and massive opinions sections. — Athænara ✉ 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears Template:Blpwatch-links

• Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There's some contention over a certain news topic that surfaced within the last 24-72 hours. Xaxafrad 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  

I believe that there is concensus on the page that claims of a 666 incident have not risen to verifiablity. A different dispute remains ongoing (see below). --Wowaconia 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a question of whether including details concerning her recent personal difficulties merit inclusion. The inclusion of several details is being advocated but has been disputed such as...

1) Including the detail that she got tatoos the night of shaving her head or discribing what those tatoos are. Any mention of the hairstylist or tattoo parlor by name.

2) Mention of the heavily reported incident where after leaving rehab she struck a parked car several times with an umbrella out of frustration after failing in her attempt to see her children at her ex-husbands apartment before returning to rehab.

3) Mention that several reputable national and international media sources citing an OK! Magazine article that states sources around her ex-husband reported that she shaved her head over threats of a drug test.

4) Mention that sources close to her ex-husband say he is not pursuing full child custody at this time on the promise that she stays in rehab.

5) While sourced links to reliable newspapers are included concerning the information are provided by the side advocating inclusion, it is contested that these sources are biased because of the headlines and that no number of reliable sources quoting the OK! Magazine article can render mention of it worthy of inclusion on the wikipage.

It is argued on one side that inclusion of this information is "prurient and voyeuristic", and "negative POV by adding all this trivial information", while the other side holds that keeping this information out renders the segment uninformative and seems to be POV from self-described fans. --Wowaconia 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an up-to-the-minute scandal-in-your-face celebrity news site. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to even attempt to rack up this kind (and amount) of detail. — Athænara ✉ 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have been at the page last week. There was an editor insisting that details of Spears partying with Paris Hilton and not wearing underwear was relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia (!). I am one of the editors on "the opposing side" so to speak. I am neither fan nor anti-fan of the celebrity in question - just surprised at the indiscriminate info-dump of anything related to Spears into her Wikipedia article. I am urging that the bare-bones single paragraph mention of her 2007 rehab stints (what we have now in the article) is more than adequate for Wikipedia purposes. I hold the view that in light of WP:BLP policies - that the conservative approach erring on the side of a person's privacy is required. "Presumption in favor of privacy: Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." Even if the item is "well sourced", I believe that Wikipedia editors must be exercise some discretion in filtering out the speculation and biases contained in these reports ("entertainment news" and "Gossip pages" having relaxed or very little journalistic standards). I am the one that hold that the publishing the above information listed by User:Wowaconia is irrelevant and unnecessary - crossing into "prurient and voyeuristic". --Eqdoktor 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These things happened and have been the subject of a massive depth of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. Which are the requirements of WP:Notability, which is the Wikipedia standard for inclusion.

See also WP:LIVING "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

It seems odd to assert that sources like CNN, the BBC, and other prize winning newspapers abandon their standards when it comes to covering entertainment figures and declare that they are mere gossip rags. Wowaconia 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not set up Straw man arguments by misrepresenting my position. I never asserted nor declared CNN and BBC "mere gossip rags".

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

What sort of journalistic standards of fair and balanced coverage does Jeannete Wells have to adhere to when she writes her gossip column in MSNBC [1]? I grabbed this gossip page at random but I believe it illustrates the point that gossip pages/"entertainment" news (even published by NBC) do not meet WP:V standards. Specifically they fail WP:SPS -

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

So, yeah - you can find details of Spears umbrella trashing incident and "reasons" for shaving her hair (and other celebrity stuff) in the entertainment news and gossip pages of respectable news outlets BUT these sections in by themselves fail Wikipedia's WP:SPS criteria. I believe Wikipedia and its editors must show restraint in selecting what to include in an Encyclopedia article of a living person.

Moving on, while it is true that WP:Notability and WP:BLP allow for the presentation of unflattering information. It does not give free license to include every single item you can find in excruciating detail. Specifically from WP:BLP again:

• "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject."

As to the criteria to apply to when selecting news events of celebrities (in this case Spear) to be included in Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia:Notability (news) or WP:NOTNEWS provide a useful guideline - Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. In this case, within the context of Spear's career and biography. I believe that most of the items listed above (2007 rehab stint), even if it could possibly be reliably sourced (which I also dispute) do not raise to the standard as laid out in WP:NOTNEWS.

If the above seems long winded - I apologize, I may have too much time on my hands but I see this as a problem within Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia editors have picked up a bad habit from todays modern news media. It's All the news thats fit to print NOT All the news you can print. --Eqdoktor 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see the question of inclusion causes quite a response from its opponents, one of whom apparently has seen my call to seek the input of the noticeboard as an invitation to continue an extensive detailed argument from the article’s talk page on to this noticeboard.

Below is a link to an older version of the section that was deemed to have “too much information” by those opposing providing details, (Note: I am not advocating that everything that was included in this older edit be included but I ask for it to be reviewed as compared to the existing segment to judge if any details found there should be placed back in)

The link to the older edit is here Please compare to the current edit here Thanks for your consideration --Wowaconia 19:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is little difference between those two versions from the uninvolved Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Neither of them is appropriate in an encyclopedia because they are both overloaded with celebrity-fanatic detail.

I underlined "that does not mean it has a place here," "even if true" and "raise to the standard as laid out in WP:NOTNEWS" in Eqdoktor's earlier post to add emphasis to the point I am making in this post. — Athænara ✉ 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi Template:Blpwatch-links

I believe that on this page Li Hongzhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is protected, there are several Wikipedia Policy violations, so I prepared a draft Talk:Li Hongzhi/Edit request 2007-02-14 which fixes some of these violations. Could anyone of you take the time and look over these and perhaps let me know how to proceed further? This is an important page since it ranks first on google see here: [2] --HappyInGeneral 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the editors to this article are the subject of an ArbCom case under the parent article, Falun Gong. CovenantD 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong + Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. — Athænara ✉ 12:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain Template:Blpwatch-links

Questionable defamatory material appears cut and pasted from another site.[3] Not verifiable from the cite it claims the material comes from. [4] Robert Stacy McCain personally denied the charge. [5] McCain's response also shows Wikipedia is the only source now for this questionable content. [6] Raw hit piece intended to slander. Obama bin Levin 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Real problems exist in this article, but not exactly the problem expressed above, which is a stanard "he-says-she-says." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel Template:Blpwatch-links

• Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - typical strong POV possibly defamatory stuff. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Eyes open. Removed some unreferenced stuff, tagged others with fact tags. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders

• Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders -- I believe there are BLP issues with the naming of this category. There are reliable sources within the medical community that say autism is not a "disorder". As the term is controversial, it must be used carefully. However, the category is applied to articles on people within the autism rights movement who object to the term "disorder". These applications of the category are BLP violations, as the term is both controversial (reliable sources on both sides) and viewed as disparaging by these people. I believe the category should be renamed to Category:People on the autistic spectrum, which is neutral to both points of view, and I have laid out my rationale in full at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders. — coelacan — 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that your name change is preferable in that it completely avoids having the lengthy (and no doubt exhausting) argument about whether or not it's a disorder. Your proposal is both neutral and fair in my eyes. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo Template:Blpwatch-links

• Kurt Nimmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been protected after an edit war over an analysis based on one entry this person made in one blog entry. There's a problem here with WP:NPOV as far as undue weight with this being the fourth sentence in the artcle, and possibly WP:OR because it's a synthesis and not a direct quote, and possibly WP:ATT as this author has written plenty else (magazine articles and a book) without expressing the opinion (i.e. Holocaust denial) given him here. The user who kept removing the controversial sentence was blocked for 3RR. I haven't edited the article but I'm concerned enough to bring this to y'alls attention. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification the user who was repeatedly removing this statement was blocked for a 3RR violation on a different article, a block which has expired a while ago. I don't see what this comment has to do with the issue being discussed. Isarig 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Carla Martin Template:Blpwatch-links

• Carla Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two apparent special-purpose accounts (who I suspect may be sockpuppets of the article's subject) persist in whitewashing this article of any discussion of the incident for which she is notable -- alleged witness-coaching during the trial of an accused terrorist. I came to this article through an RfC and am unsure what to do next to make this article encyclopedic instead of looking like a resume.// PubliusFL 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Schmetterling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spaceexplorer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.50.13.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.55.54.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) +

Writing the article like a résumé—are there more? This conflict of interest editor is engaging in extremely disruptive editing. Maybe post it on WP:COI/N too? There's more than one thing wrong here—WP:OWN, WP:NOT, etc. — Athænara ✉ 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Four Five reversions (UTC timestamps, 8 March 2007) in less than two hours:
• 14:49   15:45   15:50   16:17   16:25   → 3RR warning 16:39

• All revert to previous version by Spaceexplorer, used for 17:40 revert after {{3RR}}

• WP:AN/3RR report at 17:43
• Blocked for eight hours as of 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Second report by PubliusFL on post-block 3RR violations.
• Second block thirty one hours.
• Identical revert from fourth + account after second block.
• Checkuser request by PubliusFL. Open proxy blocked. — Æ. ✉ 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

George Clooney Template:Blpwatch-links

• George Clooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A few years ago, George Clooney made a joke about Charlton Heston. His joke was "President of the NRA announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's.". Some people want obviously to make a bigger story than what it was and dedicated a huge and complete section to that joke for the only purpose to decredibilize him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annegc1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• The editor who contributed this one appears to be a single purpose account to allow only positive information about the Clooney family. S/he has removed cited information multiple times and repeatedly attempts to add her/his own POV about the incident in question. CovenantD 08:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Annegc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, well, well ... I can see I should have looked at the poster's contribs when I was pulling up the data for the {{unsigned}} post. This user is indeed the problem here. — Athænara ✉ 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:American academic administrator stubs Template:Blpwatch-links

• Please would somebody clever apply a

For guidelines on the use of categories on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Categorization. For a basic readers' guide, see Help:Categories. For quick answers, see the readers' FAQ or the editors' FAQ on categories. For a list of categories, see Special:Categories.

This page describes editing with the source editor. See Help:VisualEditor § Editing categories for VisualEditor.

Wikipedia data structure

Namespaces
Subject namespaces		Talk namespaces
0	(Main/Article)	Talk	1
2	User	User talk	3
4	Wikipedia	Wikipedia talk	5
6	File	File talk	7
8	MediaWiki	MediaWiki talk	9
10	Template	Template talk	11
12	Help	Help talk	13
14	Category	Category talk	15
100	Portal	Portal talk	101
118	Draft	Draft talk	119
710	TimedText	TimedText talk	711
828	Module	Module talk	829
Former namespaces
108	Book	Book talk	109
442	Course	Course talk	443
444	Institution	Institution talk	445
446	Education Program	Education Program talk	447
2300	Gadget	Gadget talk	2301
2302	Gadget definition	Gadget definition talk	2303
2600	Topic		2601
Virtual namespaces
-1	Special
-2	Media
Current list (API call)

Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects. They are implemented by a MediaWiki feature that adds any page with a text like [[Category:XYZ]] in its wiki markup to the automated listing that is the category with name XYZ. Categories help readers to find, and navigate around, a subject area, to see pages sorted by title, and to thus find article relationships.

Categories are normally found at the bottom of an article page. Clicking a category name brings up a category page listing the articles (or other pages) that have been added to that particular category. There may also be a section listing the subcategories of that category. The subcategorization feature makes it possible to organize categories into tree-like structures to aid navigation.

The term category does refer to both the title of a category page—the category pagename—and the category itself. Keeping this in mind while reading about categorization, plus learning a category page layout is a worthwhile investment in research techniques. (See also the search box parameter "incategory".) The layout of a category page is mostly text, but see about displaying category trees below.

Summary

The MediaWiki software maintains tables of categories, to which any editable page can be added. To add a page to a category, include "[[Category:Category name]]" or "[[Category:Category name|Sortkey]]" in that page's wiki markup. The categories to which a page belongs appear in a box at the bottom of the page.

A category is usually associated with a category page in the "Category:" namespace. A category page contains text that can be edited, like any other page, but when the page is displayed, the last part of what is displayed is an automatically generated list of all pages in that category, in the form of links. Other category pages which appear in this list are treated separately, as subcategories.

The bottom of a Wikipedia article on Chicken eyeglasses. At the very bottom of the page, below the References, navigation templates and external links are a series of links. These links are the categories used on the page, which include: Category:Animal welfare, Category:Animal equipment, Category:Eyewear, and Category:Poultry farming. By clicking on the category link at the bottom of the page, readers can navigate the Category tree.

Category page definition

A category page is any page in the Category namespace. They each act as a category, and are termed a "category". The category page has one section titled Subcategories listing other "categories", and one section titled Pages, listing pages as categorized (in other namespaces). New categories are created by creating a page in the Category namespace.

A category page can be edited like any other page. However, when it is displayed, the editable part of the page is followed by automatically generated lists of pages belonging to the category, as follows:

• First a count and list of subcategories (other category pages belonging to the category) is shown, if any exist. The name of each subcategory is followed by counts like "(6 C, 38 P, 2 F)", meaning this subcategory contains 6 subcategories, 38 pages, and 2 files. Counts of 0 are omitted. The further subcategories are expanded in the display if the ► sign alongside the subcategory is clicked (but this "widget" is only visible if your browser has JavaScript enabled). Note: ► is shown if there are no further subcategories. The subcategory is collapsed again if ▼ is clicked.
• Next a count and list of pages in the category (excluding subcategories and images) is shown. If the category has no members, a message to that effect is displayed.
• Next a count and list of image and other media files in the category appears, if any exist. These are shown with thumbnails. The first 20 characters of the file name are shown, with an ellipsis if that is not the full name; also the file size is shown.

The items in the lists all link to the pages concerned; in the case of the images this applies both to the image itself and to the text below it (the name of the image).

For the way in which the lists are ordered, see Sorting category pages below. The first and second lists are divided into sections, according to the first character of the sort key. These initial characters are displayed above the sections. To suppress these, make all sort keys start with a space.

A category page can only display a limited number of items (currently 200). If more pages belong to the category, there will be a link to the next ones.

The categories box for the category page appears at the bottom, in the same place as for other pages. This contains the categories to which the current category page has been added, i.e., its parent categories (the categories of which it is a subcategory). Add a category page to other categories in the normal way, using the "[[Category:Category name]]" or "[[Category:Category name|Sortkey]]" syntax.

Putting pages into categories

A page becomes part of a category if the page's wiki markup contains a declaration for that category. A category declaration takes the form [[Category:Category name]] or [[Category:Category name|Sortkey]]. The declaration must be processed, i.e. it will not work if it appears between <nowiki>...</nowiki> or <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags, or in a comment. The declaration may however come from a transcluded page; see Categories and templates below.

A category name can be any string that would be a legitimate page title. If the category name begins with a lower-case letter, it will be capitalized. For initial lower-case letters, as in Category:macOS, see the technical restrictions page.

On Wikipedia, it is customary to place category declarations at the end of the wiki markup, but before any stub templates (which themselves transclude categories) and interlanguage links.

When a page has been added to one or more categories, a categories box appears at the bottom of the page (or possibly elsewhere, if a non-default skin is being used). This box contains a list of the categories the page belongs to, in the order in which the category declarations appear in the processed wiki markup. The category names are linked to the corresponding category pages. They appear as red links if the corresponding category page does not exist. If a user has enabled the HotCat gadget, the categories box will also provide links to quickly add, remove, or modify category declarations on the page, without having to edit the whole page.

Hidden categories are not displayed, except as described below under Hiding categories.

Working with category pages

The following subsections are ordered from simple actions to more elaborate or rarer actions.

Linking to category pages

To link to a category page without putting the current page in that category, precede the link with a colon: [[:Category:Category name]]. Such a link can be piped like a normal wikilink. (The {{cl}} template, and others listed on its documentation page, may sometimes be helpful.)

Retrieving raw category information

Raw information about the members of a category, their sort keys and timestamps (time when last added to the category) can be obtained from the API, using a query of the form:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?cmtitle=Category:Category_name&action=query&list=categorymembers&cmlimit=500&cmprop=title|sortkey|timestamp

Listings of up to 500 members are possible. If there are more members then the results will include text near the end like this: <categorymembers cmcontinue="page|NNNN|TITLE" />.

This can be added to the previous one, without quotation marks, for the next page of members: ...&cmcontinue=page|NNNN|TITLE

Sorting category pages

By default, a page is sorted under the first character of its name, without the namespace. English Wikipedia groups accented characters together with their unaccented version, so pages starting with À, Á, Ä, will be listed under heading A. Sorting is case-insensitive, so "ABC" comes after "Abacus".

Unlike at Special:Allpages and Special:Prefixindex, a space is treated as a space (coming before all other characters), not as an underscore.

The English Wikipedia has numerical sorting in categories. This means a page whose title begins with a number will be sorted according to the numeric value of the number (even if it is multiple digits). Thus "9 dogs", "25 dogs", and "112 dogs" will all appear under the "0–9" heading in numeric order. If the number includes a comma, space, or period, the sorting algorithm will only consider the part of the number before the separator.

Each of the three lists (subcategories, pages, media files) is arranged in the order explained above (except that, in the subcategories list, the namespace indicator "Category:" is not considered). If an item ought to be positioned within a list on the basis of an alternative name (sort key) for that item, then this can be specified in the category tag that places the item in the list:

[[Category:Category name|Sortkey]]

For example, to add an article called Albert Einstein to Category:1879 births and have the article sorted by "Einstein, Albert", you would type:

[[Category:1879 births|Einstein, Albert]]

Unlike a piped link (which uses the same syntax), the sort key itself is not displayed to readers. It affects only the order in which pages are listed on the category page.

It is useful to document the system being used for sort keys on the category page. For guidelines about the use of sort keys on Wikipedia, see WP:SORTKEY.

Default sort key

This section documents functionality. For guidelines, see WP:NAMESORT and WP:SORTKEY.

It is possible to set a default sort key which is different from {{PAGENAME}} by using the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT:}}:

{{DEFAULTSORT:new key}}

This is often used in biography articles, to make sure the subject is sorted by their last name:

{{DEFAULTSORT:LastName, FirstName}}

For example, on the Albert Einstein page, {{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}} adds the sort key "Einstein, Albert" to all his categories, such as Category:1879 births.

In the case of multiple default sort key tags, the last DEFAULTSORT on the final rendering of a page applies for all categories, regardless of the position of the category tags. This also means that a DEFAULTSORT tag included from a template is not effective if another DEFAULTSORT tag occurs later on the page, even if the later DEFAULTSORT tag is also "hidden" (included by another template). If a category is added inside <ref>...</ref> then DEFAULTSORT may be ignored.

Searching for pages in categories

Further information: Help:Searching § Syntax

See also: § Searching for articles in categories, Wikipedia:Category intersection, and Wikimedia bug T3497 "Hierarchical category system is urgently needed"

In addition to browsing through hierarchies of categories, it is possible to use the search tool to find specific articles in specific categories. To search for articles in a specific category, type incategory:"CategoryName" in the search box.

A pipe "|" can be added to join the contents of one category with the contents of another. For example, enter

incategory:"Suspension bridges|Bridges in New York City"

to return all pages that belong to either (or both) of the categories, as here.

Note that using search to find categories will not find articles which have been categorized using templates. This feature also doesn't return pages in subcategories.

Listing all categories

Special:Categories provides an alphabetic list of all categories, with the number of members of each; this number does not include the content of the subcategories, but it includes the subcategories themselves, i.e., each counting as one.

The above list contains all categories that have members, regardless of whether they have corresponding category pages. To list all existing category pages (regardless of whether they have members), use Special:AllPages/Category:.

Displaying category trees and page counts

As described at mw:Help:Magic words, {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Example}} or {{PAGESINCAT:Example}} returns the number of pages in "Category:Example". Each subcategory counts as one page; pages in subcategories are not counted.

The page Special:CategoryTree enables you to see the tree structure of a category (its subcategories, their subcategories and so on; the display of files and other member pages is optional).

The CategoryTree extension can be used to display such a tree on any page. (This is sometimes done on the category page itself, if the category is split over multiple screens, to make all subcategories available on every screen.) The basic syntax is

• <categorytree>Category name</categorytree>

to display just the subcategory tree, and

• <categorytree mode=pages>Category name</categorytree>

to display member pages as well. They will be indicated by italics.

Dapete's category-visualizer vCat will render charts of the tree structure.

You may also use Template:Category tree or Template:Category tree all, instead.

Warning:

The following code {{PAGESINCATEGORY:{{PAGENAME}}}} will not work as expected when used in the wikitext or in a transcluded template in a category page whose title contains some ASCII punctuations.

For legacy reasons, {{PAGENAME}} may return the page name with these characters being HTML-encoded using numeric character entities : this still works for generating derived wikilinks or displaying page names, or when HTML-encoded this page name is used in a conditional "#switch", but PAGESINCATEGORY does not recognize the category name given in parameter if some characters are HTML-encoded (this is the case notably when the category name contains ASCII apostrophes ' and a few other ASCII punctuations. (The same HTML-encoding is also applied to the values returned by {{FULLPAGENAME}}, {{SUBPAGENAME}}, or {{NAMESPACE}}).

In that case, as the category is not found by its HTML-encoded pagename, PAGESINCATEGORY will unexpectedly return 0 and not its effective number of member pages.

A simple workaround is to transform these HTML-encoded characters back into standard UTF-8-encoded characters, by using the {{titleparts:}} parser function, like this:

{{PAGESINCATEGORY:{{titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}}}}}

Moving and redirecting category pages

Categories can be moved in the same way as an ordinary page; but a certain amount of cleanup may be necessary. A redirect is left at the old category name, and this is not a normal #REDIRECT [[...]] but a {{category redirect}}. Once all the pages have been moved out of the old category, it may be left as a category redirect or deleted. For categories entirely populated through templates (see above), modifying the templates enables all affected articles to be moved to another category, but with the refresh problem mentioned. Almost all category name changes are made pursuant to a consensus decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

Do not create intercategory redirects other than with a {{category redirect}} template. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion § Redirecting categories for more on category redirects.

Hiding categories

When the magic word __HIDDENCAT__ is placed on a category page, that category becomes hidden, meaning that it will not be displayed on the pages belonging to that category. On Wikipedia, the magic word is not normally used explicitly, but is applied through the {{hidden category}} template. The feature is mostly used to prevent project maintenance categories from showing up to ordinary readers on article pages.

For users who are not logged in, hidden categories are displayed on category pages (whether as parent categories or subcategories).

Hidden categories are displayed at the bottom of each page, after "Hidden categories:", for registered users:

• at preview during editing;
• if the user has selected "Show hidden categories" in their user preferences.

Hidden categories are automatically added to Category:Hidden categories.

For guidelines on the hiding of categories on Wikipedia, see WP:HIDDENCAT.

Finding articles for a category

The most effective way of finding entries of a category is using the "What links here" tool on the category's main article.

An easy way to find relevant articles for a new category or missing entries in an existing one is by finding the most relevant list and checking its entries. Sometimes categories are about things that are intersections of other categories for which the PetScan tool can be used.

More relevant articles may also be found linked in a category's main article and the articles already featured in the category − especially in their "See also" sections (if existent) and the automatically suggested "RELATED ARTICLES" below them.

Furthermore, a category's superordinate categories often feature articles that should be subcategorized to the category.

Other ways to find relevant articles include searching Wikipedia for the category's topic and searching the Web for the topic in quotes " (with synonyms also in quotes and appended after an OR) and appending the word wiki or Wikipedia or site:Wikipedia.org to them.

Categorizing

Main page: Wikipedia:Categorization

Categorizing templates

Templates are categorized the same way as articles, except that [[Category: Some-topic templates]] should be placed on the template's documentation page (or inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, if there is no documentation page), this is necessary to avoid categorizing pages by template inclusion (see below).

Categories and templates

A template can be used to add pages to a category, usually by placing the category link inside <includeonly></includeonly> tags on the template (e.g. <includeonly>[[Category:category name]]</includeonly>). When the template is transcluded into the page, the category link becomes active, and the page is added to the category page. This is useful for categories that have high turnover or many pages included, like cleanup categories.

Changes to the template, however, may not be reflected immediately on the category page. When you edit an article to add a category tag directly, the list of category members is updated immediately when the page is saved. When a category link is contained in a template, however, this does not happen immediately: instead, whenever a template is edited, all the pages that transclude it are put into the job queue to be recached during periods of low server load. This means that, in busy periods, it may take hours or even days before individual pages are recached and they start to appear in the category list. Performing a null edit to a page will allow it to jump the queue and be immediately recached.

To add the template itself to the category page as well, omit the "includeonly" tags. To add the template to a category without categorizing pages on which the template is transcluded, place the category declaration between <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, or add it to the template documentation page between <includeonly></includeonly> (the latter allows recategorizing the template without editing it, which is helpful if it is protected, or so complicated that mere mortals hesitate to touch it).

Parser functions can be used to make the transcluded categories, or the sort key used in them, dependent on other variables, notably PAGENAME.

Passing a category name as a parameter

<includeonly>[[Category:{{{cat|default}}}]]</includeonly> or <includeonly>{{{cat|[[Category:default]]}}}</includeonly>
If the user provides a parameter 'cat=XXX' the page will be categorized at the page [[Category:XXX]], otherwise it will be categorized at the page [[Category:default]]. Calling the template with "cat=" (equal to nothing) disables putting the page in any category.

Excluding non-article pages

<includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}} | | [[Category:XXX]]}}</includeonly>
the variable NAMESPACE is null for mainspace articles. For any space other than mainspace, this ParserFunction will produce an empty string, but for regular articles this will include the article in Category:XXX.

On Wikipedia it is not recommended that templates be used to populate ordinary content categories of articles. See Categorization using templates in the categorization guideline.

Categorizing redirect pages

Main page: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects

Redirect pages can be categorized and there are conventions on how to do it. The redirect link must be first on the page. On a category page, redirects are listed in italics.

"Related Changes" with categories

For a category, the "Related Changes" feature, when applied to the corresponding category page, lists recent changes to the pages which are currently listed as belonging to a category. Where those pages are subcategories or image pages, only changes to their editable parts are listed.

Notice that "Related Changes" does not show edits to pages that have been removed from the category.

Also, "Related Changes" does not list recent changes to pages linked from the editable part of the category page (as it would normally, with a non-category page). If a workaround would be required, the links in question could be placed in a template and transcluded onto the category page.

As usual – unlike with watchlists – recent changes to corresponding talk pages are not shown under "Related Changes". Pages one is watching are bolded on the list. This can help to find which pages in a given category one has on one's watchlist.

The DynamicPageList (third-party) extension provides a list of last edits to the pages in a category, or optionally, just the list of pages; the simpler DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) is installed on Meta, Wikinews, Wikibooks and Wikiversity; the extension mw:Extension:DPLforum is installed on Wikia.

Watching category additions and removals

Since 2016, additions and removals from categories are available via the "Category changes" filter on recent changes pages, including watchlists and Special:RecentChangesLinked. For example, category changes to articles in Category:Cannabis stubs can be found here. You can monitor additions and removals from specific categories by adding the categories to your watchlist and making sure the "Category changes" filter is active. You can view changes to categories in your watchlist by clicking here. Additional scripts with similar functionality are User:CategoryWatchlistBot and User:Ais523/catwatch.

See also

• MediaWiki: Help:Categories
• Template:Category TOC
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories
• Wikipedia:Quick cat index
• How to move a category

Notes

to all Category:American academic administrator stubs using a bot - Kittybrewster 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan Template:Blpwatch-links

• Lindsay Lohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A small section was requested detailing Lohan's lip syncing on Good Morning America prior to the release of her second album. RadioKirk thought the information was unnecessary, as the event was not notable. I disagree, and think that the press coverage given at the time indicates this. We can't resolve the issue. Find the discussion here [7].CnsBiol 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Possible lip-sync, one in a short series of live performances—fails notability and the proposed WP:NOTNEWS;
2. Possible sing-along to voice track (per artist's publicist), video inconclusive—fails WP:V;
3. End of story per WP:BLP, even if I seem dismissive of yet another evident argument-for-its-own-sake, "new" editor. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby Template:Blpwatch-links

• Lewis Libby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FlagFlogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is actively vandalizing this page. Please check it out when you can.--Dh100 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• 24.113.182.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have been used by the same editor. — Athænara ✉ 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• FlagFlogg has been blocked for 24 hours. — Æ. ✉ 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fermat1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

↑ edits also as 64.231.32.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• LordSerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PSRuckman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disruptive editing continued to plague the article. It has been protected for one week as of 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC). — Athænara ✉ 01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark (journalist) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Neil Clark (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is involved in yet another edit war/content dispute, mainly between editors
• ElenaZam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• citylightsgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Within the last 48 hours, the page has been reverted several times by both editors, and it is very difficult based upon the content and ongoing discussion for a neutral (vandal-fighting) party such as myself to figure out what needs to be done with this page. Please see recent edits, examples [8] and [9]. I can not get an understanding of "which editor means well".

This issue was brought here on 25 January 2007 [10] with no resolution. Both have accused the other of false information and violating many policies (personal attacks, NPOV, original research, vandalism, sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, etc.).

• Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The same situation/editors are also tied in with the Oliver Kamm page. I believe that admin intervention is necessary at this point, and then a protecting of the page once correctly sourced, neutral content is written/restored. Thanks! Vendetta 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Citylightsgirl was blocked eight hours for 3RR violations on Oliver Kamm. Not a long block, so there may be further developments. — Athænara ✉ 02:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sample Citylightsgirl edit since the 8 hour block expired: removal of several paragraphs of content, addition of one all-caps paragraph of complaint. (See also userlinks below.)

• PunctualPeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, I would guess, a sock sent into the fray in an attempt to elude another 3RR rap. — Æ. ✉ 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be more going on here than meets the eye, cf. WP:AN/I report posted by Citylightsgirl in January, after which she was referred here. There was zero discussion of the report here between 25 January and 3 March. — Athænara ✉ 11:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Amir Taheri Template:Blpwatch-links

Amir Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Contains multiple unsourced attacks, including a claim that his writings "are in fact ghost written by pro-Israel, neo-conservative handlers". Also contains dubious sourced attacks. (I don't have the time or energy to deal with POV-pushing this heavy — sorry.) // CWC(talk) 07:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CWC is correct, the article as it stands now is a hatchet job. It begins fairly, but more than half the content is taken up by a "Controversies" section which can fairly be termed vicious. — Athænara ✉ 08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat better now, but not better enough, seeming to heavily violate undue weight. A "controversy" which is one person making an accusation doesn't belong in a controversies section. Ken Arromdee 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg Template:Blpwatch-links, Lucianne Goldberg Template:Blpwatch-links and Cheri DiNovo Template:Blpwatch-links

Unverifiable claims that Lyndon B. Johnson is Jonah Goldberg's biological father have been inserted repeatedly into both Jonah's and Lucianne's articles, along with claims that Lucianne is widely known as "Luci the bat". Amazingly, this is actually the same anonymous APNIC editor as the neverending Cheri DiNovo dispute; Drugs and prostitution is their current target of choice for DiNovo-related attack edits.

They even persist in labelling anybody who reverts their changes as an "attack queer", in removing from talk pages any administrator comment that addresses why they can't do what they're doing, and in vandalizing user talk pages with personal attacks. I've taken to blocking any IP number that makes these edits for 48 hours as soon as I see it, but I can't speak to how effective this will be since this has been coming from a dynamic IP range and blocks haven't stopped them previously. Bearcat 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask: must the volunteers here hunt down {{userlinks}} by searching at least four article histories or will you (please) provide some? Or were you thinking more along the lines of {{Biography semi-protection}}? — Athænara ✉ 10:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits have come from a variety of IP numbers; the only consistent thing about it is that they've always resolved to APNIC, which is a domain registrar for Australia and Southeast Asia. Examples:

124.120.223.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

124.120.224.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.10.167.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.10.167.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.10.167.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.10.102.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

125.25.128.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

125.25.133.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

125.25.131.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.10.102.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

58.10.102.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know if edit blocks are going to be effective; every time we block one, they just come back a few hours later with a different IP number. At this point, all of the biographies have been sprotected, while Drugs and prostitution hasn't. The problem with sprotection, on the other hand, is that this person simply doesn't quit; the DiNovo business started last November, and the last time an administrator tried unprotecting DiNovo's article the anon was vandalizing it again within a few days. So I genuinely don't know what can be done here, which is why I'm looking for input. Bearcat 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think continued sprotection is appropriate for articles which are being targeted by determined anons. — Æ. ✉ 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano Template:Blpwatch-links

• Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Notinsane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimed to be Giuliano, but wasn't very politic about his attempts to remove what he called libel on his bio page, and was 3RR-blocked, and then banned for legal threats. (Giuliani lives in Thailand, and now anonymous Thai IPs are being threatened with permanent blocks for their edits to the article.) I take no position on whether the editor claiming to be Giuliani is right or wrong, but WP:BLP never came up in the Talk page of the article, and someone should review what has happened. At a minimum, it does not appear WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article has been followed. -- TedFrank 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator) Template:Blpwatch-links

• Michael Savage (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Discussion alludes to lawsuit involving content in his biography and it was apparently mentioned on the radio show. Probably deserves a review as well as a close watching of the article. --Tbeatty 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick Bollettieri Template:Blpwatch-links

• Nick Bollettieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article is self promotion. The content is copied from own site Bio Page.

What is the best course of action for me to do? Delete the violating content? Rk2578 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the subject was the person who did that, yes, it's self-promotion, but it may not have been him. I see you posted this concern on the article's talk page also, which was a good thing to do.

The article has been around since early July 2004 and it was still developing normally more than two years later in September 2006. *

• Alison Shemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the one who added the material copied from Bollettieri's site in the next edit on the 27th of September.

The simplest solution is to revert to the last good version * before website content was copied into it, then check it over to see if any legitimate wikifying got lost in the process and repair that if needed. If you don't know how to do it, tell us here and one us will, OK? — Athænara ✉ 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP issue in Johann Hari RFC

We have a dispute that could use some BLP expertise at Talk:Johann_Hari#Request for Comment: Disputed Photo. Briefly summarized, the parties dispute whether an image is usable in the Johann Hari bio article - Hari denies that the picture is him, but some editors believe that the image is unmistakably him, and the image is captioned (on Flickr) as being a photo of Hari taken at an event that he later wrote about. Some editors think that the image is unflattering, and others think that it's a good illustration of Hari practicing his craft (journalism). Does the dispute over the photo's accuracy raise BLP issues? The full explanation is here, and comments are welcome here. Thanks, TheronJ 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible Defamation of Thousands of People: Potentially Libelous Accusations and the Case of Rochelle Holt

The continued call for the deletion of the article on Rochelle Holt is unjustified and bizarre. Some Wikipedia editors, like JoshuaZ and Skinwalker, explain the proposed deletion because-- in addition to her MFA from the University of Iowa-- Rochelle Holt pursued further studies at Columbia Pacific University (CPU). The campaign of these editors is part of an orchestrated academic witch hunt. The defamation of CPU is an extension of the irresponsible misinformation phenomenon, which is described quite well, for example, in M. Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie (ISBN 0-671454927; Dr. Peck is best known for his best seller, The Road Less Traveled). Wikipedia editor "Skinwalker" calls CPU a "diploma mill", [11]. This is an outrageously false and potentially libelous accusation, which defames thousands of CPU graduates. Here is a brief description of CPU by former FBI educational expert John Bear: [12].

From the list of Notable Alumni in the Columbia Pacific University article, a whole group of renowned people were deleted, among them, John Sigurdsson, Minister of Industry and Commerce of a European nation, Iceland, [13]; Barbara De Angelis, internationally known and New York Times number one best selling author; award winning scientists Frank G. Shellock (UCLA) and Jerome Workman ; as well as the former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, a Honorary Fellow. A supporter of adult education, Prime minister Wilson was a founder of the Open University in Britain and delivered a speech in 1983 at a CPU graduation ceremony held in Birmingham, England. The deletion of these eminent people from the list is part of the attempt to discredit CPU.

The unfair treatment of CPU by biased editors is unprofessional and should be brought to the attention of fair-minded Wikipedia administrators, contributors, as well as Wikipedia donors and in fact everyone concerned about the quality of the Internet, the advancement of knowledge and intellectual freedom.

The article on Rochelle Holt in its present stage clearly shows and documents that she is notable on several accounts and highly eligible to be featured in Wikipedia:

She is listed in the International Who’s Who in Poetry, London: Routledge, ISBN 0948875593, and her biography is featured at universities and literary publications. Please see citations and references in the article. She received numerous professional awards, grants and honors, including nomination for the Pulitzer Prize. She is regarded by her peers as a major poet and a significant science fiction writer. A Readers Digest survey ranked her first among American poets. In addition to her numerous and well-received books, she published over 2000 poems in about 300 periodicals and magazines, and gave over 700 public readings at universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, bookstores and other places. She has originated a new literary genre within the category of the poem-novel, recognized by experts as a significant and innovative accomplishment. Her plays have been performed in theatres. As a publisher she has advanced the works of other professional artists. Among other things, she has published important scholarly work about the life and art of Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Lawrence Durrell as well as others and contributed to the development of literary theory.

I went through uncounted entries in Wikipedia, and I am amazed to see how many of them are basically just short notes about people who cannot really reach the level of notability as Rochelle Holt does, and nevertheless they are featured in Wikipedia.

Thank you for looking into this problem.

Paul Hartal 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)