Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Subsume (talk | contribs)
2,824 edits
No edit summary
Line 332: Line 332:


{{la|Jason Leopold}} Would anyone be so kind as to keep an eye on this page, which was recently unprotected (a much needed unprotect). I was previously threatened with some legal action in regards to previous interactions with the IP editor, which I believe to be Jason himself. So, I am attempting to not edit the article in general, but the article is still in its scrubbed version, and the IP is once again editing. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
{{la|Jason Leopold}} Would anyone be so kind as to keep an eye on this page, which was recently unprotected (a much needed unprotect). I was previously threatened with some legal action in regards to previous interactions with the IP editor, which I believe to be Jason himself. So, I am attempting to not edit the article in general, but the article is still in its scrubbed version, and the IP is once again editing. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

==[[Jazzy B]]==

{{la|Jazzy B}} This article is a frequent target for both '''vandalism''' and '''unsourced changes''' which violate [[WP:BLP]] policy. More eyeballs from experienced editors would be ''greatly appreciated'' in keeping this article free and clear of dubious content. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:22, 13 August 2008

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Satar Jabar

    The use of the statement "It should be noted that dozens of other individuals were physically tortured, some to death. The treatment Jabar claims to have received was common practice at Abu Ghraib." is a perversion of what is referenced in the Newsweek Article.[1] . The article notes that, "The U.S. military is reviewing the deaths of 32 Iraqis in detention, many of them at Abu Ghraib."

    This article is not presented from a NPOV. - Myles58

    Patrick T. McHenry

    Dispute regarding NPOV and BLP standards with an external link. Link is a blog that does not meet Wikipedia standards. Ziegfest repeatedly reverts good faith edits. He appears to have a WP:SPA and leaves accusatory messages with his reverts--using blogs as a source for his claims. I have tried to resolve this here and here without success.

    Repeated revert:

    18:20, 6 August 2008

    18:20, 6 August 2008

    These two accounts appear to be the same person: Ziegfest and 152.17.138.92

    This page may need protection while this is worked out. --Ystava (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the edit log, he's been using three different accounts on the quest to remove this blog- including one that tried to add the blog laughably titled "McHenry Rocks" (http://mchenryrocks.blogspot.com/). Clearly, the above user is not viewing this issue from a fair perspective- while I have no affiliations with the blog, it is a legitimate anti-candidate PAC that has been featured in numerous newspapers in McHenry's district (the Hickory Daily Record and News@Norman). Every single thing on the blog is mirrored in the "Controversy" section, and it would be more detrimental to the overall perspective of the article if it were to be removed (or would Ystava's "McHenry Rocks" blogspot to be added", which is MUCH more problematic). I'd be glad to discuss this, but this is getting ridiculous- we need an admin to sort this out. --Ziegfest (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ziegfest is wrong as any admin will be able to see. I am not associated AT ALL with the other two user accounts. My IP is available to the admins. I am not affiliated with the blog mentioned either. This is ridiculous. An editor that only corrects one article with a clearly defined interest in editing one way that refuses to follow wiki guidelines has absolutely no place making these accusations. --Ystava (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Far Cry (film)

    Talk:Far Cry (film) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Far Cry (film)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There have been a couple of derogatory comments by anonymous IPs in August 2008 about the director. I removed them, but I was wondering if there needs to be oversight due to libel concerns. Thanks. // Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just had to roll back yet another derogatory comment. Can someone please answer about removing these comments from the page history altogether? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Herbert

    Bob Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An editor added a rather large section detailing comments this journalist made in regards to a recent McCain advertisement on a television show calling the section 'Journalistic errors'. The section was very biased and violated numerous WP:BLP and WP:NPOV guidelines. I removed it a few times and was reverted each time and the editor in question only once responded to numerous requests for discussion. Another editor has kindly edited the section down and made it much more neutral, however I still very much doubt the notability of the comments he made and if they have any actual relevance to deserve a section that is almost half the size of the page. I placed a RFC on the talk page yesterday but haven't received a response, however given that this is a biography I thought I would place concern here as well. // NcSchu(Talk) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no way that this one event is worth 1/2 of the article. I would say remove it completely until its notability is clear or condense it down to one sentence. CENSEI (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This same editor has been continuously reverting any edit to erase the information. Another anon user and myself have shortened the information and removed any bias, however it is uncertain (though predicted) whether these edits will be pointlessly reverted too. NcSchu(Talk) 13:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Storme Aerison

    I've removed most of the content and left the pieces that are supported by the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mystere incident

    This appears to be heading into BLP related matters. Can comeone who is familiar with how we apply BLP take a look at the comment and the article content and help. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Michell (writer)

    A newbie editor Anon. keeps slandering (read outright lies) a living author and reversing my edits. He keeps insisiting that the author is a follower of a famous fascist which is absurd. Please see my edit reversal and advise this newbie before he harms the reputation of a living author.

    This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orthomolecular medicine as "pseudoscience"

    An editor has repeatedly removed a infobox describing Orthomolecular medicine as pseudoscience from the article and has posted this on the article talkpage. People interested in a source for this discussion should read Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience, which specifically discusses the difference between science and pseudoscience using examples such as homeopathy, creationism and orthomolecular medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    diff of source of the following This is a serious WP:BLP issue for several living doctors, the box should stay deleted until any extraordinary (and scientifically deprecable) actions occur to the contrary here. Are there hot medical and scientific controversies? Sure, some the best PR pharma dollars can buy. A pseudoscience? No - the subjects are testable, the persons involved are qualified, peer published MDs and/or PhDs, with ongoing testing and clinical observation. I might note that the cranky sources of many long running quotes (and popular misinformation on this subject) against orthomolecular medicine have (1) suffered a number of legal defeats on their attacks including for their lack of credibility, (2) persistently spread scurrilous statements about OMM that would constitute gross scientific misconduct on any honest academic standard (e.g. making conclusory statements about a subject having repeatedly used confounded tests on a subject in the range 0 or 0.1x - 2x instead of on 10x-300x for *several* variables with known threshold phenomena, in an identifiably nonobjective manner), (3) are increasingly being recognized as such, e.g. "markedly biased" by medical science authorities at a national level, and (4) the public reversal of scientific position on some related issues, by national level medical science authorities (e.g. vitamin C). Not only are OMM recommendations testable (and subject to improved knowledge, hence not PS), in the recent past, various national medical bodies have belatedly adopted previous orthomolecular range recommendations for folic acid, fish oil and vitamin D for general population and vitamin C is progressing, slowly (as well as Hoffer's historical mega-niacin for CVD). Conventional multivitamin-multimineral makers have now widely copied the iron free supplements OMM sources provided decades earlier. Also I noticed that one of the doctors that you included has been pretty legally active before. This "PS" agenda is politicalization & attack that needs to stop.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On BLP grounds? I am not sure any comment could do that justice..."WTF" does comes to mind though. But anyway, if good sources show reasonable consensus that it is pseudoscience (and it seems they do), put the tag back on. The remover seems not to understand many things both about pseudoscience as well as Wikipedia. And while it's not exactly coherent, might there be legal threats in there?Baccyak4H (Yak!)
    Since I do the heavy technical lift at OMM for references and accurate content, where Tim repeatedly shows speculation, not any knowledge much less RS, (one of today's), in conventional terms. The answer above seems uninformed about OMM and generally prejudicial. The entire conversation above seems dismissive and designed to railroad or intimidate me by ignoring the fact *I* have provided the technical background to the article while some are there simply to POV deprecate the subject, remove accurate description and sabotage or trash the article with known "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman, 2002), "severe...systematic biases" (Hufford, 2003) and "markedly biased" (Hemila, p64(2006) comments ala Quackwatch and its affliated authors spreading gross misrepresentations.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a concern I've raised with this editor before, see their talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tim appears to try to deliberately misunderstand and miscontrue my answers at every turn. I don't have time and WP probably doesn't have enough electrons to parse every error and subreption. I have felt being (pseudo)"legally" undermined, below others' detection limits for months where AGF has been a suckerpunch on me.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has continued to edit-war over this, claiming it is a "BLP issue" eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely there are BLP problems, attacking living individuals and their profession on barest pretext of RS sources for problems that I have spelled out in RS referenced detail at OMM Talk. The negative sources whether published in high impact journals, reflect simple aspersions & innuendo of a few lines by authors known to be highly biased (now) and not based any presentation of accurate data or peer reviewed results. Some articles that claim substantial data have later been heavily contradicted by later authorities or shown to be intrinsically flawed (total or irrelevant garbage).
    Was the paper published anywhere? It says it was prepared for a Centre, but it doesn't look like it received any peer review. It certainly doesn't merit including the "former and current proponents" as psuedoscientists, because it doesn't even mention them, and devotes only a couple sentences offhandedly to "megavitamin therapy" rather than orthomolecular medicine per se. The problem with the template is that it states that several scientists and doctors, including Linus Pauling, are pseudoscientists. These sorts of bold claims should be attributed. LP is dead, but it's still unprofessional to slide in that dig. The others are alive. Seems to be BLP problems. II | (t - c) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the BLP policy to get around neutral point of view, verifiability, and WP:FRINGE is extremely lame - not to mention textbook tendentious editing. Skinwalker (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been through several discussions that have concluded Orthomoecular Medicine although mired in flak from the Medical-Pharm-Govt complex, is not a pseudoscience, the largest attack, and discussion, ca August 2006. That a number pro QW editors alight on OMM to trash the article, delete and ignore RS medical and scientific sources that reverse or seriously modify the misrepresentative POV violates policy.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the infobox itself should be edited. Would removing the "proponents" data help? That info seems extraneous there anyhow. Given the rigors of WP:PSCI, we should instead be listing the critics who support that this concept is pseudoscientific. That way it is clear to the reader where this point-of-view is coming from, and it makes it clear to us, the editors, just how this topic conforms to WP:PSCI (and whether or not this label and consequent infobox should rightfully be there). Currently, the infobox only references one critic (Beyerstein) - which alone may not be enough to categorize this subject as either an "Obvious Pseudoscience" or a "Generally Considered Pseudoscience". Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing of the individual articles, not the infobox itself, should guide inclusion in the box. The articles on Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer, and Matthias Rust are each suitably referenced per WP:PSCI, or at the very least to demonstrate 1) that they advocated OM, and 2) that the medical community disapproves of their advocacy of OM, a demonstratable pseudoscience. The articles on Julian Whitaker and Archie Kalokerinos do not contain suitable references to even show notability - I would recommend these for AFD or stubbification since they are badly sourced puff pieces. Skinwalker (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    THis is not really a BLP discussion, so perhaps we should move it elsewhere - but should not the OMM article contain suitable references which indicate the subject is either an "Obvious Pseudoscience" or a "Generally Considered Pseudoscience"? I don't think the read should be expected to go to associated biography pages for confirmation. Currently the OMM article only cites Beyerstein - in the entire article. Is no other source necessary to comply with WP:PSCI? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone should warn the editor that because there is no consensus to treat it as a BLP issue, the 3RR exception does not apply and they therefore need to establish consensus for their edits and are subject to blocking for edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done so with this warning. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 9 ugust 2008 (UTC) They replied:
    diff Thank you for your concern, I am not in violation of 3RR. I have cited a clear WP:BLP problem, and some editors appear to be there to push a clique's QW et al POV to deprecate not accurately describe. The QW POV that is long demonstrated at Orthomolecular medicine Talk to not be science based at all, much less current medical science, despite vociferous claims of expertise or "mainstream" something. (Something, not science, the persistent, multivariable, multi-order of magnitude missed inputs assure that, where Pauling also cited the claimed replication, misinterpretation & lack of full range testing as "fraudulent" and the recent NIH & Hemila papers back up the basis of his point.)
    Okay, they've been warned. They can take their BLP argument up with the blocking administrator if they will not stop edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing some key points here, starting with the RS science and BLP parts. My understanding of BLP was that it was conservative, here it is promiscuously based on incredibly thin, obsolete, unqualified sources by, or based on, known unreliable sources spreading misrepresentations shown to be fraudulent by a Nobelist and now partially acknowledged by NIH.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already stated, the paper is not published, and it is used to state that living doctors and scientist, as well as a dead Nobel Laureate, are pseudoscientists. Find a better source. SELFPUB can never be used to make claims about third-parties, especially things this sensitive. There are clear, and major, BLP concerns. II | (t - c) 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandra Lee (cook)

    Since Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive46#Sandra_Lee_.28cook.29, the problems have continued. Of the editors previously listed:

    New editors are:

    blocked.
    blocked.
    blocked.
    blocked.
    blocked.
    blocked.

    --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest sockpuppets have been blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Name of Infant Child

    A BLP AfD about a prominent politician and allegations of marital infidelity was recently closed, but without addressing the issue of an infant child alleged to be the child of the politician. The politician has denied paternity; the child's mother has denied that the politician is the father of the child; another individual has claimed paternity of the child. So other than media speculation we have no reason to believe the politician is the father of this child. Hence I cannot see how the name of the child could be needed for the article. The BLP policy urges conservatism with regard to persons who are family members of article subjects; surely this standard must be observed with respect to individuals who are merely alleged to be family members of subjects. Personally, I believe that the article (which is, if I understand the discussion correctly, about the media coverage of a scandal, rather than about the scandal itself) strays towards becoming a coatrack in the section describing the chld's birth certificate. However, even if that section remains, I firmly believe the child's name should be omitted. The information is well sourced, but the fact that a piece of information is published elsewhere does not mean that it must be included in a WP article. It should be included in a WP article only if it contributes to the point of the article, and then only if it does not open a third party, utterly unnotable in his/her own right, to a horrific breach of privacy. Beats4NL (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm sympathetic to this in general, I think your last sentence is a gross exaggeration. The horrific breach of privacy (if that is the case) has already happened. We can decide that we're not going to participate in it, but it would be very inaccurate to suggest that Wikipedia's mentioning the name will cause any new breach of privacy, since that privacy is already long-since destroyed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John W. Dickenson

    The many-year influence tree created by Graeme Henderson (GH) posits references that were deeply forwarded becasue of his threats in Australia and on the Net. He has initiated a biography on John W. Dickenson that forwards an untenable rip at mechanical invention in hang gliding. Very strong Wiki editors fully conversant with NPOV will find that there is in play a slant that steals credit to old and new hang glider inventors via the GH tree of articles and references to his play over John W. Dickenson. The lead focus is not really on the biography but on a thesis of invention. And the play on invention cannot occur on the biography. So, Wikipedia is risking much on letting ride "On 1963, Dickenson invented the aircraft that became the modern hang glider." All of the mechanical invention in what he crafted was in public domain. All function, all mechanical principles, the full wing, the 1908 hang glder triangle control frame, the control methods. To let such theme focus ride in a veiled biography is to hurt hang glider history, hurt many inventors of the past and present. The deep effort over GH over-claim has been played out in OZ Report. Please note that FAI rubber-stamps what comes out of the Australian hang gliding org; and delve into how the error-filled paragraph of the diploma occurred via GH legal and loud push threats in Australia ...and you will begin to sense how a GH-free biography would be the only hope for having a neutral POV biography on JD. I must step aside from the controversy as I care too much about invention history for hang gliders, my life's work. Modern hang gliders are founded on inventors prior to JD. The format of modern hang gliders occurred before JD. To let the GH single thesis ride is to rip at the heart and soul of the creative invention body in hang gliding. Breslau 1908, the swing seats galore from 1800s on, the stiffened flexible wing hang gliders and aircraft ...prior to JD. The Paresev 1A wing, the Pamer four control systems, and much more. Designers of modern hang gliders are not referencing JD; they reference Breslau 1908 cable-stayed control bar, the Spratt cable-stayed control wing, the full of Rogallo's NASA givings galore, the Palmer tree of firsts, and their own inventions. Wishing Wikipedia the best on this. Joefaust (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nedra Pickler

    Nedra Pickler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Pickler is an AP reporter who has covered presidential politics and has attracted some attention from some hyper-partisan individuals. At one point in time, this article was in such bad shape, that it was deleted as an attack page. Now, nearly 1/3rd of this article is criticism and is sole sourced to Media Matters for America. If the criticism of Pickler was truly notable, surely there would be more sources than MMFA and these sources would also appear in more mainstream media, but there are none and none are cited. Using a hyper partisan source like MMFA for 1/3rd of the article (and that’s actually less than before) constitutes a violation of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:BLP. I would think that the most this information deserves is 1 sentence, if that. // CENSEI (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did a lot of editing of this BLP, prompted by learning of it by the above notice. I laughed over some dork(s) inserting lots of trivia about her early childhood. I mostly concur with the complaint. It is a violation of policies to construct an article that just echoes controversies transpiring in blogs. None of the non-blog content cited so far bears on the meat of the Wikipedia article, namely, criticisms of the subject. Lesson: if you want to find out why Democrats find Nedra Pickler a disgrace to her profession, so far you'll have to find the answer in blogs. I fault the actions of a Wikipedia administrator, User:Gamaliel who does not seem to share this assessment, who has edited the article today. The Washington Post reporting that blogs have complained about Nedra Pickler does not make the blog criticism about her notable. Every published report touching on the presidential election is going to draw complaint from somebody. I may yet propose this article for deletion. Hurmata (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore my edit summary there, since I thought you were deleting some things because they were from NY Times and Time magazine blogs. Instead, if I am reading your comments here correctly, you are contending that the mainstream coverage is irrelevant because the source of the criticism is "blogs". If the mainstream media deems criticism relevant, regardless of its source, then it is legitimate material according to WPLRS. RS does not prohibit us from using material that has ever touched a blog, it is merely designed to prohibit some crank blog with an audience of three from being used as a source for an encyclopedia article. Now there are legitimate issues, certainly, with using this material, and we can discuss (as I have repeatedly urged Censei to do) wording, length, etc., and I have trimmed that section down myself, but we simply should not delete wholesale all legitimate criticism of a journalist's work. Sure, any journalist will be criticized, but criticism that is discussed in mainstream media and from legitimate watchdog groups should be discussed in any neutral article, otherwise it just becomes little more than their company's promotional biography. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The administrator counterfactually invokes "criticism that is discussed in the mainstream media". The Washington Post article Gamaliel is alluding to fails to discuss criticism of Nedra Pickler; it merely makes a flabby mention that she has drawn criticism, then gives her boss the spotlight for a retort of typical self serving puffery from the journalism profession: "we're [criticized] from the right and the left. That puts us right in the middle where we want to be." To look at it another way: the news that a politics reporter "draws criticism" from partisans "is not news". It is not sufficient to invoke a "reliable source" to justify an edit in Wikipedia when the sentences in the "reliable source" barely touch on the thrust of the proposed edit. Hurmata (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Expand my preceding comment. (1) The other commenter is so careless -- "if the mainstream media deems criticism relevant" -- Rutenberg at WaPo WAS NOT deeming the criticism of Pickler relevant, just reporting it's existence! Besides, Ruttenberg's whole article has a tone of disdain toward criticism by bloggers of his colleagues in the MAINSTREAM media. (2) You seem to misunderstand the rationale for blog policy. I am not convinced that "blogs at mainstream media" count. A blog is a genre where the writer can say almost whatever they want, free of the strict journalistic standards. It's not edited. IF the blogger at a mainstream news source were to write something that drew a lawsuit or a severe condemnation from organs of authority for the industry, then the blogger could face discipline -- after the horse is out of the barn. Hurmata (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just scrutinized the Web site of Media Matters for America (and verified that Wikipedia has an article on them -- at first my computer was slow to find it). I am not convinced that Media Matters for America is a reliable source: that it is not a blog and that it does exercise editorial control. Hurmata (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1)I have checked all links in the article. Three or four inherited links were dead or unverifiable, so I searched for alternate sources and succeeded in some cases. I also copy edited for sophistication (e.g., not "McCain", but "Republican presidential candidate John McCain"). I would like to note that Talking Points Memo (TPM) should be added to the list of RS. Although it's partisan, it also established itself in 2007 as a serious news gathering and investigating outfit by single handedly driving the US attorney firings scandal. In a famous incident, a Time magazine reporter publicly ate crow once the scandal was confirmed by the MSM (mainstream media). This journalist wrote that he had pooh poohed TPM when they started hammering on the story, but that now he was declaring them to be right in ascribing high importance to the matter. Between Columbia Journalism Review, Media Matters for America, and Talking Points Memo, I think there are enough RS to retire the original complaint.
    (2)To better focus a previous objection I made today: the NYT puff piece for the MSM by Jim Rutenberg is not a valid source (that's not saying, "the NYT is unreliable", but "this one article is invalid") because it did not report specific criticisms leveled at Nedra Pickler. Instead it reported two frustrated epithets that have been hurled at her, and epithets can be criticisms, but Rutenberg didn't dignify any specific claim against her by repeating it. If you are going to put in a BLP that somebody's professionalism is being criticized, cite specific acts they committed or specific utterances/statements and cite specific objections to those acts or utterances. Hurmata (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t believe that is so. At issue is the fact that this is still 1/3rd of the articles content, which is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Surely if the criticisms were truly that notable, then we could find them in less partisan places then MMFA and TPM. If all we can find is one article in the WAPO about this, then perhaps its not worth 1/3rd of the article. Gamaliel is a wrong in his assessment of why we don’t allow blogs: we don’t allow them because there is no editorial oversight, not because some crank might be writing there.
    From WP:BLP

    Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.

    Allowing 1/3rd of the article to be critics from MMFA is at the heart and sole of what the above paragraph is about. CENSEI (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and Hurmata are missing the point. A blog written by a professional journalist from a reputable mainstream media publication is subject to the same oversight and standards as any part of the publication, and thus qualifies as a reliable source. We can't simply say it is inherently unreliable because someone calls it a blog. I see that Hurmata has some issues with the content of a particular source, which is fine, and that is the sort of thing we should be doing instead of just writing off whole categories of arbitrarily chosen sources. But lest this comment be all criticism, I pretty much concur with most of the things he's written here otherwise. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And you continue to not address the point that a biographical article which relies one ultra partisan source is in violation of WP:WEIGHT and need serious attention and revision. We most certainly can say that its unreliable because it’s a blog because that’s what the policy states. If you disagree with this, go get the WP:BLP policy changed, don’t dismiss it. CENSEI (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you are talking about here, since the article relies on many sources, including the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, and the Associated Press. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don’t have any idea what I am talking about, then you really have not paid attention to the article and should stop reverting me without discussing your edits. The sources: AP, NY Times and the AP are all primary sources on Pickler's articles, they have nothing to do with the criticism. None of the above sources you listed, with the exception of the CJR (whose critical comments are also questionable at best), have indicated any controversy over Pickler’s reporting. In fact all criticism in the article is sourced to MMFA, and violates WP:WEIGHT. CENSEI (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sources in that section include the Weekly Standard, the Columbia Journalism Review, and Talking Points Memo. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now stating that the material from the AP and NY Times were not appropriate sources for indicating a controversy? In addition, the Weekly Standard does not mention Pickler, so wouldnt that be Original Research? CENSEI (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not stating any such thing and I don't see how you could have gotten that idea from what I wrote. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, using primary sources from a Pickler to indicate controversy on Pickler and using a secondary source which does not mention Pickler is not original research? It appears to me to be the textbook definition of the term. CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamaliel, for the record now, how does 1/3rd of the article's content being critical and sourced from MMFA not violate WP:WEIGHT. Please be clear and concise, as this is the heart of the dispute. CENSEI (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think it is a little long and trimmed a bit of it myself yesterday. I would suggest discussing the issue on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The criticism section is still 1/3rd of the article, you removed one sentence. Are you saying that the criticism section is still too long, or that it was too long before you removed the one sentence? According to Wikipedia policy, if this is a BLP issue, no discussion is needed to remove it. Are you now saying that there is a BLP issue with the article? CENSEI (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear to me that you are not trying to have a conversation, you are just trying to twist my words around. If you want to collaborate on the article, great, but that doesn't appear to be your goal here. So I'm going to get back to editing and leave you to argue with someone else. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not assuming good faith here. I am trying to make you understand that you have contradicted yourself here, several times now, and that you are not addressing the primary questions: is this a vioaltion of WP:WEIGHT and if so why did you revert me? CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what she means is instead of trying to come to some agreement, you're playing gotcha and trying to pin her into some claim of being wrong. That isn't assuming bad faith, that's just a poor approach to collaboration.Yeago (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tucker Max . His employee uses libel to cancel all properly sourced criticism.

    McJeff has repeatedly negated all sourced criticism of his Tucker Max. Mcjeff identifies himself as an employee of tucker max. He refuses to propose and changes and engage in a meaningfull discussion of correct edits and procedures. Please notes that he has been warned before for engaging in this tactic.

    I am a new user so I do acknowledge that my first edits were incorrect. Even as I have asked for ancillary help and advice Mcjeff has just "undid" them with no constructive criticism. Other than to say that somehow Tucker's own quoted words are not reliable.. nor those of Fox news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharon42 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to take this to the "conflict of interest noticeboard" - that's where they deal with self-interested editors. I haven't looked at your situation but you might want to review WP:RS about what's considered "reliable sources". Fox news is reliable when it's in news mode, but not when it's in editorial mode - not just fox, but New York Times or anyone else. If it's solid news reporting of a fact, then that's reliable. If it's somebody's allegation or personal view in an editorial or debate show, no. If you do decide to take your report to that other board let us know so we can close this one down to avoid having a "fork" of two active reports on the same subject. Also please be sure to sign your contributions to talk pages and notice boards by adding four tildes at the end ("~~~~"). Best, Wikidemo (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to comment on this. First of all, I am not an employee of Tucker Max. Secondly, I've been trying to explain to the complaining user that his desired edits are a flagrant violation of WP:BLP, but he's not listening. He's also unfamiliar with policies such as WP:OR. I'm trying to explain things to him since he's new, but he does keep inserting his policy-violating edits into the article. I'm open to advice on how to deal with this situation - I believe I'm acting in accordance with BLP, but if I'm not I'll desist immediately. McJeff (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Sorry, my mistake. As of now we are settling this on the talk page. Please shut down this line of complaint if that is allowed. aharon42 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Terren Peizer

    SPA's and IPs - probably all the same, two SPAs blocked for socking - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Inshiningarmor have been persistently vandalizing this article by removing cited material and removing citations, at times leaving the material in and replacing valid cites to Forbes.com and major newspapers with fact tags, and making false statements about the unfindability of citations online. (The article was well referenced, but with very few links, even when they existed in online archives) He/they are trying to introduce new material, negative but mostly not too badly sourced, and are perhaps cutting some fat out, but insist on vandalizing the article at the same time, and have made seriously negative BLP talk comments. (I looked at the article after a seeing a prod; the SPA and sock & IPs have repeatedly speedied and prodded it, after deleting almost all content, and nominated it simultaneously for two AfD's.) Any help with this would be welcome; (s)protection may be necessary, the user account has been blocked for one week.John Z (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And you should be blocked as well for repeatedly reverting the article back to improperly sourced material, and placing personal attacks in your edit summary. As stated below, a total of 10 links were added, along with the pertinent information from their proper sources, so rather than reverting the much needed clean up and having to add back these proven facts, you should stick to the facts and add additional ones you can prove from the previous poorly written biography. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Terren Peizer Article/Nonsense

    Hello, this message is for the experts here at Wikipedia. Can you please take a look at the article on Terren Peizer and verify the clean up of it? I personally think the clean up was valid and see no reason why a few others (particularly John Z) keep trying to revert back to the prior sensationalized biography which was heavily "peacocked" and included unverified/questioned sources, which cannot compare to the ones recently added and validated online. In contrast, people keep removing facts from the related article Hythiam, facts which were also reliably sourced online. Personally, I think either one of the articles should be deleted or they should be merged into one. This fairly unknown person (Peizer) is one of millions of businessmen in the world, yet somehow one or two people feel that he is relevant. Thanks for your time. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to the total of 10 properly sourced links added recently, this article looks better now than it was before. Therefore, I see no further reason why John Z, Jay Z, whatever keeps reverting the article back to unreliable sources, removing validated ones, and will report him for vandalism if he continues to do so. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the IP considers anything that can't be found on the Internet an unreliable source, which is in considerable divergence from our policies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Barrie

    Hello, can someone with the relevant experience and expertise take a look at David Barrie and User:Mrdavidbarrie and advise this user as appropriate? I suspect this page is a candidate for speedy deltion, but I'm not too sure. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the article should be deleted. He's a veteran producer (and maybe director too?) of documentaries. That in itself doesn't seem notable enough. The passage about one of his works was the inspiration for some minor film seems to be a desperate attempt to make him seem notable. Most of the article, e.g., the current second paragraph, reads like a resume for him. Hurmata (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I've heard of this guy. I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll see if I can dig up additional sources. At minimum this is enough of a claim of notability that the article should go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion, or even AFD in my view. There are several significant claims of notability, as well as multiple independent sources attesting to them.--Slp1 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Acorah

    Could someone take a look at this article and see if it still breaches BLP? It was in blatant violation but I have recently made some heavy edits to it to improve POV and removed anything that could be perceived as libellous. I believe it is now made clear that any controversy surrounding this person is based on notable, cited opinion. Please also check the paragraph that has been commented out (at the end of the controversy section). I didn't want to remove the notice on the talk page myself, being the one who made the edits. Please state on the talk page if any further work needs to be done? Thanks in advance for your input. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Kaufmann

    Frank Kaufmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Is it appropriate, in a BLP of a journal's editor, to include an online-publisher/content-aggregator of that journal's characterisation of its collection as "major religion and theology journals", from that online-publisher/content-aggregator's own press release? Edit introducing this material; Press Release; Google Scholar search of the journal in question // HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There must be some mistake or misunderstanding. We are talking about the American Theological Library Association. What they say about theological journals is significant. We are talking about the single word "important" (their selection criteria) they used in their own press release about adding to their own collection, which includes the academic journal Dialogue and Alliance. The publisher of Dialogue and Alliance is the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. The two are completely independent. If the American Theological Library Association refers to something in the sphere of theological writing as "important", that is noteworthy. Are you confusing part of this with a different reference? -Exucmember (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we are talking about ATLA, whose relationship to Dialogue and Alliance is that of publishing it online as part of their collection (i.e. content-aggregation) of 117 journals. If you wish to argue that this journal which, by your own admission, is (self-)published by Kaufmann's own IRFWP (rather than by a serious academic publisher), is a serious "academic journal" (in spite of appearing to be largely ignored by the academic community), then I would suggest that you provide corroboration. Incidentally, what is its hard-copy circulation? What major seminaries include it in their library? The labels "important" and "major religion and theology journals" was never applied to D&A specifically, the closest is it being described as one of "four impressive titles". Such hyperbole is to be expected from press releases, that does not mean that it should be included in BLPs. HrafnTalkStalk 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what the article said before you deleted the quoted phrase:
    • He is editor in chief of the journal Dialogue and Alliance,[5] which in 2005 was added to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) ATLASerials online collection of "major religion and theology journals".
    Here is what the article said after you deleted the quoted phrase:
    • Kaufmann is editor in chief of IRFWP's journal Dialogue and Alliance,[17] which in 2005 was added to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) ATLASerials online.
    I misremembered that the word you are describing as "such fulsome praise" was "major", not "important".
    It really doesn't matter whether the American Theological Library Association is the only organization that provides online access to Dialogue and Alliance or whether they are one of hundreds of libraries and/or library associations that provide such access to it as part of their collections. An argument to exclude their phrase "collection of 'major religion and theology journals'" because it is not trustworthy (even though it comes from the American Theological Library Association) - "liable to include hyperbole" according to you - is certainly the most bizarre argument I have ever heard in my years of editing Wikipedia. I honestly don't know what to say. -Exucmember (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dialogue and Alliance is not listed in the ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX - RELIGION JOURNAL LIST of Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of journal impact factors & Journal Citation Reports. HrafnTalkStalk 06:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Running Publish or Perish on D&A's 294 papers it has published, it has only 22 citations (for 0.07 citations per paper). In comparison a run of the first 1000 papers (the maximum number it can handle) over the last decade from journals with 'theology' in their title, yielded an average of 0.42 citations/paper. This would indicate that D&A's impact is well below average in the field. HrafnTalkStalk 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Strickland

    Tom Strickland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has multiple issues. I believe it needs to be checked for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violations. // Thanks John Sloan (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have fixed it up a little bit. However, looking through the original version, while I agree with the maintenance tags that were placed, I couldn't find any OR, NPOV, or BLP violations. Could you point to a specific example? Artichoker[talk] 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that John Sloan was referring to additions such as [14] which have been made a few times in recent days. CIreland (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Also, I just realized part of the article was a copyvio of this site. I removed the offending content. Artichoker[talk] 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply here - John Sloan (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathleen Battle

    There is currently an on-going debate on the Kathleen Battle article regarding it's presentation of her dismissal from the Metropolitan Opera in 1994. Concerns about the article's neutrality and possible failure to meet the standards for the Biographies of living persons have been raised by User:Hrannar (also edits as 129.74.18.183) who proceded to delete several portions of that section of the article on July 20, 2008. This action was contested by myself, User:nrswanson, and later User:Rickterp. Another participant in the discussion, User:Voceditenore remained neutral. I personally felt that a delicate balance had already been achieved and Hrannar's edits, rather than fixing a neutrality problem, created one as well as inacting a strong amount of censorship (including refusing to allow the inclusion of facts from major news sources like the New York Times) to the article. I believed this because a long and tedious discussion about the presentation of the Met firing with multiple editors had already occured between February 2007 and November 2007 (see talk page archives) during which time that section of the article was highly unstable. Eventually the editors worked together to achieve a balanced presentation resulting in no major or disputed changes from late November 2007 to early July 2008. This was the first and only time any stability was seen in that part of the article since it's inception. Hrannar's edits, however, have undone the fruit of that discussion and have potentially caused an NPOV unbalance and in my view inflicted a high degree of unethical censorship that goes beyond a reasonable interpretation of BLP guidelines. Hrannar obviously contests this view, saying that the former agreed upon verion did not meet BLP guidelines (note Hrannar has a small edit history which is mostly made up of edits to the Kathleen Battle article). This resulted in an edit war until I sought help at both the opera wikiproject and the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This resulted in an informal mediation by User:Kleinzach between myself and Hrannar which has since proved unfruitful, largely because an agreed upon interpretation of BLP guidelines, WP:NPOV, and WP:Censor can not be reached between Hrannar and myself. Therefore, I have taken this discussion here. I believe both of us are seeking input as to what can reasonably be included in the article and are willing to work amicably with whatever is decided here. Perhaps a community discussion here would benefit us more than a detached mediator since neither of us has had tons of experience editing sensitive topics and neither of us is likely to give in to the other. I have done my best to summarize the long events here and appologize if any bias of mine has crept into the summary. I am doing my best to keep neutral here. For more details see the Kathleen Battle talk page. Nrswanson (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Further helpful info. To help chart this sections history, here is the version that was stable for several months in it's last version before Hrannar's edits: 23:38, 2 July 2008. and an earlier version 01:49, 22 November 2007. If you compere them they are virtually identical and if you look at the article history there were no edit wars/conflicts between November 22, 2007 and July 2, 2008 which again was the only period of stability in this article. This is not to say that the stable version was necessarily perfect and can not be changed. It just merely points out the fact that there was a significant amount of consensus on this version for some time.

    Also, both of us have created different prefered presentations of the event in user space. My prefered version is at User:Nrswanson/sandbox and Hrannar's is at User:Hrannar/sandbox/k battle. I appologize for this being so long and I look foreword to everyone's input. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response -- Invitation for facts speaking for themselves

    Thanks to those who get involved. It is appropriate that you read nrswansons account and assertions above. However I kindly ask that before you make a decision, to:

    • 1. Read the talk page discussions here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle ; and

    • 2. Read the history of the logs beginning around January 2007.

    I think that then, you can best judge for yourself how "fruitful discussions" were and how editors talked this out and made a presentation that, as Nrswanson states, "we" were satisifed was neutral. By the way, you can see my contributions are noted as Hrannar and 129.74.18.183 (before I understood how to properly sign in.); and you will also see nrswansons.

    BACKGROUND INFO. About a year ago, after an edit war and editors just sort of stopped editing the section per recommendation to cool off, but did not agree nor stated anything close to suggesting we are satisfied with the neutrality, that I was aware of. In addition, Voceditenore made his suggestions for actions on making this a more neutral page (beginning of see talk page) and the editing stopped, but there was no confirmed statements of satisfaction or confirmation that this was NPOV. Later I actually tried to start implemented his recommendations including the chronological subheading (for career years only) that he suggested. And recently, he made another suggestion (see 1st suggestion) regarding text discussing dismissal that was his attempt to take the perspective of both editors (and the subject) into account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle#Another_attempt_at_reaching_consensus

    ORIGINAL Some, though not all, of the other music professionals who have worked with Battle have viewed her as lacking appropriate professionalism. One of these was former Metropolitan Opera General Magager Joseph Volpe, who fired her from an engagement to perform the lead in La Fille du Regiment in 1994

    NRSWANSONS and his "Rephrasing for professional language" A perfectionist in her own work, Battle became more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt that her demands were becoming unreasonable, and her behavior became erratic. These difficulties came to public attention when she was dismissed from the Metropolitan Opera in 1994 for "unprofessional conduct." by former Metropolitan Opera General Magager Joseph Volpe.

    IMHO, this is a change of content, not just whether this is professional language or not.

    Please, just a heads up also, editors have inserted their editing, sometimes negative, that history comments to not reflect at all. There is just a blank. Here is another example. However, the editor wrote this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=144071074&oldid=144070720 ORIGINAL

    • ABOUT CONCENSUS and CIVILITY. But please look at the history around July 31 2008. When nrswanson seemed satisfied with the article, he removed the neutrality tag. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, he did not seek concensus. So when I expressed my concern over Neutrality by readding the neutrality dispute tag, nrswanson shortly thereafter removed my neutrality tag stating, "neutrality tag no longer applies. you are just trying to unbalance a balanced presentation in the name of neutrality. if it is altered from this version it will be an NPOV violation and censorship vio." I feel this is fairly typical of how nrswanson communicates with me.
    • Actually, I don't think the section at that time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=228888117&oldid=228880525) wasn't that bad, save that it didn't offer an alternative perspective that others in fact found her professional and well prepared; but it only sort of "justifies" why she was supposedly "difficult" rather than the view of others who do not find her difficult, no more, no less demanding than say a person like Jessye Norman or Pavarotti.
    • I supportion inclusion of the termination. However it is my understanding that a conservative hand should be applied when discussing this in living bio regardless of our views of the person. Notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Volpe_(opera_manager) Often, assertions (other than the termination, a factual event) for ANY perspective are inconclusive and speculative.
    • Finally, some people seem to have very strong negative opinions of Kathleen Battle. And some have very strong positive opinions of her. I hope we can move to a balanced, neutral ground! And just keep the FACTS of EVENTS on record and principal parties, not anonymous background voices who can say anything they want, whether pro or con.
    • Finally, you can see in the text on the talk page, that voceditenore and kleinzach, after viewing our perspectives and differences of opinion between myself and nrswanson offered, at two different instances, solutions based on both our input. I was willing to agree to their suggestions.

    Sorry for the length, and yet, I hope this info is useful in understanding this contested portion of the Kathleen Battle article!

    Hrannar (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

    I could defend myself as I think that Hrannar has misrepresented the account of events and frankly I wish he/she would assume some more good faith about my intentions. I personally believe Hrannar (as I have said many times on the talk page) is acting in good faith towards this article and so am I. However, I am not going to go through an exhaustive defense and counter attack as it would just lead to another long unfruitful arguement between the two of us on this page which I want to avoid. I am frankly tired of all this back and forth between myself and Hrannar. We just need some help figuring out what can and can not be included in this article independent of our own reterict. I would simply appriciate it if someone looked at my suggested version and Hrannar's and actually talked about the facts of this case and the material to be included/not included which has never been done yet within a mediated context. Kleinzach, our previous mediator, started with the issue of sub-headings and never got to the actual content which I found to be detrimental to the whole process. Really the sub-headings should be a reflection on the content and not the other way around. I think it best to actually start by looking at the content in each of our proposed versions, sentence by sentence, and making a ruling as to whether it can be included under BLP guidelines. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put. I appreciate the sentiments you state above just now i.e, "I am not going to go through an exhaustive defense and counter attack" ; And yet, please do not be surprised that if you make statements such as "Hrannar has grossly misrepresented the account of events...,(as you stated above") and accuse me of censorship, gaming the system, "grossly distorting BLP guidelines" etc...." than I must respond. However, if, as you wisely suggested, focus on the content (versus personal motives), then this back and forth (on your part as well) will be unnecessary. Looking forward to a positive resolution. Hrannar (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]
    Hrannar I do think the issues of neutrality, the implementation/interpretation of BLP guidelines, and issues of censorship are the core issues of this discussion so they do need to be discussed by everyone, including yourself.Nrswanson (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, nrswanson! Hrannar (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar[reply]

    Decision to withdraw

    After repeated attempts to try to work with Hrannar with unsuccess I have decided to withdraw from this discussion. At this time I find it impossible to find an equitable solution to this problem. Although I have attempted to extend an olive branch to Hrannar in the most recent round of discussions, not enough common ground and good will on the part of Hrannar has been achieved to make me feel that I can work well with him. Rather than prolong a tedious conversation that may or may not achieve success, I am choosing to withdraw at this time. Hrannar can do what he wants with the article without my interference. However, I will caution other editors that a strong amount of cencorship has been advocated by Hrannar and that I believe this has had and will have a negative impact on this article's neutrality and integrity. Best of luck to all.Nrswanson (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Hanson

    Only source for the article is 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Cited repeatedly. DurovaCharge! 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps we should speedy this as an attack page. Thoughts anyone? Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like some other article I have been recently working on .... perhaps they should be speedy deletes as well? CENSEI (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to discuss the matter in a seperate section for that article. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dana Milbank

    A dispute currently exists on the Dana Milbank article as how to incorporate a recent “scuffle” Milbank had over an article he wrote 8 days ago. The original version I modified found here was over half the article, a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. I have cut it down to one sentence, much more inline with the articles size IMO however there are other editors who believe that this one article Milbank wrote deserves a disproportionate amount of space. Feedback would be appreciated on this. CENSEI (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonja Elen Kisa

    Sonja Elen Kisa is a linguist who is male-to-female transsexual and who also has a Wikipedia account. Recently, she/he (depending on reader's views on transsexuality), remover her birth mane (Christian Richard) from Sonja Elen Kisa article, violating WP:AB and WP:NAMES and using nonsense reference to Basic human dignity section of BLP.

    On the other hand, "Privacy of names" section of BLP does say that names can be ommited for persons of marginal notability.

    The question is what rule should apply in this case: WP:NAMES (one of its basic cornerstones, btw) or WP:BLP (one of its section)?

    Generally, the situation with mentioned article is questionalbe. The photo of the subject was removed from the article because "she does not want the photo to be here". Would we have free-license photo, should we use it in the article? I don't think WP:BLP suggests that an article about a living person should only include things that the living person likes or wants.

    Phil Chalmers

    Resolved

    Phil Chalmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Two-sentence stub on a UK politician, with the second sentence focusing on his arrest for patronizing a prostitute. The info about the arrest seems to be accurate[15], but it might be undue weight for a figure of marginal notability anyway. The only reason I didn't kill it was that I don't know enough about UK politics to be sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:BLP, I have removed the statement which was unsourced. Also added {{notability}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unsourcable, though - I provided a link to a RS in my post above. My question was more about whether it should just be deleted outright as a coatrack. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Leopold

    Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would anyone be so kind as to keep an eye on this page, which was recently unprotected (a much needed unprotect). I was previously threatened with some legal action in regards to previous interactions with the IP editor, which I believe to be Jason himself. So, I am attempting to not edit the article in general, but the article is still in its scrubbed version, and the IP is once again editing. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Arkon (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jazzy B

    Jazzy B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is a frequent target for both vandalism and unsourced changes which violate WP:BLP policy. More eyeballs from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated in keeping this article free and clear of dubious content. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ "Beneath the Hoods". War in Iraq. Newsweek. 2006-07-19. Retrieved 2007-02-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=231625787"