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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:54, 10 April 2009

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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:

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.

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons:

Matthew J. Amorello

One or more editors, usually Alpha Centauri 2021, have made numerous changes to the page.

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations). This article is being repeatedly edited by a single user to cast Matthew Amorello in a more favorable light. This editor eliminates existing citations and does not include new, relevant ones for their own additions/edits.

Case in point: Matthew Amorello is mainly newsworthy due to his involvement in the Big Dig collapse. However, Alpha Centauri, in his repeated edits, will bring up points regarding Amorello's "spearheading the establishment of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, a public private partnership charged with maintaining and operating the newly created parkland in downtown Boston" and his involvement with "the Bruce Springsteen concert to open the Lenny Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, the widest cable stay bridge in the world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornerstone79 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Lockhart III

One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).

This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).

DGG (talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.

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

This user twice (this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.)

American Criminal Category

Please review this. It's ok, I'll wait.

Great. Now I'd like to hear from folks who haven't yet spoken. Should Otto Kerner be an American Criminal? Leadbelly? Frank LaGrotta? What's the standard? Thanks for your kind consideration. David in DC (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Frank LaGrotta thread, Will has suggested a solution that makes sense to me. David in DC (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the solution category Will suggested has already been created and deleted. I tried to implement it on two pages and Good Olfactory caught it before I could do to much damage. OK, what's another solution? One is that I think all further conversation about this should now go to the American Criminal Category Talk page. David in DC (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion would benefit from the wisdom of a few more people than me, Will Beback, Rd, and Just Getting It Right. David in DC (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that's probably best dealt with here is whether adding a "criminal" category to someone notably convicted of a felony violates BLP. If someone is sentenced to a year or more in prison, and loses his career due to the crime, is it undue weight to add a category to reflect that? That is the argument, and a specific case being offered is Otto Kerner, Jr., a governor of Illinois who was later appointed federal judge. He was later convicted of having accepted bribes as governor, forcing his resignation from the bench. Where does BLP demand that we avoid adding the article to Category:Americans convicted of bribery? Will Beback talk 05:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americans convicted of bribery is waaaaaay better than American Criminals. It labels the act, not the person. Not sure why you ask for it to go back to the BLP noticeboard and then use Otto Kerner as the archetype, but, lets pretend he's alive. The most notable thing he did was the Kerner Commission, which was prescient about the causes of urban rioting and the central factors of class, poverty and race. He was a Governor, a judge, and a bribe-taker. All the facts belong in the article. But the values embodied in BLP, and in the guidelines about categorization of people (living or dead) argue for the editorial discretion that favors the "convicted of bribery" cat over the American criminal one. David in DC (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People convicted of crime are called "criminals". We have Category:American criminals which has many subcategories to cover specific crimes. The only people who should be in the parent categories are those who don't happen to fit into any of the subcategories, just like with any category. So if the crime is notable and well-sourced, where is the BLP violation? Even if the subject has done other wonderful things, that doesn't erase the criminal conviction. Martha Stewart has done many things besides making false statements to federal investigators, but she was notably convicted of having done so. There's no BLP violation in adding that article to category: American perjurors, a subcategory of Category:American criminals. Will Beback talk 07:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"People convicted of crime are called "criminals"".... it's exactly that sort of sweeping statement that illustrates the B(L)P issues about adding this category. As I've said before on this subject, we have to be very careful about labelling people who have convictions of some kind with the label "criminal". And it's really unnecessary: why can't we avoid this issue with greater precision: Category:Americans convicted of felonies? Or whatever definition is wanted, but focussing on the act, not the (somewhat subjective and contentious) label. Rd232 ^talk 11:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely use similar labels for other categories. We have things like "Presidents of the United States" instead of "People elected U.S. President" and "Harvard University alumni" instead of "People who have attended Harvard University". People who are elected to the presidency (and are sworn in) are "presidents", people who have attended colleges are "alumni", and people who are convicted of crimes are "criminals". It's not a value judgment. Will Beback talk 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is impressively irrelevant. Kudos. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. People who vote are "voters". People steer cars are "drivers". People who commit burglaries are "burglars". People who commit rape are "rapists". Where is the BLP violation? Will Beback talk 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over possible UNDUE and allegations at Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe the Plumber

Sections in the Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe the Plumber articles could possibly be UNDUE and might include undue allegations per the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. Can other editors lend some suggestions and/or advice on whether any of the information in these two articles violates UNDUE or/or BLP? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material has been taken verbatim from RS sources. No wording contrary to RS sources has been used. Collect (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the issue raised, Collect. The issue is whether the event has been given undue weight. I think to a great degree that it is given undue weight, as the search controversy can better be covered in depth at the rather newly created Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. At a minimum, I think Helen_Jones-Kelley#Ohio_newspaper_editorial_comments_on_Jones-Kelley needs to be removed from the article about Jones-Kelly. This is a BLP, and hopefully our readers are able to draw their own conclusions about her actions and don't need negative editorials to tell them how to feel. AniMate^talk 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the history of that article, you will note that all positive material was invited to be added. It is not WP's fault if such was not found for her actions. Collect (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is right here. That the majority of well-sourced material is negative does not make an UNDUE issue by any stretch of the imagination. The point of UNDUE is when there is undue weight on something out of proportion to the existing sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting to the way in which the event is covered, but I feel a collection of negative editorials isn't appropriate. Our readers can draw their own conclusions, as my objections are to a collection of opinion pieces. AniMate^talk 00:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that the content that is notable, and backed by reliable sources on each BLP (for Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe the Plumber), stay in each article as long as it does not violate BLP and is not UNDUE. Information that is indirectly related in each article can be linked/moved/merged to Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. Material in each BLP that is not related to the BLP, and/or is in violation of BLP, should be removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Ism schism's approach and have the following comments:

Right now both the Joe the Plumber and Helen Jones Kelly articles have long sections about the database controversy that are overlapping. There is a main article dedicated to the controversy which allows for summary and wikilinking.
Furthermore there are instances where the language should be more neutral. A previous version of the section contained language with speculation and innuendo that the actions by Jones-Kelly were illegal. We now know that no laws were broken by Jones-Kelly when she asked a subordinate to do the database searches. An official investigation found no evidence that laws were broken. For this reason, there is no purpose to include past speculation that they could have been "illegal."
Likewise the catalog of negative editorials in the Jones-Kelly article are gratuitous. We can do better than that. Mattnad (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update The catalog of negative editorials in the Helen Jones-Kelley article has been removed. Also, the information in the Joe the Plumber article has been shortened in relation to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy. What remains is the question; is the information in the Jones-Kelley and the Joe the Plumber articles/BLPs concerning the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy UNDUE and/or in violation of BLP? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Pearlman

There's a few people who are reverting edits to much older versions that eliminates substantial work done recently. The page was formerly a mess with lots of outdated links, synthesis, coatrack, trivia, etc. that I cleaned up. However, instead of adding to it they simply revert for no apparent reason. Could we get a few more eyes on this to keep vandals from it?Startstop123 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "substantial work" consisted in massive deletions, in fact whitewashing the convict by removing well-referenced information. A WP:Biography of a living crook who is quite notable specifically for being a crook by definition must contain all his reported misdeeds. Twri (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. O'Connor

This article is about a politician, and a user is adding POV in favour of a rival candidate in an election. The article is a short stub after I removed poorly sourced or unsourced content, and the user is re-adding information about a controversy that doesn't appear to be important. I've explained to the user, but I don't want to be involved in an edit war (I've already made three reverts), so I think it would be more appropriate for another user to look at it. —Snigbrook 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to jump in. I grew up in Berwyn, only problem it was in a different State on the East coast :). Anyways, going forward, could you try to keep discussions on the talk page so it is centralized? No biggie and thanks for the heads up, cheers, --Tom (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to block the SPA soon. Tom (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michelle_Obama#Michelle_Obama.27s_legal_and_health_care_services_career

Soapboxing aside, is Talk:Michelle_Obama#Michelle_Obama.27s_legal_and_health_care_services_career a BLP violation? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user seems to have a pattern of asking questions that one can perceive to be soapboxing in disguise. Still, we must assume good faith nonetheless, but you may remove the question (or rant, depending on how you look at it) and leave a polite note in their talk page informing them what is and what is not appropriate to discuss on talk pages. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the discussion and will inform the OQ. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lodge

Edward Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Another editor and I are concerned with what we consider to be libel in the section of "Investigation into banking practices," the claims made in the section, especially the claims made by the Oregon Observer, this claim is made by a non-notable newspaper, and is not even referenced by it or any other source [1]. The removal of this absolutely baseless claim has been reverted many times with no explanation, or additional citations. The only reference, made earlier in the section, is to a blog, which is not peer reviewed or reliable, and whose own disclaimer at the beginning of the page claims: "This page contains articles and tidbits submitted by concerned citizens, for concerned citizens. Take the articles for what they are worth and try to verify their accuracy. It is up to the reader to gauge the article's accuracy." This is not even a remotely reliable source and I hope that this potential libel will remain off the page until more accurate, verifiable documentation is provided. "Miltenburg67 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Comment: The severity of the claim makes the need for a reliable source particularly strong. Never mind whether the Oregon Observer is a reliable source (actually it's supposed to be the Idaho Observer), the only online reference to this issue (excepting echoes of Wikipedia) is in a website which is clearly not reliable; and the source isn't actually even that website, it's an article allegedly from the Idaho Observer emailed by Some Guy.[2] This is just not good enough, by any stretch of the imagination! Now if someone can find the offline archive for the Idaho Observer and look at that, that might be a WP:RS (I'm not sure, but I think local papers on local issues are generally trusted, especially on something they'd get their ass sued off for if wrong.) PS FYI part of the disputed claim has been printed in a book on Bankruptcy which uses some material from WP: here. Just goes to show... something. Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Oz

Please look into this editing conflict. This discussion was taken from Mehmet Oz's talk page on April 3, 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

I added a revised section with added referencing on Dr. Oz's dog experiments at Columbia University; to this article on March 28, 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs)

I removed this junk. Dr. Oz is not mentioned in any of the source materials. Only on two activist websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.196.228 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main source was a 2004 letter from Mary Beth Sweetland to Elizabeth Goldentyer, DVM of the USDA. Dr. Oz and his dogs (as in Oz dogs) are discussed on pages 2 through 5. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf Most of the website information was reproduced from this pdf document. It is usually "activist sites" which make a point of documenting animal abuse. Furthermore, this uncontested information appears to have been online for quite sometime, since the incident took place in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs) , April 2009

The removed section reads:

In 2004, complaints about Dr. Mehmet Oz’s dog experiments were cited in a report produced by an internal investigation conducted by Columbia University into allegations of poor animal care made by Dr. Catherine Dell’Orto, a post-doctoral veterinarian at Columbia. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings.asp This letter contains lab animal records from Columbia's internal committee’s investigation, including dogs under Dr. Oz. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf pg 3-5 See also html version of individual reports on dogs used in Dr. Oz's experiments. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings-pups1.asp According to the report, highly invasive and stressful experiments on dogs were performed without a humane endpoint.

It does not appear that anyone from the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (IACUC) actually bothered to inspect the dogs used in Oz’s experiments despite the invasiveness of the experiments and the strong potential for suffering. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf , pg 2

Freedom of Information Act requests made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to the National Institutes of Health revealed that subsequent applications for grants by Dr. Oz have been denied. http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings.asp

I think that to discuss this in the article, we would need a reliable source such as a story in a high-quality newspaper. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone checked for a mention in Chronicle of Higher Education? They usually cover things like this. DGG (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Smears aimed at Michael Bellesiles

I see what may be a libelous statement at [3], and tried to strike out the potentially libelous comment made by an anonymous IP editor. Now an edit war is initiated, placing the comment back in. I would appreciate a third opinion whether the potentially libelous statement should be struck. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best not to remove items from talk pages unless the libel rises to a level that potentially could cause legal troubles for Wikipedia if left in place. This is way short of that. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a civility dispute more than a BLP issue. Yes, people on the talk page are calling a living person a liar, but they are doing it with perfectly reasonable external sources and arguments. Wikipedia is not calling this person a liar, the allegations are part of a normal (if rather rude) discussion on the content of an article, and does not go beyond that. Physchim62 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of order, I remove stuff from talk pages all the time that isn't libelous, ect, not saying if this rises to that level, but talk pages are not forums for writing wahtever folks want to. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do that too, I should have said that its not a good idea to remove things for being libelous unless etc. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Like the last snarky comment from the ip in that thread wiki considers "stealing is bad" a matter of opinion I could be wrong could be removed as not a forum. Thanks for the clarification, makes sense. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive61#Jennifer_Fitzgerald You can think what ever you want about my motivation for mentioning this article but it's slanderous, and it's sources are not very reliable.Fodient (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is very problematic, based on highly questionable sources and written in a gossipy style. Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a jerk override BLP concerns?

Hello,
I'm somewhat concerned about the treatment of a certain police officer in the Ryan Moats and Zach Thomas articles.
For those not familiar with the event, the cop basically robbed Moats of his last chance to see a relative before they died. However, as horrible as that is, it was still within the context of doing his job (however poorly he may have been doing it).
Since then, the only times his name has been mentioned publicly has been in the context of this event (whether directly or indirectly).
The mention in Thomas's article is even more disturbing, as it is only because of a single article that mentioned Thomas's wife, and was still within the context of the issue with Moats.
Keeping this in mind (and I've also tried to explain part of my arguments on the Ryan Moats talk page, so by all means, get a better explanation there), I don't see how the officer's name can be used within the articles. Well, actually, I don't understand how the incident is relevant to Thomas's article at all, since the event didn't even involve Thomas. But my primary concern is with the mention of his name, since that seems to be a significant BLP concern.
As explained in the policy page, names of people who aren't public figures, relating primarily to a single event, should be omitted if it doesn't significantly detract from the article.
Anyways, I would appreciate if a few of you could look at that sectino of the policy page again (the 'privacy of names' section), look at my arguments on the Moats talk page, and then perhaps weigh in? Both in terms of the Moats article and the Thomas article. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into it and have removed some of the information on the Ryan Moats page, and have deleted the entire reference to the incident on the Zach Thomas page. In concerns to the Ryan Moats page, I removed the text: "including pulling a gun on Moats, even after Moats's explanation was corroborated by a hospital nurse". This is a completely libelous statement. "Pulling a gun on Moats" infers to the reader that the officer was not acting in official capacity and simply pulled a gun on him. It was also unsourced, but I believe should be left out even if a source is found. I removed the "Moats questioned whether race could have played a factor in the interaction due to the nature and tone of the officer's remarks to the family" statement for obvious reasons, and I removed the jailing for an illegal u-turn section because it has no bearing on this incident whatsoever. I removed the entire section regarding the handcuffing and jailing "incident" on the Zach Thomas article. I can't think of a reason why it was included or considered notable in the first place. Thank you for bring this issue to light. Matty (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation and misuse of WP:BLP. The information is properly, reliably sourced. The race comment is not a BLP issue - the article simply states Moats opinion. Please review WP:BLP and do not removed sourced material from an article. Grsz¹¹ 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everytone will know there was a discussion ongoing on the talk page there, which has now come to this page. Actually Matty, the issue the IP was bringing up was the naming of the officer in the article. I can see your point on the "pulling his gun" section, however, the questioning by Moats of a possible racial motivation is properly sourced and relevant. It's been added by multiple editors (when an anon IP was blanking it), so I don't understand what your "obvious reasons" for deleting the sentence are. Dayewalker (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the 'race' accusation was, of course, laughable, I do agree that it's still Moat's opinion, and thus relevant to the Moats article. The 'pulled a gun' comment is, indeed, an additional concern, as it has a very accusatory tone. But my primary concern was with the inclusion of his name.

I must say, however, that I find it slightly offensive that anyone is being accused of 'misusing' WP:BLP. Please assume good faith, particularly when it's simply about adhering to a supposedly important policy.

I'd also like to remind Grsz11 that whether or not something is 'sourced' is not always the only concern. If it was, then WP:BLP wouldn't even exist. 209.90.135.248 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this was here. I've removed the wife+officer part from Zach Thomas, as I explain here. --slakr^\ talk / 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Personal" section in the Moats article should be an embarrassment to this project. Talk about undue weight. This is the only material in that section? So the man's entire personal life is defined by that event? Maybe retitle that section for now and then trim later on after the spotlight has faded. Anyways, Tom (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find what's there currently very distasteful. You don't need the "When asked if he should be fired" part to convey the story. The whole incident is likely NOT encyclopedic and I vote it be entirely removed. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with threeafterthree - massive WP:UNDUE issues. Also I see no reason why the police officer in question should be identified by name. The relevance of the incident in that article is from Moats' interaction with a police officer. Anonymising the police officer would help focus on the issue at hand and lessen the BLP issues re the man who was just doing his job. Moats was a visitor delayed for 13 minutes - there's a lot of bad luck that that time was critical for the person he was visiting, but I'm somewhat skeptical about the encyclopedic value of the whole thing. WP:NOT#NEWS. As to the Thomas' wife thing in the other article: absolutely out, no justification for inclusion at all. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've now removed the officer's name. Hopefully, if anyone disagrees, they'll discuss it on the talk page before reverting. The article doesn't seem to have lost any readability or context from the removal. As for removing the entire incident, well, it does seem to give undue weight. On the other hand, it's very much conceivable that people may very well look up Ryan Moats's article for more information on this subject. Even if I think that content is a bit unnecessary, I still tend to prefer to give readers information they may be searching for. (Presuming, of course, that the information doesn't violate BLP) 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Just to follow up, thanks for the input from others. I don't think, nor was I saying that we need to nuke the entire section. This "incident" was widely reported and is more than well sourced. Just rename the section title, reduce it in size, and leave out the commentary. The incident, which has been pointed out by others but not included in the article, actually reflects on how well this individual handled the situation and didn't allow it to escalate into something truely ugly. If that had been me, I would have kicked the cop in the nuts and been on my way, but I am a hot head :). I renamed the section for now and hopefully over time this "material" can be trimmed back and other relevant facts added to the bio to improve it. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. McNaughton

Mark S. McNaughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - You have two SPA's fighting over a former state representative's involvement in a lack of payment of child support. At this point its all just edit warring, vandalism. I could probably go in and fix the article myself, but these two aren't going to stop and I am not in the mood to edit war myself. So I will leave this year for the BLP folks to handle.

Wolfie36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chuckle203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the entire section. The only source given (and only remotely reliable source I can find - but I'm not sure I consider it reliable either) only gives one para on McNaughton stepping down due to child support controversy - no details.[4] The rest of what was in the article is unsourced, possibly WP:OR. I can find nothing useful in terms of reliable sources. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard R. Lavigne

Richard R. Lavigne is sourced by only one local newspaper article, but contains very serious allegations (including murder - even though it is mentioned that Lavigne was exonerated). I am not sure this subject even merits an article as it would appear to be covered in other articles. However, I encountered this article when patrolling the new pages backlog and don't know enough of this matter to see if anything needs to be done here. Some more experienced eyes will be welcome. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded per WP:ONEEVENT and I'd suggest sending to AfD if the prod is contested. The article is in no shape for Wikipedia and most probably won't be unless the priest claims notability outside that scandal. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Rush

I come to seek guidance. I've added information with 2 sources, which User:Morbidthoughts undid. Then I added 2 other sources (none of the total of 4 sources was a Wikipedia mirror), and he again undid. He claims of my talk page User_talk:Debresser#Daniella_Rush that all 4 sources are unreliable. What is your opinion? Debresser (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get no answers here, you also have the option of consulting with the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of each source outside the context of the Daniella Rush article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll consider that if no reactions will be forthcomming here in the next day or so. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Morbidthoughts on this one. We can reasonably assume that the real name of a porn star who acts under a pseudonym is information that requires both reliable sourcing and a sound argument for inclusion. IMBD and realname.of fail the first requirement, and no argument that the real name is relevant has been made. Keep in mind that the mere existence of information isn't enough to justify inclusion. Avruch^T 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reaction. I argumented on my talk page that her real name can be found on quit a few webpages and forums. Therefore I see no reason not to include it and several to include. What do you say? And what is your opinion about the other two sources? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chiang

While cleaning out the catchall Category:American criminals I came across Roger Chiang. The article was peppered with dozens of recently added {fact} tags along with older hat tags.[5] After investigating briefly I decided first to revert to an earlier version and then to delete large unsourced or POV portions, including some that made negative assertions about 3rd parties.[6][7] An anon restored the material and I deleted it again, asking for sources. Then another IP address, presumably the same person and possibly the subject, reverted again while making a claim of libel.[8] I've now stubbed the article. There appear to be ample sources describing the subject, they just need to be used. I won't make any further edits for the time being except to delete unsourced additions. Will Beback talk 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a couple of deadlinks (one to youtube) which might conceivably be objectionable. I am not a fan for blocking for legal threats, I'd rather work with people who feel offended, but I think this is a case where someone should consider blocking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left notes on the article talk page and the last anon's talk page pointing to this thread. Blocking would be difficult since a variety of IPs have been used, so it'd be better to work with the person to achieve a lasting accord. Will Beback talk 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gere

Resolved

– Article full protection for two weeks by User:Bjweeks. — Becksguy (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of the addition of a well known rumour. Could use some extra opinions. Sancho 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my opinion. Thanks for mentioning it here. This involves a section of the article entitled "Urban Legend" repeating a story that Gere had a gerbil lodged in his rectum! I'd have removed it myself but then I saw that there was an extensive discussion on the talk page. I urge an administrator to step in and if necessary protect the page. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FFS, unreferenced rumours about Gerbils and anuses!! Removed on sight, per WP:BLP. NO WAY.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good move. I'd have done so myself but I hesitated when I saw the lengthy discussion. Next time, I delete on sight myself. Apparently this is a recurrent issue, and the page may require protection if it persists. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every now and then, someone else tries adding that stupid legend. I'd finally stopped watching the page, and sure enough it happened again. One of the biggest (if less obvious) problems is that, yes, false information can be acknowledged in articles. (eg. if someone's accused of a crime they didn't commit, etc) Of course, this assumes that the accusation is notable, well-sourced, and verifiably was made. Being false is beside the point, so long as Wikipedia doesn't imply that it's true.
      However, in this case, there isn't even a single source referring to anyone actually making this accusation. In the absence of such a source, the best we're left with is sources of people debunking the legend. This means that: Wikipedia says that (for example) snopes says that someone asked them about a legend that someone else may or may not have believed was true. How many degrees of separation is that?!? 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Anyone inserting crap like this should be blocked on sight.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well no, that'd be going too far. Anyone inserting crap like this should be referred to WP:BLP and then blocked on sight if they don't straighten up and fly right.(always wanted an excuse to use that phrase!) 209.90.135.182 (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I don't know how long this "rumor"/urban legend has been linked to Gere, but I know the same "story" was tied to a tv personallity in Philly during the early 80s. I swear that the "story" came across as "true" with hospital reports ect. I won't name the person obviously, they do have an article here, but most Philly folks around in the 80s will probably know who I am talking about. Anyways, agree with remove on site and block accordingly....unless you have 5x8 color glossies of course :) Cheers,--Tom (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five points:

We've already discussed this. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive15 and Talk:Richard Gere/General Archive2#Deleting references to the gerbil legend.
From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century (ISBN 9780740751189) mentions that Gere is "plagued by a rather nasty urban legend" in its entry for "Richard Gere" on page 180. Looking at the entry for "ghosts" on the very same page, it's clear that our editorial standards are a lot higher than Mansour's. They should probably remain so. And even Mansour, with his low standards, isn't specific on this matter.
One source observes that in the early 1970s this tale was told of some other Hollywood star. I've just checked xyr article. I'm happy to report that it contains not a mention of it, nor any indication on the talk page that editors are even aware of it. Recentism, curse that it is, has operated in our favour for once.
We used to have an article on gerbilling. We even had an AFD discussion of it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilling. It was speedily deleted for being "non-notable trivia", nonetheless.
There are sources that cover this urban legend, in depth. A proper verifiable article on gerbilling (which the deleted content is not) could probably be written, using sources written by experts writing in their fields of expertise, including Noreen Dresser: folklorist, anthropologist, and Los Angeles Times columnist. Jan Harold Brunvand has covered it, too. None of those sources give Gere prominence, or even detail him at all. (Dresser doesn't name him, for example. Neither does Brunvand.) This is, quite simply, something that isn't about Gere. Even if we had a proper article on the subject, it would barely touch upon him, since the sources don't.

Uncle G (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The Richard Gere article has been full-protected by an uninvolved admin for "Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy"; protection to expire in two weeks. — Becksguy (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Presley

Could people with spare time keep an eye on this? I've just removed some nasty BLP violations and lots of unsourced and inappropriate material, and I expect there will be editors trying to add some of it back. And the material that's left could use more eys on it. I just cleaned out the really bad stuff. Amazing that it was allowed to stand in an article on a fairly well-known person for so long. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a prig, but I think that, even after your well-warranted deletions, there is still far too much intimidate detail about her and Elvis's sex lives. OK, her being Mrs. Presley is important to her notability, and it appears to be adequately sourced, but I have my doubts. Seems a bit borderline at least. More input on this definitely would be desirable. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking Priscilla Presley#Life with Elvis this section should be removed until someone is willing to do a BLP sensitive re-write. A blow-by-blow from a sensationalist book is inappropriate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I did the same thing with Ryan O'Neal. Ms. Presley, apart from her life with Elvis, was/is a working actress in her own right and I have neutrality concerns about so much peeking into the bedroom. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Neal

Ditto with this article, as with the two above. Approx. half the article devoted to very recent arrests and other salacious material. Have removed but more input would be terrific. Seems that celebrity and show business bios attract this kind of thing. Maybe there should be a "Wikiproject Celebrity Biographies BLP Issues" or something like that. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Feith

This entire article is probably the worst mess I've seen. I lack the energy to clean it up -- it's a humongous linkfarm, resembling more a random collection of material pro and con than a balanced biography. We've got everything on here from squirrelly not-quite-accusations of manipulating intelligence to unproven rumors about espionage. Ray^Talk 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The professional praise/criticism sections seem way overboard. We have the same folks in both sections? The external links section is also way too much. Anyways, I tweaked the lead about his 2 year teaching, but wouldn't know where else to start. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstandingly awful. I'd go so far as to suggest stubifying and using the current version, along with related articles on relevant topics, as source material for a complete rewrite. Rd232 ^talk 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the bios of the men who preceeded and succeeded him. I know this guy single handly started the War and invented waterboarding, but for real? Tom (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the objectionable part of this somewhat. I'm not sure we need the praise/criticism quotes at all, I've moved that and the laundry list of accusations against OSP to the talkpage. In the mean time, I've taken some good content from the Office of Special Plans page and incorporated it with some modification into this article in the "Bush administration" section. Avruch^T 17:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some more voices probably in the discussion at Talk:Douglas Feith. Avruch^T 20:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Radmanesh

Babak Radmanesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Newly created page. Subject of the article appears to be notable. However, the content of the page after the first paragraph is potentially libellous, and there are no sources to support these claims. I deleted the offending sections, and the original author restored them without comment. Can you please either get the dodgy comments properly references or stop this user from inserting them? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Someone else has removed the offending paragraphs, and there haven't been any further reversions yet. Will let you know if there is any further trouble. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: Nope. Spoke too soon. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again - no verifiable reliable source for the info given - or indeed for anything else, including the alleged relationship with Sami Yusuf, where I also removed some WP:OR. Please watch that article as well. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's clear from the history/contribs that User:Whistleblower1977 is the same as the IP pushing today's edits on both articles. Bear this in mind if it continues. Rd232 ^talk 13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given 212 two clear cut warning for edit warning and one for his/her continual violations of our BLP policy. I suggest any further additions and you request a block Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now our friend has gone back to editing on Whistleblower1977. Anyone fancy blocking that account? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both the IP (for a week; length largely because in addition to the edit-warring to insert problematic material without discussion, it inserted a deliberate error, lopping a zero off a sourced concert attendance) and User:Whistleblower1977 for 31 hours. Note that I've also removed the assertion Yusuf is a Shia - there is no source for this and in some circles this is a potentially very damaging thing to say. Also given the lack of sources for Babak Radmanesh (googling doesn't help) I'm not sure if he really is notable or not. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB User talk:Whistleblower1977 has a copy of Sami Yusuf from 29 March (with the shia assertion). I'm not entirely happy about that; is it allowed? Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ukexpat has blanked that page. I've put a prod on Babak Radmanesh as there doesn't seem to be much purpose in keeping an article where notability is not established and the only contributor was someone trying to spread unsubstantiated allegations. If someone else wants to keep this, I won't argue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutomu Shimomura / Kevin Mitnick

Both these articles suggest illegal activity on the part of Shimomura but this is poorly sourced and it's not entirely clear what was allegedly done that is illegal (I presume it's claimed Shimomumra hacked himself to find Mitnick but this isn't stated). Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Tom Dolby's Biography

Resolved

– Removed unsourced material. --Tom (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement in Tom Dolby's Biography that is incorrect. Andrew Frist is not the nephew of former U.S. Senator Bill Frist. Andrew Frist is a distant relative of Senator Bill Frist. I know this because I am Andrew's cousin and know who his real uncles are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.189.212 (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to Bill Frist since the citation mentions Ellen and Robert Frist of Indianapolis? Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiano Caruana

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (Rd232 ^talk 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)):[reply]

I don't know who your programmer is. But this is ridiculous. I just want to say that there is incorrect information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabiano_Caruana . I click "discussion" and GOD KNOWS how to actually write something. You guys have more instruction on your site than content. WHO HAS TIME TO READ THAT MUCH. Make it more user-friendly to have a discussion on something. Should be simple enough to post, like a forum. Make edits to a page is easy, I've never actually tried to add discussion to a page. Anyway, information about him being a grandmaster is incorrect. He is a level under a grandmaster, he is an International Master. and I don't believe he is the youngest in US history either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajthapar (talk • contribs) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We" have a programmer? Seriously, if I can use(somewhat) this site, anybody can :) Just click on the discussion page and then click on the edit this page tab and off you go. Anyways, Tom (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statements in the article are supported by good sources, so we'll need better sources to change them. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airi & Meiri

This article has been plagued with some really shady sources, including lots of biographical "facts" sourced directly to sales sites, as well as a dozen plus sales sites cited as sources for factual claims. Some extra eyes on this would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dekkappai has reverted to a preferred version using these sources twice. I could really use a hand here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mumia Abu Jamal

Mumia Abu Jamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Malosinus changed the infobox from Template:Infobox Person to Template:Infobox Criminal. [9] This removed information about the subject's academic career, and added information about his convictions and real(?)/birth(?) name. I reverted, and User:Looper5920 re-reverted. Given that he is not just convicted, but also an author and political activist, I don't think that this infobox is appropriate. The only reason I am not reverting again is that the word "criminal" isn't actually displayed by the template.

I would like to have some clarity how we handle this kind of situation. I believe the global view on Mumia Abu Jamal is that he is very likely a political prisoner. Amnesty International do not say so ("In light of the contradictory and incomplete evidence in this case, Amnesty International can take no position on the guilt or innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Nor has the organization identified him as a political prisoner, although it has previously expressed its concern over the activities of a government counterintelligence program, which appeared to number Abu-Jamal among its targets [...]." [10]), but they are generally extremely cautious with such statements and they clearly hint at the possibility. The European Parliament in various resolutions repeatedly asked for a re-trial. [11] Paris made him an honorary citizen and explicitly called him a political prisoner. [12] [13]

This is a bit of a tough one. An infobox shouldn't be used as a way to sneak controversial claims into an article, but I don't actually see anything there that is controversial. I think the lead of the article could do a better job of summarizing the international fuss, but that's a separate issue I guess. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed ElBaradei

Extremely poor article on this person of some significance (director of the IAEA for last ten years). I've chopped out a number of things that didn't belong, but still it's not going anywhere that's good BLP-wise. It's not a three-alarm libel issue, but it could really do with some eyes on it who are interested in writing a bio, and not in effectively trying to create content forks on the work of the IAEA. Rd232 ^talk 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic text at Michael Robertson (businessman)

Michael Robertson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leslieaudra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reporting this secondary to it having been reported at WP:ANI (see here) at the request of the person who reported it. One part of it can be seen in this edit, but I'm loath to call it simple vandalism. On one hand, the editor is posting questionable information, but on another, he/she is removing poorly/inadequately sourced biographical content. I reverted the article to before the recent edits started as a precautionary measure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Baltzer

Ethnicity keeps getting introduced into lead and reverted without talk page discussion. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Berman

Rick Berman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a user has been reverting edits for a period of a few months now. I started under an anon IP, then created an account. All is documented on talk page, very throughouly and cleanly. I have added the tags on the page and disputed it many times. The user LSD continued to make edits. I issued a first warning and I request assistance in this matter. Thanks! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to explain here if they are removing material because it's poorly sourced or WP:Undue or just out of vandalism, or whatever, since quick look at headings doesn't make clear at all. We startrek fans who love Voyager don't want to see any unsourced biases against that show sneak in :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cl-Brown

Something weird going on with Michael Cl-Brown. Was moved there from Michael Brown (Liberal Democrats donor), and may have been BLP stubbed. May also have just been vandalised. Much longer article versions are in the page history, but they may not be BLP-compliant. Not sure if any suitable versions exist. Needs "living people" category added and other categories restored even if left as a stub. Might need moving again to a suitable name. Also need to make sure all references are to the right Michael Brown. Last stable version seems to be here, before it was edited by Special:Contributions/Nellocharlie (has only edited this article). Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck does "Cl" mean? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the weird bits. I also came across a child murder article. Not strictly BLP, but is there a place to get attention to articles like that? The article in question is here. Does BLP1E apply to murder stories? Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all the content deletion - all of the content is well sourced. I have moved the article to the subjects full name Michael Robert Alexander Brown, no idea or obvious explanation for the Michael Cl-Brown. Am going to message the SPA to find out if they have valid reasons for blanking content as noone seems to have engaged them yet. Mfield (Oi!) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any advice on what to do about the other article I mentioned above (in my second comment)? Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mellon Scaife

Richard Mellon Scaife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has many "sourced" nuggets about this man, and I don't think all of them pass the smell test. For example, I removed a segment about alcoholism in his family that was not supported by the alleged source. I duly suggest that this whole article needs a good scrubbing and source checking. Possibly more than 1 mortal can provide. For example, one of the sources here seem to be a mere summary of larger work. Is this a reliable source? What about a gossip column?--A. Gorilla (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a lot of poorly sourced junk in there, cut it out, piece by piece with careful edit summaries mentioning BLP violation. Then see if anyone bothers to put any of it back - that's what you can argue about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Keith

I recently added to the article on Toby Keith a section entitled "Feud with Ethan Hawke and Kris Kristofferson". Another user and myself have discussed at length on the articles talk page whether the section should be included in the article and we have both decided that the best thing to do is bring it here. Please read the section and the talk page. BillyJack193 (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Najib Tun Razak

The article for Malaysia's new Prime Minister appears to be overburdened with trivialities and WP:BLP issues. I know nothing of Malaysian politics and am quite busy offline, but if someone with an eye for facts and research could look at this one, Wikipedia would be the better for it. Note that as far as I know there is no *dispute* as such - it being mostly just drive-bys adding the content - this post is more just an alert to those who would not normally edit on South-East Asian politics. I'm uninvolved in the article. Orderinchaos 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Reich

Since January, the following paragraph has been repeatedly added and deleted by various editors to the "After the Clinton Administration" section:

On January 23, 2009, CNN host Lou Dobbs characterized earlier remarks by Reich as implying "that race would play a large role in determining who would benefit from the economic stimulus package",[12] airing video of Reich commenting on the package. In the video, Reich said that he was concerned "...that these jobs not simply go to high school people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well."[12]

The following link makes it very clear that the paragraph is based on a misleading and distorting report, and should therefore not be allowed on the page at all:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230015?f=h_latest

Ms oritahiti (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question to me becomes whether the (mis)reporting of the comment by the press becomes relevant enough to be warranted in his article. In which case, it may be necessary to present enough of the original comment by Reich to give full context. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rodney Llewellyn

Peter Rodney Llewellyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article makes allegations of fraud. The basis for the allegation is a decade-old newspaper article. The dispute between contributors concerns whether this constitutes sufficient grounds for the allegation. The defamatory nature of the allegations brings an urgency to the need to resolve the matter. There is also an argument that the article should not be included at all because it is related to a single event - which may not have happened - and hence is non-notable. Given these two factors, it is suggested that the article be rapidly deleted. Paul Tree (talk)

Non-notable. Do an AfD. Far more notable people have been deleted or redirected as nonnotable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insistence on using self-published critical article, and out of context

One more of several continuing problems at Gilad Atzmon. Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:...2. it does not involve claims about third parties

Gilad Atzmon wrote an article on the website he co-founded - Palestine Think Tank which is basically self-published articles by its contributors. The article harshly criticizes Nick Cohen for comments in his article Hatred is turning me into a Jew, alleging that Cohen excuses Islamophobia, etc. Therefore it has claims about third parties that doesn’t belong in either the Cohen or Atzmon articles.
Never the less, some editors want to cherry pick a quote from the article, totally out of context in this sentence: In his article "Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen" Atzmon writes "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."{REF: http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/07/hatred-has-turned-him-into-a-jew-deconstructing-nick-cohen/}
If it is considered allowable, for NPOV it needs the full context of being a reply to a Cohen article which Atzmon thinks proves Cohen is a racist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link of the Gilad Atzmon article being referenced

Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen Drsmoo (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sungenis

I've just declined a speedy on Robert Sungenis as the article is not unsourced. But its rather negative and could do with attention from someone who has at least a basic understanding of Christian theology (NB this isn't an attack on the current editors there, its an admission of my own lack of knowledge) Ϣere SpielChequers 07:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Karl Keating he is one of the biggest, well known Catholic apologists out there. If anyone deserves a long, detailed biography (i.e., relevance) he does, yet he gets a few measly paragraphs. Why? Because no one wants to attack him. This is a biography of a living person, and clearly it is getting out of control.

Wikipedia is being used as a platform to extend what is being done on the general internet to attack Robert Sungenis. Please unblock me. We need to discuss this, and the notice for biographies of living persons needs to be put back up to remind everyone of the policies. The article is not proportionate to other similar articles on Wikipedia. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Wyattmj (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting way out of hand. It is being used to track every movement of Robert Sungenis and then used as a launch pad to attack him.

Let's review the BLP policy:

"Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies."

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."

Reliable secondary sources are mainstream magazines, news reports, etc. Not internet chatter. Most of what is in this article is from Sungenis' own writings, with mainly Liam Patrick's interpretation. This is original research.

From original research:

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. "

This is what is occuring here.

Back to 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;"

The article is overwhelmed by Liam Patrick's (and others to be fair) original research based on Sungenis' writings.

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

"n the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. "

Obviously there is not an overwhelming amount of third party material, so Robert Sungenis is not to be considered a "significant public figure".

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."

I see lack of caution, especially in using even Sungenis' own material, which is being turned into original research.

I understand that Patrick Liam is frustrated that he cannot use the attack websites and blogs as sources, so he has turned to Sungenis' own writings to attempt to follow the policy guidelins. Godd for him. Unfortunately this has turned into Liam Patrick's original research.Proportionality is highly skewed in this article. Karl Keating is one of the best known, most active Catholic apologists out there, and compare the articles. Mr. Keating's article is encyclopedic. Robert SUngnis' is not. Wyattmj (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Wyattmj (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stubbed it per BLP concerns.--Slp1 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is something that looks like a board member of Sungenis' organization trying his best to keep Sungenis' controversial and troubled history out of the public view as best as possible again. ;-) (That is you, right? WyattMJ - Mark Wyatt? If not, let me know!) I still find it very strange because Sungenis is no such shrinking violet - he seems to unabashedly thrive on the public controversy. His board member Mark Wyatt, not so much! LOL. I disagree that it is original research to cite Sungenis' own words, writings and works on very public issues and developments. It looks like WyattMJ kind of wants to have it both ways again. We already went through this a year or two ago. We can't cite the third parties who have carefully documented the issues related to Sungenis' multiple controversies because they aren't good enough for him - even though Sungenis himself has written back and forth, arguing with these very individuals on his own website. And I kind of notice that WyattMJ never challenges the factual accuracy of the work cited, which is interesting. Then, when citations are given from Sungenis' own words and works on the very topics under consideration, he claims that it is "original research." Well, that's ridiculous. :-) We've already gone through this before. This is why it looks as if he's striving again to find a way to exclude every source that accurately and thoroughly documents Sungenis' controversial history so that people don't see it - or see very, very little of it.

And as for Karl Keating - why Keating's article has so little that is troubled or controversial compared to Sungenis? Well, perhaps because Keating has not been any where near as controversial and hasn't gotten into the kinds of situations that Sungenis has? Maybe? I'll bet we don't find a lot of controversy and trouble being written about in the articles on Scott Hahn or Benedict Groeschel, either. I haven't looked, but it's just a hunch.

I suggest that rather than cutting out material, Sungenis' board member adds more material that he thinks is positive to balance it out. The material is accurate, I and others have checked and rechecked it. It has been plainly out in public, it is legitimate information that people have a right to know about - it's not exactly hidden by Sungenis himself!

So, by all means - he should add some more sections on other topics. It has been a while since those kinds of things have been updated. As his board member, WyattMJ probably knows quite a bit about that. So he should go for it! :-)

One little note - something that just got cut out of the article (not by me) was originally put in by WyattMJ and it didn't have a source. It was from an unpublished letter from his bishop's vicar. But I left it in all this time because it seemed well-attested and factual, backed up by other statements Sungenis has made in other places.

Liam Patrick (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver DeMille

This article has been problematic for POV, OR and BLP for months, and recently underwent a major revision. The questionable material is being re-introduced into the article. I propose that this article be blocked from general view until concerns regarding possible libelous content, and clearly objectionable BLP content, be reviewed and resolved. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize and might agree if looked at page. We need a Lord of the BLP to stop this sort of nonsense! :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

Hi. I would like to request the page for Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah is removed. There has been no Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s, the country is in a serious civil war, and that someone has put a page up claiming there is a prince, when the only sources are dodgy websites, and a cheesy low budget BBC tv show, its in very poor taste and is quite offensive. The article does not further wikipedia as the person seems to have achieved no serious accomplishments, and his importance is not obvious as he has no political power, and no recognition in the sri lankan community, or the rest of the world for that matter. Frankly I think its disguisting self promotion - more of a personal page than an encyclopaedic entry. Shuggyg (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah - I'm not sure how many times it has been recreated before the current incarnation, at least once and that time it was Speedied. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note in regards to the Biography on Ron Dembo

Hello, I am contacting you on behalf of Ron Dembo at Zerofootprint. We are trying to update his Biography on Wikipedia as it is currently out of date.

This is the new Biography we are tying to post:

Dr. Ron Dembo is the Founder and CEO of Zerofootprint, an organization dedicated to a mass reduction in global environmental impact. Zerofootprint provides software and services to individuals, governments, universities, and corporations that measures and manages carbon footprint and engages employees and citizens worldwide in combating climate change. Zerofootprint came in first place and won Gold in the Climate Change category at the Canadian Environment Awards in 2008.

Prior to founding Zerofootprint, Dr. Dembo was the Founder, CEO, and President of Algorithmics Incorporated, growing it from a start-up to the largest enterprise risk-management software company in the world, with offices in fifteen countries and over 70% of the world's top 100 banks as clients. Algorithmics was consistently voted as one of the top 50 best-managed companies in Canada.

Dr. Dembo has also had a distinguished ten-year academic career at Yale University, where he was cross-appointed between the Department of Computer Science and the School of Management. Dr. Dembo has published over sixty technical papers on finance and mathematical optimization, and holds a number of patents in computational finance. Dr. Dembo is the author of three books: Seeing Tomorrow: Rewriting the Rules of Risk, co-authored with Andrew Freedman, published in April 1998; Upside Downside: Simple Rules of Risk Management for the Smart Investor, co-authored with Daniel Stoffman, published in March 2006; and Everything You Wanted to Know About Offsetting But Were Afraid to Ask, co-authored with Clive Davidson, and released in May 2007.

In May 2007, Dr. Dembo was made a lifetime Fields Institute Fellow. This fellowship is awarded to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the Fields Institute, its programs, and to the Canadian mathematical community. In July 2007, Dr. Dembo was inducted as a charter member of the Risk Who's Who. Dr. Dembo’s alma mater, the University of Waterloo, honoured Dr. Dembo with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. He is also a member of the University of Waterloo’s Deans Advisory Council in the Faculty of Environment, and a member of the Board of Advisors to the President at the Ontario College of Art and Design University. Dr. Dembo is also the Chair of the Information Technology committee of the Board at Mount Sinai Hospital, and is a member of the Board of Governors of University of Toronto’s NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) program.

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.182.122 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not edit the article yourself? Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they tried to 4 times yesterday, but their changes were reverted as vandalism. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, we tried and weren't able to edit. How would you recommend that we edit this page, or are you able to do this from your end? thanks! 206.223.182.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Aha. I've notified Victoriagirl (talk · contribs), who did the reversions, and I've started a thread at Talk:Ron Dembo#recent reverted edits for discussion of the problem. I expect that this is a misunderstanding that can be straightened out once everybody starts communicating. Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Platonov

The sources given for this person are in Russian. I have asked for the relevant text from the sources to be placed on the talk page with translations. But my removal of text which does not have sources was reverted with the comment "not allegations, but facts rather. sourced in Russian" but without anything on the talk page. I think for such facts then there should be translations given of the Russian sources on the talk page, so non Russian speakers can judge if the sources back up the facts on the page or even is such names as "В России начали составлять список запрещенных книг" is a reliable source. I would appreciate if some other editors would look in and see if my requests are reasonable. --PBS (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sympathize with your point of view, but Wikipedia policy says translations are encouraged but not required. Looie496 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources:Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

It should have link to decent translation (Yahoo or Google translate). Make sure it is WP:RS in other respects too. When in doubt, leave it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have someone called an Anti-Semite on the basis of the poster's assertion that the source backs it up. We can only have serious allegations if they are supported by sources that the average reader can check and confirm. Otherwise what's to stop me posting any libel and sourcing it from an obscure language, in the safe knowledge that most Wikipedians can't check. We need quality control on negative BLP material, and foreign language sources do not provide it. I have reverted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this 100%, and I personally would like to see the policy changed to require English sources at least in tricky situations, but this topic has been much-fought-over and the current result is what it is. Also you have to be careful not to take this logic too far: I don't think we want to force people to rely entirely on sources that are available online, on the grounds that those are the only ones the "average" reader can access. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think for negative BLP material we need to have high standards. The more negative, the higher the standard. We need to have a quality control that actually works and doesn't depend on massive research to spot a 3-second-to-create libel. --Scott Mac (Doc) 01:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, the chap is not edit warring to keep clear BLP violations on the page. Can people watch list the article? We don't want our articles to take the POV of the SPLC as factual.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varg Vikernes Entry is Troubled

Hi. I want to bring the Varg Vikernes page to people's attention. The whole discussion board is a mess and filled with supporters of the guy. These are people who will dispute, obscure, or even remove, information that Vikernes is a convicted murderer because they believe he is innocent. This has a tendency to seep into the article itself, and has been doing so for a long time now. I've had legitimate citations removed apparently because they revealed his racist, pseudo-neo-Nazi ideology a little too clearly. I made the edits on 09/27/08, and I have not logged in since. I found today that not only were they deleted, but that two different people made their way to my talk page and accused me of libel and improper editing, with an air of authority that they clearly do not have. FYI, I have more than enough academic education to know about proper citations. I can post the quotes in question if requested, or inquisitive minds can check my edit history and go to the edits in questions (09/27/08).

To make a long story short, here is the core of the problem: Vikernes, an obscure Norwegian musician, has a small, but rabid cult following. They have made it clear through edits and explicitly clear on the discussion page that the only true credible source on the topic of Varg Vikernes is...Varg Vikernes. Surprise, surprise.

To the people in charge of this project, PLEASE keep a close eye on this one. Put it on the watch list. At least put up a disclaimer on there. People are actively making edits that use Vikernes' own writing on his web page as a source. Not only that, but they are claiming on the discussion board that his webpage is a more credible source than anything else out there. Keep in mind he is a convicted murderer, and all credible evidence points to him being both a pathological liar and someone in a perpetual state of identity crisis. When I made a comment on the discussion board, admittedly an opinionated one, that the section detailing the murder was clearly written with the intent of making Vikernes appear wrongly accused and unjustly imprisoned, the reply I got was this: "Think about it for a second - Varg's account of the murder is the most accurate one, because Euronymous [the victim] can't exactly give his side of the story, and Snorre was having a smoke outside while it happened. Also, there's no reason for Varg to lie about the murder, he's already been in prison for 14 years... its not like lying is going to get him out." (Temple-of-Monkeys) I rest my case, sirs and madams.

There are people who are actively making an effort to keep things objective on the page, but it is clear this battle has been going on for far too long to not have an administrator put this article on notice. With the fact that Vikernes has been granted parole after serving 16 years of a 21 year sentence, I can only see things getting worse. The ultimate reason this article needs tending to is not because he is an important guy, but because he is another right-wing extremist mental-case with a following, and these people need to be kept in check. Thanks for your time. Fermentor (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 517: / Line 517: @@
 :::Oh, btw, the chap is not edit warring to keep clear BLP violations on the page. Can people watch list the article? We don't want our articles to take the POV of the SPLC as factual.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
+== Varg Vikernes Entry is Troubled ==
+Hi.  I want to bring the [[Varg Vikernes]] page to people's attention.  The whole discussion board is a mess and filled with supporters of the guy.  These are people who will dispute, obscure, or even remove, information that Vikernes is a convicted murderer because they believe he is innocent.  This has a tendency to seep into the article itself, and has been doing so for a long time now.  I've had legitimate citations removed apparently because they revealed his racist, pseudo-neo-Nazi ideology a little too clearly.  I made the edits on 09/27/08, and I have not logged in since.  I found today that not only were they deleted, but that two different people made their way to my talk page and accused me of libel and improper editing, with an air of authority that they clearly do not have.  FYI, I have more than enough academic education to know about proper citations.  I can post the quotes in question if requested, or inquisitive minds can check my edit history and go to the edits in questions (09/27/08).
+To make a long story short, here is the core of the problem:  Vikernes, an obscure Norwegian musician, has a small, but rabid cult following.  They have made it clear through edits and explicitly clear on the discussion page that the only true credible source on the topic of Varg Vikernes is...Varg Vikernes.  Surprise, surprise.
+To the people in charge of this project, PLEASE keep a close eye on this one.  Put it on the watch list.  At least put up a disclaimer on there.  People are actively making edits that use Vikernes' own writing on his web page as a source.  Not only that, but they are claiming on the discussion board that his webpage is a more credible source than anything else out there.  Keep in mind he is a convicted murderer, and all credible evidence points to him being both a pathological liar and someone in a perpetual state of identity crisis.  When I made a comment on the discussion board, admittedly an opinionated one, that the section detailing the murder was clearly written with the intent of making Vikernes appear wrongly accused and unjustly imprisoned, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Varg_Vikernes#Murderer reply] I got was this: <i>"Think about it for a second - Varg's account of the murder is the most accurate one, because Euronymous </i>[the victim]<i> can't exactly give his side of the story, and Snorre was having a smoke outside while it happened. Also, there's no reason for Varg to lie about the murder, he's already been in prison for 14 years... its not like lying is going to get him out." ([[Temple-of-Monkeys]])</i>  I rest my case, sirs and madams.
+There are people who are actively making an effort to keep things objective on the page, but it is clear this battle has been going on for far too long to not have an administrator put this article on notice.  With the fact that Vikernes has been granted parole after serving 16 years of a 21 year sentence, I can only see things getting worse.  The ultimate reason this article needs tending to is not because he is an important guy, but because he is another right-wing extremist mental-case with a following, and these people need to be kept in check.  Thanks for your time.  [[User:Fermentor|Fermentor]] ([[User talk:Fermentor|talk]]) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards