Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Fake IPL Player

Fake IPL Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article lists nickname used by this blogger for various living persons which contains significant defamatory name calling. The nicknames added are taken from the blog itself (i.e. based on primary sourcing) with significance defined as to why this list is important at all. My knowledge of BLP is rudimentary but I feel this is a severe violation of the policy. Could someone else weigh in? ^LeaveSleaves 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While some of the nicknames used by this blogger in this blog are derogatory, they are definitely not defamatory. One can make a viable argument that one of the reasons for the popularity of the blog (with over 150,000 views during its peak) is the humor factor imparted by the use of the nicknames. In addition, knowledge of to whom these nicknames refer is critical to understand the blog itself. To that effect, I believe that including the nicknames section in this is critical, as it will provide knowledge and a sense of understanding of the humorous nature that made this so popular. By itself, it is not slanderous or harmful. I would greatly appreciate deeper clarification of this matter. --Ant80 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the names are derogatory or defamatory might be arguable (where would you characterize racism and human genitalia?), but they are certainly not verifiable. ^LeaveSleaves 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, where does racism come into play? He has mentioned racism in the blog, but the nicknames Fake IPL Player gives doesn't seem to be racist. Now, I said "doesn't seem to be racist" because don't understand Hindi, so I might have missed the racist nickname, but I went through the entire list just now and didn't find anything overtly racist. Also what is the issue with mentioning human genitalia when wikipedia has things like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urethral_sounding) and other equally explicit stuff? In my opinion, this is simply a matter of freedom of speech, by American law. In any case, going by the simple definitions of the words, it is quite clear that the names themselves are not defamatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation), but simply derogatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogatory). However it is arguable, depending on the accuracy of the blog, that the blog themselves are defamatory. But then again, we are not talking about entering the incidents themselves in to the blog. --Ant80 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding verifiability, the stories themselves posted are not verifiable yet, but the nicknames are quite verifiable to the reader that is fairly knowledgeable in cricket. Just because the blogger hasn't confirmed them yet doesn't mean that one can't make use of public domain knowledge of individuals' behavior, team ownership and other corroborative news articles to arrive at the conclusion. For example, everybody and their mother knows that Shah Rukh Khan owns KKR. We know who their coach is, who their skipper is, and also the identity of their ex-skipper whose demotion became front page news all around India. We know that Sreesanth's antics with the team and the incident with Harbajan last year, we know who owns Punjab XI, we know Warne's craziness, we know Ryder's drinking problem, and the list goes on. The names ARE verifiable. The incidents themselves, the ones mentioned in the blog, are not. --Ant80 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability does not come simply from interpretation by the readers/followers of the blog but by citing reliable sources which confirm such interpretation. The blogger himself does not subscribe to these interpretation for obvious reasons. The media hasn't accepted those interpretations. Then why should an encyclopedia subscribe to this information? Especially since it is clearly objectionable. And we are talking about biographical stuff, not biology. ^LeaveSleaves 06:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll try to make it clear this time. The interpretation of names is not simply the readers' inference. Certain anecdotes are cited in the blog that correspond closely with knowledge available in public domain such as the itenerary of the players, previously known incidents, other media stories and knowledge of the team status and personnel. To claim that it is not verifiable is akin to George Bush claiming that there is no evidence that shows that global warming is anything but a myth. The doctrines of NPOV and no original research are well met in this article. Regarding the "objectionable" nicknames, this brings the question objectionable to whom? To the person the nickname refers to? And that brings us back to the fact that this is governed by American law, and therefore, by freedom of speech. Just because it contains references to genetelia doesn't mean it should be removed. Clearly, whether this is "objectionable" is immaterial. --Ant80 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Free speech. See also WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However the reason why I mentioned free speech was simply to counter the argument that it is "objectionable." I am not saying that it should be included because it is "objectionable." I am saying that removing something because it is "objectionable" to some is invalid, and is a form of censorship. That being said, I have been taking a confrontational approach in this argument. I'd like to apologize for that. However, I am still under the opinion that this is not a BLP violation, and even if it is, it should be ignored for the sake of improving the article. I definitely don't buy that it doesn't improve the article in any way. --Ant80 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sleaves: I'm inclined to agree with you on verifiability, except for a few names which have credible references in thew news media; in the absence of credible references, I guess it looks more like original research. However, I don't believe this is a BLP vio. Clearly, this is not part of the biography of the person, it is a reference list of names an author uses to refer to some other people and portrayed here in an NPOV, with no information of such names (whether they are demeaning/degrading/well-meaning or otherwise) within the profile of the said people. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP not only concerns biographies but also any biographical information written in any article on Wikipedia. And in the absence of explicit sources for these nicknames, this remains a BLP vio. ^LeaveSleaves 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a blog authorised by an Indian newspaper, which is under the editorial oversight of the paper. If I confirm these nicknames on the blog, will you accept it? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have some sort of supreme editorial oversight over here. All I'm asking for, and everyone else should be asking for, is a reliable source for the information per the requirements of this policy. ^LeaveSleaves 04:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with a refimproveBLP, and have "cn'd" it in all the appropriate places that I can see. There is also a line I have tagged with "OR" and one with "who" which need sorting. SGGH ^ping! 11:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Johns

• Matthew Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the subject (a well known sportsman and TV presenter) has been involved in a sex-related incident heavily publicised on Australian TV and in the press. The subject is clearly notable and so is the incident but some editors want to include terms such as "rape" and link the incident and the article to other supposedly related incidents. I have strong feelings about the subject and his conduct and have made that clear on the talk page so I don't feel I am in a position to make a determination; it may need an outside view. // Mattinbgn\^talk 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the facts of the case, but the current version of the relevant section of the article is written in a detached and neutral fashion as far as I am concerned.  Skomorokh  06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Crier

Resolved

 – everything potentially controversial is sourced.--chaser (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm new to BLP guidelines, but this is looks like something we should look at [1]. The article is Catherine Crier, which violates BLP Verifiability. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 5 days, to prevent further instances of vandalism from anonymous editors creeping into the article in the aftermath of this blog post by the Dallas Observer. Thanks for drawing attention to this situation. AGK 20:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's rather odd. I've looked through the history and I cannot find any edits of the kind described in the blog. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also couldn't find anything when I checked the date in the complaint and the IP's contribution logs. The only thing I can figure is that the diffs were oversighted before we got the public oversight log. BLP issues seem to be resolved by recent sourcing efforts.--chaser (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that the article has now been fully protected owing to libel being added by auto-confirmed users. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen

Simon Baron-Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Baron-Cohen or someone close to him is editing this page. Every time someone negatively critiques his work it is deleted by sb205, (people have said this is baron-cohen's email). The article is very bias in support of his work but others in the field say it is controversial. The controversy is not noted in the article and when I add referenced links making mention of it they're always deleted. Can someone help, this is my first attempt at wiki and it is irritating as Im trying to give a non biased view??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelPettersmithHugh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that your edits bear close scruitny also. Please review our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit [2] sorta speaks for itself really. If you do stuff like that anymore, you will be blocked Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE problem at Lyndon LaRouche

Hi — Some users at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are rather stubbornly trying to insert the opinion of a redlinked associate of LaRouche in the lede of that article. Could an admin take a look at the situation, please? Thank you for your help! Diffs: User:Coleacanth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 6:35 21:04; User:Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04; User:68.164.112.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38  Cs32en  22:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected for now, so the discussion can continue unimpeded. Kevin (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!  Cs32en  20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianna Tatiana

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed. decltype (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) / Now prodded. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC) / Now at AfD --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianna Tatiana Completely vandalized or not real in the first place. Verification or removal needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.174.48 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It had been vandalised; I have reverted the vandalism. Thanks for letting us know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• An update on this one. I had a look at it and decided to prod it as I could not find reliable sources to support any claim to notability. Subsequently, it has been said that the Brianna Tatiana in the article does not exist and is the work of someone who is using the identity and picture of another girl to create a false persona across the web (the picture has not been used in the Wikipedia article but elsewhere). This seems plausible given that there are no reliable sources to be found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now at AfD, as a driveby IP removed the prod tag. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• And deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mick Cronin (basketball coach)

Resolved

 – cleaned up and watchlisted. Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor (using 2 user accounts and 2 IPs) keeps re-adding unsourced trivia about non-notable people to this BLP. I've reverted 3 times within the past 48 hours and I don't want to violate the spirit of WP:3RR, so I've brought the dispute here for review. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire article was unreferenced and all or almost all a copyvio of [3]. So I've brutally stubbed it. Someone who cares about basketball please keep an eye on it; maybe someone could notify a relevant wikiproject. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. I've placed the article on my watchlist so that I can catch future vandalism; I've also requested temporary semi-protection of this article at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected now. Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this page and added references. I'll keep an eye on it in the future. Oren0 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes)

I am not sure that the emphasis on t his particular witness in an article of its own is reasonable. I encountered it when nominated for speedy, which I declined. DGG (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is problematic. Is there even a Cyprus v Turkey lawsuit? I can't find one. In any case Olgac's remarks aren't "testimony" - it's stuff he said on TV, and possibly reports of things he's said elsewhere. Seems the author couldn't find a better place to put Olgac's (retracted, and later disproven by Turkish government) claims of being involved in war crimes in the 1974 invasion. Merge to Attila Olgac if he's notable enough, or AFD as WP:NOTNEWS violation. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes) Rd232 ^talk 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Master P

Article declared this individual dead yesterday and has suffered recent questionable and vandalistic edits. If someone familiar with the topic area could root out and remove questionable claims in the article or even better find reliable references to verify the text, it would be appreciated.  Skomorokh  08:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood marriage

This article is kind of strange. It has a short description of the expression and then a long list of movie star couples who did and didn't get divorced. I'm not sure if it exactly violates BLP policy, but it doesn't feel right to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really violates BLP, but it does violate WP:V since there are no sources for any of the substantive assertions. I suggest nominating it for deletion, either AFD or simply PROD.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

i will try prodding it. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The prod had been removed by User:DGG, suggesting it may need an AFD, so I have AFDed it. Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood marriage Steve Dufour (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographical Page: Cecil Anthony Ince

Resolved

 – Editor has made his argument at the deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Anthony Ince —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) KEEP The artical meets guildlines.--Cecil Anthony Ince 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

You should make your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Anthony Ince (and I see you have done so). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolly_Tasker

Resolved

Rolly_Tasker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The last two paragraphs to do not have citations and are not impartial // 63.116.23.136 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but that's not really what this noticeboard is for. Our goal here is to ferret out unsourced negative information (libel).--chaser (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Henson

• Keith Henson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors and various rapidly-changing IPs chronically add unsourced information to this article. In addition, the article itself contains many unsourced statements. It'd be appreciated if some previously uninvolved editors could take a look at the article, watchlist it for unsourced additions, and also help to clean it up. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Knowing nothing of the facts of the matter, I judge the article to be mostly neutrally phrased until the section dealing with Henson's trial. Applying Raul's Law, the article gives the impression of selectively including claims to present the subject in a better light – there is a conspicuous absence of presentations of points of view critical of the subject. The article really needs editors familiar with the topic area and willing to trawl through the sources. If such contributors are not forthcoming and disruptive additions continue, stubbing might be an option.  Skomorokh  05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly Support stubbing. The majority of the article is wholly unsourced and should be removed anyways, as it is a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

With a little work, I found sources for some of what Cirt eventually tagged with citation-needed tags, when I objected to some of his removals. This is an old article (2003) on an old internet hand. I'm familiar with his older history, pre-Scientology wars, because I knew him and worked closely with him and Carolyn Meinel (I was, for a time, administrator of the L-5 Society) and for him (Analog Precision), but I'm pretty much where everyone else is at about the later stuff. He's quite well known in certain areas. The allegedly disruptive unsourced additions Cirt was talking about; He reverted marriage dates for the marriage to Carolyn Meinel, brief reference to Analog Precision, that Henson had four daughters with Carolyn, and the name of one of them, and also spelling and formatting corrections. This is all easy to verify, but some of it not so easy to verify from reliable source available on-line, but all that stuff would be primary source public record if anyone cared to check; for example the divorce record from Tucson in 1981 or 1982 would certainly have the marriage dates and the actual divorce dates. From ubiquitous sources of lower quality, I'd say, there is no urgent need.

This is a BLP, but on trivial facts like this, it should be treated the same as any other article. There is lots of very hot stuff about Henson that would require very strong sources, but all this was trivia comparatively, and not worth a report to the BLP Noticeboard. Cirt also removed sourced material, including a reliable source with a divorce date. Which is probably wrong, by the way, 1981 is likely the date of separation, not of actual divorce, which Meinel reports in an interview as 1982. I have no idea why he got a bug about this article, it's much better than the average BLP, even though it clearly needs work in sourcing and a bit of other cleanup. Like a lot of our articles.

Cn tags encourage sourcing. Removing unsourced material discourages it, overall, unless an editor prepared to do the work happens to be there right then. Sure, sourcing is specially important with BLPs, but only with controversial material, as the template says: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. None of this was contentious, potentially libelous, or harmful. --Abd (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:BURDEN, unsourced information should not be added back into WP:BLP articles. And we should not tolerate having WP:BLP articles with unsourced information or poorly sourced information to tenuous sources that are inaccurate (as admitted above by Abd) and to sources that fail WP:RS. We should not violate WP:NOR to add original research sourced to primary sources to WP:BLP articles. The unsourced material in the article Keith Henson should be sourced, promptly, or removed, and per WP:BURDEN, not added back in again unless sourced to WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is odd to ask for sources to be added to a protected page. On Heinlein being an influence.

http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2099

R.U.Serius is a well known journalist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._U._Sirius

This is published interview. You can certainly draw the conclusion that Robert Heinlein had a large influence on Henson's life from that interview.

On University of Arizona and EE degree,

http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacemovement/chapter05.htm#desert

"The blunt, energetic Keith, who has a degree in electrical engineering,"

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Condition/dp/0201567512#reader Page 188 associates Henson with the University of Arizona.

"Henson also programmed geophysical type cases and wrote data reduction programs for the company"

http://books.google.com/books?id=QGkgGwAACAAJ&dq=H.+Keith+henson+geophysics&client=firefox-a

"Theoretical Induced Polarization and Resistivity Response for the Dual Frequency System Collinear Dipole-dipole Array: Volume 1 & 2. By Chris S Ludwig, H Keith Henson, Heinrichs Geoexploration Company Published by Heinrichs Geoexploration Co., 1967"

There isn't a published source I can find for how many daughters Henson and Meinel had.

"Henson became familiar with the System dynamics"

http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news/L5news7510.pdf Someone at L5 News, probably Henson, was up on system dynamics.

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2007/02/keith-henson-talks-about-memetics.html

RU: How did your participation and leadership in the L5 society come about?

KH: It was indirectly related to “Limits to Growth” memes that were so active in the early 70s.

"Limits" was based on system dynamics.

"Patents were issued on both subjects — vapor phase fabrication and space radiators.[citation needed]"

From Drexler's web site:

Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler. (1988) “Heterodensity heat transfer apparatus and method” U.S. Patent Office: #4,759,404

Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler. (1984) “Method for processing and fabricating metals in space” U.S. Patent Office: #4,480,677

"article by the name of Star Laws, jointly written by Henson and Arel Lucas and published in Reason Magazine.[citation needed]"

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/3654d08deee4f4f0?hl=en&

"It was originally published in *Reason* Magazine, Aug., 1982."

Link is right on the page.

Nerble (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Lyonne

Someone with more knowledge of the subject than I have should probably check the Natasha Lyonne article. It may well be entirely accurate, but it seems to me to be quite undercited, given the nature of some of the statements made there. I wouldn't be surprised if what it needs is just a bunch of citation, but alternatively it may require some removals. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved much of the questionable content to the talkpage pending citation.  Skomorokh  14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Valeriya Novodvorskaya

• Valeriya Novodvorskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PasswordUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kupredu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now banned as a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs))
• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The said users are repeatedly edit-warring to depict the subject as an apartheid supporter, based on their own interpretation of a single ironic remark by her, taken out of context. They are also trying to add the Category:Apartheid to the article. See e.g. [4]Colchicum (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• She herself refuted it postfactum - not as an ironic remark but as a misunderstood statement about something completely different (radio transcript in Russian) scroll to 1/4 page. Who cares, really, the lady is known for eccentricities. NVO (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks, IMO "the lady is known for eccentricities" would summarize everything fairly enough, but several belligerent users feel necessary to go into detail, using their own first-hand impression instead of good secondary sources. Colchicum (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is insertion of defamatory WP:OR in BLP, as has been alredy confirmed by many at talk page of this article. All said users (PU, BFF and O) should be warned about the importance of BLP rules.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The new information helps, and the points about your edits and other thnings are all laid out at Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya–a discussion in which you declined to participate once I'd given my rebuttal of your completely inaccuarate initial revision (complete source misrepresentation) weeks ago. Among my many suggestions were doing a rewrite, using direct quotes and context for the sources in question, together with any sources refuting or denying it you could provide.

Here, I am only going to suggest Biophys take care to avoid carelessly slandering other editors–one of his many attempts at block-shopping and belligerently acting against a number of users in only the past one week. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The story is still developing. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reluctant to stop. Given the composition of his contributions (90% POV reverts, 9% mockeries on talk pages or so, and little else), an unusually cruel administrative action has been long overdue. Colchicum (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clear case of block shopping. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Perfectly justified block shopping, as you are reluctant to stop even now, aren't you? Colchicum (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Better mind your language. "Battle Fab Four", "mockeries on talk pages", etc. are at best very inappropriate chatter. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar spurious BLP violations are here and there in, e.g., Berlusconi, Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Chernomyrdin. Citation "she openly supported apartheid" may be too strong, but the apartheid story definitely deserves to be mentioned. Yes, category "apartheid" is not for this article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone else does something wrong, does not mean that you can. "He did it as well" is not an excuse to break the rules. If another page violates BLP, then it should be fixed. Martin451 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I said SPURIOUS violations. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have explained on the talk page ad nauseum that Novodvorskaya in her comments which editors are quoting "supports" neither discrimination based on race, re: Africa, nor discrimination based on ethnic background, re: Russians in the Baltic states. If one reads the entire passage, this is completely clear. Nevertheless a number of editors insist on using "supports apartheid" and "supports discrimination" as just indicated, minimally insisting on injecting quotes out of context, any and all of which leave WP open to defaming someone. Please see my comments on article talk or contact me on my talk page. BeatleFabFour (among others) insists on reverting to the WP:BLP violating text. PetersV       TALK 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a Latin nerd, that should be ad nauseam... – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the activity in this article and I must say the attempts by PasswordUsername, Beatle Fab Four, Offliner and Russavia to depict the subject as an apartheid supporter based on their own interpretation of a single ironic remark by her taken out of context is a particularly egregious violation of BLP. --Martintg (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Garrett

Chris Garrett - This seems to be more like advertisement for a business than it does a legitimate entry // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poormanspantheon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notification; given the lack of reliable sources in the article and the dubious claims to notability, I have proposed the article for deletion. The article was previously proposed for deletion but survived. The search term "Chris Garrett" gets many hits on Google News but it is unclear whether any of these lead to reliable and significant coverage of this topic. I would send it to WP:AFD but I haven't got time to trawl through the sources.  Skomorokh  06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Garrett. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor

Resolved

 – many edits and eyes on this article these days, so this stuff will cycle in and out quickly.-chaser (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article includes the statement that subject is "wrongly" considered a political centrist when editing page of article does not say that, and states that "Her own words have repeatedly shown that she is a far-left judicial activist". The quoted matter has no citation, and is wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.23.189 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All the current version of the article says about her political philosophy is that she is "[c]onsidered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal and others". The quotation you refer to does not appear in the article. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Zerbisias

Resolved

 – Problematic edits reverted 2+ days ago and all has been quiet since. Watchlisted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Antonia Zerbisias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two IPs continue to assert that the subject has issued a death threat: "Zerbisias controversially posted on her Twitter site that she wished reknown conservative Michelle Malkin were shot." // J^mundo 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. The sources are not good enough for this and even if they were, one has to question whether they belong in an encyclopedic article. It has been quiet since. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Logg

Resolved

 – problematic edit oversighted Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Contains probably un-sourced and possibly libelous material from someone claiming to be Ed's ex-wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattenf (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed by Onorem; in the future you should feel free to remove obviously problematic content yourself. Joe 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I don't see anything to suggest that we shouldn't indef Connielogg, whose intentions are plainly inconsistent with any encyclopedic purpose, straightaway. Joe 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems overly dramatic; wait and see if she repeats it. In the mean time I've requested oversight for that edit. Rd232 ^talk 12:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Murad Topalian

User:Chippolona who started to edit with different editwarrings at Armenia-related articles and is a possible sockpuppet, currently is adding harming accusations to a BLP of an Armenian, using the eraren.org site of "Institute for Armenian research" which is known for its anti-Armenian propagand and was criticized for its Denial of Armenian Genocide: "In order to institutionalize this campaign of denial and try to invest it with an aura of legitimacy, a "think-tank" was established in Ankara in April 2001. Operating under the name "Institute for Armenian Research" as a subsidiary of The Center For Eurasian Studies, with a staff of nine, this new outfit is now proactively engaged in contesting all claims of genocide by organizing a series of conferences, lectures, and interviews, and above all, through the medium of publications, including a quarterly". (America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, by J. M. Winter, Paul Kennedy, Antoine Prost, Emmanuel Sivan, 2003, Cambridge University Press, 332 p., ISBN 0521829585, p. 54) Chippolona also adds harming information that is completely unsourced [5]. Can anyone check if the article is in line with WP:BLP rules? Gazifikator (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, please mind WP:BLP, be civil and stop calling other editors sockpuppets. Admins, please, do check the article to resolve the issue once and for all. The Turkish source that Gazifikator is complaining about has been replaced with a neutral one. Instead of constructive editing, Gazifikator just removes entire paragraphs. He could just google the information and add sources, instead of deleting paragraphs. Please look into the matter. Thank you. Chippolona (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well regarding this edit, the first removed part does seem to be unsupported by the source, while the second removed bit is supported. I suggest you slow things down a bit and discuss each bit of info separately. I've done a bunch of cleanup and merged refs, which will help sort things out a bit. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A general concern is that I'm not sure how much detail there should be on things which prosecutors only alleged, but didn't prove in court (and he didn't admit), which is currently the bulk of the article. Anyone apart from the two editors previously involved have an opinion on that? Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should be nuked under WP:ONEEVENT: it is a sickening ltlle piece of soapboxing and POV-pushing, just as so may ONEEVENT articles are. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mourad Topalian. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi

Italian prime minister BLP is oversized, with too many meaningless details. Many sentences need citation or are biased. Following a long lasting anti-berlusconi slandering campaign some editors write sentences that presuppose a prejudice, disguising them as NPOV. Many sentences include negative words like "failure" that recall the George W. Bush Google bombing associated to the sentence "miserable failure". Negative terms are not used directly: "He failed" but as a premise "His failure was due to..." The article is so overgrown that it is almost impossible to improve. How can we shrink and unbias it? dwdp (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "failure": the word is currently used four times on the page, once in a quote by B, once in a neutral context, and twice as criticism/judgement. On the broader question, I think that the problem is structural - there's political and electoral history, business, showbiz and personal information, leaving the whole shapeless. One possibility would be to move most of the business text to the relevant company pages and to prune any text summarsiing otehr content. Re-writing the lede with less detail would help, too.Martinlc (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Noemi Letizia

There is a scandal brewing around this young ladies relationship to Mr. Berlusconi, the article could use some more eyes on it to find and remove improperly sourced controversial information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Conor Molan

Resolved

 – At AfD --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Conor Molan is a stub on which I did some cleanup back in February after encountering it during new page patrol. It was recently vandalized in a fairly unpleasant way by its creator, to whom I've given a level 3 vandalism warning, and blanked several times by an editor who has said he is the article's subject. For now I've removed everything without a direct cite from the article and left a note on the talk page of the editor who says he is Molan; I'd appreciate someone else's eyes on the page and what I've done so far to handle the situation. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you were involved in editing the page as well he can't simply ask for its deletion through blanking. He appears to meet WP:ATHLETE as he plays for a professional team, but per BLP policy we can consider removing his article by his request if he is marginally notable. Personally I would oppose the BLP-motivated deletion as I'm not sure what harm the cited stub is doing. If he can give a pressing reason why the article should be removed then we could bring it up for discussion in AfD as his notability does appear marginal. ThemFromSpace 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just to clarify my request for deletion. This was mainly due to the previous vandalism but the information is inaccurate anyway. I havnt played for Limerick FC since Nov 2007 as I have been playing in Australia. Its not a big deal I would just prefer the page to be removed altogether to avoid having to go through this hassle again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingback3 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just on the notability point. WP:ATHLETE requires the athlete to "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". I don't know whether Limerick FC is a professional club or not, but the League of Ireland First Division certainly isn't a fully-pro league, so if Limerick is his only club, then he doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE because he hasn't competed at a fully professional level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have listed the article for deletion at AfD on the basis that Mr Molan does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:ATHLETE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Age fabrication

This article is a real mess. Many of the examples are completely unsourced. Perhaps some of them are mentioned in their respective articles but I doubt all, indeed I suspect a lot of it is OR with no evidence for a fabrication other the evidence of the real age and evidence of the person having said something else. Also despite the article being called age fabrication, it includes a large section of "Age disputes and discrepancies" where it says "(data here is more vague)" when in many cases, there's no evidence for anything other then some sources somehow getting it wrong. Some of the people there are no longer living, so aren't BLP problems (even if their listings are still highly problematic but it appears many are Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete the lot, as pointless and unnecessary for the article. An alternative would be to move all the examples to a List of something pointless and define some criteria for inclusion, and check each entry. Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted most unreferenced living person entries, and the section

Age disputes and discrepancies (data here is more vague)

which has cut the article size from 45k to 20k. However a lot of the references are not what I would think as being reliable Martin451 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I was too, but I doubted I would have had any success so didn't bother trying Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Paulo Costanzo

Resolved

 – Article stubbed and tagged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted a large-scale copyright violation on Paulo Costanzo, but the version I reverted back to has no reliable sourcing. Should this be reduced to a stub? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. Tag as unsourcedBLP and hopefully some sources can be found. لennavecia 06:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert I.Sherman - Balanced or CSD G10?

Resolved

 – Article snowball deleted

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman

In November 2007 I a was cleaning up the article formerly known as Historical Persecution by Christians. There I discovered some material on an alleged Bush quote concerning atheists: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” diff In that article this material was obviously out of place, so I initially merged into the Separation of church and state in the United States. This resulted in a long an rather ugly discussion on on that articles talk page. Consequently I merged the material another time, into the article Discrimination against atheists. The, in early 2009, another, really long and ugly discussion took place at Talk:Discrimination against atheists, also specifically about this material. Consequently, I merged the material into the article Robert I. Sherman, where if was recently removed diff, and the article is currently proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman. Obviously, a comment like "Removing per WP:BLP. If it isn't verifiable, we don't include it." diff fails to take into account the particularities of this material. IT IS VERIFIABLE that Robert Sherman has alleged that Bush said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” Going by number of secondary sources, newspapers and atheist lobby groups, this is also notably. If Bush had actually said this (which we don't know) it would be "one of famous quotes about atheists in American society." I think that the current version is a balanced and neutral account of the question:

"Robert Sherman, writing for the American Atheist Magazine, is the only person who has first-handedly reported that, on August 27 1987, at a Chicago press conference during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush, at the time running up for a nomination as Republican candidate for the presidency, said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” When asked specifically about his opinion on the separation of church and state, Bush was reported to have replied: “I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists”. This story has been taken up by several atheist groups.<ref: The National Secular Society: George Bush on atheists as citizens or patriots)<ref: Positive Atheism: Can George Bush, with impunity, state that atheists should not be considered either citizens or patriots?) With these statements, Bush senior is "believed to have uttered one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society."(ref:Saxon Burns, Godless in Tucson, Tucson Weekly, November 30, 2006) However, the statements have been impossible to verify. The only source for it is Rob Sherman himself.(ref:cite web|url=http://www.RobSherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm%7Ctitle=Rob Sherman Advocacy: Vice President Bush Quote Regarding Atheists}})

Kevin Drum from the Washington Monthly comes to the conclusion that "apparently it's correct that no other reporters have ever corroborated the exchange" of Bush with Sherman.(ref: "Kevin Drum, "Political Animal", April 2, 2006"., see also: "Kevin Drum, "Political Animal", March 23, 2006".)"

However, in the afd discussion, someone wrote: "This page [the article in question], while sourced, is nothing more then an attack page. This is absolutely no WP:NPOV compliant article, and it certainly violates neutrality guidelines". I WANT TO MAKE ONE THING CLEAR: As an editor, I am only concerned with writing a neutral account of the respective issue, regardless of whether this is an issue from the 17th century or a contemporary one. I am profoundly irritated by my work being mistaken as a propaganda against a certain person. I know that there are often editors whose work on Wikipedia might be considered to be advocacy of a pro-Christian or pro-Atheist world view. If you look at the version history of Discrimination against atheists, you can find an example of the second one. If you think that the passage quoted above is not written from a neutral perspective, please tell me: Is there one side of the issue that is given undue weight? Is there any pejorative vocabulary used?

I can only understand those comments referring to the article as a "BLP nightmare" or an "attack page" to be resulting from a fundamental confusion about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Neutral does NOT mean uncontroversial. I know that people tend to confuse this from previous debates. When it was nominated for deletion, I was able to rescue 'Historical Persecution by Christians' and turn it into Christian debate on persecution and toleration. I was not able to rescue the article 'Persecution by Muslims'. Obviously the Spanish Inquisition a notable, but controversial topic, and so is Freedom of religion in Iran. of course, Catholic historians have different opinion on the Inquisition than Atheist historians. Would this justify the deletion of the article on the Inquestion? Sherman has alleged that Bush made an offensive quote against atheists. Atheists web sites claim that this is true, other people consider it to be unverifiable. This is controversial, but controversy does not justify an afd, or does it?

In my opinion it does not. The reason I am bringing this to the noticeboard is simple. IF THIS ARTICLE GETS DELETED, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT WIKIPEDIA SIMPLY CAN'T DEAL WITH CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS, at least not, if they are current. Wikipedia would not be able to fulfil its mission, to be an encyclopaedia for the sum of human knowledge. A structural bias would ensue against contemporary, controversial topics. The Situation of Atheist in the United States is such a controversial topic. And it is notable: There already is an article in the American Sociological Review on it. [6] Because this alleged quote from Bush is so fitting for the topic, it is actually plausible that future historians might use it as illustration of the issue. However, just like contemporary historian who write about the debate concerning toleration in 17th century England have to use the original pamphlets of the participants as source, so will future historians have to use the (hopefully archived) pro-Atheist and pro-Christian web pages. Wikipedia is said to suffer from so-called "recentism", a structural bias towards current issues, but concerning controversial topics the opposite will actually be the case. No editor should be able to mistake e.g. a statement from 17th century England, that Catholics should not be regarded as citizens, for a blp issue. But they confuse it with a blp issue when someone from the 21 century alleges that some politician said "Atheists should not be regarded as citizens". If this afd get through, then there can only be one conclusion: I will not work on articles that discuss current controversial issue, say after 1960, AND I WILL ADVISE EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO THE SAME! Honestly, I took me some time to research this issue properly and I would be deeply disappointed if this effort is wasted. Zara1709 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with controversial. The man is a journalist and the article gives undue weight to two incidents while giving no mention of any of his actual work. It's not a biography, rather it is the details of two events. I think the article pretty much speaks for itself, though. So here is the version to base opinions from, noting the subject of the article has expressed strong objections to this version of the article. لennavecia 06:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This person is notable for these TWO incidents, at least if I've counted the sources correctly. He can't help it. And please don't ignore everything else that I've written. Zara1709 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title "Julian McMahon"

It is listed that Mr.McMahon is married to Ana Sofia (2002-present). This fact is not listed anywhere else in Mr.McMahon's Public information.

It needs to be flagged for violation, unless ligitimized.

It is not copyright.

Thank you for notifying us, I have removed the disputed claim as I could not verify it. Please let us know if there is any other questionable material in the Julian McMahon article (or any other). Regards,  Skomorokh  06:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson

• Gretchen Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am trying to include the fact that Gretchen Carlson has been criticized by left-wing organizations for what they view as her right-wing reporting and my edits are being repeatedly reverted. Although Gretchen is regularly criticized by left-leaning commentators, two editors (Arzel and Nunh-huh) are attempting to remove all descriptions of the political dimension of Carlson's notability. Gretchen Carlson is famous in many ways because of the controversial statements she has made in the past on Fox & Friends - statements that many on the left consider right-leaning as opposed to neutral. I have tried to take as NPOV a position as possible, but the editors do not consider Gretchen to have been criticized at all, which is a minority view. Any help would be appreciated. // Mangala3 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  The editors in question have requested that you discuss the issue with them on the article talkpage, and, this seeming to be a rather ordinary content dispute, that would be the most appropriate path. By way of advice, I would point out that it's generally frowned upon to start a new section in a biography devoted solely to negative aspects of the topic, as well as sections that exist only to make one point. The best way to include criticism of a person in their biography is to weave it into the larger narrative of their life, give it context so that the reader can make their own judgments. "Carlson is criticised for her right-wing views" would be an example of a statement of little informative value that is little better than name-calling. It would be better to answer, in the article, the questions "What are Carlson's views? Why does she hold those views? What do her critics say about them? Her sympathisers? In what way are they important in this person's story?" You say that Carlson is famous due to the nature of her political opinions; if so, this ought to be shown by the weight of media attention to her. Producing evidence of this point in the form of reliable sources is a great way to win over sceptical editors. For more ideas, you might find it instructive to read Wikipedia:Criticism. Regards,  Skomorokh  14:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  But I answer this question: "What do her critics say about them?". I used MSNBC as a source, and yet the users still consider this unworthy. Do you believe that MSNBC is unreliable? I have been discussing this issue on the discussion page for a week now, and two of the other editors seem disengenuous about trying to reach a NPOV (they seem like they are simply trying to remove her controversy on this subject). Would it be better if I went into more detail about what exactly commentators have said about her? Why is it important exactly what her views are but no description about what makes her significant in politics? This leaves out relevant information. Originally the line added was weaved into the career section, but I changed it when a user suggested it could be added to a separate section. Why is noting criticism from other sources name-calling? On an article about Bill O'Reilly there is certainly a lot of information about his criticisms, and that's not name-calling, surely? Mangala3 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Mangala3. The MSNBS source is a transcript of KO giving her his bronze for worst person for wondering if pictures of Obama smoking should have been released prior to the election. Seriously, is this what you view as valid criticism? Arzel (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can a newspaper editorial citation be removed due to BLP?

I would like some advice on BLP requirements for citing information. A fact about a writer (his dual citizenship) is being removed from that writer's WP bio with a claim that it is unsubstantiated. An attempt to add a citation that discusses the writer's dual-citizenship is being removed by another editor with a claim that the RS newspaper article being cited is an op-ed and therefore fails BLP. In fact it is not an Op-ed, but a newspaper staff editorial (New York Observer). And the WP editor removing the citation does not dispute the veracity of his dual-citizenship, only whether this citation is usable in a BLP. The WP bio does not include any quotes from the editorial; it only has a citation so that the veracity of the writer's dual-citizenship can be checked. And the sentence in the WP bio that contains the information in question is decidedly non-sensational - it merely states that he is a "FirstNation-SecondNation journalist". Questions:

• 1 Is a newspaper staff editorial suitable as a reference in a BLP?
• 2 Surely it is, but if it is not, is it nevertheless suitable as a citation to refer an interested reader to a discussion of a fact that is indisputably true?
• 3 With all the un-cited and un-substantiated statements in WP bios, does it make sense for WP editors to try to attack information like this that is both cited and substantiated?

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.

The claim is not disputed, correct, merely the reliability of the source? Not everything has to be sourced, only contentious material. Of course, sources are always best. Regardless, from what you've described here, the information and the source are good. It would, however, be best if you could link to the article and the source. Thanks, لennavecia 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. That it correct, the claim is not disputed. Here's the first removal of the citation by an editor claiming a BLP violation: [[7]]; here's a second editor questioning the veracity of and removing the statement itself now that the citation has been removed: [[8]]; here I added it back along with the citation and my claim that it does not violate BLP: [[9]]; here is the first editor acknowledging the truth of the dual-citizen statement but again deleting the citation claiming it violates BLP: [[10]]; and here is the citation itself: [[11]]. This is not a big issue - we are talking about a single word here - but I see this whittling away of facts from WP articles all the time and wanted to make sure that the high standards applied to BLP were not even higher than I understood them to be. Cheers, Jgui (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. New York Observer is considered a tabloid, thus not a reliable source. لennavecia 19:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? According to the WP page on Tabloids [Here], "The tabloid format is used by a number of respected and indeed prize-winning American papers ... the New York Post, the Philadelphia Daily News, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Boston Herald, New York Observer, ... Are you saying that it is against BLP to cite (and not even to quote) ANY of these publications in any BLP? Really?? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We should draw a distinction between supermarket tabloids like National Enquirer and mainstream newspapers that just happen to be published in the tabloid as opposed to the broadsheet format. For example, in the UK The Times is printed in tabloid form factor but no one would seriously argue that it is as equally unreliable as the National Enquirer. – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, then the argument that it should be removed simply because it is from a [tabloid] is invalid, right? Because I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to argue that we should remove all BLP citations to The Times, Chicago Sun-Times, etc. Do you agree Jennavecia? Jgui (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole stuff is maybe a little bit badly explained by Jgui. The controversy concerns the way the political views of a man (I don't know) are introduced : [12]. Ceedjee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee, you provided a link to a completely different article about a different writer that is completely irrelevant. Are you confused or did you link to the wrong diff? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"In fact it is not an Op-ed, but a newspaper staff editorial (New York Observer)." I don't think you understand what "Op-ed" means if you think saying that it is a staff editorial argues against it being Op-ed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, *maybe* I'm the one who doesn't understand the term, but my understanding complies with the WP definition [HERE]: "An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members." By that definition this is a staff editorial, not an Op-ed, exactly as I stated. So what is your understanding of the term that makes you think *I* am confused? And what exactly does this have to do with whether The Times, Chicago Sun-Times, etc. must not be used as citations in BLP's? Thanks, Jgui (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What an odd conversation. No editorial (op-ed or not, quality tabloid/broadsheet or junk tabloid/broadsheet) should ever be considered as a reliable source for matters of fact -- at minimum you'd have to specifically cite, i.e. "according to an editorial in the New York Observer, tktktkt." Editorials are riddled with slant, fact-fiddling, and just plain old fibs, since editorial writers are trying to make (and win) an argument. They are very different beasts from the news pages in terms of quality control on matters of fact. As to any confusion about "op-eds" and "eds"; an editorial in a traditional newspaper is one written by the editorial board, and it is typically unsigned. Op-eds are outside opinions that are almost always signed. I would probably think we can have a little more leeway with op-eds, because they're frequently written and attributed to prominent and/or expert people but again, that's more for matters of opinion than matters of fact.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bali, thanks for returning to the original issue. Your response is very surprising to me. Are you basing your comments on real-world experience at any real newspaper, or are you basing it on the way you *surmise* it works? You are aware, are you not, that editorials are subjected to the same fact-checking that other articles in a newspaper are? And that if anything the level of care should be even higher, since the writers of the editorials are themselves responsible for checking the facts in the actual news articles in the paper submitted by the writers, and since there is typically yet another overseeing Editorial Page Editor whose job is to oversee the content of the editorial page [[13]]. Clearly there are opinions in editorials - but an opinion is always based on a foundation of facts which are presented as such in an editorial. Do you really think that the New York Times knowingly lies about the *facts* it presents in its editorials? Really??

Here's an example editorial fragment from today's NYTimes [14]:

General McChrystal, who goes before the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, ... Highly trained and motivated task forces under his command captured Saddam Hussein and called in the air strikes that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ...

Do you think that we should mistrust that McChrystal will appear on Tuesday - that it might really be on Friday - or that his task forces captured Hussein - that maybe it was really General Jones' forces who did it? And do you really think that WP should remove from all its BLP's all facts attributed to Editorials? Certainly the *opinions* in editorials should be treated in the way you describe - but can you point to any WP policy or precedent that indicates the *facts* presented in editorials should be treated as non-RS? Thanks, Jgui (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume that all of the above was written by jgui (the threading/signing is a little confused). No one has any reason to believe me but, yes, i have extensive real world experience in journalism. From 1993-2007 I was a full time reporter and bureau chief for, in order, one of the two major american newswires; a major news magazine; and a national daily US newspaper. In the late 1990s I also wrote a number of long, heavily footnoted reports for the International Crisis Group (an excellent resource i recommend to all wikipedia editors; they do excellent, obsessively fact-checked work -- though the op-eds by various higher ups at ICG are another matter). I wouldn't ordinarily mention this, but since you asked... There are of course many true things in editorials, but the definition of a "fact" for an editorial is not as stringent, there is much less editorial oversight (oddly enough) in regards to fact checking editorials and op-eds, and in some publications the editorials amount to little more than heavily slanted, wildly inaccurate rants. I'm 100% confident that the statments attributed to mcchrystal in your example are accurate ones, and if we were editing an article together and that editorial was the only way to source that statement, i wouldn't object in that instance. It's a case of claime of "the sky is blue." But, as we both know, Mcchrystal's claims and comments are widely reported in the news pages, so using an editorial here would not be neccessary -- i would argue for the use of the more reliable news pages to source this. As a matter of best practice we should never source anything but opinion to opinion columns. Notable, verified facts will be in the news pages, and if they're not in the news pages that should give us pause. All of this is to say while there are many accurate things reported in editorials, just as many accurate things are reported in anonymous blogs (and by the fellow sitting next to me at the bar last night, and in press-releases issued by governments, etc...) we should not falsely then assume that all editorials are as reliable as news articles. They're not, not by a long shot.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just one more thing directly to the substance of this request. While i stand strongly behind my position on the meta question of what constitutes a reliable sources if the edit in question is that Foo holds dual citizenship, but the only source that states this is some editorial somewhere and no one contests this fact or finds it controversial I don't know why you couldn't explicity source it to the editorial ("An editorial in the new york observer said Foo has dual citizenship") until a higher quality source becomes available. If no one is contesting the accuracy of the claim, and it is in fact a widely accepted fact, i wouldn't have a problem in this case (though i don't know who the subject of the BLP in question is or what the possible issues surrounding this might be).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

There's been an issue with Warren Kinsella's article again, though it's a different one this time: now, two different anonymous IPs which have both claimed to be Kinsella himself are repeatedly removing sourced content from the article without explanation. I'd like to request that a neutral party — having been indirectly involved in this article's edit disputes in the past, that isn't me — take a look at the article and judge what needs to stay and what needs to go when it comes to BLP issues — I know that it's also a COI violation, but I still think the article should be checked for BLP conformance so that we can either resolve the situation or have an appropriate remedy if it continues. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's all sourced. I question the necessity of the blog quote about "rice and cat" or whatever, but I would say, overall, the removals are not within policy. لennavecia 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material at Qaboos bin Said al Said

I am having trouble removing poorly sourced and highly defamatory and harmful material at Qaboos bin Said al Said, the king of Oman. Please see the edit history of the article. The defamatory material is based on a source which does not directly support the claim and the source is talking on the strength of three unnamed persons. The talk page is also full of discussion on the defamatory material and it too may require cleanup. (I have not participated in the talk.)Civilizededucation (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cut down the material in question and added a comment on the talk page.Martinlc (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martinlc, I apreciate the fast response and support. I am still somewhat concerned about keeping the link because it indulges itself in a baseless allegation. The talk page also contains such links.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to limit the influence of material from a marginal source as evidence of fact in the main article WP:UNDUE, but the existence of the source cannot be denied.Martinlc (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Although I have some mild reservations) I think we may regard this as resolved.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the Talk discussion of the topic, but don't know what the procedure is.Martinlc (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything that needs deleting. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The section on Sexuality which retails unsourced or poorly sourced rumours: it seems inconsistent to remove then from the entry but keep them on the Talk page?Martinlc (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's normal to keep things like that on the talk page, as part of a discussion archive. Exceptions are sometimes made, but only rarely. Anyone else want to have a look? Rd232 ^talk 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

David Hyde Pierce

There was an uncited claim he'd gotten married to his boyfriend, so I added an AP cite. I also semi-protected this for the weekend (3 days). I do not protect presumptively, but it is fairly controversial. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I added another citation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Juggalo

There is a claim on the Juggalo page by ICP founder/Psychopathic records exec that a few third party people are fans of his music. Here is the actual sentence, "In his book Behind the Paint, Joseph Bruce claims that British band Chumbawamba,[22] rock bands Foo Fighters[23] and Slipknot,[24] guitarist Slash,[25] and John Cafiero[26] have identified themselves as Juggalos." Well the book, Behind the Paint is a self-published book (by his record company, Psychopathic Records) and it shouldn't be used as a primary source on the claims because it goes against the self-published sourcing rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves I believe that it violates both rules one and two for self-published sources and is therefore not an acceptable primary source. The rules are as follows, 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;2. it does not involve claims about third parties. Could somebody please weigh in on the issue. I would like to see secondary sources for each claim or a disclaimer at the end of the sentence stating that these claims have not been independently verified. The editors on the page accuse me of being on a "crusade to belittle the article" which is ludicrous. I apologize if this is improperly formatted or hard to follow. Thanks 72.66.109.24 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• The material is not self-serving in any way. There's nothing wrong with the source at all. Behind the Paint is not "self-published" by any definition provided by Wikipedia. Please stop. You do not own the article, and you do not get to edit the article to fit your own POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, Behind the Paint fits the definition of self-published very well. It was published by the author's company, he paid to get his book published. I don't know where pov comes into this because I would be quite happy to have it in the article with corroborating sources. If any reliable sources back up his claim than I have no issue with self-serving claims. The material itself could very well be true, I just want to see proper sourcing in claims related to third parties. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the material is in no way self-serving. Bruce doesn't profit from any of the cited individuals being Juggalos. That's ludicrous. Secondly, there's no difference between Behind the Paint and any other music biography in terms of reliability. "Self-published" would only apply to material written by non-notable individuals and published out of their own house. Psychopathic Records is a popular independent music label. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Unless I'm missing something, Juggalo isn't a biography of a living person. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the third party claims being made are in direct reference to living people. I was sent here from the talk page, is there a better place for this? 72.66.109.24 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is really a question of Reliable sources: WP:RS, but Ibaranoff is corrext that WP:SPS does not apply to books like this.Martinlc (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this not a self-published source. The guy published it himself. From the page, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]" The book was published by "Psychopathic Records" which the author just happens to be one of the owners/founders of. How does that not fit the situation? 72.66.109.24 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the situation here because the purpose of the policy WP:SPS is to exclude from encyclopedic content material that is the product of a single individual. Any fool can write a blog, and many do. The policy recognises that when looking for verifiable information from reliable sources, those sources must also have some credibility. There is no simple way to assess whether any given SPS statement is valid or not: it may be the result of careful thought over many years, or it may have written as a spoof or fiction in seconds. Publishing a book, even by a company someone owns, is a more complex and serious undertaking: it has involved more people, more checking, and entails some corporate risk (for a company to publish a book whose contents are worthless would damage its reputation). The policy therefore allows the use of this type of source as more intrinsically likely to be reliable than SPS. This is a separate question to how much weight the statements it contains should be given; obviously they will have a certain bias. But that is not an SPS issue and to discount it as a source is wrong.Martinlc (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan Harvey

Is quite likely despicable, but I would hope that WP:BLP still applies. He is currently repeatedly tagged as "racist" albeit there seems remarkably little in the way of RS cites to make that tag currently apt. (actually, there is remarkably little in the way of current RS cites in that article) What criteria are required to label a person as "racist" on WP? Is a current reliable source required? Or is the holding of "right wing" views sufficient? Collect (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, he isn't tagged as being racist but as being a topic of the racism debate. Looking at the template, I don't think it belongs on any articles similiar to Harvey's because of the BLP concerns. You did good in removing it. I can think of very few situations where we can label a person as racist (perhaps if he claims so himself and this is documented by reliable sources). We can document that people are alledgedly racist but templates assert facts that couldn't be reasonably contradicted. I don't think that racism template should be used in any biographies, which thankfully it appears not to. ThemFromSpace 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I take ThemFromSpace's point that no one else is included under this category so it would be wrong to add someone else. I note however that many biographies show the category "racism", e.g., David Duke. So while we are here, I wonder if we could resolve whether that would be allowed in this case.

According to the article (and its links) Alan Harvey has been active in the far right, racist British National Front, the National Party (UK, 1976), the Herstigte Nasionale Party, and the Conservative Party (South Africa). He was editor of the South African Patriot in Exile, that advocated "British and European Imperialism" and "Separate Development" while opposing "multi-cultural societies". He is currently chairman of the Swinton club that advocates "the re-establishment of civilized European rule throughout the African continent," and was condemned for by the British High Commission in South Africa for spreading "hate literature". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable sources for making charges in BLPs. And the fact is that the categorization of people as "racist" is not to be undertaken without exceedingly good basis. Therefore I would consider any such tag on a person to require striong consensus as well as non-questioned sources. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the template there and I offer apologies if it was incorrectly put. What I was looking for was some sort of general template category for 'white supremacy'. I saw there was one called 'White Nationalism' but it seemed specifically American whereas the 'Racism' one included white supremacy and apartheid. It seems to me that the subject holds views on race and dominance but I accept that does not automatically indicate that the subject is a 'racist'. Is there a 'racialism' or some other more appropriate category instead perhaps? --JHumphries (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CfDs on "Category:Teen love"

Category:Teen love and Category:Romances between adults and adolescents are up separately for deletion. Persons watching this noticeboard may wish to chip in. [15] and [16].--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Eugene F. Lally

This article appears to be self-promotion and appears to be written entirely by the subject himself and thus a conflict of interest. This article appears to have no value historically or technically. This individual does not appear to be a registered user and makes all of his edits using various IP addresses without disclosing his relationship with the subject matter. This individual also has been inserting claims about himself into various science and space articles as the sole originator of various important technologies, such as his second attempt at addition to the [Kepler mission] article. Usually these additions are removed by the article editors upon discovery. All of his sources are from long ago and difficult to verify. Even if the references exist none support his claims of sole origination and none appear to be anything other than a few non-refereed conference presentations and trade magazine articles. He has received no awards or professional recognition for his accomplishments other than those he has given himself. None of his work is cited in any later papers or in textbooks on these subjects (that he did not write himself!). Beware; at least one editor has taken his statements of achievement as fact. Aldebaran66 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Aleksandar Kolarov

The "Controversy" section of the biography on Aleksandar Kolarov contains several allegations of criminal activities and conspiracies regarding a transfer of this football (soccer) player from one club to another. While there is some sourcing, it is very little imo, particularly for such serious allegations. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section, tagged for blp sourcing issues, and watchlisted the article. Thanks for the heads-up,  Skomorokh  14:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

William Oefelein

William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Wikipedia is now informed of this libelous statement, which continues to appear in their article titled "William Oefelein." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 31, 2009 (UTC)

removed "dismissed" from the astronaut infobox; the sources given merely said "reassigned to the Navy". Rd232 ^talk 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

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

There was a previous report on this article, but there was no resolution and it was archived. Currently, there is a debate on whether or not to include a quote made by Perez Hilton where he called Prejean a "dumb bitch" after she answered a question of his about gay marriage in the 2009 Miss USA pageant. The argument for inclusion boils down to the quote being the main reason for much of Prejean's media exposure. The argument against is that the quote is a clear personal attack and it violates WP:BLP. It should also be noted that the incident itself with the full quote has its own article titled Miss USA 2009 controversy. I personally think the quote should be included, but I'm certainly not 100% on it, so I thought I'd bring this back here for some more input. There is an RfC in place as well. Of note, InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is insisting on characterizing Hilton's comments as "hate filled" (or some variation) and as "misogynist" in discussions on the talk page. This also seems to be a WP:BLP violation to me, though as I understand it some latitude is given for talk page posts. InaMaka is making the talk page a toxic environment, though the fact that I disagree with them may be coloring my interpretation. Outside opinions are most welcome and needed, and any uninvolved, neutral administrators would be welcome as well. AniMate^draw 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say something along the lines of "Hilton insulted Prejean", to avoid both the polemical quote as well as the offtopic commentary on the commenter? Declarative language is our friend. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Betty Tancock

Resolved

 – reliable secondary source confirmation found Rd232 ^talk 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Betty Tancock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - So a bit of a strange situation on this page. A while back Tancock was believed to be deceased, but her daughter contacted OTRS and provided evidence that Tancock was alive. Now an IP address has posted claiming to be the daughter with a date of death. I'm not certain that leaving a message to the IP would be useful; can someone at OTRS confirm that the IP and the account that was originally used are the same individual? There's no obituary that I can find that would make for an easy solution... // Cheers, CP 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The death date wasn't supported by the cited sources, so I have removed it. I think we should wait until a reliable source picks up on the (alleged) death; better late than trolled.  Skomorokh  05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to delete her edit because I just realized that number is probably her phone number and that doesn't need to be out there in public. All OTRS people have access to delete edits so they can check the IP. I have left a message on the IP talk page in hopes. Cheers, CP 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same thing. Are OTRS aware of this thread? I tried to follow their contact procedure from WP:OTRS but its basic tone was "go away".  Skomorokh  05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll point the user who handled the original OTRS case here... he doesn't edit much anymore, but it's a start. Cheers, CP 05:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Email sent out. Thanks for the help Skomorokh! Cheers, CP 05:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Hopefully there is some overlap between the readership of this board and OTRS volunteers. I'll keep the article watchlisted. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone sent me this link, claiming that it has her obituary in it, but the link does not open for me, it just keeps loading. Can anyone confirm that it's her obituary? Cheers, CP 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't open for me, nor does a Google search for "betty tancock" at that domain turn up anything current.  Skomorokh  17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, her name is showing up on the list of death notice links at http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/life/deaths/ -- but like everyone else, I can't get the link to open.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now the Globe and Mail link works. Here is the text for anyone who still can't get it to open:

ELIZABETH A. TANCOCK (NEE EDWARDS) Born February 22, 1911. Wife of the late Frank Tancock (d. 1994). Mother of Brian Tancock and his wife Jeannette, and grandmother of Suzanne Adalsteinsson, all of Houston, Texas. Grandmother of Brian J. Tancock of New York City. Mother of Beverley Stewart of Beausejour, Manitoba, and grandmother of Michael Forbes of Winnipeg. Sister-in-law of Valerie Perkins of Toronto and the late Bert Tancock. Elizabeth swam for Canada in the Xth Olympic Games held in Los Angeles in 1932. She competed for Canada in both the 1930 and 1934 British Empire Games (now Commonwealth Games), winning silver medal in 1930. Canadian Individual Ornamental Swimming Champion, 1939. Graduated from the University of Toronto (B.A.) in 1933. Member of the University of Toronto Sports Hall of Fame and the Ontario Swimming Hall of Fame. Member of the administrative staff of York University, 19621980. Introduced to the Ontario Chapter of Olympians as Canada's oldest living Olympian, June 2005. Friends may call at the Turner & Porter Yorke Chapel, 2357 Bloor St. W., at Windermere, east of the Jane subway on Friday from 5-9 p.m. Funeral Service will be held in the Chapel on Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 1 p.m. Interment to follow at Mt. Pleasant Cemetery. As expressions of sympathy donations may be make to the Hospital for Sick Children.

R.I.P. --Arxiloxos (talk)

Works for me too now. I guess this one is resolved. Cheers, CP 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

I am entangled in a nascent revert war on this article. I have removed some material per Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. The media has mentioned that she was assessed under the Mental Health Act 1983, I have removed mention of this as I regard is as an unwarranted invasion of her privacy but was reverted. I have reverted again but feel that an assessment by editors here used to operating this policy will be useful.

Some expert knowledge is relevant here. I have worked as an Approved Social Worker assessing people under the Mental Health Act. Sometimes we assess people and decide that they are not suffering from a mental disorder or at least not of one of a nature or degree that justifies depriving them of their liberty. In Boyle's case, the professionals involved have decided not to detain her under the MHA. However, readers are likely to read things into her having been assessed. The inclusion of such material is therefore likely to be detrimentla to how they view her.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is reporting that Piers says she voluntarily entered hospital suffering from exhaustion. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from the tabloids and gossip web sites, but if nominally reliable newspapers are verifiably reporting on this, I see nothing untowards about citing what's happening to her. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the content. The matter is germane to the nature of her sudden and stressful rise to fame and is clearly notable and relevant. It is also sourced from a reputable source that does not sensationalize or speculate on the matter. There is no reason to censor something that is a matter of widespread public knowledge and discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone has taken out much of your edit - correctly IMV. The section of WP:BLP to which I have referred above and in my edit summaries opens:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Statements about an individual's supposed mental health are a prime example of what this is intended to cover. Add to that that people can be assessed under the mental health act with the professionals deciding that there is nothing seriously wrong with them and a reference to such an assessment runs into a real risk of being libellous. (Remember true statements can be libellous.)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe my addition was "sensationalist" or "titillating". It accurately reflected what the BBC were saying and was being widely reported. However, I now notice that the cite I used on the BBC website has since been itself edited to remove references to the Mental Health Act. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This must be written with great care, but is becoming wholly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The best thing is to pick a couple of non-tabloid British newspapers, which understand the nuances of the Mental Health Act, and repeat what they say without elaboration. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that non-tabloid UK sources are more likely to be the safest for context and language. These will show up sooner rather than later. Straight quotes also come to mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry McAuliffe

A lot of POV content was added, copy-pasted by a single-purpose account on May 29 from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Terry_McAuliffe The article is not balanced at all and the "business experience" and "controversy" (deprecated anyway) sections, that are copied, are not at all structured and simply put in from the original article without context and without consideration for the original article structure. The article is an attack page in its current state and not balanced. Attempts by me to remove the material outright were reverted. I added a POV tag and removed POV statements from the lead, but the tags were removed before a conclusion could be found. Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of it is POV, or sections were changed, but the wholesale deletion of any changes made in the past week is unacceptable. I added in changes this morning, and there were other changes made recently, which do not meet the criticism above. The attempt revert back all changes made for the past week is what is in question here. BellForner (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Epstein

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

User:Thegoodlocust has recently removed a negative paragraph from our article on Marcus Epstein, with the edit summary "BLP violation using biased source based on a biased source - I could find no substantiating news source for this claim and his criminal record doesn't show this event". I reverted, due to Epstein seemingly pleading guilty, according to the court documents scanned in the source for said paragraph. A Google News search returns a few more sources covering the case, and a regular search provides others. However, due to my own relative inexperience in BLP-related articles, I would like more BLP-experienced users to review my edit, the article and the content in question, such as whether the source is reliable, whether the court document scans are genuine, and so on. Thanks. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this addition for a day, and I think that it should be removed pending coverage in a reliable secondary source. (I may be mistaken in thinking that Daily Kos, Center for Independent Media's The Washington Independent, and Talking Points Memo are not considered relaible sources. They are all blogs so I assume they aren't). For articles in general but especially for BLPs, we don't include assertions that are solely based on primary sources. Including crimes that haven't been reported in reliable secondary sources is against the principles of the BLP policy. That said, this crime does appear to be relevant to the subject's political activism and I'm surprised that it hasn't been picked up by a mainstream news source. I suspect it will be and we could restore the material when that happens.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Few newspapers give much coverage to misdemeanors at all. The apparent plea bargain means he will not face any jail time (the plea was two years ago, and appears to have stipulated that at the end of two years without problems that it would be dismissed). Not really very newsworthy at all. Which explains why the main people yelling are quite possibly with partisan interests. Collect (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, done. Thanks for the input. Care to keep it on your watchlist for future additions? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever interest there is stems from the confluence of Epstein's professional relationships with Buchanan & Tancredo and their critique of the Sotomayor nomination. (The partisan debating point being that those who level the charge of racism have/had a racist in their employ.) Billbrock (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Lomas

An editor calling himself Apostleman is posting untrue, unsubstantiated and defamatory comments about Dr Lomas's views on religion. As as one time student of Dr Lomas's, who is aware that Dr Lomas has been a church organist for many years, I am quite sure that Dr Lomas has never been associated with any attacks on religion or religious belief. He is far more tolerant than the "editor" Apostleman who appears to be a religious bigot who doesn't bother to check his facts.

As I was adding the titles of Dr Lomas's two latest books I noticed the comments and removed them, as they appear to be putting Wikipedia's reputation for avoiding posting unsubstantiated and untrue comments about living persons at risk.