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.

Bob Ainsworth

Source: The Minister and the IRA fan club by Peter Hitchens in Mail Online, last updated at 1:17 AM on 19th July 2009

Bob Ainsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A defence minister in Britain's Labour government, Bob Ainsworth, has been the subject of an article in the conservative Mail on Sunday News of the World by Peter Hitchens, who edits here as Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The article sites an unnamed spokesperson for Ainsworth confirming that in 1982 he attended two meetings of a left current then inside the Labour party, the International Marxist Group. Discussion on the Talk page concerns the relevance and balance of referring to Clockback's article in the article, especially since the source is unnamed and is cited only by that article. Clockback is a newer contributor and, while other editors have pointed him to Wikipedia's policies, he feels that bias by other editors is preventing his article from being cited. He intends to add the reference to the article without winning consensus. Others' opinions are welcomed. --Duncan (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, not the conservative "The News of the World" actually, but the "Mail on Sunday", a regrettable but telling example of Duncan's imperfect grasp of the argument and facts I've been putting forward for some days now. Is he paying attention? What the politics of the newspaper have to do with it, others may judge. The Minister's spokesman, a government employee, is unnamed because of a normal journalistic convention governing the making of such statements. The statement has been published in a national newspaper and not denied or challenged by its subject, since it is an accurate account of what was said. I have offered to provide the spokesperson's identity on the same basis to Duncan, should he wish it. The issue is not over the citation of my article, which in any normal circumstances would be unproblematic. I would actually much prefer it if someone else rather than me would insert the fact. It is over the objections of Duncan and another editor to the inclusion of this fact about Mr Ainsworth in the article. These two editors have also agrred on the removal of other material on Mr Ainsworth, which I argued should not be removed until it could be replaced by the accurate and verifiable information I seek to include. The other editor unilaterally removed the earlier material, without any substitution, against my clear objections. I have not myself so much as touched the article. I have attempted for several days to achieve consensus and been met with an utter unwillingness to compromise, combined with various peremptory warnings. I have therefore given a fortnight's notice of my intention to include the disputed fact, and sought to involve other editors as widely as possible, believing my case to be sound. Others' opinions, as many as possible, are indeed welcomed. hence the fortnight's notice. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Clockback. --Duncan (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement must be verifiable using a reliable source, and I don't think rumours mentioned by columnists have the same status as news stories. If the spokesperson were named and directly quoted in a story by a national newspaper like the Mail on Sunday—or if the newspaper story unequivocally repeated the allegation as a fact (not as a rumour)—it would be a different matter. If their lawyers don't want to take that step, why should Wikipedia? - Pointillist (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention, and stop trying to say this is not what it is. It's not a 'rumour mentioned by a columnist',(please try to avoid personal attacks, such as the implied slur on my competence in this expression) but a direct factual quotation obtained by me through an official statement on a government e-mail made by the taxpayer-financed spokesperson of the Secretary of State for Defence, who made it after consulting personally with that Secretary of State. By long convention, such spokespersons are not named. This has no bearing on the value of the story. Had the story been an unverified and untrue claim, it would have been denied ( as it has not been) . This is why newspaper stories (with the sole exception of this one) are used as verifiable sources on Wikipedia. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Being a columnist isn't a bad thing—Bernard Levin, Woodrow Wyatt and Hugo Young did it pretty well—but that sort of writing doesn't get the same pre-publication scrutiny as news stories. In The Daily Telegraph, for example, Con Coughlin sometimes writes as a journalist and sometimes as a columnist, Boris Johnson is always a columnist and the old Peterborough column was an unashamed step or two below that. This isn't rocket science: if you can find a rock-solid verifiable reference in a proper news story that has had real editorial/legal clearance, then there's no risk to Wikipedia in repeating it. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist still appears not to have read the item with any care, and is simply mistaken about the way journalism works. It is an implied personal attack to suggest that someone is retailing an unconfirmed rumour, and I suggest he withdraws this baseless suggestion. Also, I think I know more about newspapers than Pointillist, though he is welcome to cite experience if he has it.. Every word I write ( and I have been a newspaper reporter since 1973, having served the indentures then required, studied newspaper law, learned shorthand, reported trials and public bodies, been deputy political editor of a national daily newspaper) is subject to exactly the same editorial process, oversight and legal constraint as the rest of the MoS. The opinions expressed are my own. The facts I produce are facts and must be substantiated. Since (unlike many columnists ) I am a reporter by trade, I regularly obtain and research my own facts. It is perfectly true that columnists sometimes hint and insinuate, without offering facts. Hints and insinuations cannot be used as verification. At other times they can state confirmed facts, as I do in this case. It is not the vehicle that decides the nature of the contents. The contents must be judged on their merits. I repeat, this is a statement given on the record by the official spokesperson of a Cabinet Minister. I might add that none of the information on Mr Ainsworth currently given in his political biography appears to have any referenced verification at all. Yet my opponents, whose rigour appears selective to me, are not proposing to remove this material. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"none of the information on Mr Ainsworth currently given in his political biography appears to have any referenced verification at all". Assuming you're referring to the WP entry and not something else, almost all the info is in fact referenced. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that Hitchens is (apparently) both the Wikipedia editor wanting to add a fact, and the external source on which that fact draws as a (hopefully) reliable source. This wouldn't be so bad if he could firewall the two (editor/source), and only draw on the public information. But instead he is drawing on his private knowledge of how that source was produced (having produced it), to provide non-published context and detail for the published source, in order to make the source appear more credible than the published information suggests. Some of this shades, inevitably, into WP:OR territory, and this complicates matters. For me, too, the fact that Hitchens' article [1] seems to raise the IMG link primarily to smear Ainsworth by linking him (without, seemingly, any evidence other than attending a couple of meetings at the behest of a friend) with IMG's support for the IRA ("The Minister and the IRA fan club" subheadline!) obviously can't violate WP:NPOV, but it makes me uneasy, especially as no other press appears to have picked this up. Finally, there is the WP:UNDUE issue - it's all very well for Hitchens to make columnistic hay out of "a couple of meetings", but is that significant enough to merit inclusion in Ainsworth's encyclopedia entry? It has to be noted that Hitchens has demonstrated precisely zero significance for these meetings (indeed the only evidence is that they were insignificant, merely confirming Ainsworth's view that he wanted nothing to do with the IMG. (Hitchens blog, which doesn't work in Firefox but does in Internet Explorer - [2]). Finally - I almost forgot - another troubling aspect of this is that hitchens apparently came across the story from reading Wikipedia (his article and blog refer to "stories", which he's declined to identify), where a completely unsourced assertion on the subject was found until I removed it, leading to the present debate. This, again, is a troubling interaction between Wikipedia and a published source, this time going the other way. Words of wisdom, anyone? Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the original reports as a source rather than Hitchens' column? If these stories are on wikipedia, then, I think they're very shady. But if they're in other news outlets then they're probably OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the trail stops at the Peter Hitchens column. Is that correct, Clockback? - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read some of the talk page discussion: it strikes me that this isn't an argument over sources. Clockback wants to remove the "candidate member" bit and add that he attended a couple of IMG meetings. That's fine. The source does support that he attended a couple of meetings, whether the spokesman was named or not is irrelevant. As rightly pointed out, this is just a standard journalistic practice. The question is over whether that is notable enough for his biography: as the biography is very short and requires expansion, the answer to that question is yes. I think the sentence suggested should be added. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but the text in Hitchen's column doesn't make any statement about the relationship of the spokesperson to the subject. "I was interested to see stories ... so I asked a ‘spokesperson’" is all we get. It isn't enough, IMO. If Clockback is really Peter Hitchens the solution lies in his hands: publish more concrete allegations in the Mail on Sunday. - Pointillist (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you mean. It's probably unfortunate for Hitchens that he chose to put spokesperson in inverted commas. It does reduce the force of his statement. I'm coming around to your view that it is less solid than we would want. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that because the biography is short the issue of balance is important. I'm sure Ainsworth has attended several meetings of several organisations. If we select one fact, about not-notable two meetings in 1982 which are not notable to any other source, then that seems to me to be an innuendo pushes Peter Hitchen's POV that the cabinet is under the influence of revolutionary Marxists. If the statement from the "spokesperson" were in the public domain, and we had a primary source, then we could assess it. That said, there's no echo in the media or civil society from the 'revelation', and it's not notable. If Ainsworth's biography is written, there can't be more than a few sentences on it even if the work is hundreds of pages. --Duncan (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A standard I often apply is whether something would be mentioned in a person's (reasonable length - a page or two of a newspaper) obituary. Something only a book-length biography would mention is WP:UNDUE for a standard WP entry. (For very long WP entries - people about whom loads is known - a standard somewhere inbetween can be applied, but that's not the case here.) Rd232 ^talk 13:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, there we were on the verge of sense, and the fact that 'spokesperson' was placed in inverted commas is dragged in. This is not a serious point. Think a moment here. What exactly could this punctuation possibly mean, that would in fact detract from the verificational nature of the quotation? Let's not get tangled up in inverted commas. I put 'spokesperson' in inverted commas because I disapprove of 'inclusive language' and so I think it's a stupid word, and that's what I do with stupid words. As a columnist, I am able to do so. It is, however, the word the person involved specifically asked me to use when we agreed the use of the quotation. Please do resolve this. I'm off now till 9th August. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that's what the inverted commas meant. But there is the alternative meaning too that they're not really a spokesperson. The author of a source coming here to tell us how to interpret it is one of the problems I alluded to above. WP conversations are not normally citable sources (also, while I have no reason to doubt it, there is no external evidence I'm aware of that Clockback is actually Hitchens; that WP identities aren't verified is one of the reasons on-wiki statements can't normally be sources). Rd232 ^talk 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then assume that 'Clockback' is not Peter Hitchens and you still have a MSM reference for the info 'Clockback' seeks to include in the article. In assuming 'Clockback' is simply a third person/WP editor it removes one of your objections to his edit, namely that he is the author of the source. Simples! The other objection, that the info will be taken as this or that by a reader should, IMHO, be dismissed - we should not presume to know what a reader will make of info, we should simply provide it. Peter Hitchens was himself a member of the International Socialists if memory serves me well. He declares this and it's up to me what I make of it. Ainsworth is a prominent politician, this info should be declared, it's not like he's an ordinary person with no defence. We should state relevant facts about politicians and this is a relevant fact not that he once dated Joanna Lumley or picks his nose (I made those up). That politicians attend such a meeting more than once as an adult should be noted. That 'Spokesperson' is in quotes could be easily dealt with by Peter Hitchens mentioning the fact again in his sizeable column without quotes. But would that confirm to you that 'Clockback' is in fact Peter Hitchens and confirm an objection? I'm familiar with Peter Hitchens' work and a more fussy person with regards to words and grammar I think it would be difficult to find. So what does 'spokesperson' mean? I put 'Clockback' in quotes because it is a username not a real name. But he exists and I can quote him. It seems to me that 'spokesperson' is in quotes because the poor woman sending the email in question is probably not employed under the job title 'spokeperson' but under some other title, yet has been charged with this duty. That happens a lot. The difficulty therefore is whether WP is prepared to accept the statement by Peter Hitchens writing in the MoS. It's MSM and a creditable source. Include the info. Mimi ^(yack) 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Miamomimi is quite right about Clockback's identity: it's irrelevant for BLP RS purposes. Personally I don't like this source because it isn't specific enough. It looks like someone trying to make bricks without enough straw, and I don't think it should be repeated in the Bob Ainsworth article. If/when the original press story is followed up in the MoS or other newspapers, we'll know whether it fails the WP:UNDUE test. - Pointillist (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You drag me back from my holiday with this unending assumption of bad faith on my part, combined with pettifogging, quibbling and straining over gnats and inverted commas. Excuse me? Not merely is it barmily suggested that I would for unfathomable reasons pretend to be someone I'm not (if I were pretending to be someone, surely I'd pick a more popular person?). An immensely specific and clearly sourced piece of definite information is airily dismissed as 'not specific enough' and accurate information diligently obtained using the proper channels is described as 'bricks without straw'. What would satisfy these people? An affidavit? Probably not, is my guess. I've said it before, and I'll now say it again, so exasperating is this pettifogging becoming. If a left-wing newspaper columnist, using exactly the same wording, did so to say that a spokesperson for a member of the Conservative front bench had confirmed that this politician had attended BNP meetings in his 30s, the fact would go into his Wikipedia entry without question or quibble. If Pointillist says the story is not specific, then what is not specific exactly? The spokesperson of a government minister says on the record that her employer attended IMG meetings. Where's the non-specificity? In what way is the straw absent from the the bricks? The whole debate (with a couple of notable exceptions) is infused with a refusal to assume good faith on my part. Please stop this. Meanwhile, is there (please, please, oh please) anyone else out there prepared to give the matter impartial consideration? By the way, the historian Andrew Roberts says in today's (July 30th) Daily Mail that Mr Ainsworth "flirted with Marxism before becoming a city councillor in Coventry".http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203111/It-better-boys-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-stayed-holiday.html ?ITO=1490 Does that satisfy my detractors' demands for a follow-up? Shouldn't think so, but thought I'd mention it. Peter Hitchens, yes,really, signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this should be included on ground of undue weight and POV pressing. If it receives further attention then it should be included. Quantpole (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article in the mail which states that he was a 'candidate member' of the international marxist group. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203382/We-failed-Armed-Forces-Iraq-Afghanistan-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-admits.html To those that say that this would represent undue weight, how can you until it's actually included in the article? I think that it is significant enough to include a sentence in the 'early life' section. After all, infomation about Alistair Darling's connection with the IMG is included in his article. So is the personal political history of most politicians. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read it three times and still cannot see anything about it. And even if it does, why should that receive any more precedence than the many other bits of information about him in the article? Quantpole (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The info at issue here has today been published in the MoS without the punctuation that caused an objection. See Peter Hitchens' latest column. The only objection that remains is one of 'balance' which I dismiss for the same reasons Tiberius Curtainsmith gives above - the personal political history of most politicians is included in their WP entry. To have a 'balanced' political history is the reposibility of the subject, not the reporter. Don't shoot the messenger. I agree this info could be included in 'early life'. Mimi ^(yack) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This info that he is supposed to have gone to a marxist meeting a quarter of a century ago (but didn't inhale) adds nothing to the article of any worth. It look like an attempt to push a marxist label onto him, he is not a marxist is he? Are there any reports of this from the 80's? What does it add to the article? He went to a marxist meeting in 1980? and what happened there, what is notable about that? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob - why do you put 'info' in italics? 'Info' is short for information and this is information we are discussing here, is it not? Information about Bob Ainsworth. And 'didn't inhale'? What's that supposed to mean? I have no idea whether Bob Ainsworth is a Marxist or not, do you? It's not for us to label him but to report the facts. Let's do it. This is a relevant, confirmed fact in a politicians political history - we're not discussing his favourite colour. Mimi ^(yack) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your queries, I put info in italics to draw attention to it's worthlessness and therefore lack of real info (imo), didn't inhale is a ref to Clinton saying he tried hash but didn't inhale..as in comparison to this situation where Ainsworth went to a marxist meeting but didn't become a marxist. I hope you don't mind if we disagree, I see it as undue weight to an irrelevant non event. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Then, Off2riorob, you could have simply said so, nicely. But I thank you for your reply. IMHO the information about Bill Clinton and the information in discussion about Bob Ainsworth do not compare: we are not discussing drug use when a student but attending more than one specific political meeting as an adult. And I see no reason why that fact should not be included in the main article. Mimi ^(yack) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I posted the article there was initially a list of facts at the bottom which mentioned Mr Ainsworth's candidate status. These have since been removed, for reasons unknown to me. This editorial in the mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/Political-cowards-true-heroes.html?ITO=1490 also mentions that he was once a candidate member of the IMG. To Off2riorob, perhaps inclusion in the article of "Mr Ainsworth was a candidate member of the International Marxist group but never became a full member?" I'm not sure how membership of the IMG worked but I think being a candidate member is notable enough to include in the article. You haven't responded to the fact that we include information about the past for all public political figures. I would argue that being a voluntary candidate member of the IMG at 30 is more notable than the Pope being conscripted into the Hitler Youth when he was 14. The information about the Pope is included, as it should be. In the article on Alistair Darling his sympathies for the IMG are stated and sourced. To Quantpole, it should receive precedent in that Mr Ainsworth is a politician and his personal political history is important background. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets see that discussed in more impartial pieces than the 'debate' section of the Daily Mail, which includes quotes such as "Mr Ainsworth is a political lightweight who has never taken a real risk in his life, and his appointment to such a crucial ministry is an unmitigated scandal". To my mind that qualifies as an attack piece, and not something we should be quoting from. If this receives sufficient interest from a broader range of sources then it may well become notable. At the moment however it has received pretty much no coverage apart from a couple of attempts in the mail to disparage the subject, which cannot be viewed as reliable or notable. Quantpole (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's not an opinion from the Daily Mail that's being proposed here, but an on-the-record supported fact in a politicians political history. And the source is the Mail on Sunday which is editorially seperate. I really don't see the difficulty and agree with Tiberius Curtainsmith above. Mimi ^(yack) 11:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You see no reason why this fact shouldn't be included in the article. I see no reason why it should be included. This 'fact' is being stated in the Mail in a clear attempt to disparage the subject by associating him with IRA sympathisers. We do not know any of the context of his attendance at the meetings. We do not know his personal opinions on the IRA. It is a clear attempt at 'guilt by association' (just see the tone of the Mail piece above). If this receives some broader coverage, or there are signs of it causing a bigger furore than just a couple of opinion pieces then we should look at it again. Quantpole (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Herre's another source http://www.politics.co.uk/mps/party-politics/labour/ainsworth-bob-$451964.htm. There is no talk of saying that Bob Ainsworth has any sympathies for the IRA. It is pretty clear which parts of the pieces are fact and which are opinion. There is an obvious difference between Bob Ainsworth was a candidate member of the IMG and that he is an incompetent bungler. The first is obviously a verifiable fact, and has been verified by the other article in discussion. The proposed debate is whether we should include the sentence 'At 30, Bob Ainsworth was a candidate member of the IMG, but never became a full member' The other side of the debate does not think this is notable. Will they then delete similar information from the article on Alistair Darling? Perhaps a useful contribution would be if we are able to understand how membership of the IMG worked, that would make it easier to decide if it were notable or not.Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The politics.co.uk source has convinced me, and that's what should be used in the article, given that it presents the information without the rhetoric. Quantpole (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Summing Up

I am now preparing, as promised, to add to the entry on Bob Ainsworth MP. In doing so, I will try to sum up the argument so far in its essentials. But first, to avoid all misunderstanding, these are the words ( and attached references) which I intend to add on Sunday 9th August unless a good reason is supplied for me to refrain, or unless someone else does it. I propose to place them in the ‘Early Life’ segment, after the sentence ending ‘Branch President’. I would, as I have repeatedly said, much prefer it if another editor could place it there. Arguments for doing so follow the suggested entry.

“In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this. ”

1. What is the dispute not about? It is emphatically not about whether Wikipedia can say that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’ of the International Marxist Group (IMG). The traceable source of this claim is a Wikipedia editor who emphatically declares that he will remain pseudonymous, and who has declined to reply to separate questions from editor Philip Cross and from me, asking him to verify the information he placed on Wikipedia some years ago. 2. What is it about? It is about whether the brief statement above can be included in the entry. First, is it factually correct? Yes. Mr Ainsworth’s own spokesperson at the Ministry of Defence has said on the record that Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple of meetings’of the IMG. The references ( two from my ‘Mail on Sunday’ column, one from my blog, one from a ‘Daily Mail’ article by the historian Andrew Roberts which says Mr Ainsworth ‘flirted’ with the IMG) have been chosen because they do not refer to the so far unverified and possibly circular claim that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’. The ‘Daily Mail’ (editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) and the ‘Morning Star’ (even more editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) have published stories making this statement . Let us assume that they have their own sources, apart from Wikipedia, for saying so. But they do not cite them. Until they do, this doesn’t seem to me to count for verification. 3.Is the inclusion of the information in Mr Ainsworth’s entry undue? Those who say that it is argue that it is a) trivial, b) a long time ago and c) not indicative of anything about Mr Ainsworth’s current politics. I ask them to apply the following simple test, which will recur in this argument. Would they say the same if we were discussing information (confirmed on the record and published in two newspapers of the Left) that a member of a Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet had attended National Front meetings in the same period? If so, then they can continue to insist that the matter is undue. If not, not. We are urged by Wikpedia rules to adopt a ‘Neutral Point of View’. I personally think this impossible, as we are all inevitably influenced in our selection and appreciation of facts by our own opinions, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. But we can choose to make a deliberate effort to set this influence aside as far as we may. I think on this occasion those who have opposed the inclusion of the information are the ones who need to make this effort of generosity and open-mindedness. I also think some editors may, unconsciously, have allowed themselves to be influenced by the fact that the information appeared in newspapers they do not like under bylines they do not like, in a fashion they do not like. The mirror image of this would have happened had it concerned a senior Tory who had associated with the NF. It would not have made the information any less valid or worthy of inclusion. They need to show how the nature of the source is relevant. The proposed addition contains no expression of opinion on the significance of Mr Ainsworth’s contact with the IMG. Those who check the references will find the words of Mr Ainsworth’s spokesperson, belittling the significance of the contact, cited in full. They will also find the list of the questions submitted to Mr Ainsworth about the matter, to which he chose not to reply. Readers may choose (as several editors do) to believe it does not matter if Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings. However, Duncan’s comment (on the discussion page on 22nd July, 23.56) that “What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate” is helpful to those who wonder if it matters. It is not, repeat not, verification that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’, but it seems to me (especially as it comes from an opponent of inclusion) to support the view that IMG meetings were not, like those of conventional political parties, open to all comers, and that attendance at them is considerably more significant than past attendance at Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat meetings. I should add that Mr Ainsworth was a mature adult at the time. The IMG was not a current within the Labour Party, as one contributor inaccurately assumes. It was a ‘Democratic Centralist’ disciplined organisation with its own rules, programme, leadership and structure, which from time to time encouraged its members to work within the Labour Party, and from time to time maintained a wholly separate existence. Readers may equally choose to believe that it matters a little, or a lot. That is what factual information allows us to do. Not displaying it at all, when it exists, involves a political judgment that editors of Wikipedia are entitled to decide on behalf of others what established facts might or might not be important to them. Mr Ainsworth is by profession a full-time politician. He is a Member of Parliament, whose vote can alter the fate of Bills, make and unmake the law of the land, send soldiers into battle, influence the spending (or non-spending) of billions of pounds. He has been an important mid-level member of the Blair and Brown governments for some years. He is currently a Cabinet member who can influence policy at a far higher level than most of us can dream of. He is a Privy Counsellor. He is Secretary of State for Defence, a responsible and contentious office. If he were a dentist, a road engineer or a space scientist, perhaps his political actions and associations in his late twenties or early thirties would be of no interest or significance. As it is, I think it would be very hard to maintain that they are of no interest at all. Nor can I see how the reference could be any briefer or plainer than I have made it above.

The question of reliability of sources has been raised. Here is what Wikipedia itself says about this : “Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.” Opponents of inclusion on these grounds need to state clearly and precisely what makes the sources quoted, and their authors, unreliable. It is no good just saying you don’t like them.

The discussions, on the Ainsworth entry and in BLP/N, have attracted several different points of view. That is why I am placing this suggested text in both those places. They have been discussed elsewhere on the web, though not by me, with one Wikipedia editor suggesting that my interest in this is obsessive. I think a concern to ensure that accurate facts are displayed on one of the most important research resources in the world is quite reasonable, myself. If we are not allowed to take such things seriously without being called names, what kind of society do we live in? Neither side can claim overwhelming support, and some editors with borderline views may revise their position if they read my second reference to the subject. I submit that in any enterprise devoted to knowledge, the presumption must surely be in favour of the inclusion of any fact, rather than in favour of its exclusion. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You want to put “In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this." But your own blog ([3] - requires Internet Explorer) quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." Sounds pretty elaborated to me - and as something that's WP:UNDUE to include. Rd232 ^talk 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's something. I am delighted that RD232 appears to have abandoned the attempt to argue that there is no referenced verification for the information showing that Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings, in the face of the references provided above. I have answered the claim that inclusion is allegedly undue above, at some length. If RD232 has any response to that, in facts or logic, let him make it. Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson did indeed say what RD232 quotes her as saying, and I faithfully reproduced it, in full, as was only proper. As it happens, it is quite baffling to me ( and may be to others) how anyone could go to one, let alone two, meetings of a revolutionary Marxist organisation if he did not agree with anything they had to say. Why would he? These gatherings didn't come under the definition of fun. It is also startling that he did not agree with "anything" they had to say since the policies of the IMG were in many (though not all) cases close to (if not identical to) those of the Labour Party in 1983. Is there a spot of over-protesting going on here? The quotation used by RD232 is of course supplied by me in the Mail on Sunday. Further, the questions which I submitted to his office in response to this are the point at which he declined to elaborate. Even so, to show my willingness to compromise in the pursuit of truth, I would be willing to shorten the entry to say "in the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended 'a couple' of meetings of the International Marxist Group'. Those interested could then follow the references and form their own view of the significance of the information, and the significance of Mr Ainsworth's unwillingness to answer questions about it. I really am seeking consensus here. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget though that the truth may not always be verfiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What a lot of hot air about a worthless little non event, seems a bit excessive to me, it looks like a case of mountain out of a mole hill. I say it is an irrelevant fact and adds absolutaly nothing to ainsworth's biography. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He went to not only one, but two marxist meetings, he must be a marxist. sorry...they were revolutionary Marxist organisation meetings.that means he must be a revolutionary Marxist! Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the typical type of point pushing that makes it very hard to keep a political biography neutral. Editors in the political section seem unable to edit in a neutral way Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved to be utterly Eirenic, I respond as follows: to Ukexpat that the statement is both true and verifiable, that there is no longer any question about its verifiability and suggest he looks once more at the references provided. If he thinks it is not verifiable, then could he please explain why (referring to my posting above if possible, as it is nice when people respond to opposing arguments)? To off2riorob, nobody is saying that Wikipedia should make any statement along the lines of 'he must be a Marxist'. Some people will take Off2riorob's view, that the information is not interesting. Others will take the view that it is interesting. Some (me included) will take the view that it is very interesting indeed. That is what facts are for, to allow people to draw their own conclusions from them. It is simply not possible to say that it adds 'absolutely nothing' to Mr Ainsworth's biography. It plainly adds something. The question is what, and how important it is. The barest, briefest mention is proposed, not some vast history. Now, it is perfectly plain that your idea of its importance could be influenced by your political opinion. But Wikipedia does not cater for people of only one political opinion, and in the hypothetical Tory shadow cabinet case given above I have asked opponents of the inclusion if they can honesly say they'd take the same attitude in such a case. Well? Would they? I have also provided a strong rebuttal, above, to those who say the inclusion is undue. If off2riorob, or anyone else, disagrees with what I say, then can they explain why they do so, using facts and logic as I have done. Simply asserting, with sarcasm and a belittling tone, that I am wrong does not help. How can I possibly argue rationally with that? How can I possibly be persuaded by that? Could the users of such techniques be persuaded in this way? To off2riorob's final point, surely neutrality in political biographies (if attainable at all) does not consist of leaving out parts of politicians' biographies that are controversial. It consists of presenting the whole person in such a way that a reader may form an independent judgement based upon verifiable, true and complete information. I stress the word 'complete'. Supporters or sympathisers of politicians or political parties should certainly not be allowed to patrol their entries to keep inconvenient facts from slipping in. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re WP:UNDUE - do you honestly think the issue would make it into a newspaper obituary of Ainsworth? Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, as we are all here to improve the article, I was wondering if you have got a free to use photo of him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In answer to RD232, all my thoughts are honest, and I really do wish you would get round to assuming good faith on my part, as it would make the necessary agreement so much easier to reach. Don't you realise the attitude implied in such formulations? No - then how would it sound to you if I rephrased my reply as "Do you seriously believe that any obituary would leave it out?". As to the question, I have no doubt at all that some, probably all obituaries of Mr Ainsworth would contain references to his political past, including this element of it. It would depend, of course, on the newspaper, how extensive and how prominent the mention would be. But as it's the most interesting thing anyone has ever found out about him, I would be amazed if it were missing. I have no idea why anyone who has read this discussion should imagine that I possess a picture of Mr Ainsworth. Perhaps Off2riorob is making a joke. If so, ha ha. Jolly funny. If not, so sorry. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The "honestly" adjective was merely intended to nudge you to think substantively about the question, nothing else. It's a common expression. Sorry if you inferred something else, but that's kind of what WP:AGF is for. I keep telling you I'm assuming good faith on your part about adding these points; I just disagree. Rd232 ^talk 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a joke. You claim to work for the daily mail, don't you? They have a lot of pictures of people, don.t they? You are an editor here at Wikipedia editing for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so what is so funny about me asking you a simple question?

Your mission here to insert this twaddle is getting a bit WP:POINTY. And there is no obituary that would say...he went to two marxist revelutionary meetings in the 70's.. they would say he came from humble a background and rose up to hold one of the highest positions in the goverment and he was a good man.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

May I once again ask for reasoned and non-abusive responses to my 'summing up' above? It is time we reached a sensible consensus. If we cannot do so, and this matter ends up in some higher dispute procedure (as seems increasingly likely) I can hardly see such behaviour helping the cause of those who resort to it. To Off2riorob, I am sorry to have misunderstood your post. I genuinely thought you must be joking. I must also ask people to stop using such expressions as "you claim to work for...". This is a basic and straightforward breach of the general Wikipedia plea to assume good faith, without which no progress can be made. Unlike many Wikipedia editors, I choose to identify myself, as I don't believe in anonymity on the web. I really don't see why my openness should be treated with suspicion, while anonymity is treated as in some way superior. I can't imagine why. Why do my opponents think it is all right repeatedly to cast doubt on my declared identity? (I work, as it happens, for the Mail on Sunday, which is editorially separate from the Daily Mail. But that does not give me any special freedom to use picture libraries). On the general question of obituaries, these are often compiled from private information which for various reasons has not been published during the subject's lifetime. Even assuming that this would not be the case with Mr Ainsworth, a comprehensive and properly researched obituary would certainly note that he "flirted with Marxism" as Andrew Roberts put it. The exact treatment which they would give to the known information and to Mr Ainsworth's explanation of it would presumably vary, according to the newspaper. I would personally prefer the Wikipedia entry to me more explanatory than the wording I am proposing. But I am, as I keep saying, trying to reach a consensus with opponents who argue stoutly that that the political history of a major politician is not important. It's a bit much to be chided for my own willingness to compromise. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I rebut completely the allegation that my attempt to insert this fact through consensus is "Pointy". If Off2riorob would care to tell me which of the listed offences I have allegedly committed, then I can at least defend myself in detail. But I would point out again that in several weeks of discussion I have yet to touch the entry, that I have followed dispute procedures, and I have continued to try to reach consensus through reasoned debate. I have given notice of my intention to insert the proposed wording on 9th August because I can see no other way of persuading my opponents to seek consensus instead of flatly telling me I am wrong, and ignoring my facts and logic. I do not want an edit war. I am quite happy to go to the next stage of arbitration instead, if any experienced person would care to tell me what that is. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An ultimatum is not a way to reach WP:CONSENSUS. The next step in dispute resolution would be an WP:RFC. Rd232 ^talk 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"opponents who argue stoutly that that the political history of a major politician is not important." - mischaracterising your opponents is always helpful... your opponents are arguing that based on the available evidence this is not an important part of this person's bio - not important enough to include in his encyclopedia entry. I mean for all we know he was dragged to 2 meetings by a friend and sat in a corner reading the newspaper. There is just no evidence of significance - only evidence of insignificance (see full quote from spokesperson above). (BTW, it's irrelevant how major or minor a politician he is.) Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My opponents just won't debate the substantive facts and logic ( and no wonder, since they are against them) , now relying purely on their own subjective insistence that it doesn't matter that a Defence Secretary once attended the meetings of a Marxist revolutionary organisation. Mr Ainsworth is a major politician. This argument concerns the inclusion - or non-inclusion - of information about his political history. My opponents say this should not be included. I cannot see what 'mischaracterising' is involved here. On the contrary, I think it an entirely accurate description of my opponents' attitude. Speculation on Mr Ainsworth's behaviour at these meetings, and his attitude towards them is limited by our lack of knowledge of what took place. I could speculate in the opposite direction, but such factless musing would be as valueless as Rd232's speculation is in this debate. The principal source for such information declines to discuss it. The quote from the spokesperson cannot be considered in isolation from the supplementary questions which the spokesperson refused to answer. Nor is it irrelevant that Mr Ainsworth is a Cabinet Minister. He wouldn't even be in Wikipedia if he were a Parish Councillor. The whole reason for the entry is his importance in national life. The greater the importance, the greater the need for full knowledge. And I notice that none of my opponents is prepared to deal with the Tory Frontbencher-National Front hypothetical parallel which I repeatedly raise. Would they treat that hypothetical frontbencher's spokesperson with the the generous respect they give to Mr Ainsworth's, if that spokesperson explained his attendance in such a fashion and if the Tory himself refused to answer valid supplementary questions? Would they say it was too long ago, too unimportant, that he might have been "dragged" there (twice, forsooth. How did the alleged dragger make him do that?) or read a newspaper while present, unaware of the passion raging all round him? If so, let us hear them say it, and let us be sure to hold them to it if and when such a thing happens. If not, then let them accept that their reluctance here is motivated by political partisanship, not a desire for editorial purity. They have lost this argument, on facts, verification, importance and everything else, they refuse to assume good faith on my part, rudely cast doubt on my veracity while accusing me of all kinds of Wikipedian crimes, but remain unwilling to offer any compromise. In that case, let's go to Dispute Resolution, as soon as possible. How is it done, anyone? I'll postpone my addition until it's complete. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now referred this for comment and postponed my planned addition of the information until there has been further time for dispute resolution. Alas, new contributors and editors have yet to notice. What ( as another contributor to this section asks ) does one have to do to get the alleged Wikipedia community to pay attention? An edit war? I really do not wish to get involved in such a thing. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New contributors are unlikely to be attracted to the current restriction placed on the RFC of reading all prior discussion. Without an agreed summary, this is now an eyewateringly mammoth task.—Ash (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael_O'Malley

• Michael_O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A prominent person my my industry came to me about the lack of wiki page on myself, and offered to put it together. I agreed, edited it, and posted it. If this is not acceptable can you please let me know the right way to go about it. //

"Michael O'Malley"

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates

I realize that the question of appropriate mug shot use is still being debated at Talk:BLP, but in this case a reasonable compromise was reached on the article talk page Talk:Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates#Mug_shot to move the mug shot out of the infobox and replace it with a neutral pair of photos of the two participants. One editor keeps reverting this change [4], [5], [6] claiming there is no consensus, even though he is the only one objecting to the change at this point.--agr (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note. As the one seeking to add a potentially damaging image, about which there is controversy - and indeed, using a mug shot when the charges were dropped is arguably an attack article move right there - he must gain full support before even attempting that change. He does not have it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. Mug shots generally follow arrests, add little or no derogatory information (unless the subject is in disarray, a la Nick Nolte), and serve to underscore the unnecessary humiliation involved when an inappropriate arrest is made.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here was whether the mugshot should be the lead photo in the article's info box. Five out of six editors in the discussion agreed it should not. Under the change which kept being reverted, the mugshot was not removed from the article, but was moved to a place later in the body.--agr (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I agree with that -- the post I replied to seems to be discussing whether the mug shots should be used at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My error, I phrased that poorly. I did indeed mean adding the image to the lead. I apologize for any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

After helping others to protect the article from those who went about adding all sorts of defamatory content (mostly of a racial nature), you can imagine how bowled over I was at being accused of adding it myself - especially since the "defamatory content" I was being accused of adding was the info that was pre-existing in the article!

As the person "warned", I'd like to point out that AGR filing this complaint pointed to a BLP discussion wherein the appropriateness of mugshot photos should be allowed in main BLP articles (this instance is in a sub-article specifically addressing the arrest). The user agr assumes that all mugshots were tendentious - a view that has little in the way of support within policy. Indeed, agr spent a great deal of time edit-warring the image substitution in, prompting a gentle nudge(1) by myself to slow down and build a clear consensus after this second revert in as many minutes.

Frankly, I do not think mugshots are inherently demeaning or NPOV, but that's an issue to be sussed out here, not by self-righteous behavior gussied up as good editing with a "consensus" built in the dead of night. Either way, all I was asking for was for agr to build a consensus - which he rather clearly didn't bother to seek as he was reverting over and over again. I even suggested he do a quick spot vote in the form of a poll which, after I signed out, he had not acted upon, and in fact called "unnecessary." A quick look at the article discussion page clearly indicates that substantial and reasoned discussion is ongoing in the article abut this so-called consensus.

Lastly, this also appears to be the third time that Killer Chihuahua has accused me of overwhelming wrongdoing. I would think that, after twice before jumping the gun and assuming the very worst of me. he might be mature enough to realize that he really needs to think before acting. I also think that - in light of these failed assessments of my behavior - it would be advisable that he abstain from seeking to judge me. He's shown he's not very good at it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time I brought this matter to the attention of this notice board, Arcayne had just reverted the move of the mugshot from the info box to the body of the article for the third time ([7], [8], [9]). I came here rather than continuing a revert war. All the other editors on the talk page discussion at that point had agreed to the change. The discussion there has since continued on whether the mugshot should be used at all. So far no one has argued it belongs in the info box. Instead of addressing his info box reverts, Arcayne has attacked me repeatedly as is evidenced above. --agr (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined you would characterize your having misrepresented the situation sufficiently enough to warrant a wee bit of disdain. Arnold. What I said repeatedly - which you can see in the edit summaries of each of those links you supplied - that you should find a consensus before insisting on jamming your personal beliefs down the throats of the rest of the community. And then, rather than continue to discuss the matter or poll the members (which you dismissed as "unnecessary"), you continued to edit war into your very own third revert. They aren;t personal attacks ; I am addressing your unfortunate behavior. If you don't like your behavior being addressed, adjust the behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there is no way the mugshot/booking photo should be in the infobox. The article is specifically about the arrest but the man is innocent of any crime so he deserves a lot of protection. As it is now it looks not too bad. There is no way that mugshot should be in the infobox, in fact if he is innocent of any charges then the mugshot shouldn't be in the article at all as the guy should not even have been arrested at all. He seems to be a decent man and has had his own page as an intelectual for 4 years, we should give this living person all the protection we can. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) Also the title of the article is wrong.. At least it should be.. the wrongful arrest of H L Gates. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

See, I don't mind you having that opinion, Off2riorob, so long as you seek a consensus for that opinion in the article discussion. As for myself, we cannot protect the man from himself - and we should not twist the BLP to do such. If someone is stupid enough to mouth off to the police and get arrested, we aren;t going to hide that fact. Mug shots are a matter of public record, are well cited and are neutral to use in sub articles. As this is not the main article for Gates - in fact the bleeding article is called "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" - I cannot imagine a more appropriate place for the image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you argued that we should not place a picture of Ian McDiarmid on the main page alongside the Palpatine FA because people might mistakenly think that Ian MacDiarmid was, in fact, the leader of the Galactic Empire. I personally found your arguments to be absurdly hysterical, but how is this situation any different? Placing a mugshot may give the impression that the individual is, in fact, a criminal - however the charges have been dropped. –xeno^talk 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Zeno, I totally agree with you. The charges have been dropped and we should drop the wrongful booking shot. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Just a comment. People are arrested all the time and then charges are dropped or they are proven innocence or whatever. That doesn't mean it was a wrongful arrest. I believe that you have to prove it was a wrongful arrest in a civil court, ect., otherwise it's just an arrest, nothing more nothing less. Anyways, carry on. --Tom (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I saw the article at first glance and my first impression was, why two images of a distinguished proffesor in handcuff, who are we trying to kid around, two images of him handcuff! Yes, lets make it clear where the black man belong, dont you dare open you mouth to a police or to an administrador or even a steward in Wikipedia, the control is 1984....I know Im incoherent, but two images are too much, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge not TMZ.com, hey did they post more picture about Michael and his drugs??? --J.Mundo (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, JMundo; you're being incoherent (lol). First of all, I certainly hope that wasn;t some sort of accusation of racism, 'coz that dog won't hunt, not when I'd spent the better part of the week keeping racist trash out of the article.

Zeno - and everyone else for that matter - please listen carefully: I don't give a sodding rat's ass if the image is in the article or not. observations of policy and guidelines aside (which most seem content to conveniently be forgetting), I want folk to observe the idea of BRD and build a consensus based on policy, not some politically correct, white apologist guilt of "it feels mean". I've tried to express this before, and the best argument I am getting is that I'm sort of racist ceep for wanting the image - and major changes in general - to be discussed. Are you at all surprised that I am a wee bit miffed at the situation? Discussion doesn't mean edit-war your preferred version in get reverted, edit it back in, leave a comment about how you are putting it back in. Rinse, repeat about three times. Do we really want an encyclopedia built on some the efforts of some hack with more endurance? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

White or black, having a mugshot of a person in an article about an arrest where THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED seems very problematic to be from a BLP perspective. We should err on the side of caution in such circumstances, and the fact that the article is now protected after a <removal/reinsertion/removal/reinsertion> sequence is quite disturbing. UnitAnode 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who requested page protection. I had been discussing how at least half of the discussion was being cluttered by folk who seemed to have forgotten all about BRD and were edit-warring over some ill-advised edits. The protection is intended to settle folk down and force them to actually talk themselves to a consensus - something they clearly weren't doing before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has repeatedly accused me and others, in a most uncivil way, of edit-warring and somehow violating BRD. To begin with BRD is not always applicable in a BLP situation. WP:BLP says "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved." Second, I have made exactly one edit to the article in question -- ever -- as the logs will show. How this can be construed as edit-warring is beyond me. If I were the only one affected, i'd keep my peace. The removal of the mugshot from the info box that I sought and that Arcayne reverted three times seems to be sticking. But I see that other editors are being driven from this discussion by the repeated mischaracterization and incivility being shown and that is not acceptable. I must insist the incivility stop.--agr (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• FYI for the other admins here; Arcayne has announced his intention to disregard my warning, claiming the warning was "bogus" and implying that it was personal.[10] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment as to the FYI - I am absolutely dismissing KC's biased little grudge match, as it was based on yet another instance of KC not doing his homework before accusing me of being the Big Bad Wolf - something he's done not once but twice before. His accusation is based on a fallacy - I didn't add derogatory material to that - or any - article. This continued assumption of bad faith on his part is indeed tedious, and I have informed him that any subsequent instances will have repercussions for him. I don't care if he ius useful - so am I, and I am tired of having him assume the worst and using the admin buttons to threaten me or to besmirch my editing stance. Of course, I am not now, nor have I ever, added any negative material to any BLP, and I am not about to begin now. I have asked KC to abstain from decisions where he might wish to evaluate my editors or intentions, as he is so profoundly and provably inaccurate at doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, I have warned you several times. You heeded the warnings, if I recall correctly, or at least I did not see you continue the problematic behavior, or I would have blocked you. Same here; you cannot invent a hostility I do not feel, and somehow pretend that makes your behavior inviolate or the warning moot. I have warned many people, and some of them multiple times. I have no personal axe to grind at all; merely doing my job. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Clarification: your warnings were all proven inaccurate and based either upon sloppy research on your part or a simple presentiment of inaccurately assuming the worst. I did not "continue the problematic behavior" because there had never been any problematic behavior to begin with. Ergo, that which never started is not something whioch cold be resumed. You can keep stating that you do not have animosity, but each time someone suggest si am doing something wrong, you always seem quick with the warnings. And not once have you apologized for jumping the gun when you were proven wrong - not just by myself, but by others. There are a great many admins in the wiki-en; maybe let them deal with me. You have proven unable (or unwilling) to accurately gauge the actual facts of the matter. I am asking you to abstain, as there will be repercussions if you cannot control yourself. Now, you might comment, as I know you like that last word and all, but until you step over the line, these are mine: you are not neutral in regards to me; please stay away and trust that some other admin is smart enough to evaluate situations where I am involved. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Utter nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, it is, but all of it unfortunately true. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  this is the wrong venue for this. I have taken it to Arcayne's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Good, though I think most folk had figured that out, what with the moving on of this thread regarding the substance of the issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting we pass or final comments here as to whether to keep the mugshot in the article or remove it. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Sure. Sorry about the KC nonsense. Anyway, we use mugshots in many articles, including at least one FA. Mugshots are not inherently "demeaning or derogatory" - they are a method that the police identify a person placed under arrest. They are a matter of public record, are usually free-use, and help to illustrate text discussing the arrest. No one is contending that the arrest did not occur, nor that the person depicted in the free use image is anyone but Gates

In the sub article, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" - note that it is not the main article for the BLP, but a sub-page specifically discussing the arrest and aftermath - there is also an image of Gates in cuffs on his porch, an image which I am somewhat sure will not survive an AfD, as its fair use rationale is pretty wonky. Free image versus fair use image - no-brainer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the KC nonsense - I trust that you will apologise to her properly on her talk page, Arcayne. I would also suggest that you strike those portions of your comments here.

When I get at least three apologies from her for prior bad acts, I will consider allowing bygones to be bygones, Guettarda. Not before then. That KC issued a bogus threat to block was part of an ongoing pattern of bad faith. I consider it nonsense, and as provocative as attempting to poison the well here by stating that I intended to add "derogatory" info again. That's the last I am going to speak of my issues with her here since, as KC pointed out, this is the wrong venue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the use of the mug shot in inappropriate, since it creates the perception that Gates is a criminal or otherwise deserving of arrest. Whether the arrest was appropriate or not is a matter of dispute. NPOV does not permit us to endorse one side over the other. Of course, our BLP policy requires that we avoid further damaging Gates' reputation, but the using the mugshot wouldn't be appropriate even if this weren't a BLP, since it fails NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear how it fails NPOV, Guettarda. We aren't endorsing one view or another. We using an image this is both free, indisputably of the subject of the article, in a sub-article that speaks to the specifics of the arrest and aftermath; therefore it is not only appropriate, but more connected to the subject matter than any other image save for the nonfree image of the beer summit. Wikipedia is full of mugshot images, most notably in Rosa Parks, As we are using a free image to note and highlight an event, I am not sure how that is a violation of NPOV. You will also recall that Wikipedia is not censored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I wondered how long it would take before someone would pull out the "not censored" card, though WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable to BLP issues, where WP is clearly (in some ways) "censored". UnitAnode 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed in too many different places. (Here, the talk page of the article, and WT:BLP and probably numerous user talk pages). I'd suggest settling on a common location. Incidentally, I still haven't been presented with an argument as to why the mugshot is more relevant (or relevant at all, really) than the FU image of him being led out of his house which does not present a one-sided view like the mugshot. –xeno^talk 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that had been explained before. The article is is about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates (the fellow in the booking photo). the arrest is discussed somewhat in depth within the article, which is substantiated by the image. The booking image is a free image, whereas the image of Gates in handcuffs on his porch is not a free image and, if anything, displays Gates in a far more negative light than the booking photo. As that image and the beer summit photo kludged image (which seems to be facing deletion at Commons as per WP:OI) are not free, their use and availability are both limited. As many would not be able to even imagine the eminent professor being arrested in the first place, the booking photo establishes visially the fact of the arrest and that it indeed went as far as being processed at the Cambridge Police Department. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

I believe you are missing the word "not" between "would" and "be able to even imagine" ? –xeno^talk 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Xeno. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me like there's a consensus to not put the mugshot in the infobox itself. While it makes sense to keep the mugshot in the article, the desire to make it less prominent is understandable. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to agree with Arcayne if he could manage a bit more civility and a bit less hyperbole. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up on the BLP policy talk page as well. Started with this section and continuing with the section that follows. Discussion there was more about the appropriateness of the image in general, not just about an infobox. Consensus seems to be not to use mug shots in BLPs unless the subject is currently incarcerated, which is proposed to be added into policy. Otherwise, such images are appropriate in articles about the arrest or about the crimes wherein the arrest is discussed. Combining the points of these two discussions, I believe that much like mug shots should not be used in BLPs of subjects not currently incarcerated for their alleged crime(s), the mug shots should not be used in the infoboxes of crime/arrest articles when the subject is not currently incarcerated for their alleged crime(s). Lara 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that would appear to be your personal opinion; the community that has spoken on this issue still appears to be rather sharply divided on the issue. In short, you appear to be misrepresenting consensus here. Booking photos are free images - right out of the gate, that's a big plus, since most images are not. Next, the booking photo image is not int he main article for the article for Gates; it's in an article specifically discussing the arrest and fallout from it. Just as the Rosa Parks' article uses the arrest materials to indicate an injustice given form so do, I would argue, the images of a Harvard professor and documentarian under arrest for (allegedly) mouthing off to a cop. You say it's demeaning - that's your opinion. We have dozens of articles of folk who are not/were not incarcerated at the time their booking photo was used. Like the song goes, "everyone here is equally kind"; Wikipedia is not censored, and make no mistake - removing the booking photo would be censorship. No one in their right mind would contest that Gates was arrested. So long as the article describes all events equally, the image of the arrested Gates serves both sides of the argument: he was arrested, and that arrest was unjust. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Gates article, the mug shot is now out of the main info box, and shown in a section describing the arrest events. I think that is the appropriate treatment. (This is far from a typical arrest situation. What this arrest means; whether the arrest should have been made at all; these are topics of vigorous controversy out there. Showing the mug shot helps illustrate the controversy.) Pechmerle (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne is correct that there's nothing at all resembling the consensus claimed by Lara regarding what should be done with mugshots in general. However, it seems like there is at minimum a consensus not to put that photo in the infobox. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot and arrest pictures, in or out.

There has been a lot of discussion over these pictures in or out, an editor has started a head count of opinions at the [Gates talkpage] This is an important decision for the Wikipedia, please come there and leave your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

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

IP(s) keep adding Jewish-American to lead sentence against MOSBIO. Any help appreciated, maybe protect? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IP's have been warned and reported to WP:SPI. Will continue to monitor article. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have extended WAY too much assume good faith at this point :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days.--agr (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP said on my talk page that he had 1,000s of IPs and software and other cool stuff that would make him victorious in his efforts to keep warring. Oh well, hopefully all will be quiet on the western front for a few days :) YIPPPIE! :) --Tom (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – -shirulashem^(talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we protect again? Our Russian friend has returned. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi protected for 6 months, based on the threat made at User talk:Threeafterthree. --agr (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jan Slota

Hello All. I removed a few images that linked Slota to a Neo-Nazi organization. Although he does tend to put his foot in his mouth and is not the best loved of Slovak politicians, he should not be linked to Nazism unless there is direct proof of his involvement with such a group. thanks User:Petethebeat

Carl Cameron

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

There is a dispute about "material" being added and cited to youtube and the Outfoxed documentary. I think its best to leave it out unless main stream media have reported/covered it. Unfortuneately, the other editor made it abundantly clear on the talk page of what he thinks about the subject of the bio Thanks, --Tom (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

said material has been there for months and is located in the "criticism" section. This is simply an attempt of rightwing cleansing of Wikipedia articles. Cameron is amply quoted and criticized in "Outfoxed", which was promoted by a major national organization (moveon.org) and reviewed in several national (WaPo, Variety, NYT) and international (The Guardian) papers. You can not make Cameron uncontroversial by simply deleting every reference to his critics.

Furthermore, the idea to suppress this film is especially ludicrous when you actually see Cameron there on tape openly sucking up to Bush and telling him that his wife is so actively involved in the Bush campaign. Outfoxed doesn't allege Cameron's conflict of interest - it shows it. Calling that partisan defies reality. Wefa (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not gone and looked at the article yet, but I will state that youtube is not generally a reliable source. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

this is not' about some youtube clip. The documentary film quoted is a professionally released film, is available on DVD (e.g. from Amazon), has been reviewed in several national papers, listed in the IMDB, and has its own extensive Wikipedia article, which I suggest you reading to delevop your own judgement. Furthermore, this film is not used in the article as a source of facts, but as an irtem of critcism; for which it is a primary source. Wefa (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

as for the article, User:Tom (talk) has now for the third time reverted my edits on that section and blanked it, so you will have to dig in the history to find it.Wefa (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the movie; you used a youtube clip of it as a source. I suggest you find a better source. You state NYT and Washington Post etc; use those. It is very problematic to use a youtube clip of a documentary as a source. The documentary would be fine; but you're linking to youtube. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The youtube clip is useful because presents exactly the part of Outfoxed that deals with cameron. It is an excerpt of the film. I do not see why this is a problem - this film itself is properly quoted by its wikilink, its web site also was in the external links list, but User:Tom removed that one as well. It's quite frustrating that I am supposed to answer for that although I oppose it. Wefa (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is still a youtube clip, which has been historically frowned upon. I suggest you take this to the reliable sources noticeboard - be sure to state that the clip is loaded on BraveNewFilms' youtube account, NOT a copyvio from Some Random Person - and get a wider input there. Please note I have not removed the clip; I have not stated the clip is not allowable, nor have I objected to it, I have merely pointed out that Youtube is generally frowned upon here. That has been changing, but I'm not sure what consensus will be on this one. Meanwhile, if you have other sources which do not involve a youtube video, please utilize them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frowned upon, not prohibited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I had specified that, and even gone so far as to clarify that "I have not stated the clip is not allowable, nor have I objected to it". I think this has been made clear enough. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are two key reasons why YouTube clips are frowned upon. One is that YouTube clips are prohibited if they are copyvios (as with any other links to copyvios). This doesn't appear to be the case here since from what I can tell the clip is from one of the producers. Two is that a lot of the reason of YouTube clips are random usermade stuff that isn't suitable for external links let alone sourcing. Again this doesn't apply. So the clip itself isn't a significant issue. However if it's decided the documentary is a reliable source, then the documentary should be the source in the article with the clip as a convenience link at best. However it's fairly rare we use video as a source for a variety of reasons. Using a documentary by a political action group as a source in a BLP seems highly problematic to me. Are there at least any reliable secondary sources who mention the documentaries criticism? Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thank you for that thoughful analysis. That pretty much sums up my position(except I dislike youtube more) and what I was asking Wefa for on the talk page as far as if other reliable sources/main stream media have covered said criticism, but I guess I wasn't as articulate. Probably because I like to guzzle beer and watch cage fighting. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Among them this one, which has been on the talk page and which I plan to add once this is resolved.

But this approach it is still ridiculous. That part of the article does not assert facts but reports criticism. It doesn't say "Cameron has a conflict of interest" but "Cameron has been criticized in Outfoxed for having conflict of interest". And the movie is really the best source for that claim.

as for Tom guzzling beer in a cage or so, it is my impression you do not argue straightforward. First you deleted that section because of [WP:SYN]. After I cleaned up the SYN issue, you then deleted it again for poor sourcing. Your only activities on the article have been deleting material. And you only delete material critical to Cameron, or opposed by FN people. There are other ways to improve articles. You deleted the mediamatters transcript link for being broken, but they fixed it upon request within the day. And so on. Heck, you even challenged something as benign as his birth year without presenting even a shred of evidence of it being wrong. I am somewhat at loss how else to deal with this. Wefa (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wefa, as pointed out by other(s), is it really "fair" or due weight to include criticism from an obviously partisan "attack" documentary. Does it rise to the level of noteworthyness where it should be included? Was it a big deal outside partisan sources? If so, provide a few citations. As far as the DOB, I explained that the article had gone back and forth listed a few different DOB, so I fact tagged it, not that huge a deal. Right now 1/2 the article and 2/3 of the citations are of a critical nature and I am just not sure if adding more would present a NPOV due weight article. Anyways, I should probably step out and let others deal with this. --Tom (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• This seems like a blatantly unbalanced article, as the main (and perhaps only) sources for the "criticisms" are admittedly partisan, like Media Matters and Outfoxed. However, as I've had my fill of stepping on landmines the last week or so, I'll leave it to others to handle. I simply wanted my opinion on the matter noted here, for the record. UnitAnode 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This..Frowned upon, not prohibited... is not something you should ever be using to aid your point of view Arcayne.I have seen you type it more than once. We should err towards caution, you are at the limit. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

• • Oh, I am sorry; that could have just as easily been stated as WP:IAR. And quite honestly, I don't recall ever citing IAR in defense of an argument before (yeah, not once in almost three years), or the words "frowned upon, not prohibited"; perhaps you could show me where I've said that before? And at what limit are you speaking of- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody who is not associated with User Threeafterthree/Tom please summarize a consensus from this? The guy keeps reverting my edits even though I did everything suggested here (provided additional sources from newspaper, trimmed down weight). It was my impression that the consensus (here) was "don't rely on Youtube alone" (which I did). Also User Threeafterthree/Tom seems to threaten me with "involving others". Can anybody point me with a way how to deal with this? I don't want to get into edit warring here (the guy has already reverted my twice today), so I'd appreciate some more general advice than the (certainly helpful) debate on the finer points of youtube sources above. Thanks Wefa (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wefa, I am sorry if you felt threaten, I can assure you I meant no such thing, I meant that we should have other eyes involved to mediate, reach consensus, since we disagree. I ma glad you came back here, you beat me to it :) I am still not convienced this "material" rises to the level worthy of inclusion, see WP:DUE, especially for a bio of this short length and the amount of criticism already included. If a few uninvolved eyes say Iam a jackass, I will saddle up and ride off :) The only thing I am disappointed in, I will admitt, is that you made it perfectly clear on the article talk page your strong dislike for the subject of the article. This could give the impression, whether correct or not that your edits are biased. That is why it is always best not to include comments like that on the talk page. Anyways, hopefully others will chime in and made there is middle ground. Again, no threat meant cheers and good luck. --Tom (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)ps, nobody here is "associated" with me :) --Tom (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• You won't like my summary, Wefa. I think the whole "Critical reception" section (or whatever it's currently called) should go. It's little more than an excuse to post negative things about Cameron, sourced only to partisan documentaries and the self-described "progressive" Media Matters. This is beyond unacceptable in a BLP, and it needs to go. Cameron is a well-known figure, and enough sources exist about his life that a decent little article could be written about him. The article as it currently stands is certainly not that. It is quite unbalanced, and presents some very large problems regarding WP:UNDUE. That's my take. UnitAnode 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It was my understanding that such sections were a widely used instrument to deal with Biographies of controversial figures in a NPOV fashion, and I have seen it used that way in many articles. Now you seem to argue that critical or negative information is not permissible at all. Can you point me to any place where I might find that as a policy?

Furthermore I find your outright dismissal of mediamatters as a source a little disturbing - from my admittedly European perspective mediamatters seems to be far more reliable as a source than, say, Fox News - and Fox News is quoted here all the time.

And lastly, if you really know anything more about Cameron than is written in the article and can be reliably sourced, please please please give me pointers/hints. I have been looking for this article for years now, and despite some intensive searching, I have bnot been able to find much beyond his nearly empty FoxNews Bio page. Wefa (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis should be on little article. And for the record, your reference to Cameron as some kind of "controversial figure" is itself a very non-neutral POV. The fact that you seem to feel that Media Matters and Outfoxed are in any way reliable sources for information on Cameron also displays a POV that is biased. A BLP on a journalist like Cameron should resemble something like the BLP on Alessandra Stanley. If any actual reliable sources can be found for errors, omissions, or biases by Cameron can be found (as there are for Stanley), they should be judiciously included. Entire sections on such things, though, are wildly inappropriate. UnitAnode 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I was not aware that I am supposed to present a NPOV in talk page debates. IIRC, the policy applies to articles. I am supposed to be civil, polite, to assume good faith etc. But bury my own good judgement?

As for media matters, these guys meticulously document their research. Every tiny bit is verfiable on their web site. Why that is not reliable is completely beyond me. Republican bias?

As for controversiality of Cameron, he is a very promient Fox news personality. Outfoxed is essentially 78 minutes of hard evidence that FN is not a journalistic but a propaganda operation. That should suffice for "controversial" alone - heck, they are so controversial that the current president and most of his competitors refused to debate on Fox at all.

Lastly, your comparision with the Alessandra Stanley article is problematic. The Stanley article is hardly anything but stub quality, and it alreday has bad undue weight issues. To put it less circumspect, that article is damning, scathing, nearly destructive. Cameron's article is outright nice and far better balanced compare to this. Wefa (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - I just checked your allegation that criticism is only sourced to Mediamatters and Outfoxed. I am afraid you are mistaken here. There are also sources to the Wall Street Journal, Salon.com and USA today. Wefa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that's remotely notable (and reasonably well-sourced) in the criticism/bias/whatever-it's-currently-called section is the USA Today article on the fake Kerry quote. As for the length of the Cameron article, it should be perhaps two or three paragraphs, well-sourced, with the Kerry quotes thing mentioned in the article text, and certainly no special "sections" for negative information. UnitAnode 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - can I take from that that you also do not consider Salon Magazine a reliable source? Wefa (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. If it's an opinion piece, entitled "Rewriting History" (as this one is), that is solely intended to "expose", and is only used to source negative information in a BLP, then no, it's not a reliable source, in that regard and for that purpose. UnitAnode 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look through the WP:RS/N, you'll see that the consensus has been that MMFA, Salon, DailyKos, and other such sites do not by themselves give WP:WEIGHT to any viewpoint beyond that of a fringe. You need other MSM sources that cover it as well. Soxwon (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing apples with oranges. Salon.com is an online newspaper with paid fulltime journalistic staff and full editorial control. Dailykos is a group blog/community site. Mediamatters is a watchdog group. I just have reviewed all 13 mentions of Salon on WP:RS/N, and contrary to your assertion Salon is consistently held to be a reliable source there. If you disagree we should directly take this there. Wefa (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And. let me add that I still have not seen anybody to summarize a kind of independent consensus here. This noticeboard apparently is so lowtraffic that is borders on dysfunctional. Remove me and tom from this debate and all you have is an avowed conservative arguing for blanking all criticism on Cameron, and Nil Einne and KillerChiuaua suggesting to tread carefully with youtube sources (wich was quite helpful, thanks guys, but not sufficient). I have basically given up on the Cameron article, but I would still appreciate to understand how the 3RR rule does not apply on BLP articles (were all my edits get immediately reverted by the same guy over and over), and I am pretty concerned that this general whitewashing of conservative topics on Wikipedia seems to spread to more and more articles. Granted, the Carl Cameron article is probably the wrong place to make an example of (the guy isn't *that* important), but I've seen more disturbing examples in recent days. Observing this board here (not) operate has not really advanced my peace of mind on this. Wefa (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For Salon: [11]. I think what has been said over and over, is that Salon, MMFA, et al are not sufficient w/o another MSM source. As for the documentary, is it a WP:FRINGE view? It appears the answer is yes. Soxwon (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, that is a copout. That is the article tal page for Salon.com, and not the reliable sources noticeboard. The talk page's first paragraph notwithstanding, the place to find consensus on that is WP:RS/N.

that you actually consider Outfoxed and Moveon.org fringe needs no further commentary. Wefa (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are fringe, along with WND and Free Republic from the right. They are perhaps a significant minority, but should only be present in contrast to a mainstream view. As for my "copout," considering it was referenced in the 1st RS/N case (heck right at the top in the first three lines. As for Salon itself, you need to look through, you'll find that more than a few considered it a tabloid at worst, but on par with WND and Freep at best. I think that finding a better source of MSM coverage would be appropriate. Soxwon (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

David Miscavige

These edits are very questionable in terms of application of WP:BLP: [12]. BLP demands an emphasis of a neutral POV and must be very verifiable. These edits in the lead section of the article are not conform with these rules, but it seems to me an indicator for "edit warring" as it was common recently and caused the Arbitration Committee to decide in May 2009 "(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding", which has been put on the article's talk page [13]. Please review. Proximodiz (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Please see [14]. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

??? The situation was not resolved but worsened. It would be help if a neutral and uninvolved administrator could look into the issue. There have been several questionable edits to this article in the last week. 170.206.224.50 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Please see [15]. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Palmer (social activist)

Resolved

 – The editors have been blocked as sockpuppets. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

this page continues to be slandered and cannot prove anything. I am afraid of liability. Look at the talk page also. I think the page should be locked to new users. This person is involved in Gay rights and probably angers a lot of people. There is also a football player in Cincinnati named Jordan Palmer, and this person cites no credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentucky1333 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on adding some sourced content. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily stricken out the unsourced negative BLP content in the mean time. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

This article regarding Brian Quintana has a clear conflict of interest in its content. Furthermore the person in question has repeated recreated this article about himself with new accounts over and over. The most recent of which has just been blocked for sockpuppetry, see Michaeledean (talk · contribs), Daphnaz (talk · contribs), and Brianq (talk · contribs).

This article has been deleted at least 7 times, (twice by yours truly), it has also had at least 2 AFDs One for deletion Another no consensus.

Personally I would be in favor of deletion upon the grounds of WP:BIO and WP:BLP, however I am open to the possibility that might be biased now because I have dealt with this person in the past. So I would like to welcome many more eyes to this article, so that you can judge for yourself. At the very least I hope it will greatly improve the NPOV on this article. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed this survived the 2nd AFD. The only good source is the LAT piece "Startling claims..." which makes him sound like a fantasist, perjurer and fraudster (all of which are linked, to his claims to be a "socialite"). The others are blogs, tiny papers (LA Independent is 32,000 circulation), Thaindian News is a website for... Indians in Thailand(!) or passing references. Uncited claims need removing, and frankly I'd vote delete. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jenkins (religious leader)

Michael Jenkins (religious leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are two current issues:

• Hearsay - A significant number of sources quoted in the article are under discussion as gossip and BLP failures for this reason. When removed they have been reverted back into the text but as the sources are demonstrably hearsay should they be removed immediately to avoid any doubt?
• Pay for and restricted sites as sources - Several sources are problematic as they refer to sites that require payment or Athens accounts (i.e. no freely available registration) to access the articles. For this reason some of the dubious sources have been left unchallenged for a significant length of time. Should this BLP be reliant on such sources without including quotes from the source so that there is reasonable easy verification?

Note, a merge for the article has been suggested and a prior AFD was turned down on the basis of adequate sources. Having these sources removed as unreliable may be the basis of a future AFD and this may be an area of contention.—Ash (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with the second part only. Online sources and/or free sources are not required; reliable sources are, which may or not may not free or be easily available on line. In this case the paper newspapers cited would be considered reliable sources; no web link is necessary, as the paper copy could be consulted for verifiability purposes. I will agree that the current courtesy links are unhelpful, as they go to the Athens account log in page. If links are going to be included they would better to link directly to newspaper archives which at least gives a free abstract. eg. [16]. If you want an easy way to check verifiability (without a health-giving walk to the library) you might want to try the folks at the resource exchange.--Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this does imply that reasonable verifiability might be limited to an abstract, which in this case may not discuss the subject of the BLP. Particularly as none of my libraries here in South London stock copies of the Houston Chronicle.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. As I said, paper resources are fine (otherwise we wouldn't be able to use books, for example). The link would be a courtesy link only, and not even required. You may not have easy access to this newspaper, but plenty of other people do, (see my suggestion above) and they could probably email copies to you if you doubt the word of the the editor who added the information. You could also certainly ask the editor who added the citation to quote the relevant passages from the original article on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty logical consensus building approach and if sample text were quoted for discussion on the talk page, this may result in suitable quotes being added to the citations. In this case the issue is trying to give some context for biographical data. Particularly as when challenged, the text of some sources has been weaker or more tangential than one would have expected; in the long term it may require some re-phrasing of the article in order to meet WP:BLP.—Ash (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this editor is the one who has proposed the merge, and appears to be actively arguing against reliable sources in this article. The user's first post to the talk page is regarding his own proposed move, and the actual merge proposal is his second edit to the article. Motivation for this sort of behavior is left as an exercise for the editor to explain. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone else please help out and explain what Jclemens is accusing me of here, I seem to be missing the point. I think that proposing a merge and then collaborating in tidying up the article was not against any particular policy or particularly unusual. Does anyone think I have to explain my motivation?—Ash (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, I have raised Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎#Jclemens accusations and threats for this last matter, as a more appropriate forum rather than discussing further here.—Ash (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

An IP has repeatedly inserted blatant factual errors to make the subject of the article look bad. Page protection or an IP block is requested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. They aren't blatant factual errors just because you disagree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. You repeatedly inserted that the errors that a WSJ editorial column 1) was a news article or in the news section and 2) accused the subject of the article of something that the article did not actually say. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1)It WAS an article from the news division, as opposed to the editorial division, though I was incorrect (NOT purposefully) that it was in the news pages. 2)to what are you referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) It was an editorial on the editorial page, period. To make anything else of it is OR designed to push your POV, as you have been doing. 2) You repeatedly in inserted the false statement saying the article said Totenberg did not disclose the reason for her firing. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You tried to insinuate that Hunt was complicit in what the editorial division said. Not true. 2) If you are referring to the statement that she had left an impression about firing, may I remind you that I was restoring YOUR edit, and previously, an edit made by someone else a while back. The interpretation from the Kurtz article that she left that impression is more than defensible; the interpretation from the Hunt article that she did so is clear. Why do you have to resort to bullying tactics of trying to shut up people because they disagree with you or challenge your ability to have the last word?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Untrue. I added a citation from a reliable source that stated that some journalists made the connection. 2) That disagreement has nothing to do with the separate factual error you repeatedly inserted, as I clearly noted above. Don't try to play the victim here. This isn't about a disagreement, I brought it to this noticeboard because of you are playing fast and loose with the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2) The wording that I restored, added by someone else a while back and deleted by you, said that HUNT charged that she had not disclosed the reason she left the National Observer.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And Hunt did NOT charge that, which makes it a factual error that YOU inserted into the article. I can't find anything in the edit history to show anyone but you inserting that factual error. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt DID charge that. Sorry, but if you look at versions back at least through May 2006, you'll see the words in the article.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Now don't insert factual errors into this discussion like saying that it didn't appear before I added it back.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt DID NOT charge that. The old versions of the Wikipedia article do say that, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it make you not responsible for inserting factual errors when you have been notified that they are incorrect. Have you even read the article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Words I added back: "Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal brought up ..., -->and, relatedly, of not disclosing the true reason she left the National Observer.<--"

Hunt article:

In a recent Washington Post profile she talked about how she herself was a victim of sexual harassment when she worked at the now-defunct National Observer (which was published by Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of this newspaper). In the article, she left the impression that the harassment was behind her firing over charges of plagiarism.

Here are the facts.

In December 1972, the Washington Post's Myra MacPherson wrote a piece about Thomas P. O'Neill, who was about to be elected House majority leader. A week later, Ms. Totenberg wrote a profile of Rep. O'Neill for the Observer.

...

Ms. MacPherson, no longer with the Post, is "bothered" that last week's profile of Ms. Totenberg left the "implication that she left because of sexual harassment when there is strong evidence this was a serious case of plagiarism or a rewrite job."

Ms. Totenberg, in an interview, insists: "What I did or didn't do almost 20 years ago isn't the issue. I believe I left the Observer because I was being sexually harassed." But Lionel Linder, who was a top editor at the Observer in 1973 and is now the editor of the Commercial Appeal of Memphis, says flatly that Ms. Totenberg was fired because "whatever extenuating circumstances, it was clear that she plagiarized."

As Hunt clearly points out, Totenberg did NOT disclose the true reason that she left the Observer--plagiarism. Rather, Totenberg says she believes she left the Observer "because I was being sexually harassed."--71.80.34.146 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt does not point that out at all. Read what you quoted. Hunt says "impression". He never says she did not disclose it, and it is clearly disclosed in the Kurtz article Hunt is complaining about. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird MC

Need I say more? Keegan (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes? If that is her stage name, then I don't really see how its a BLP violation. Livewireo (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bandar bin Sultan

A source (funded by the Iranian government) is reporting a Saudi opposition figure claiming Bandar bin Sultan‎ (a senior Saudi prince, formerly the Saudi ambassador to the US) has attempted an unsuccessful coup-de-tat. I don't know how reliable a source we should regard Press TV; at the very least I'd appreciate it if others watchlist this article. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that Press TV is widely considered a propoganda arm of the Iranian state. I don't think it should count as a valid source. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that we becoming my suspicion too. It's been a day since the PressTV report, and the story hasn't been picked up by any reliable source. So I've removed it and insisted on WP:RS on the talk page. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Allison Lee Quets

Most, if not all, of the "evidence" in the Allison Quets entry is unsourced or conjecture. The biased newspaper sources are not verified, if linked at all. This article does not comply with Wikipedia's own policies and must be removed. If it is still standing after this complaint and my prior efforts that it be taken down, why is it still standing. It is an "orphan," it does not comply with living person's bio rules, and it is unsourced. It must come down. On top of all of that, the two children involved will grow up to see lies/conjecture/whatever. Please take this down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 76, for your report, and I recognize that you have been trying to express your concerns about this article for quite some time. I'm sorry that your efforts have been in vain to date. I agree that the article is very much sub-standard. I'm not yet sure whether it is really a candidate for deletion, since Quets and her story have been quite well covered in the media. I have already started work on cleaning up the article, and sourcing it appropropriatly. I encourage other interested editors to help in the process and to offer their comments on whether this is a candidate for deletion under WP:BLP1E.--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please be sure to read all the case law and legal documents at Quets's site at that is the only source for such documents at this point. In addition, if this isn't deleted, I assume journalistic fairness will, indeed, win and Denise Needham, Kevin Needham, Michael Shorstein, and John Gurley will all have entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I am a research scholar who studies adoption issues, and I have read every public document on the case. There truly is no way to verify this story with reliable, ethical sources. Although it can be verified that the Needhams broke federal law by not following ICPC regulations and ignoring the laws of their home state, NC, as is required in adoption law: the laws of both states, sending and receiving, must be followed. NC has a 7 day waiting period. Quets was well within that time frame. This case should be labelled, how to legally kidnap children using a corrupt trial judge who the adoption attorney used to work for, also verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quets' website is down, but in any case it is very likely that the website would not be considered a reliable source for our purposes. Our policies require us to use independent third party sources, such as newspapers, books and other media.

We are absolutely not interested in importing your external dispute here, and cannot include your opinions about the principals or about the merits of the case; especially given that it appears that Quets has lost her case at more or less every level. [17]

I do still question whether this is BLP that WP needs per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Quets made the national and international news at the time of the kidnap. Since then, there has been coverage of the various court cases, but in local papers only.[18][19] I would be interested in some other eyes and comments on this.--Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what "external dispute" you are referring to. My dispute is with the lack of evidence, documentation, and ethos in this text. The text simply does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Those are the issues. I'll assume the shift in your tone, which is quite unnecessary and rather rude, is due to the late hour and exhaustion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you reread your post then you will understand what I am taking about regarding important external disputes. Your comments about a "corrupt trial judge" and "legal kidnapping", for example, show that (rightly or wrongly) this is a cause for you. I'm sorry if you considered my post rude, which was not my intention, but it was necessary to point that this, and some of the suggestions you made about the article, are inappropriate.

It's much better idea to focus on how the text does not adhere to WP policies and guidelines. My view, from a quick survey of the literature suggests that what remains in the article is eminently sourceable from reliable sources, though it needs updating, and repetition removed. It also seems pretty balanced to me.

My question remains as above, however, whether, we need this article at all.--Slp1 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

I've never heard of this singer, but her article is repeatedly being edited with some serious BLP violations. Could others keep an eye on it, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario)

I am editing the biography of David Ferguson (impresario) to improve its overall quality and sources. However there are currently some issues that I believe need consensus in order to remove unjustified banner templates. I would appreciate comments from editors regarding banners, sources or anything to add about NPOV, etc. Thank you-- deb (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lester

Mark Lester (like so many others) has just claimed (to a dubious tabloid) that he is the biological father of at least one of Michael Jackson's children. Per BLP respects to the children, who have been hurt enough over the past 7 weeks, this should probably stay out of the article until there is some form of DNA confirmation. Was hoping some admins could watch over the article. — Please comment R² 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So it appears in newspaper reports all over the world, but Wikipedia should conceal what he claims solely because somebody might not like it ! It is an established and referenced fact that Mark Lester has claimed it to be true. Wikipedia is supposed to state the facts isn't it - or is it supposed exclude what some people don't want to be true. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers show little/no regard for peoples privacy or respect for human dignity, we on the other hand, do. I'm not saying it is or is not true (I honestly don't know or care), that is not the point at all though. — Please comment R² 12:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The widespread censorship of established facts because they are not what somebody wants to hear really discredits Wikipedia. It makes Wikipdia a very biased source of information. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You lost me at "censorship" which in my experience always means "I cannot get support for some fringe view or gossip I want in Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very obvious that you do care. A quick look at your contributions shows that you have made a huge number of edits concerning Michael Jackson, all of which have either reversed anything negative concerning Michale Jackson or have added something positive concerning him. Bias and concealing unappealing facts should have no place on an encylopedia, but unfortunately there are so many people on Wikipedia that will make concerted efforts to distort and conceal the truth. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You two need to take your bitchfest content dispute elsewhere, and I remind Franklin Demenge of WP:NPA, and advise he not imply anyone here is distorting or concealing anything, as that is character assassination. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KC's assesment. Please limit conversation here to BLP violation discussion rather than how Wikipedia does or doesn't function appropriately since that adds very little/nothing to improving correcting violations. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Mark Lester himself is making the claims, and the claims are being reported by multiple reliable sources, not reporting them would be burying our heads in the sand. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Blakey

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

The entry on the above is just outraegous and scandalous self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.32.158 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? He is a notable business executive and record producer.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick‎

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

The article on this CNBC anchor includes a reference to her previous marriages sourced to Page Six of the New York Post. The Page Six item refers to alleged ethical issues raised by her marriage to her executive producer. The article itself makes no reference to those supposed issues, but I wonder whether this is an appropriate source to be linked in a BLP. What say you? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is just being used to source a non-controversial detail (as it seems to be in this case), then that shouldn't be too much of an issue, assuming that we think t hat the Post is reliable enough. I don't think there's an inherent BLP problem, but it wouldn't hurt to replace it with a different source if we can find one. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better source: [20]

162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the NY Post item just linked would be a suitable replacement. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tucker Max

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

This article has a long history of being semi-protected due to IP vandalism. It was recently protected for two weeks' time. Within days, the IP vandalism, most of which is of the BLP-violation nature, has started again. We've got things like the insertion of defamatory links, removal of content that might be seen as positive, and the (cited) claim that Max is a gonzo journalist repeatedly removed. Semi-protection would probably be rejected due to not enough recent vandalism, so I'm bringing the issue up here.

One can check the article's history to see how regularly this article has to be semi-protected; I'd personally like to see it given the same indefinite semi-protection that articles like George W. Bush get. McJEFF ^(talk) 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

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

What essentially boils down to a traffic violation is being given undue weight and by doing so seems to be presenting a case of "where there's smoke there's fire". [This version] has a subheader "Marijuana incidents". It begins with a comment made by Bob Denver which he later recanted about Wells being his drug supplier. Nothing is given to explain why he made the comment, why he recanted, or if Wells was even aware of it. It then goes on to explain how Wells was caught with drug paraphernalia in her car, but that a friend took responsibility and that Wells was accepted as being guilty of no wrong-doing in relation to the drug paraphernalia. Finally she is fined with reckless driving, and "no offense was put on her record." So although in the eyes of the law, nothing is recorded on her record, we are making this incident a part of her record here. I feel that although the section is partially sourced, it is presented in such a way as to make it appear that she is guilty of something. The traffic violation in itself is so minor as to be trivial, and I think this whole section should be removed. There have been several editors who have criticized this section since March 2008, and each has been overruled by one editor who seems to have adopted the role of gatekeeper for this article. If the law says that Dawn Wells is not guilty of any criminal offense, we should abide by that, in my opinion. I'm going to remove the section entirely as I feel it does not comply with our BLP guidelines and would ask that it not be added again, until/unless someone independent and unbiased looks at it, and says it's OK. Rossrs (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, the Denver allegation shouldn't be mentioned since he refused to say it under oath. I don't think the paraphernalia incident should be mentioned since she was not found guilty of anything and mentioning this minor offense that she was exonerated of casts an negative light for no good reason (because she was exonerated). Lastly, the driving incident appears to me to be a case of WP:UNDUE weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How widely was this "material" covered by reliable sources? I remember a possibly similar case where a basketball coach, forget name had some minor DUI years before he became "notable" and it was general consensus not to include since it was so minor and not related in the slightest to his overall carreer nor related to achoholism, ect. Was the case above one shot deal or related to larger story, ie pattern, ect. Anyways, I would err on the side of non inclusion unless it was some "huge" deal/story. I don't know either way, just chimming in. Good luck. --Tom (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Erik Prince

• Erik Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I want to get a second opinion (or three). Recently, some reliable sources have reported that anonymous sources (John Doe's 1 and 2) have made allegations against Erik Prince in sealed affidavits. However, at this point, they are simply allegations by unknown people. There have been no charges, indictments etc. Essentially 2 unknown people making the allegations and that's it. I think this is contentious at this point and kind of flimsy to repeat allegations that Prince was involved in a conspiracy to murder people made by unknown people, even if the accusations are being reported by Keith Olberman and The Nation magazine. Of course if it becomes an actual charge or at least somethign being actioned in court, it belongs in the article. But right now, it feels like it doesn't belong at this point. Am I on the right or wrong track? // Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Little as I like to say it, I think you're on the right track. If the identities are later unsealed and proven to know what they're talking about, or if court action is taken based on the sealed declarations, that will be a different story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Brockmann

Henrik Brockmann (talk · contribs) has been editing articles of groups associated with the musician of the same name (who he claims to be), saying he doesn't want his name linked with them. -- Pakaran 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Megan Fox

• Megan Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparently Megan Fox made an offhand comment about Megatron from Transformers "[taking out] out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America". User:Ashley92995 apparently believes that this comment deserves an entire paragraph in Megan Fox's article because the actress came under heat from some right-wing bloggers.[21] I think it's both a case of recentism and giving what is an incredibly minor event undue weight, given that it got no real notice outside of the blogs.// Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Megan's comments had been put in the article A LONG TIME ago, almost around the time they were made. I won't deny that i was a Megan fanboy and as such, even though I concede that they were a stupid thing to say, there was no denying that she did say them. Also, there was no "apparently", the sources are sound, verifiable- she did say it. Unlike model Bar Rafaeli, whom also made an anti-military comment, Bar went out of her way to dispute what she said, said she was taken out of context, etc. Megan has never apologized or retracted the comments, instead relying on Paramounts PR department (imho) to keep this out of the public light, which largely worked. But it does not change the fact that she did say what she said and has never clarified what she said. The sources are sound and were put in a long time ago. I would also point out there are many on the left wing that would absolutely applaud Megan's comments if they read them here on Wikipedia. Ultimately, we are not here to give Megan a favorable edit to her Wikipedia page. We are here to give her page a fair look, and if it meets Wikipedia standards on Biography of Living Person, which are met, they should remain in the article.

My curious coincidence, by including them I feel there is a better argument for upgrading it now to Good Article status. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more mainstream source from THE INSIDERS's official website....say what you will about tabloid news organizations, but they are sort of in the business of reporting on celebritys and when they can verify this story, they would. Do you think for one second that if this story were untrue, that Megan would not be suing the crap out of them. Anyway, enjoy.

As I said at Talk:Megan Fox, there is no doubt that she made the comments, the issue at hand is whether those comments have been reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight, as this is a single comment, not widely reported, held against the totality of Fox's life. I think this fails on both counts. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. As I've been trying to say, it was never a matter of verifiability but notability. No one's doubting that she said it. It just doesn't warrant inclusion on the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems very undue, and not notable in the long term. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is notable, the only ones really fighting to oppose this are Megan's fanboys, and I admit to being one until this weekend (when I became a Sienna Miller fanboy). It's no less worthy or unworthy of inclusion then many other things that are unfavorable to someone but meet other Wiki standards. Again- There are people on the left that will applaud Megan's comments. When you look at the ABC NEWS story, where it gives it some mention (albeit largely edited), there is no doubt Megan's PR people were doing their best to supress the story, which is unto itself another issue. The fact that you guys are trying as hard as you are to keep it out is beside the point. Anyway, the sources I put up meet the reliability standard and verification is already there. While I can respect your reasons for keeping it off to protect Megan's reputation, that is besides the point- argue about it on some other fan site, but here at wikipedia, it is notable. If Megan had retracted the statement, clarified it, said she was taken out of context, that would certainly be reasons to remove it. But she has never done that, so it stands. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You seems to be suffering from a failure to assume good faith on the part of those who disagree with you. So if we remove the ad hominem part of your argument calling us fanboys, what we are left with is your opinion that the sources are reliable. As you have been told, the BLP policy specifically excludes using blogs as sources. YOu recently posted a link to The Insider, which notes at the bottom that it was submitted by a user. These are not reliable sources. If you can present a reliably sourced report (i.e. mainstream media reports) then it could stay, so long as it passes the hurdle of undue weight, otherwise it must be left out. Kevin (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Agreed, Kevin. Whipple, please don't poison the well here. I'm not a "fanboy" for anything, so accept the discussion here in good faith. Right now a Google news search for Megan Fox turns up nothing on this topic on the front page. Famous people say stupid things sometimes, controversy blows up and then goes away. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, my more current edit has MSN, ABCNEWS and other's cited as sources. In one of the replies, someone could not even dispute them, but acted like it was not enough. Nothing wrong with me calling you "fanboys", heck I was one of you in that I was aware of what Megan said, but was willing to look past it because I genuinely liked looking at Megan. However, now that I have seen GI JOE, Sienna Miller has taken Megan's place at #1 in hotness and now am more willing to make this discussion. Anyhow, NPOV states that ""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." and some other things. Bottom line though, is that the newer edits highlight the ABC and MSN parts of the article. If you want to remove the part about "her comments don't make her shine" and a few other aspects of it, then that can be substained. And a Google search on Megan Fox Middle America brings the story right back up, so don't act like this is some sort of conspiracy to bring her down. If she were to retract or clarify her statement, that would be one thing. She has not done that. Whippletheduck (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If this were truly notable, why would it make a difference if she had retracted her statement? Dayewalker (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a case of WP:UNDUE. Just because a reliable source reports it, doesn't mean we should include it. For example, if Obama visits a city today and delivers a run of the mill speech, the news will report it, but that doesn't mean we need to rush to his bio and insert it. ABC, MSNBC etc report the news, Wikipedia is not the news. She said something that may or may not be dumb. So what? People remember her for her role as an entertainer. I think bio's should focus on significant live events, not just things to fill space. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We are also talkign about Notability here. If Obama said what Megan Fox said about how he plans to dole out health care.....if he used the exact same words and it was irrefutable what he said....your damn right it would be in the article for him to have said what Megan said. Also, remember that there are MANY on the left that would probably agree and applaud Megan for what she said, so this also cuts both ways. Anyhow, According to this.......[i]"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."[/i], from the NPOV area, this is less about whether it should be in or not: the standards have been met. Megan's supporters (I won't call them fanboys since they are crying foul over it even though I mean it as a term of affection). And yes, there are going to be people that justifably will be upset that may not even know this happened, as Megan's PR people have done a great job spiking this story. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we're talking notability, but your comments don't address notability at all. You're discussing how we would deal with it if the comments came from the President, and talking about the comments from an NPOV standpoint. However, this doesn't address the basic factor of notability, and undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The comparison is flawed because Obama would be talking about something that actually effected people, unlike Fox, who is nothing more than an actress.....which is simply a citizen with an opinion. Believe it or not, actresses have no real power. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whippletheduck, everyone here has heard your arguments, and remain unconvinced. There is absolutely no consensus here to include the "Middle America" comments that Fox made. Remember, no-one here disagrees that she made the comments - it is clear that she did. The issue is that her comments have not been discussed by mainstream media except as a passing mention, which means that to include them lends undue weight to an issue that mainstream media have largely ignored. If you intend to continue your argument, you need to address this point, and leave out mention of left wing/right wing/fanboys/Obama. Kevin (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one that brought Obaman or the Right/Left part into this discussion at all. Sandor was the one that kept complaining about how only right wing blogs and somewhere else ever reported on this as a reason not to include the article. When I called him out on it, it was someone else that brought Obama in as an example, and did not do a very good one, claiming that it would not be notable if Obama in a stump speech made the comment that Megan made----Does anyone beleive that if Obama said what Megan said that it would be the end of his presidency?

And you guys are all trying way too hard on this, threatening 3R as quickly as you are to try to spike this debate. if the Wikipedia standards are correct, then it is the content that needs to be addressed, not the number of editors that are involved. If you all agree that the sources are good (which I notice, none of you are criticizing anymore, which sounds like "well we can't refute those sources so lets make it an NOTABILITY ARGUMENT instead", which personally I think is rather cowardly.

I would not be surprised if a lot of the megan defenders are really affiilated with whatever agency represents Megan and are trying to spike this so it does not reflect badly on your client.

I suppose I can wait and see if she creates a history of additional ridiculous statements, she is only 23 so she has plenty time to do that, and then catalogue them. Good thing about Wikipedia is that edits and stuff stay in the system so it will be easy to regenerate whatever it is I need to do it. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're not addressing the notability issue here at all, rather you're choosing to cast aspersions on the motives of people who disagree with you. Consensus appears pretty clear the section isn't notable, if you disagree, please address the question. Dayewalker (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Kevin in his first chiming in, this is about reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight. The newer sources, specifically from MSN.COM and from ABCNEWS meet what he claimed and what others also agreed with him on, meet the Reliably Reported Standard. As to Undue Weight, it says we have to judge based on the reliability of the information, not the number of editors, that is right in the UNDUE WEIGHT criteria, with a specific quote as

""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.""

So, the question is, to both Kevin and to Sandor Clegane, you were saying one thing, both agreed, and now that the two issues you both specifically cited as making the entry are being met, you are now changing the argument to what now??? Whippletheduck (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not changed my position at all. The blogs cited (The Insider etc) are not reliable sources, and cannot be used in either the article, or in arguments about notability or undue weight. The MSN and ABC reports are reliable enough for use in a BLP, however they are barely passing mentions stating what Fox said. As such, when we look at the total reliable coverage of Fox's comments we have 2 extremely minor reports out of the hundreds of reputable mainstream media outlets. To use those reports would violate WP:UNDUE. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying what she said. However, for it to be notable (and not undue), it needs to received significant coverage in reliable secdonary sources. When famous people say dumb things, it's not necessarily notable. The Dixie Chicks comments about President Bush are a good example of notability, it received a ton of coverage and is still very much notable. As I said above, Googling news on Megan Fox doesn't return any major mentions of this. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the Dixie Chicks. "I'm embarrased that the president is from Texas" got a million times more attention then what Megan said (which was a million times more offensive) yet Natalie Maines got flat out crucified/burned in effigy/everything else that they did to her, which was a real shame. While I can see how people might have taken offense to the timing, at least Natalie Maines had the class to A) attempt to explain her statement, B) Issue an apology, and when that didn't work she more or less ran with it. Megan has never apologized or even been called out on what she said. Good point, Dayewalker!!! Whippletheduck (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think you understand what point I made. We're not here to say what's offensive, or to demand an apology or else we put it in the article. We're solely dealing with notability here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no no no no....go up to the beginning of this article. Notablity was NOT the cited problem. Both Kevin and Cleghorn both claimed it was the Sources and No Undue Weight of an entire paragraph about one incident in her article. Notability was not cited until later when they began losing both arguments, and now they want it about that plus Consensus. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharee Miller

I recieved a personal letter from Sharee who is my friend and she said she was ofically released as of July 29th and she wrote the letter to me dated 8-5-09. Someone better check facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.57.162 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal correspondence is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Williams

Jennifer Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of this biography has debatable notoriety. It appears to have been written by the subject herself or perhaps her employer, ESPN. After reviewing the revisions to this article it appears as if this biography was written for ESPN's own marketing or for the subject's self-promotion purposes.

Cutefluffybunny (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there appear to be no sources for any of the data cited. AfD?Martinlc (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

My request yesterday for page protection on Nicki Minaj was rejected for a reason I don't understand (the reason for rejection was because the IP who was vandalizing had been blocked, but there were at least 5 different IPs vandalizing yesterday alone). But the vandalism continues, and was just reverted by the very admin who rejected my protection request yesterday. This article badly needs protection, the attacks are disgusting, but nothing is being done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I managed to squeeze out a 24h protection. Maybe next time list it at User:Lar/Liberal Semi, where it will likely receive a much longer protection. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nabih Berri Defamation

The biography article on Mr. Nabih Berri, the current Speaker of Parliament of Lebanon is ABSURD.

"It is widely believed that Berri has benefited from the large sums of money", "He, as well as Rafik Hariri and Walid Jumblatt, are viewed by many as having been puppets of the Syrian government during its 30-year military presence."

This is a clear absurd defamation that has to be corrected immediately. I understand that Wikipedia does not check every article, but there should be a minimum regulation.

We kindly request this complaint be taken seriously, and acted upon immediately.

Thanks in advance, W.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.38 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to a more neutral version of the article. I don't know about the accuracy, but the sources were organisations with aims to "promote American interests in the Middle East", and what appeared to be personal websites and blogs – probably failing the neutral point of view and reliable source guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for some statements, not for others

This reads far more like an op/ed piece rather than reporting, and as we know, "[n]ews reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact"; "[s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." WP:RS. In what ways can we use that source in the context of WP:BLP, where we are concerned about "[c]ontentious material ... [that is] poorly sourced" and directed to write "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"? Can we use it as a source that supports purported statements of fact about Palin, or only as a source for statements about the source's opinion of Palin?

I'll give some specifics. Fmr. Gov. Sarah Palin made some remarks critical of Obamacare; the source says that Palin is "wrong," and that "[n]othing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision." Is that a reliable source for a fact claim in Palin's article that she is "wrong"? Or is it a reliable source only for a statement in the form of "the AP"--or Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, the nominal author of the source--"argues that Palin is wrong"? And either way, is it acceptable to substitute the loaded word "false" for the word "wrong" and citing the AP story? (Crossposted to RSN). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

not another Palindrama already The piece's statement is as much a statement of the opinion of the writer as to future possibilities as is Palin's herself. Stating an opinion as fact is a rhetorical shortcut widespread among unscrupulous/lazy journalists (and politicians, for that matter). But without question they are both opinions, and should be presented as such. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since she is wrong, I don't see what is contentious about the AP saying so. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I say that you're an idiot, you will no doubt object that I'm being contentious (among other things). Or rather, that my claim is contentious. It is hardly an answer for me to say "since you are an idiot, I don't see what is contentious about saying so." That would be circular reasoning, and you would rightly object. I'm not saying that you are an idiot, but I am saying that your reply is an identically circular argument to the one just shredded.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Politicans often say things that aren't true, and pointing an example out isn't automatically contentious. Can you find a source half as reliable as the AP supporting Palin's claim? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Dlabtot (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you've not understood it. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, a fortiori in a BLP. It isn't incumbent on me to prove that she is right, it is incumbent on those who would add material claiming that she is right or that she is wrong to demonstrate its compliance with policy and that its inclusion is justified as a prudential matter.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand just fine. The burden HAS been met, and your assertions are nonsense. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Being in the news again of late and a subject of some interest, I had hoped that discussion on the Karl Rove talk page would iron out some editing differences and allow for a consensus, but I'm sorry to report that Malke 2010 has used the word 'libel' with reference to material written in the article, which ups the ante much higher than I care to take this matter. I request admin advice and action, if need be.

It appears to me that this is at least an example of indirect legal threats if not WP:LEGAL (made in the talk page at the bottom, section title 'Phony Citations #38 and #39 under heading, George W. Bush Administration'.) At the very least, this appears to me to designed to cause a 'chilling effect', which is also combined with uncivil discussion.

Reading the last few chapters of talk at the bottom of the talk page will quickly show the problem. This is not about 'left' or 'right' in my view, but what is best for Wikipedia. Thanks for your time on this. Jusdafax (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been attempting to edit the Karl Rove article for neutrality. As you will clearly see when you examine my contributions, I am working hard to remove the obvious bias, but every time I do this, another person comes along and reverts back to the old text. If you carefully examine the third paragraph in the lead, and again examine what is written under the heading, George W. Bush Administration, yo will see what I mean. The total lack of credible citations should be cause enough to remove these scurrilous claims. The editors doing this never bother to make the article better, just make it more hateful. It is a terrible biography and violates Wikipedia's rules on Biographies of Living Persons. You cannot claim someone has alleged crimes when no evidence was found to charge that person with a crime. And the section under George W. Bush where it is claimed that Rove increased the threat level during the 2004 campaign whenever Kerry's poll numbers rose, is simply made up. The editor, Chhe, claims it is an 'oft-cited' example of Rove's influence. Oft-cited where? If it is "oft-cited," then show us where it is cited and is that reference credible? But he can't do that. The people editing this page have a negative view of this man. If you carefully examine all the references, many of them are coming from left wing POV sources, such as the book by Wayne Slater and James Moore, "The Architect."

In addition, the entire overall content of the article is focused on painting this man in an entirely negative light. WP:UNDUE It gives undue weight to "scandals" where the special counsel found no cause to prosecute Rove. The third paragrah in the lead gives the distinct impression that Mr. Rove is a criminal who has escaped being charged with a crime to date. Mr. Rove is most famous for getting George Bush elected Gov of Texas twice and President twice, yet none of the methodology the man used, none of his passion for politics, none of his true background is presented in this article. This page is a distortion, as is the discussion on the talk page. Please lets keep in mind that children will be reading the biographies and they need objective facts and legitimate sources, not a diatribe from those prejudiced against this man.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of your edits. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For that matter either do I. However, Malke 2010 utterly fails to address the points I make in my initial observations, and instead attempts to muddy the waters here. To repeat, Malke's use of the word 'libel' on the discussion page appears to be an attempt to intimidate editors, and when combined with a hostile manner both in the discussion page and on my personal user page, seems to establish this brand-new, one-topic editor as someone who requires, in my view, admin action. Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe all of these comments speak for themselves. I did not violate any rules, especially as regards any claim of libel. I did not accuse anyone of libel. I characterized the entry that had no legitimate citation as being one that could be seen as libel. I did not direct this to any individual editor. All encyclopedia content must be verifiable. Inserting words like 'alleged crimes,' is not verified on the page. What crimes? What statutes were violated? Who is his accuser? What was the outcome? What are your sources? If they are second-hand, do they lead back to the original source? And is that source accurate in its facts and assertions? This is the biography of a living person and what is said about him is easily spread on the Internet, especially now that Wikipedia has become such a popular source. It is irresponsible to fill this biography with unverifiable citations or no citations at all. And it speaks volumes about the intentions of the editors who fill the page with negative after negative. This type of editing is clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia which is what draws so many talented, informed individuals who work hard to make honest contributions. Again, I would ask that the administrators take over this page and rewrite it to bring it up to standard and then lock the page for a while so that perspective can be regained. Thank you,Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. First off, here is your paragraph on the Karl Rove talk/discussion page that I vigorously object to. Just because someone 'thinks' it might be true doesn't make it true. You don't have any sources the prove anything. You don't have any source that goes directly to Rove. Anecdotal claims are not references. This is a biography of a living person and Wikipedia rules are very specific. Filling Rove's article with unfounded claims and rumors is libel. And please, no more phony references.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I say again, I take this as an indirect legal threat, and I ask for the admins to at the very least give you a warning not to use this type of tactic here, if not more.

The entry you mentioned was not directed at anything you wrote and certainly not at you. You seem to be the only one threatening editors here as you are threatening me with censorship and article bans and next I suppose it will be the boogeymanMalke 2010 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, it appears you seem not to have read the link I posted in the Karl Rove discussion page. I'll post it here, again: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12firings.html?hp

Notice that the attorney firings are under current investigation. To quote from the article: A federal prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, is continuing to investigate the firings, including whether officials gave false or misleading statements to Congress. Does that indicate anything to you? And how about this editorial in The New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html This itself is notable!

This is not the place to debate changes to the Karl Rove article. That would be, of course, the discussion page. But since you joined Wikipedia as an ostensibly brand-new editor, you have proven disruptive and even arguably threatening, as you pursue the one subject in all Wikipedia you appear to be interested in. I think a warning or a topic ban on you is in order, but thats for an admin to decide.

To the admins: I await a decision on this with considerable interest. My thanks to all concerned admins for your attention and consideration. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a note - Malke2010's claims of a "total lack of credible citations" have often been shown to be simply false, (s/he really needs to learn how to google), or have been based on attempts to discredit RS sources. It's true that the Rove article has been poorly sourced in several places (i.e. a lot of non-RS, which either needs replacing by RS or the information removed) and is not infrequently weaselly worded. Attempts to go through the article are being disrupted by what seems very partisan behaviour, with Malke's frequent removal of well attested facts (whole paragraphs usually) that all just happen to show Rove in a poor light.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As per above, VsevolodKrolikov is well aware that I was attempting to rework the sections and I was not aware of the sandobx, which he provided info on. So I did not mean to just delete sections for 'partisan behaviour,' etc. And if you examine my contributions you will see I did not go and do that again, nor have my contributions been partisan. I only came to the page because I wanted to find out where Rove had gone to school. That's it, really. And the first impression of this article was that it is seriously flawed with a disturbing slant against this man. And as to finding out where he went to school, the article rambles on so, it took quite a bit of sifting to figure out he didn't finish. And it doesn't even include that he attended three colleges and that he is nearly finished, etc. I got that from another site.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely, and I thank you for your past and current work on the page. Jusdafax (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Contentious material about living person ==Petro Voinovsky==

• Petro Voinovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Amongst other errors indicating carelessness and falsifications, the article contains contentious information about a “living″ person that is clearly libelous and harmful given the lack of a single reliable source. In particular, I direct you to the middle of the second paragraph. I ask for assistance in immediately removing the contentious material, so as to avoid unnecessary rounds of edits. As a new user, I am more than happy to assist in this process. Please advise. Thank you. // Kerhonkson09 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done It's unclear whether Voinovsky is a living person or not - it says that he "died after 2003," but we have no details. WP:BLP mandates that "[c]ontentious material ... that is unsourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I see the material you have in mind, it's certainly contentious, and it cites no sources. If he is alive, BLP applies, and the material should be removed immediately. Since we aren't sure, we should err on the side of caution, and I have accordinly removed the material. Even if Voinovsky has died, however, the clams made were unsourced and highly contentious, and removal is appropriate per WP:PROVEIT. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates - should this article exist?

I have a problem with this article's notability. It seems to be giving undue weight to an event in the lives of Barack Obama and Henry Louis Gates, and its notability appears temporary (i.e. it's not notable). Before putting up an AfD with a view to a merge to wikinews, I would like get opinions from BLPers on the nature of such articles. I raised this on the talkpage and it turned into a bit of a pointless spat. However, I genuinely don't see merit in the arguments put forward for keeping it as a separate article. I feel I must be missing something.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability just means that other reliable published sources have taken notice by writing about it. In terms of notability for Wikipedia purposes, this subject is way beyond any reasonable interpretation of that policy. You seem to be describing your subjective feelings about the subject(s), rather than objectively looking at the body of published work. There is no such thing as temporary notability. Published sources do not go away. Dhaluza (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This has made headlines around the world.. its certainly notable. Had Obama not got involved then i would agree it just belongs on Gates own article, but President Obamas comment and the following "Beer summit" at the White house totally makes it worthy of an entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely and totally notable. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point - is it notable enough to have its own article (rather than be part of the respective BLPs of Obama and Gates), and one of such length?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a major incident, it would be more of a problem to try and present balanced information on several peoples articles. Much better to have a single article covering the whole event. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, it was an incident that received significant national (and international) media coverage. It deserves it's own article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, and worthy of an article. (I support the comments by Dhaluza above on notability.) Pechmerle (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Notable and deserving of its own article. If we tried to capture the relevant detail in a main BLP article, there would be complaints about Weight.Mattnad (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I started this section to find out people's opinions of articles like this. I only think that Britishwatcher and Mattnad actually take the question seriously and give an answer; Britishwatcher's is persuasive. However, simply having national and international sources over a short period of time cannot be enough for notability in an encyclopedia. If this were enough, we could have justifiably have articles on Barack Obama's choice of pet dog for his daughters, David Beckham's confrontation with fans on his return to LA Galaxy and Vladimir Putin's public displays of his pectoral muscles. All of these have probably had more sustained and/or widespread international coverage than this incident will do. I worry that media coverage is taken as evidence of notability per se. It means that notability depends on erratic media interests, with the possibility that with prurience historically a thing of media fashion, we would be in the strange position of some decades having far more "notable" events than others. If you look at the talk page, a couple of users seriously put this event on the same level as the Hutton Inquiry. That to me suggests a surrendering of one's grip on reality to the mass media.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the broader arguement and I think the only real answer is these issues are handled by the consensus of the community. We have guidelines but in the end we as a group decide how they apply to individual articles. If you took this article to AFD, or tried to propose a merge, the community would weigh the matter, and I suspect come down heavily on the side of retaining this article. As to something like Vladimir Putin's public displays of his pectoral muscles, I suspect the community would not be supportive of an article. Why the difference? Because the subjects are different. Can I point to a line in a guideline why? Not off the type of my head. But that's how the community does and should work. Using human judgement to decide exactly how to apply policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The kind of debate happens all the time on wikipedia, but usually on the article talk pages. As cube lurker mentioned, this theoretically could be merged into the Obama (somewhat) and Gates (more so) articles, but you'll need to see if there's alignment among editors. Mattnad (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up on the article talk page, under the helpful heading "Err...", but, as Mr. Krolikov acknowledged at the end, it received no support there, so he decided to bring the question here.--agr (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. Perhaps a beginner's error, but this effort could be construed as forum shopping.Mattnad (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping at all. I did not hide from the talk page that I raised it here, nor here that I had clearly been in a minority of one there, and my reasons for not moving to an AfD before asking here is because I felt I myself was probably missing something. There's no point proposing an AfD if the proposer is unfamiliar with the community's approach to this kind of article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question you asked was if the article should exist, because you questioned its notability. Clearly a story that gets national media attention in a contry as large as the U.S., evolves through multiple news cycles, generates a spectrum of reaction, and fosters political debate on several fronts, is well over the top in terms of WP:Notability (even before Obama weighed in). I think you are conflating notability with suitability for an article. Not everything that is notable is suitable, and WP:NOT addresses that, but WP:Wikipedia is not censored either. The examples you give are false equivilancies, because they did not have the same level or type of coverage--those subjects would generally fall under the tabliod news category of WP:NOT#Tabloid. Substaintial media coverage is evidence of notibility, per se, but not in and of itself sufficuent to support a suitable article; it's just one gating issue, and not the one you should be focusing on in this case, since it's a non-issue here.

As to whether the article should exist, since it is notable it should exist at least as a redirect because the subject is widely known, therefore AfD is inappropriate. If it were redirected, the content would need to be moved, because it is verifiable (there are over 50 references cited) and the community would not support its vanishing because that would be censorship. So the question is how would such a merge work? You have three main actors, Gates, Crowey and then Obama. Splitting the content between their biographies would take it out of context. In fact James Crowley (police officer) is a redirect to this article because of WP:BLP1E. And as has been pointed out, moving the content to these biographical articles would create a problem with undue WP:Weight as well. You make the argument about weight in your original post here, but keeping this content as a separate article is actually avoiding giving it undue weight in the context of the individuals. Henry Louis Gates will probably be most remembered for this event, but his biography should cover his entire life's works without dwelling on this.

Your points on the inconsistencies of media attention are well taken, but I just don't see how your overall argument rises above the emotional level as discussed in the essay WP:I just don't like it. Dhaluza (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dhaluza, I see your point about management of material entirely, and it's very well put. I no longer question the existence of the article, as I stated above in saying that a similar point made above was persuasive. In my defence, this was not the kind of argument put forward on the talk page. Part of the reason for wanting to talk about it here was the arguments put forward there.

I don't understand the principle you invoke in saying the other articles I suggested are disqualified because they are tabloidy, and I disagree about the level of coverage. Perhaps not in America, but in the rest of the world they probably receive as much attention - and no matter the size of the US, the rest of the world is bigger. Secondly, how do we decide what is tabloidy, without falling into the trap you (of course I think unfairly) accuse me of, which is the balance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Putin's display of his pecs probably has a bigger impact on Russian internal and international politics than is seemly, but the impact is there; Beckham is extremely notable and the event covered thoroughly, and arguably has a greater importance to the project of popularising and legitimising MLS (and, ultimately to the England football team) than this arrest has in terms of race relations in the US. The dog fuss has probably had a great impact on the sale of Portuguese water dogs. Isn't your dismissal of these topics as tabloid even more WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

In essence, my point is this - there seems to be a danger that wikipedia BLP notability is overinfluenced by the idiosyncracies of the mainstream media in the US. We could have been having this same argument fifteen years ago over OJ's gloves or Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress. After all, the national and international media attention was huge. What principles apart from community sentiment do we invoke? (another editor above says that there are no principles.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of Vladimir Putin's pecs that I saw was mostly tabloid material, and the discussion of it in news sources was gossipy, IMHO. So the subject is notable, but unless you could find sources that discussed it in a way that could be put in an encyclopedic context, it would not be a suitable subject for an article (if you saw reliable sources that seriously discussed its significant impact on foreign relations, then maybe it is a suitable subject after all). This is completly different from the Gates arrest, which was covered as hard news, and discussed in terms of racial profiling and proper police procedure, which are both issues of great import. Hence the false equivilance. I'm not judging relative importance in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world, because that is a fool's errand. WP:BIAS is not really an issue here, because this is a an event that happened in the U.S. Actually including more worldwide perspective would be appropriate, but your original suggestion was that the article should not exist at all.

BTW, I agree that the coverage in WP is strongly influenced by the MSM in the US. But that is a direct result of the WP:V policy. It sounds like your suggested alternative is to have WP editors exert a stronger influence than WP:RS, but I don't think that would have better results. Dhaluza (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. That the Gates arrest has been used as an opportunity to discuss on a national level other matters might indeed be a version of a rule of notability. By the way, saying baldly that I argued that an article should not exist is misleading - I questioned (or rather queried) the fact that this material was given a separate article away from the already existing BLPs. I've never questioned the notability of this event in terms of inclusion in those BLPs.

As a note, Putin's photos got lapped up by the tabloids and yellow press, of course, but these PR events (for that is what they are) have also been written in serious sources about as a clear indication of Putin's intention to maintain power, to show Medvedev as weaker, and to promote a more self-confident, assertive image in the near abroad. As a political scientist by training, I would find his pecs more notable, and Gates' arrest less notable in terms of probable long-term impact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you said you were posting here before starting an AfD, so forgive me for concluding that you did not think the article should exist. And I still think you need to go to WP:N to see what notability means in WP terms, and use it in those terms in discussions with other editors. For example it is not to be used as a test for inclusion in other articles, like the BLPs as you suggest.

As a political scientist, you should probably appreciate the distinction that Putin's public display of his pecs, rather than the pecs per se, is notable. Whether one or the other has more long term impact is debatable. I'm sure police departments around the U.S. and probably abroad will be updating their procedures and training as a result of this incident. But again, debating the relative importance is a fools errand.

Where to include the material is subject to editorial judgement. Putin's pecs should probably be handled at his bio page(and any related pages) if it would remain in proper context there (BTW, only the tabloid coverage is even mentioned there currentlty, so if you have sources for the relative import of their public display, you should work on incorporating them). If there were significant sources for expanding that material to the point where it was overwhelming his biography, then it should be summarized and split into a separate article. The point is that it's not the subjective judgement of the editors on the subject itself that matters, its the editorial judgement of how to put the verifiable content into the proper encyclopedic context that governs whether an article should exist. Dhaluza (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Outlaw motorcycle clubs and criminal activites in infobox.

I've been trying to improve the quality of the articles on Outlaw motorcycle clubs, many of which are in very poor shape. Most of them have an infobox with a formula like criminal activities: Drug dealing, Extortion, Prostitution..., e.g., Abutre's, Grim Reapers MC. Generally this list of crimes is uncited, or if it is cited, only a sort of general allegation by a law enforcement speaker will tick off a number of crimes, such as in Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club citing the Tri City Hearald (this was my edit). Most outlaw motorcycle clubs deny that they are criminal organizations, and say they can't be held responsible for the actions of individual members. Sometimes, but not always, the FBI or other agency will make a public statement that club is a criminal syndicate. It is usually easy to find news stories stating the names of known members of a club who were convicted of specific crimes. Actual convictions for racketeering or proof of widespread criminal conspiracy is more rare.

So my questions are:

1. When dealing with articles on a club, are the standards the same as all BLP in general? Or can uncited negative information simply be {{fact}} tagged in the hopes that it will improve in the future?
2. How much sourcing is needed to add a crime to the criminal activities: field in the infobox?
3. When is it appropriate to use an infobox with a name like "Infobox Criminal organization"?

This might be too many different things to discuss here. There are many other issues with thes motorcycle club articles you could get caught up in if you wanted to, and I'm only trying to fix one thing at a time. Mostly I want to know if I should blank the criminal activities field, or {{fact}} tag it.

Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for BLP

The article Kirtanananda Swami is being reviewed and is full of self published/unverifiable and other sources (such as video) that does seem to suggest WP:CBLANK. Specifically sections and footnotes are disputed. Can a few users with good experience in BLPs have a quick look at it please. Wikid^as© 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note this article is currently undergoing AfD review here --ponyo (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Professor Carl Hewitt (repeated violation)

The following paragraph of the article violoates NPOV:

Hewitt's changes to the "Logic programming" article sparked some criticism by Robert Kowalski and the logic programming community.

According to Corruption of Wikipedia:

"Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Wikipedia official) favored Kowalski’s side of an academic dispute that he was having with Hewitt and using his Wikipedia power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Wikipedia) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. While he was upset with Hewitt because of their academic dispute, Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to Hewitt; see Corruption of Wikipedia.)

When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that "you [Matthews] discussed this story with the [Wikipedia Public Relations] committee prior to publication [of the Observer’s libelous attack on Hewitt], and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom [Arbitration Committee] member to do." However, Mathews was "unrepentant" about his behavior. His justification was that his instigation of the libelous Observer attack on Hewitt resulted in continued favorable publicity for Wikipedia by the same reporter. Also, the article served as an object lesson intended to intimidate other academics from challenging censorship by Wikipedia Administrators less the same thing happen to them. Matthews then "killified" McEwan for having raised the issue during his campaign for reappointment to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But, still, Wikipedia offered no apology." 76.254.235.105 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

71.198.220.76 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence and the preceding paragraph which I think is what you are after. The sources were particularly poor for a BLP. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Magic Johnson (living person article)

Resolved

 – not there any more; mainpage listing always causes problems

I thought someone should know and edit the Magic Johnson article because it calls him a 'nigger' ("Magic Johnson is a retired American nigger" goes the starting line). Also it was on the homepage and hotlisted for today, 14 August Eastern Standard Time) as a feature article.

Thanks

Fabian Martin Suchanek (living person article)

This biography page sounds like unwarranted self promotion by the same person. Please delete this biography page about Fabian.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmj005 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Martin Suchanek. Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (Illusionist)

• David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the quality of David Copperfield (illusionist). I made one blunt adjustment.[22] I request uninvolved editors to go over the article with an eye toward WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and general improvements. The article seems heavy on scandals, litigation and controversies. Thank you for any help you can provide. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

David Yeagley

His biography is a lie. http://davidyeagley.blogspot.com/ documents this with newspaper articles and research done on him by real indians. It's self promoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.43.243 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolving differences between WP:TVS practice and Wiki policy and guidelines

Members of WP:TVS project are protecting edits that are contrary to WP:BIO, WP:COATRACK, and WP:NOTINHERITED. In particular User:Neutralhomer tends to support his edits as being "established practice", rather than by addressing Wiki policy and guidelines. He has occasionally been hostile and abusive to editors questioning his actions, reverting a number of types of legitimate edits as "vandalism", with no other explanation. The matter was put to the Mediation Cabal here [23], but User:Neutralhomer did not acknowledge the request.

This matter affects 100s of articles that are beginning to being misused for the promotion of careers of non-notable people after they leave the TV station which is the subject of the article. This matter has been unresolved for some time now, and I would like to feel free to remove those elements of the TV station articles that the community feels are inappropriate. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)