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.

Herb Schildt: BLP notices are being vandalized and not archived

The article on Herb Schildt is in violation of wikipedia's own policies as regards Biographies of Living Persons since it cites two NNPOV polemics, one of which was a copycat drive by, and a book that was mistakenly based on the first NNPOV source.

Furthermore, these notices to this site are being vandalized by someone who apparently sees they are not archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.153 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kirtanananda (poor sources were tagged in August 2009)

• Kirtanananda Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This diff - is a summary of the dispure of the tv documentary, self published book by one of the authors of the article Henry Doctorsky[1] is disputed along with (selfpublished) IUniverse ;-) book After the Absolute: Real Life Adventures with a Backwoods Buddha which is proposed to be used along with self-published periodicals. Issues brought up here in August09[2], but no conclusion reached on this 'swami'. Come on folks just let us get to the bottom of it, Kirtanananda is a known, notorious criminal, well victimised for the crimes and for being gay (not self-confessed at the time), a helping hand from those who know the BLP policy is really welcomed. Thank you for your comments. Wikid^as© 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the editor is convinced that a documentary by a fairly prolific documentarian and distributed by a PBS is unacceptable as a source. I don't think anyone actually disputes that Henry's book is not an appropriate source. Similarly the so-called self-published periodicals were an official publication of the community of which K Swami was the leader. That seems a fair enough source for statements about the community representing the viewpoint of its leaders. Sure it would be great to have better quality sources, but that does not justify gutting an article. It might well be that the documentary is only a collection of interviews and might even be pushing a POV. In that case, the artful editor will be careful to attribute controversial assertions in a way that makes it clear it is the opinion of the speaker being presented and not necessarily the entire unblemished truth. The documentary is at the very least a verifiable record that quite a lot of people who were formerly close associates now have a very different opinion of the swami. older ≠ wiser 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bkonrad, why do you insist on using a documentary if [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] clearly exist and are more than sufficient? Just wondering? Wikid^as© 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to using a documentary? No policy prohibits or even deprecates using published video sources as references. Just wondering. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides what is listed on the RSN and the reasons why it fails. It is a documentary over 3 hours long!! Besides the point that you can not expect others to watch it all, as you yourself confirmed we can not be selective about what parts of it we use. [8] According to the author he did not get to the bottom what actually happened, in the filmmaker's own words, it remains "murky". In the Wikipedia terms murky means 'poor source'. I know you will not agree, so it makes very little sense in arguing with you. That is why the notices were put up in both BLPN and RSN to get a neutral view. Wikid^as© 13:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Being too long is not a disqualification for being a source. That's just ridiculous. You had put the source up on BLPN and RSN and got absolutely zero response, so that hardly provides any support for your interpretation. Because the documentarian does not draw a conclusion about "murky" events does not mean that the documentary itself is murky or unreliable. That is your spin. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Too long is not a disqualification, to be selective from a volume of primary sources joined together is. It is also hard to reference to the video source (not impossible), you just can not ask for an exact referencing that complies with WP:CITE. Just be honest and find one contentious issue anywhere in a good article or feature article of BLP of criminals, where the source is a documentary without a single critic's review? It is either a poor documentary or investigation was not done properly. 3 Hrs documentary broadcasted on a TV and not a single page with a reliable review? Good grief. I am dully impressed by your desire to ignore other sources. In any case, it is the duty of editor who adds it to the article to ensure that this source is good, so far no good response at RSN board. And no, it was not me who put this source on that board. However even if it is a good source in general -- it is hard to imagine it will qualify as a quality source for BLP contentious matters. Lets wait and see if anyone thinks that documentary that got no reviews since 1996 from a single critic is a suitable source. I rest my case. Wikid^as© 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever you might be "dully impressed" by, I have not expressed any resistance whatsoever to other sources. They would be welcome. My only issue here is why you seem so obsessed with deprecating the documentary and the community publication Brijabasi Spirit. older ≠ wiser 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

True, you did not start the current thread on WP:RSN, though it was in response to your edits, and which nonetheless has not seen support for your interpretation. I was thinking of your previous attempt, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Video as RS for BLP, which likewise did not generate any support for your position. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate my opinion here that the documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority) can be used as a legitimate source in the Kirtanananda Swami article because the documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. It also contains numerous direct quotes from Kirtanananda Swami himself, and many of these quotes can be read here: Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. My opinions on this matter can be read on that talk page, and also here on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. I think the evidence that I brought up on the talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). As I've stated previously, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee. The extent which this individual has gone to remove this material and keep it from being used further adds to my view that perhaps someone is trying to censor these things in some way, shape or form, and is perhaps trying to hide behind a warped view and a twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policies in order to manipulate things by throwing out all sorts of pseudo-wiki-legal-speak in a possible attempt to discredit legitimate published sources. In my opinion, it seems to be a possible attempt at undermining legitimate published material, and I do not believe this type of thing is good for Wikipedia. So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reiterate facts instead of my opinion, the documentary did not recieve any awards, nominations for awards, no reviews by critics and excluding it is not a censorship , but following the guideline of the WP:BLP. I have no objection on expanding on it on Jacob Young page obviously. But first you have to get me a reference to a review to take it seriously. Wikid^as© 13:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that a documentary needs to have won or been nominated for awards or been reviewed by a critic to be considered reliable. It does need to have come from a reliable source; the director seems to have made documentaries that aired widely, and won an Emmy, which seems to qualify him. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

• Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.

• Dionne Brand

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Resolved

Considerable publicity has been given to emails which climate change sceptics allege show professional misconduct by a number of named scientists, most prominently Phil Jones. A longstanding summary in the lead section noted both the allegations and the views of academics, climate change researchers and independent reports which stated that most or all of the allegations were baseless.[9] Some editors took exception to following the description in sources of those making the allegations as climate change skeptics, and editors endeavoured to find improved wording and discuss it on the article talk page,[10] However, on editor seems to hold a radically different view of BLP which involves deleting all content in the lead reporting the views that accusations are to a greater or lesser extent baseless, leaving only the allegations made by the climate skeptics.[11] Very slow progress is being made at Way forward to reach a consensus, but the editor editwarred to remove the balancing views which I believe are essential, and as involved editors are inhibited by the 1RR restriction, balance has not been restored. I remain very concerned about this unresolved BLP and NPOV issue in the lead section of a prominent article, and would welcome outside views. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved outsider, I am curious as to why 1RR would inhibit the restoration of balance. If there are more editors on one side of the debate, and each has 1RR restriction, wouldn't their combined weight override a single nay-sayer? What am I missing? Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There was someone who went to 3 or 4 R for some reason and got blocked. But his/her final changes were undone about 20 minutes after the last edit so I'm not very sure. Perhaps some more changes were needed but everyone who could had already done 1R Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The questionable changes in the 4R were only partly undone at the time: findings by MPs were restored, but not balance in the first paragraph. Discussions at the "Way forward" section showed no great obstacle, and a version put forward there and reiterated in a No case to answer section led to sufficient agreement to reinstate reasonable balance once 1RR permitted. The editor who went to 4R accepted this version on return from the block. It's still under question (on the talk page) if we're giving too much detail in the lead of accusations which third parties have found to be baseless, it should be possible to resolve that in normal talk page discussions. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's resolved, but not that there were BLP violations, other than a few added by the AGW apologists, now gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Sherrill

Jackie_Sherrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea to leave identical notes on both of the IP's talk pages. Explain what they've done wrong and where they can go to get more information on the issue. You've brought the issue up on the talk page, so I don't think there's anything wrong with you reverting the edits until something is done about it. If it gets into edit-war territory and the IPs won't discuss it in spite of your best efforts you may want to request temporary protection for the page but I don't think you're there yet. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the protection. I did post the message to the 3 most recent IPs. We'll see if between that and the protection it's enough to ward it off. Thanks again Erusdruidum (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the protection wore off, it was re-added verbatim from another very similar IP with nothing on the talk page. How frustrating. Erusdruidum (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And again. What are the options here? Longer term semi-protection? Erusdruidum (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Once more, this time with the user adding information to the article itself (not the talk page) about how he can't find a reference to the article online... No response on the article talk page, or any of the talk pages for the IPs he's posting from. Help? Suggestions? Erusdruidum (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

• Eric Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This may be the first self-reporting on this board ever. :-) I created this article, and wish for someone to look it over for any obvious weasel words, neutrality, or defamation problems. I have taken much care to cite and verify every single sentence or clause. I created this stub because the subject has gotten a huge amount of local and national press coverage - in New York, Montana, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania - and I think our users would look for an objective, well-cited source. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't like it much, it is not really a well rounded biography of a notable persons life is it? Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comes close to WP:BLP1E I think? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on it more. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope it meets your approval now. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is better after your work. It is cited and written in a decent way, for me the one event and what looks to me although in the reporting there were at the time some countrywide coverage, its imo a case of vastly local notability published to a wider audience through the wikipedia to the clear detriment of a semi notable living person, or a person notable only for a single controversial incident, for which there seems to have been no legal action against him at all or neither has he been sacked from his position? and for which the subject also denies any wrong doing at all, and for this tittle tattle tabloid controversy wikipedia gets a detailed article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• That article is terrible. Sorry. It's about a character peripherally involved in a news story, not even the central character in the story - on whom we don't seem to have an article. This is not Cardinal Ratzinger, it's some guy who was a supervisor of a school district. If the case is notable then write the case up and present it as such, don't pretend to write a biography about some poor schmuck who's known for one incident of poor judgement. This is one of the worst ideas for an article I can remember. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sent to Article for deletion for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming non-notable person in Russell Crowe

Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tried to make clear to an editor that per WP:BLPNAME, we do not name non-notable private persons in articles, yet this editor persists in inserting the name of a private citizen who is not notable into the article. He continues to return this information to the article, [12] [13] [14] [15] despite having been told and the rationale explained. Instead, he claims that I don't know the policy regarding naming such persons. Could someone please comment on this? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BLPNAME says "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Thus I would exclude the name here, even though it's appeared in many news stories on this one incident. This is particularly the case because the incident was not initiated by the person in question (i.e. they were not seeking publicity), but rather by the article's subject. Rd232 ^talk 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Its locked , fully protected, personally in this case I would leave this name in , I think it is well enough known and was globally covered that inserting the name is fine, I recognised the name when I saw it, so there can be no harm as such. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it out. The person is not notable for any other reason, and adding the name adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. As per WP:BLPNAME, it should be left out. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We routinely add such names, I have resisted the insertion of such names more than once and consensus was against me, the policy and the community just does not strongly support the excessive restriction of widely published names of not notable people that the addition of which is appears non controversial and not detrimental to the individual. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. WP:BLPNAME says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." To me, that's the bottom line. This non-notable person's name adds nothing to an article on Russell Crowe's life. In fact, including it could be seen as giving undue detail to a single incident to Crowe's life. Dayewalker (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been quite clear, from my experience community consensus is for the inclusion of such names and the policy you are quoting is not strongly against it when there is no clear detriment to the person and (tomorrow) if you want me to I will present hundreds of such names (don't quote me on hundreds) but lots and lots that are included in articles right now. As regards your mention of undue weight, the content is already in the article with or without the name there is no change at all to the weight of the content.Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't, there's no need for that. We'll just agree to disagree here. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

otherstuffexists, yes but when the otherstuff that exsts is in the majority then it does have a value and it is clear from the usage of such names that there is community support for the incluusion of such non controversial, well known names. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As I said above, I respectfully disagree. Even if there is consensus to add the name (which there doesn't appear to be on this page, or the article page), consensus doesn't trump policy. Dayewalker (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My experience, at BLP/N anyway is the opposite from O2R. We generally exclude such names particularly when there hasn't be widespread continuing coverage and the controversy is largely one sided. P.S. I would say that I didn't recognise the name. P.P.S. I would welcome say 5 most similar examples from O2R Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think the most relevant part of WP:BLPNAME - "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." If the name is removed from the article, does the content still give the same information about Crowe? Yes, it does. Our understanding of Crowe is not diminished by the name being removed, and it is not increased by the addition of the name. In understanding the event and its impact on Crowe, the name adds nothing of substance. Rossrs (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The most recent was Paula Dubois, the not notable at all private person who editors insisted to name during what must have been a time of great grief for a mother whose son had only just died in controversial circumstances Kristian Digby . Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Craig Evans the man that threw an egg at John Prescott . Neither of these names add anything at all to the articles in question, but the names are there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How many wrongs does it take to make a right? It's interesting that you mention Kristian Digby. You and I both commented at length at Talk:Kristian Digby against the use of his mother's name without purpose, and the editor who disagreed ended up saying that he was prepared to accept that her name not be used. I was prepared to accept that his mother's name be used if there was a good reason for doing so, but a good reason was never presented, in my opinion. And yet it's in the article. The talk page discussion did not support its inclusion so that's not an example of consensus determining the use of the name. It's more an example of consensus being disregarded, at least in terms of the talk page discussion. I don't recall if the matter was brought here. Rossrs (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The matter was not brought here and it was inserted and supported during the discussion, the reason given was that the name was given context by adding that she went to the inquest..usually the names are inserted without any consensus as such, mostly so few editors are bothered about an issue that it is simply inserted without question, in this case a few editors seem to be bothered but the community as a whole imo want to insert such names and they do insert them at will, and unless they are challenged by a few editors that are bothered the name sits in the article, this is all I am saying. I can link you to multiple similar situations were I have resisted such additions, Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're right. Often the names are added at will, and often the inclusion stands because it faces little or no opposition. We can't catch every instance of this taking place, but if we believe that it is against the policy and guidelines that have resulted from considerable thought and discussion, we should support those policies and guidelines and oppose those instances that we see. If people want to keep adding non-notable names at will, they should consider having the guidelines rewritten or updated. Individual editors may be ignorant of the policies or they be apathetic or they may disagree with them, but that doesn't negate the policies. Being outnumbered doesn't make our viewpoint wrong, only less likely to be taken seriously. I know from the Kristian Digby discussion how fruitless it can be but I'd rather the Russell Crowe situation be discussed further, and maybe one day this will be the example that is held up to deter the addition of non-notable names. Rossrs (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy violation or not, I think the name itself detracts from the encyclopedic, neutral tone of a well-written article. In a consensus (as opposed to a BLP) issue, I'd vote against its inclusion.FellGleaming (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Four points. 1. Consensus can change. 2. Consensus is local (otherstuffexists). 3. In providing comparable examples, bear in mind "person initiated event or was to blame for publicity involved" as a factor. Thus the Prescott guy would be distinguished from the Crowe guy. 4. To clarify a point made above about "not adding value" and "undue weight": I would say the name has negative value as it is not in itself relevant to understanding the incident as it relates to Crowe, and on the contrary distracts from what is important. It is (in the Crowe bio context) noise, not information; chaff, not wheat. Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

3 is a good point which I also tried to make albeit perhaps not so well explained ("and the controversy is largely one sided"). I agree that people do tend to add names, and to some extent that may seem to set consensus but when the issue comes up, there's usually consensus or close to it to remove the name (from my experience) after sufficient discussion particularly from those who understand BLP (by this I simply mean those who are aware of BLP and understand it well enough they're not going to make a clearcut BLP vio or think such a vio is okay). I have to agree with Rd232 that this is to some extent a case of otherstuffexists in that there's a lot of non ideal behaviour which is unfortunately difficult to change, but doesn't IMHO really indicate we should encourage or accept it when it comes up Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

Greg Mortenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greg Mortenson: I want to permanately remove my name from Wikipedia due to continuous insertion of non-appropriate photo with a grin: contensious in rural Afghanistan where I have worked for 17 yrs

GREG MORTENSON I am requesting Wikipedia to permanately remove the article of my biography from Wikipedia due to continuous insertion of a non-appropriate photo with a grin that could be contensious in rural Islamic society, where it is innapropriate and inflammatory.

Continued re-insertion of this (now more than three times) is a security risk for me, and violate three time insertion' Wikipedia rules, which are not being followed. I don't have time to police this, so please do not put up another article on me. Thank you. Greg Mortenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregMortenson (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete removal of the article may be difficult as the topic seems quite notable. Perhaps you could supply a more tasteful photograph. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too so I restored the article, minus the photograph being discussed (the entire article had been blanked which did not seem encyclopedic). Weakopedia (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps under the circumstances we could after seven days delete the picture to stop it being replaced again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the photo is contentious in Afghanistan? Does anyone know if the person complaining is actually Mortenson? Just curious. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, seems a matter of showing good faith, the picture has been removed, so.... Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the article now is not the one he complained about? Looks like he's grinning to me, kind of Mona Lisa-like. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about grinning but It does seem to be quite restricted as far as interpersonal greetings and meetings goes, it is best to only occasionally look someone in the eyes http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/afghanistan.html . Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes that is a new picture, non grinning type. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an otrs came from his company for the new picture, but the old picture is still in use on two foreign language wikis http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:GregMortenson2008.JPG and http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:GregMortenson2008.JPG Senegalese and Hebrew. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I can compare the old and new pictures, there's certainly a big difference. The current picture is more, uh, subdued. -- Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Generic advice to subject: if you don't like the picture the best bet is usually to send us a better one with an appropriate license. That seems to have happened here, or something close. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alek Keshishian

• Alek Keshishian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has only one source, the Internet Movie Database. Yet, it has an entire paragraph, none of which appears in at least the free portion of IMDb. In particular, it has the rather startling sentence: "While studying at St. Paul's School in Concord, NH, Alek realized he was gifted with the ability of telekinesis." I don't know if I'd call that statement "contentious" (as per Wikipedia's policy), but it is certainly unusual and bold. I've never posted to this board before, so I have no idea if I'm doing it correctly or if I should be reporting it at all. I certainly don't know how to fix the article, short of looking for source material on Mr. Keshishian, and, thus far, as an "editor," I've stuck to minimalist changes to articles. -- Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That startling sentence was added with this edit – looks to me like vandalism. Thanks for calling attention to it; it's now been removed. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring that out and fixing it. Thanks for also adding the undersourced warning. -- Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seymour Itzkoff

• Seymour Itzkoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject objects to a link to the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, which seems on the face of ti a reasonable concern. I removed the following external links, neither of which seems appropriate in a biography:

• Seymour W. Itzkoff profile via lrainc.com
• Seymour W. Itzkoff via Institute for the Study of Academic Racism

He is also critical of the fact that we list only a small and controversial subset of his 22 published books, and requests deletion. Esentially his concern is that this biography, focusing on a small but noisy subset of his work, raises that to a level of undue significance. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

His only concern now is the selected bibliography? Here is what purports to be a more complete list of his works: http://www.reviewscout.com/Seymour-Itzkoff. Or, alternatively, Itzkoff could provide a complete list. In any event, I don't see how a list that is clearly marked as "selected" conveys any particular message. On an unrelated subject, where is/was he a professor? Everywhere on the web, it identifies him in the same way ("American professor"), but of what and where? -- Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, his major concern is that the overall tone is dominated by one controversial facet of his work while the bulk of his work and career is completely ignored. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article only got three edits all last year and there has never been a discussion on the talkpage, the article has existed for four years. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I wish you'd be more specific about the part of the article he objects to, but assuming you can excise the objectionable part from the article, wouldn't that be better than deleting the article? -- Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not easy to be more specific. He objects to the fact that there is a "biography" which is, essentially, just a discussion of the controversy over his views on one single topic. He has a long and largely uncontroversial career in the field of education and psychology. What's hard to understand? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Article for deletion discussion is here Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria

Resolved

 – Violating editor indefinitely topic-banned

On Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria Amoruso (talk · contribs) has repeatedly called an Egyptian judge on the International Court of Justice an ***** I have removed the phrase once and asked Amoruso not to reinsert it, only to have Amoruso reinsert it and reply "I read the egyptian's judge opinion and in my opinion, he's ************** (emphasis in original). nableezy - 04:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoroso's behavior is completely unacceptable. I suggest he be blocked if he continues with this libel. Zero^talk 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had reverted the first instance with clear indication that it was a WP:BLP violation. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion in a talk page. Complete Non issue, and I think users who brought this here should be blocked, as well as the usually disruptive user, Zero, who is trolling here. I clearly stated it's my opinion. It's called free speech - I believe his statements were ********. It can't be libel because it's an opinion, and it's ridiculous. Note that Nableezy is also lying - I haven't repeatedly called him an antisemite. I said he's ********* and then added that it's my opinion, and then explained it again. So it's just twice, not repeatedly, and it's expressed as an opinion. Perfectly legitimate. I say Close this quickly, move on and reprimand nableezy and Unomi for disruptive behavior. Amoruso (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that the point, it is your opinion and as such you should not be expressing it on the talkpage, you should only comment regarding improvements to the articles and regarding claims you can cite. I also don't think opining of such controversial uncited claims is correct on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a non issue because This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. That's not even the case. Its not the talk page of the person, it's about a university in Israel. We were talking about the relevance of a very controversial and political and biased ICJ decision. This is what the U.S. had to say about it:

On July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring "the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." [16] The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case."

Misuse, narrow political purpose, objections of every member of the G8. And in my opinion, the Egyptian opinion in particular (and he was accused of bias even before the case.

"Israel claimed that Article 17(2) prohibited Judge Elaraby (btw, I never mentioned him by name until now) from sitting as a judge because “he [had] previously played an active, official and public role as an advocate for a cause that is in contention in this case....Israel complained about Judge Elaraby’s 2001 interviewwith an Egyptian newspaper “two months before his election to the Court, when he was no longer an official of his government and hence spoke in his personal capacity.”41 The newspaper quoted Mr. Elaraby’s comments that “Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, and the occupation itself is against international law” and that Israel’s territorial claims were fabricated to create “confusion and gain[] time.” That is clearly an antisemitic statement in my opinion - claims that Israel has fabricated things to create confusion in the world are repeatedly stated by antisemites. anyway, judge Burghental said about this: "although a “formalistic and narrow” construction of Article 17(2) had not been violated, legitimate concerns existed because “this question cannot be examined by the Court without taking account of the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict” and because the outcome would depend upon “the validity and credibility of [the parties’] arguments.” 45 Against this backdrop, he reasoned that Judge Elaraby’s remarks created an unacceptable “appearance of bias”46 and that the Court had “implicit” power to ensure the “fair and impartial administration of justice.”"

It is at least arguable that if a judge is appearing biased against Israel and still takes the case he's ************* Amoruso (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but with BLP applying on the talkpage just as much on the article do you not see that if you could not cite it and insert it into the article you should not be opining it on the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So if I can't cite "the judge's opinion is ******" I can't say "the judge's opinion is ******** in my opinion" on a talk page about a university in Israel? Amoruso (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, at least it is as I interpret BLP policy. It is your interpretation and opinion as a not notable person, if you had a citation from a notable person and in a reliable citation the notable person opined the same thing then that comment could legitimately be discussed for possible insertion in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

in what article? I'm explaining why in my opinion the ICJ case was not relevant to the issue, and I mentioned how the egyptian's judge (without even mentioning his name) opinion appears ******** to me. I don't see what the problem is. Amoruso (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:BLP applies not only to articles but to every page on Wikipedia. You cannot call a living person an antisemite without solid reliable sources calling that person an antisemite. nableezy - 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm not calling him an ******** as fact, I'm saying that his comments are ******c in my opinion. He comes off as an ********* in my opinion. I don't see anything on WP:BLP about opinions, and this would seem to reflect the same standard in libel laws across the western world. "Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable". anyway, this is all I had to say about it. Amoruso (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a court of law, and you dont have free speech here. You cannot say such things on Wikipedia without sources that do so. Saying "it is only my opinion" does not allow you to say whatever you feel. This really is not that complicated. nableezy - 17:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating that a person is antisemitic because they argue that the Government of Israel has fabricated territorial claims (over what is internationally recognized as being occupied territory) is a bit far fetched in my opinion. You are seriously cheapening the term anti-semitic by using it in this fashion and I think you should consider retracting or at least redacting comments you have made to that regard. Unomi (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

and that's your opinion. Insinuating that Israel has fabricated territorial claims regarding its homeland of 3000 years in order to create CONFUSION is ********** to me. ******** often say that Israel or Jewish power create confusion around the world or disaster to advance their agenda. and that's my opinion. that's how free speech works. Amoruso (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"free speech" does not apply to talk pages per WP:FORUM. Editors opinions about the subjects of WP:BLPs on talk pages are unwelcomed, unneeded, and against policy. Please use the talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[copied from user's talk page] Amoruso, you do not appear to be listening, and to an extent people are pussyfooting around, so let's be really clear here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the most important thing you need to know about it is that if you insist on engaging in commentary that is identified as violating the policy, that is, is polemical commentary about living individuals, then you may be blocked from editing. There are a whole raft of essays and guidelines covering this area including WP:TRUTH, but the most important is WP:BLP and also WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is not for, including being a forum for discussion or an experiment in free speech. You have two choices: you can understand and dial it back about ten notches, or you can carry on and I will block you. This is not because of what you believe, it's because of what you are saying and about whom. If you want to blog that stuff then you're welcome, just please don't bring it here, OK? Guy (Help!) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Look, this is a noticeboard for discussion about BLP issues, keep your opinions to yourselves and don't opine uncitable personal opinions on talkpages and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP is pretty clear on this issue, unless there is WP:RS that specifically states he is an antisemite or issued antisemitic rulings, then such text amounts to WP:OR and must be struck from the article. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that I didn't understand the scope of BLP. What I always meant to say was regarding the opinion rendered, not the person, and I think I made it clear, but that too seems to be a violation of the same policy, which I didn't realize. I realize that and was given a warning by an administrator on my talk page. Why then did a 2nd administrator take action because an involved editor went and asked him to? I think a warning suffices.. I never meant to violate BLP, I interpreted it incorrectly. I should have read this policy more carefully. It doesn't warrant an indefinite ban over my edits. Amoruso (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely topic-banned

I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy Unomi (edited,  Sandstein  16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) on my talk page and have reviewed it. Taking into consideration

• that it is a violation of WP:BLP to express derogatory personal opinions about identifiable living persons on Wikipedia, including on talk pages, notwithstanding any right to free speech editors might have under their national legal systems (see Wikipedia:Free speech),
• that Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has in this instance repeatedly violated WP:BLP and refused to undo this violation even after multiple warnings (some diffs: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22])
• that Amoruso has been previously blocked twice for WP:3RR violations in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area in 2006,
• that he was blocked in 2008 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for two months for the following reason: "Very abusive sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso. Next block should probably be indef",
• that this sockpuppetry case showed that Amoruso had used multiple accounts to create disruption in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area,
• that Amoruso was subsequently informed about possible sanctions under WP:ARBPIA,
• that a brief review of his recent contributions indicates that his main activity on Wikipedia is to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is a general mode of project participation that conflicts with WP:NPOV,
• that all of this is contrary to WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions's direction that "editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators",
• that users engaging in abusive sockpuppetry especially in a particularly sensitive area are normally indefinitely blocked or, if they are not, are normally allowed (as here) to continue to participate only on a "last chance" basis, and that Amoruso has forfeited that last chance by way of this most recent disruption,
• but that an indefinite block appears to be not yet necessary given that Amoruso's disruption appears to be limited to the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area, and that therefore a topic ban is in order as a less restrictive measure,

I am in application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions indefinitely banning Amoruso from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict (to include all broadly related pages, discussions and content, with no exceptions for BLP or vandalism reverts). Any violation of this ban, especially in order to disrupt, may result in an indefinite block. This sanction can be appealed as provided for at WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, but I will not review any appeal directed at me personally before six months have elapsed.  Sandstein  19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this came from. "I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy on my talk page". What do you mean by that? Why would someone go to your talk page and complain about another user when it's been dealt with here? I go into wikipedia, look at my talk page, see a comment by an adminstrator, which I would have complied with, and then your message. I commented on your talk page about past discretions, and the fact that I didn't understand why this was BLP. It's simply a matter of telling me to remove it, sorry. Amoruso (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt alert Sandstein of anything, I posted here and notified you. nableezy - 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. A robust response, and we've not really given the user time to react to the warnings and clarifications over BLP, but as far as I can tell it's based on more than just this one incident, yes? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The harsh sanction is puzzling to me too. It appears that Amoruso has not been given ample time to respond to complaints or indeed understand what they were all about. Amoruso is a prolific contributor on Israel-related topics and improved countless articles in the past in non-controversial topics related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, therefore, the ban is also counterproductive. Apparently at least one stale issue (sock puppetry) was brought up to strengthen the case, even though Amoruso has not edited in a long time under any user name and the sock puppet issue has already been dealt with. I ask for the case to be reviewed, and am sure that Amoruso will acknowledge his mistake as he reads the BLP policy again (it has changed over time, which is likely why he didn't realize he was violating it), and refrain from violating BLP in the future. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this might be a case for a suspended sentence. If Sandstein is reading this still, perhaps he could comment on that. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has indicated that he will not review an appeal filed earlier than 6 months from now. At any event the current appeal at AE is malformed and will need to be reformatted. Unomi (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He can change his opinion and reverse it without a need for a formalistic approach. I presented him with new evidence (WP:RS on which BLP was based on), and with a sincere apology. Amoruso (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here.  Sandstein  16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Judge, jury, executioner

Sandstein, I appreciate the detailed reasons that you use to justify your judgement (and you have noticed I take your judgement of me in stride) but it's clear that you have exaggerated on this case. Very peculiar that this judgement comes down in the range of less than half a day(?!). 11 hours using only input from anti-Zionist editors who violate one of your (if not multiple) commandments to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, on a daily basis. This is the BLP page and not the Arbitration page. You are out of line here and I suggest that you take a break from the I-P conflict at this time. This one is classic rage that should go on the Admin noticeboard. --Shuki (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fully support Sndstein's actions in this case, Amaruso was getting a lot of advice and was just not interested, in fact he continued asserting the violation here, as is revealed he also has history in the same topic field. Off2riorob (talk)

I realize I was wrong. I didn't get any advice from a neutral or administrator. I started discussing this with you, and I thought we were still inquiring about it. What advice should I have believed from the users rv'ing me and attacking me? I really had no idea that this was a violation of WP:BLP. An indefinite ban over a mistake? If an administrator would have told me to comply I would have. Amoruso (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do feel for you but it may be a good thing, there is a big wide wikipedia out there and there is a lot of work needs doing, constructive work, not adding something that is removed the next day and on and on. it is only a topic ban , you are still free to edit the other 99.99 percent of the wikipedia and you will get a review in a few months, your wheels haven't dropped off. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say I am shocked at the way things are going on here. Nableezy who initiated this discussion has been blocked numerous times in the past for his bad conduct. Nableezy is well-known to be a politically motivated editor. His main contribution to en-wp is introducing political propaganda, usually anti-Israeli, to articles. He hardly hides it, and yet he managed to organize a group of supporters who team up with him. He and some of his friends "hijack" articles and prevent any change which they don't like. They also intimidate users who challenge their conduct (I am among them). In this case, he managed once again to drag the en-wp community into holding a "kangaroo trial". This is one of the lowest moments of this community, and believe me, I've seen some low moments before. What does it take for people to tell Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson and several other editors to release en-wp of their grip and let people edit articles for the benefit of free knowledge? What does it take to make people here realize that the NPOV rule that used to be cherished so much here is becoming nothing but a sad joke at the hand of Nableezy? This is not Wikipedia anymore, this is merely a faint shade of what it used to be. If you want it to finally die, let Nableezy continue his rampage. DrorK (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The behavior cited here does not match the sanction. Unless there's something else going on regarding the community (or certain editors) being fed up with the editor, this seems to reflect either over-zealousness regarding BLP or else a misunderstanding of the conception of antisemitism as it pertains to Israel. On that last point there is a frequent, albeit much criticized, belief in some circles that anti-Israeli opinions equate to or derive from antisemitism. We don't need to get into that here, but it is neither unusual nor surprising that someone would think such a thing. The discussion in question was tangentially related to the article content, but seems to have devolved on both sides to the usual bickering about the legitimacy of Israel's territorial claims. At any rate the editor in question simply did not understand that BLP prohibits name-calling on talk pages, seems to get that point now, and has apologized. Sanctions are supposed to calm disruption, not punish for past behavior, so what's the justification here? Bringing up years' old trouble seems to support the assumption that (some) people simply want to get rid of an editor they are tired of hearing from. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.. For the record, I await his response of course but here's my apology to user:Sandstein and an explanation that my mistake was based on an WP:RS who used the same word prominently. That WP:RS was in the Jerusalem Post and referenced in an article in Florida Law Review.Amoruso (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Amoruso canvassed Hertz1888 here. Factomancer (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking one user of an opinion is not canvassing. I think you're proving Wikidemon's astute remarks. Amoruso (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Amoruso has apologized and now now understands about "personal opinions/freedom of speech" on talk pages ect is not "good/acceptable", so a ban or whatever is being called for is overkill/punishment, imho. This can always be changed or reviewed in a few weeks/months, right? Anyways, good luck to all :) --Tom (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states " could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Sambrook

Joseph Sambrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been an OTRS complaint in regards to this article. It would be nice if someone could take a look at this article and make it compliant with policy. It would make the email correspondence much easier. Thanks in advance, NW (Talk) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's uncited and although there is nothing that looks as if it is desperate for immediate removal it could be stubbed back, it could use someone who is knowledgeable about cloning and cancer type research. I also left a request at the talkpage of the Science and academia WikiProject Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject does not like the fact that he's on Wikipedia at all, so please be sensitive. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit better now, User:Crusio has added a few citations that support the content. If anyone is a molecular scientist feel free to wade in. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear that the subject doesn't like to be on WP (I sympathize, I had muy own bio deleted through AfD...) But his bio would never get deleted at AfD. The single fact that he's a member of the national academy of sciences of Australia satisfies the notability guidelines for academics. His hugely-cited book would also be enough. Then there are lots of influential publications ad such... Can you perhaps give an indication about what exactly he doesn't like? If it is nothing controversial (and I haven't seen anything controversial at all), I could try to re-word the entry to accommodate his concerns. --Crusio (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's my view as well, so we need to be sensitive and ensure that it tells a fully-rounded story of his career. We should be scrupulously fair always, but especially when the subject finds the mere existence of an article to be a problem. Thanks, Crusio, for helping out. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Callan

Alan Callan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was stubbed in January, the subject seems angry that it's not been built up again. Anyone who feels motivated to do someone a good turn, please have a go. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Just added a couple of things with reliable sources and made a few improvements. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP in user space at MfD

[23]. More eyes, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT Jews

I have just pruned out every entry in List of LGBT Jews which was either not sourced, or not sourced to a reliable source. There were no sources that they were LGBT, nor even that they were Jewish. I'm not sure if any of the remaining sources are reliable for both categories, if anybody wants to do some research, then please go ahead. Woogee (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me, at first glance, as though you have pruned the list too heavily. Surely there is no doubt about Allen Ginsberg, Sarah Schulman, Tony Kushner or Dana International, for instance. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for these, and for many others. I'll see what I can find. RolandR (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Dworkin was Jewish and Lesbian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-I also left a note at the LGBT project talkpage regarding this list and there is a degree of discussion there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also for discussion at AFD here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only must the sourcing show that they were LGBT, it must also show that they were or are Jewish. Woogee (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi

This is a request for extra attention to Reza Pahlavi and Yasmine Pahlavi. Reza Pahlavi is the heir of the Shah of Iran, a defunct throne, and Yasmine Pahlavi is his wife. User:RezaPahlavi asserts that he is the subject of the bio and that he "owns" them.[24][25] He is editing the articles actively, and also claims copyright on some (apparently) professional photographs. The matter of the editor's identity will have to be handled through OTRS, but we should try to avoid other problems that would require their attention.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please contact my Secretariat's office at <redacted> to confirm identity. We are happy to confirm identity and ownership of all copyrighted materials and bios for both Reza Pahlavi and Yasmine Pahlavi. Thank you. RezaPahlavi (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You will have to contact Wikipedia permissions via the process set out at WP:IOWN - the OTRS volunteers are the only ones who can deal with this. In any event, you do not own any article on Wikipedia, even if you do establish your identity. – ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much. And just to clarify, I used the word "own" in reference to the updated bio my office put on my Wikipedia page, which I indeed did write and did give permission for another site to use - which was then called into question as a possible copyright infringement based on that other site's usage. That was the where the term "own" was used. Not for the Wikipedia page, specifically. Many thanks. RezaPahlavi (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if an editor owns the copyrighted material, it is still a copyvio if large parts are copied into wp. The only way for the material to become acceptable (for wholesale inclusion as opposed to just sample quotes) would be for the material to be released under a free license, for example based on the creative commons cc-by-sa license. Crum375 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if textual material is not copied verbatim, but only paraphrased from one or more copyrighted sources, then there are no licensing restrictions. For images to be used, they would have to have the appropriate WP-approved licensing, such as the cc-by-sa. Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI is more relevant than anything else. People should not be editing articles about themselves, nor should they be directing people that work for them to do so. The proper way to get an article about yourself changed is to declare your conflict of interest at the article's talk page, and make proposed changes on the talk page, where they can be evaluated before being added. Its not that people add relevent information to articles about themselves, its that because of the problem in maintaining an appropriately neutral tone when writing about oneself, it is better if proposed additions are vetted before being added. --Jayron32 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lierre Keith

I know nothing about Wikipedia and how all this works. I've tried to familiarize myself with your rules before posting this. My name is Lierre Keith and I am a writer. I was publicly assaulted while speaking last month. Immediately, a Wikipedia page was created about me, and if you look at the history of the page it was created to report the assault. That's all that was in the entry. A few other facts about my life were added later.

I am trying to get the report of the assault off the page. In the whole course of my life, everything that I've written and done--that's what gets a mention? It seems to me that is a news event, not something for an encyclopedia. Hundreds of public figures are assaulted, threatened, and protested every day, but it doesn't get included in their Wikipedia entries.

This takes on a note of urgency for me, as the harassment/stalking has continued. The threats are escalating--they are now threatening to throw acid in my face. One thing about stalkers that is known for sure is that they thrive on attention. Every public bit of notice they get is only encouraging their obsession with hurting me. Please, I would prefer to have no entry on me at all. But if it has to stay, can you at least take down the line about the assault? You're rewarding their behavior and giving them more fuel for their obsession.

My Wikiepdia name is "smallword" ********************* Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallword (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, smallwood. Please take a little time to read this Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and with a declared Wikipedia:Conflict of interest , people should not be editing articles about themselves, simply make your case on the talkpage as I see you have been doing, the pie incident appears to be out now with only the citation remaining. I see the article was only narrowly kept as no consensus recently, If you think that this article is causing added risk of harassment to yourself then you might want to report your concerns and possibly request deletion... here...

From the policy page.. you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help. Please e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article in question and specific details of the problem. For more information on how to complain, see here, and see here for how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Episkopon

Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

Sapir Academic College

The user User:Cautious has been making repeated BLP violations on the article Sapir Academic College (about its president Ze'ev Tzahor), which I have reverted. I have taken the liberty of blocking the user for 48 hours after repeated notices and warnings to his talk page. The user apparently also edits under the IP 178.183.224.24. I ask that someone put the page on their watchlist and takes action if blatant BLP violations are repeated. Thanks in advance, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau, part the third

Brittny Gastineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been previously covered twice on this noticeboard, here [26] and here [27], as well as in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Brittny Gastineau (See "Bruno" section).

There is once again a discussion going on as to whether or not to include details on the subject's appearance in the movie "Bruno," where she made comments (which she later said were a joke) about the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and abortion.

The consensus has been that including this information is giving undue weight to a comment made in passing in a comedy that all parties agree was a joke, and that it's disparaging to the pregnant person to include details on a trivial mention. The material has been out of the article for months after the previous discussion, but a new editor Reswobslc has come along to readd the information, and claim there is no consensus. I've reverted in hopes of continuing the discussion on the talk page, but I was in turn reverted by 128.104.truth, who was one of the original editors pushing for inclusion of the material, claiming it was "the truth" [28].

I'm not going to edit war over this, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to that article. I see no consensus for omission as Dayewalker claims. Just a lot of people arguing over whether or not consensus exists: "yes there is, no there isn't" style. I readded a much briefer, more factual version that amounts to one well-sourced line that avoids the concerns previously brought up. The line briefly says she appeared, said something about abortion she later called a joke. There should be nothing wrong wit that. Reswobslc (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please present your desired addition and the supporting citations here for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, both can be found in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brittny_Gastineau&diff=prev&oldid=355478887 Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to add this..Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 she appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen documentary comedy Brüno http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/fullcredits#cast, in a talk show scene she later described as herself "joking around" . She is depicted cheerfully agreeing with suggestions that a pregnant teen actress should abort her baby. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=43723

That is correct. It is substantially shorter than the entry past folks were contending over, and avoids mentioning who's baby she suggested be aborted, something others have been concerned about. It is not clear to me why there is any further concern. Reswobslc (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets wait and get a couple of opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First off I would like to apologize for my previous edit war over this person's page. But I fully support the recent edits that Reswobslc have added to the page. It presents the material I had tried to include, but in a well-sourced and non-controversial way. It acknowledges that it was a joke, but it does include the necessary information. I had previously tried to present it in a controversial manner, and that was my mistake. My previous mistakes should not be a factor in not including this new edit. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 128.104.truth and (especially) Reswobslc that this should be included. The old version that 128.104.truth was a pest about adding was inappropriate to include based on WP:BLP, but the new version (seen above) presented by Reswobslc is appropriate according to WP:BLP and should be included. Unflattering information should not be removed from Wikipedia articles because it is unflattering. If that were the case there would be some articles that would get so reduced that they would barely be a stub. This information is well-sourced and appropriately worded. INCLUDE --Spidey104^contribs 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What is unflattering about the comment? Is it that even though the expression is lifted from a comedy show and not real life it could be wrongly interpreted that she is a real life supporter of abortion? Also, who wrote the San fran article? Why does the http address have blog in the title? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When I said it was unflattering I was referring to the scene in general; she looks stupid and ridiculous in the movie. The reference is for how Brittny communicated to the world that she was "in on the joke." Nowadays it is normal for celebrities to communicate this type of information through a blog, twitter, facebook post, etc. That part of the new edit is the least important (in my opinion), but it is the part that softens the impact of the scene and why I feel people would be willing to include it in the article now. --Spidey104^contribs 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that this is a scene from a comedy program where she had a walk on walk of part where adding it to her BLP would give WP:Undue weight and could well easily be misunderstood and the comedy comment be mistakenly assumed to be her personally held opinion, easlily leading to the mistaken understanding that she said this baby should be aborted and that she supports abortion, which as far as I know is a very controversial issue in America. It is a bit like wanting to add to an actors article that he once played a gay actor and wanting to add, in the movie lala John Harrison said he wanted to have gay sex with (add the name of your choice here) it's misleading and risks attributing and asserting the opinions and comments from a comedy movie to the real person. I see it is already added to the bruno/movie article where it has less weight than if it was added to this living persons BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

She wasn't playing a character in this movie. She was herself. She claimed she was "in on the joke" after the movie came out to try and save herself some embarrassment over being duped, but it's probably not what is the truth. It's not undue weight because it is only two sentences in a much longer article. Leaving the comment about the movie as only a statement that she was in it is not putting enough weight to it. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would take even the comment out that she was in the comedy she wasn't named in the credits and is one of the most minor things she has been involved in. She was playing herself, so it is her personal position as regards abortion then? Have we got any reliable citations that also comment on her supporting abortion? Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, don't change the subject of the debate. Until now no one was debating whether or not to include the information about her being in the movie, because that is verifiable (especially if you've ever seen the movie). She is uncredited in the movie because of the way she was duped. The quote is verifiable as part of the film, and the secondary citation is where she claims it is a comment made in jest. As a celebrity I doubt she has made any separate claims on her views about abortion because of its controversial nature. But the absence of additional evidence is not the evidence of absence. This should be included. The new version put forth by Reswobslc portrays it in a proper weight (not undue) and in a reasonable manner. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would never support inclusion of this content as presented, we are encouraged through BLP policy to take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity. In this case it also seems IMO to be a case of Guilt by association to her own comedy comments. I also note your comments here in the thread titled return to the fight seeking support from Spidey104 to add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm certainly glad for the discussion on the matter this time around. 128.104.truth, you were adamant about including this information in the previous discussion because it's your personal opinion this shows "the truth" about her, your above comment about "saving her some embarrasment" seem to indicate that's still how you see it. Whatever your personal opinions are, that's no reason for inclusion.

As for the new suggested version of the incident, I will agree it's better, but I still see no reason for inclusion. It was a comment made in a comedy that no one says was meant seriously. Including it gives undue weight to an off-the-cuff remark, which should be avoided on a BLP.

I'll obviously abide by whatever consensus develops here but my main question is, what exactly does this section add to the BLP? Dayewalker (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daywalker's comments. What exactly is this adding to the article? How did this event affect the subject's notability? If her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including, but it being written up a few times in some blogs doesn't really cut it. It appears that the same reason for not including it to begin with (WP:UNDUE) is still very much an issue. As I understand it, the fact that the content didn't have a source was never really an issue. As I said on the article talk page, just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in the context of Wikipedia. As an aside, all of this talk of "truth" and "fight" is bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND, and is quite off putting. Comments about other editors being "voracious" for following policy and having the gall to establish a consensus is not collegial. Pinkadelica^♣ 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What does it add? It explains what her part in the movie was. For any other actor in a movie you say what the role was. Since she didn't have a role in this movie it is necessary to say what she did in the movie. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:128.104.truth is claiming that there is a consensus to insert this disputed content here with the edit summary 3 for inclusion. 2 against inclusion. 1 neutral. Consensus reached. Thank you for your time. Content is currently back in the article. I dispute that there is any consensus to include the content here and perhaps a few more editors would comment either way to create a clear consensus. If not perhaps an uninvolved Administrator would comment as to the consensus either way, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Should every comment this person makes be included in the article? What makes this comment special? Oh, that's right, some people think it makes her look bad so they want it included. It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm> --Onorem♠Dil 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm>"

I could use the same argument to support deleting her entire page, so what's wrong with including this small bit of information? 128.104.truth (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If gossip pages, tabloids, and blogs were all that were being used as sources, I'd have to say deletion should be considered. It appears that there are a few good sources there though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

128.104.truth, you've seen this article as a battleground since you came to it as an IP. If you think it should be deleted, then AfD it. That doesn't give you a right to assume consensus and edit war on a BLP.

With all due respect, your comment about it being "necessary to say what she did in the movie" makes no sense at all. You've said before it was necessary to show "the truth." It was an off-the-cuff line in a comedy, it's not a political position she's taken. Dayewalker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the omission of this comment based on the fact that it caused no significant public uproar other than the publication of a few gossip column articles (despite their appearance in the SF Chronicle and New York Post) and based on Wikipedia's intentional bias toward sensitivity toward living people. While I think including the statement in the article is fair game and would feel no shame in leaving it there, my pressure has principally been behind excluding it only for good cause, not necessarily inclusion at all costs. I find User:Pinkadelica's argument that "if her appearance in the film had sparked considerable controversy, I could see including" to be persuasive. On the other hand, Bruno is a fairly well known film and her appearance there, like it or not, is relevant to her notability to a meaningful extent. Is it fair to suggest that the reference to abortion constitutes the majority of the negativity? I think it would be reasonable perhaps to add (instead of simply saying that she appeared in Bruno, but short of referring to that she sold herself out), that she appeared unwittingly as part of a prank - along with a link to SFGate or NYPost - and leaving it at that. Example: "In 2009, she unwittingly appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen comedy Bruno as a participant on a fake talk show[ref]." Reswobslc (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the content is back in the article and sourced to Page Six no less. Page Six is notorious gossip rag and, as far as I know, isn't considered a reliable source for a BLP. I'm still not seeing consensus to include it, but whatever. It's quite obvious there's an agenda here. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Page Six. How is it notoriously a gossip rag? Can you provide a citation for that? 128.104.truth (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Content that was discussed here and rejected for insertion has been again reinserted today (diff) by User:128.104.truth , I have removed it yet again. What part of no consensus to include is hard to understand? Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You also removed productive edits to the page. Be more careful in the future. And in response to Dayewalker, I do not see it as a battleground, but you must if you're assuming others do. And you obviously misunderstood my point: I do not think that the article should be deleted; but the argument Onorem Dil made could also be made as an argument for deleting the entire article. Which illustrates how useless of an argument it is. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

By battleground mentality, I'm talking not only about you reverting against consensus (now and in the past, leading to the page being locked), but also recent edits like these [29] [30] where you refer to things like your "side" of the "fight." There's no need to personalize this difference of opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recently I have seen users that repeatedly insert BLP violating content with a single purpose restricted from editing the article. I for one strongly support such editing restrictions, such editing not only disrupts the biography of a living person but also totally wastes the time of constructive editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker, to all arguments there are "sides" to the fight, otherwise there is no argument. By the way, notice how I use "argument" and "fight" interchangeably? They are synonyms. For example, I could say I had a "fight with my girlfriend," or an argument with my girlfriend." Stop making accusations of battleground mentality with no real evidence. And may I remind everyone that what I am arguing to include was the original consensus for the article. I know consensus changes, but stop accusing me of adding stuff when all I have done is include information you have decided to censor with little to support your reasoning for unnecessary censorship. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob Tallman

• Bob Tallman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A cleanup tag was placed on this article due to statements in the section entitled Early years which could be viewed as attacks. While sourced, they place undue weight on the subject's religious belief and do not seem noteworthy as he is not a convert to the clergy where such incidents might be viewed as inspirational. Morenooso (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels

• Patrick Michaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject is essentially being accused of claiming a position and title (state climatologist of Virginia) he did not hold. Other editor(s) are misrepresenting source to support the POV that the position in question did not exist. The relevant text from the newspaper source is at:

• http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2007/09/27/michaels-resigns-as-state-climatologist/

Quoting and highlighting the relevant sections:

“ Patrick Michaels has officially resigned as the Virginia state climatologist, a position to which he was appointed in 1980.

Controversy arose in 2006 about the validity of Michaels’ position, when Gov. Tim Kaine’s office claimed Michaels did not hold a governor-appointed position and said his views did not represent those of the Commonwealth. At that time, state officials said no evidence could be found that a governor had appointed a climatologist since 1980 and that the ability to appoint the climatologist shifted to the University in 2000.

”

This seems rather clear. The position was governor-appointed in 1980, when Michaels received the title. In 2000, the responsibility to award that title shifted to the University (Michael's employer) and in 2006, the new governor clarified his office no longer handled the appointment.

However an editor is misinterpreting this as "the position itself did not exist", and expressing it in language prejudicial to the article's subject. See diff:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels&action=historysubmit&diff=355699691&oldid=355675003

The article is on CC probation, so I am leery about reverting this violation myself. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the content from the lede....

a position he was appointed to in 1980and resigned from in 2007 amid uncertainty over whether he still officially retained the position

It is presented in the lede and totally unexplained in the text, it is quite a serious claim and should be expanded on and explained in the text, who did hold the position then and who said he did not hold the position and what was the outcome. The citation goes on to say Regarding the upkeep of Michaels’ office, a replacement has not yet been found. this was after he resigned, he clearly did hold that position and that should be made very clear, the people who claimed that he did not need naming and the situation requires explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I must disagree with Rob, who is in error. It should be removed from the lead as a contested claim on a BLP. Extremely good sourcing and consensus for this claim must be established before restoring it - and then, it should be to the article body, not the lead, unless and until consensus exists that this is important enough not to constitute a violation of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear, I do not support this in the lede at all, explained and cited a bit better I may support it same as KillerChihuahua in the article body. I actually removed it and referred editors to come and discuss here but user WMC replaced it saying he didn't see anything wrong with it but as yet he has not come to discuss it here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification - I have struck my error. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, the typed text can be poor representation of the thoughts. I actually removed it with this edit summary I don't think this is a fair representation of the detail, and not anyway in the lede, there is a thread for discussion opened at the BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article text is still making the improper claim. Am I correct in assuming it should be removed? FellGleaming (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is support here so for for its removal from the lede but it is not really an desperate situation, better to wait for more discussion as you have already removed it once today and the article is restricted to 1RR. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone from the lede. The discussion in the rest of the article remains, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Arroyo

His article is being subject to an IP using it as a coatrack to make some statement about the Iraq war, and perhaps vilify Arroyo's religious fidelity. Similar edits have occurred in the past at other articles of related people, e.g., George Weigel. I have reverted a second time but do not feel like escalating into editwarring. A few sane eyes on the article would be helpful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days, per the general trend toward liberal semiprotection of WP:BLPs. Perhaps that, combined with an invitation to the IP to participate on the talk page, will move things forward constructively. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek

(Copied from WP:ANI)

There are current issues on this article, relating to the subject's date of birth. The only verifiable information I have found is a late 2007 interview, referring to her age as 34 and implying a DOB circa 1973. However, several editors (or perhaps one), currently identified as Mjo5650 (talk · contribs · block log), is attempting to insert a claim that she was born several years earlier, based on personal knowledge. I have asked for sources, but the editor has not replied to my messages except to add a hostile message on my talk page here. In addition, the subject of the article (or someone claiming to be her) has sought to remove any mention of her DOB from the page (and at one point asked for the article to be removed). My reaction to all this, apart from seeking fruitlessly to engage the editors in discussion, has been to remove the contested DOB info from the article per WP:BLP, and revert changes which re-insert it. I'm not sure whether to go for protection of the article, blocking of Mjo5650, or both. Advice, or suitable action, welcomed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What about a twitter tweet confirmation? If the user is adding uncited birth date claims and refuses to produce any citations then simply revert and warn and report, there is a lot of quacking unconfirmed accounts there....the subject is semi notable and their exact day of birth when weakly cited is of no value anyway. Personally for what its worth in this situation I would support replacing the cited interview interview implying 1973, she is approx this age and a editor who simply insists on personal knowledge and cites that on request have not been produced should not be allowed to removed a cited claim. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Twitter would not be a RS. I would remove the DOB/age material. If it is only one person who is inserting the material, warn that person and then block. If it is several people/socks then semi-protection might be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As regards twitter -I have been involved recently in more than one discussion where twitter as a self published source for non controversial content in regard to the twitter account holder only and as such for a subjects birth date was supported by consensus as reliable and acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

On first blush, there isn't much of a BLP problem with this article. But digging a little deeper, I'm detecting serious problems related to whether the claims in the article are actually supported by the citations. In many or most cases, the article attributes claims to citations that do not fully support them. My efforts to clean up the content and realign our concrete statements with what citations actually say have met with serious resistance on the article talk page, including personal attacks and a general tendency to spend more energy discussing my motives than discussing article content.

Most grievously, some editors have unambiguously argued that because the subject is an accused terrorist, WP:BLP does not apply to him, and have reverted my efforts to clean up the article without discussion beyond personal attacks and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship on my part. I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant, but without help, I do not see any alternative. More eyes please, before this boils over. --causa sui (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear which of the positions you've taken on that article's talk page you would like us to focus on here. Is it that you still want to reduce size of two pictures to half of what you admit is the Wikipedia guideline size? Despite the fact that the people in the pictures are mentioned with the subject of the article in 130,000 ghits ... because in your POV the pictures are "not entirely encyclopedic"? Or was there another more grievous issue that you would like us to focus on?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Willie Soon

• Willie Soon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- The continual reinsertion of material that violates BLP, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page. The problem centers around the following source which is being used to impugn the scientific integrity of a BLP.

• [31]

This source has several problems.

• It's a personal letter by one individual, not fact-checked, being used to speak to the actions not only of the letter's author, but other people as well.
• It's not visible on the author's own site, but on a self-published advocacy site which may have modified it, deleted portions, or otherwise modified its meaning. Further, this group is clearly hostile to the article's subject who is being impugned here.
• The letter's version of events conflicts in subtle, but important ways from reliable sources already in the article.

See below for a WP:RS on the same incident. It is the official statement which appeared in the journal involved in the incident. It differs substantially on the number of people who resigned, and the reason for doing so (not a direct protest to appearance of the paper, but because Von Storch was requested to validate his subsequent editorial retraction with the full editorial board first, which the journal's publisher (as seen in this official statement published by the journal) would not allow:

• [32]

Diffs of the most recent revert is below.

1. [33]

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've protected the page to stop the ongoing edit war until others can sort this out. Sorry I don't have time to do more than this, but I'm embroiled in my own battles currently (see above). --causa sui (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone else have time to attend to this? The article is on protection now, but with the offending material still in place. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Schulman

Unsourced BLP. The claims that were there previously were not sourced to the provided sources, so I removed them. I just got reverted by an IP editor with no prior edits. I have re-reverted. Woogee (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted another IP adding claims that aren't supported by the references they added Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw this edit, and there is nothing I can do because neither for the original information nor for the new information any sources are offered. Some obvious problems:

• The article is about a fiction. The Bavarian throne was abolished in 1918, and there appears to be no chance that it will ever be revived.
• The article is a single huge BLP violation. It lists 21 living people and makes an unsourced claim about each person on the list.

In the past I have observed similar problems with the poor sourcing and maintenance of such list articles in the scope of WP:ROYAL. Since this facilitates the work of hoaxters and fraudsters, I think we need to start enforcing some minimal standards. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As Bali ultimate said in WT:ROYAL#Non-notable nobility and hoaxes: Template:Former monarchic orders of succession "appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims." Hans Adler 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted repeated vandalism to Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b.1951) back in March. This looks like more of the same. Woogee (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, I missed that this was basically a revert of an edit by a one-edit account, and that there was previously a similar edit, also by a one-edit account.

Still, most of these extrapolated successor lists don't have any real significance, and I guess most of them are not notable at all and should be deleted. Hans Adler 09:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thundera_m117 userboxes

I suspect that there may be problems with two userboxes on Thundera_m117's user page. One (shown on the bottom lefthand-side) carries the text "This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel" and shows a picture of Noam Chomsky; the other (shown in the middle on the lefthand-side) carries the text "This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference". Since the user edits irregularly, I edited the user page to remove what I thought were probably BLP violations, leaving the editor a message to explain what I had done. The user has now reverted my edits.     ←   ZScarpia   15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:Perhaps this is better at ANI? Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Noam_Chomsky article, he is not described or catagorised as an anti semite there so it may well be an issue to portray his as such in that way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I was working on the principle that this is the place to bring possible BLP violations, not just issues concerning articles on living people. Any suggestions?     ←   ZScarpia   17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While the BLP related userbox problems can be discussed here, I wonder whether it might be better to discuss them someplace else. Specifically some of them even not dealing with LP seem close to a violation of Wikipedia:Userbox requirements for "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." E.g. "This user believes that Hitler and Muhammad were the two most evil men". We tend to be fairly lenient with userboxes and userbox discussions are usually messy e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox & Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist but it may be worthwhile in this case if you don't get anywhere with discussion with the user. In terms of the LP userboxes issues, we've tended to be fairly strict on those in recent years AFAIK, e.g. [34] so they're probably a clearer cut issue although I wouldn't edit war over them. P.S. If any of the userboxes are transcluded subpages then you can of course us the MFD process. P.P.S. Just to re-emphasise a point, it's probably best to enter into more discussion with the user before taking this further, given my history I don't believe I can help so won't bother. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   23:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell

An IP user has been adding some controversial info to this article (diff), citing newsbusters blog.

I do not believe that this is an acceptable reliable source.

Fortunately, following some warnings, the user has taken the discussion to the talk page.

I would greatly appreciate it if others could comment, in Talk:Kelly O'Donnell#Controversy.

I have posted here specifically as it is a BLP issue, and on RSN for reference validation; I hope that I will not be accused of board shopping; I am not involved with the issue, but am a neutral third-party trying to keep the discussion on-track.

To keep the thread clear, please comment on the article talk. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Brown

An editor wants to add material to Jerry Brown, the biography of the former governor of California and current candidate for that office. It concerns whether Brown was the inspiration for a character in a 19790 movie. The offered sources are an IMDB reader review and a number of blogs.[35] While it's certainly possible that Brown was the inspiration, I think we'd need the same high quality sources for this as we'd expect for any assertion about a living person. This has been discussed at Talk:Jerry Brown‎#Americathon, but I don't think we're getting closer to consensus. Other views?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're correct however the editor is saying that they have a copy of a 1979 New Yorker magazine as a source. Ask them to scan and upload an image. Or someone needs to go to the library and check for themselves. FWIW, I cannot find any online reliable sources making this claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if the New Yorker says so then that's a great source. But the clip that I saw of it at their website says it's a parody interview, so it's unlikely to be making a critical judgment of a movie.[36] I've asked the other editor to post an excerpt of the relevant text.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Will has placed an unfairly narrow requirement on this particular statement, but I have contacted the writers. I'm going to add that the Wikipedia:Citing IMDb proposal failed to reach consensus and is, in fact, a failed proposal. The addition of multiple other sources AS BACK UP of what is essentially an opinion certainly confirms such a statement. I'm working to find more information.Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, sources must be published in some form. Personal correspondence is not allowed to be used as a source, if I'm not mistaken. But the screenwriters may be aware of some interview or article about the movie that identifies the inspiration.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo, this is easy enough to resolve. Can you scan a copy of the article and upload it so others can verify? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who subscribes to the New Yorker will be able to access the August 27, 1979 issue and read this article if they are willing to click through enough screens. The article is on pages 74 and 75 of that issue. Send me email if you want more info. The article gives no explicit support for the view that the main character (the President) is based on Jerry Brown. The article is a serious review by Veronica Geng of three movies, one of which is Americathon. Here's the relevant section:

The first joke is nearly the last. Over some pictures of dinosaurs, a narrator says then when dinosaurs died, they turned into fossil fuel, and that "Jimmy Carter became President when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of dead dinosaurs." The movie was made at a time when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of Jerry Brown jokes, but it relies on them for fuel.

I wonder if somebody could have been confusing two different New Yorker articles in 1979. There is another one, dated 23 April 1979, page 41, titled "Gov. Beige". It is easy for the reader to assume this is a spoof of Jerry Brown, whose last name is also a color, and the connection is made explicitly in the article's abstract, which is available to anyone online (even nonsubscribers) here. The abstract says 'Parody of the way Gov. Jerry Brown speaks.' This spoof article, by Patti Hagan, makes no mention of the movie Americathon. So we have no written support from the New Yorker in 1979 that the President in Americathon was intended to be Jerry Brown. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that more careful analysis. I'm the guilty one with confusing 1979 articles. Yet, it sounds like the end conclusion may be the same: that neither article supports the assertion. At best, this seems like a bit of pop culture trivia rather than a significant criticism of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Nygard

I'm afraid this is turning into an edit war, and thought I'd check in here for some advice on what to do. I don't think it is correct to include the (removed) section on human trafficking given that there's just one primary source. It gets added, I remove it, it gets added again, etc. I made the bold move of removing it (again) until a consensus is reached on Talk:Peter Nygård. There's a couple of reasons this is concerning: it isn't properly sourced material and doesn't match my novice interpretation of WP:BLP, and Nygard has a history of launching libel lawsuits. I'm new to this, help me do the right thing. Alexthepuffin (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, those are some very strong allegations to be backed up only by a single source. The video clip won't stream outside Canada, but I looked up a couple alternate news clips of the allegations, and they were softer in tone. I strongly suggest sourcing that claim with a second source, making sure whatever said is in both refs, and putting Nygard's side of the story in as well (I believe he's chalking all this up to 2 disgruntled employees).

That said, quite obviously no one should be blanking the section, but we do want to be careful about giving the claim undue weight, especially when it includes things like sexual conduct with minors. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the human trafacking part, there is nothing to actually say that the subject had anything to do with it at all, its being coatracked onto him, it belongs at the company talkpage for discussion there it looks awful dramatic and tabloid type content to me. I would trim it right back if I was going to include it on the company article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nyguard still needs some eyes, a new account is adding content to both articles. I am to busy to check. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Summer Watson

Summer Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), subject has an issue with the article referred second-hand to OTRS via Jimbo, ticket 2010041710015426. She complains of someone who she refers to as "stalking" her, adding material stated to be false such as her being born Rachel, which is apparently her middle name not her birth forename. I suspect it is, rather, an obsessive fan whose sources of information are tittle-tattle of dubious accuracy. I have taken first steps to contact her and establish what the problems are, but it appears that Sosoprano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be the user to which she refers. I have not done anything yet about that account as I don't have full details but please watch the article, I think it's fair to say that reverting in anything prurient about her personal life, or changing the name. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• The user continues to revert the information back in, I have informed them that they may no longer edit this article. We do not need WP:SPAs on biographies. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thumbs up to that solutoin. Durova⁴¹² 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner

I removed some text from Michael Winner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was allegedly introduced by Dom Joly - if so it was a while back I think. I also semi-protected the article due to fairly constant low-level stupidity, more or less inevitable given the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lara Jones

Lara Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has sadly died of cancer aged just 34. OTRS ticket 2010041710009121 from a family friend. An obituary is expected in The Times, in the mean time I have added a notice from the local paper. I have no reason to believe this is anythign other than completely genuine as what detail there is matches up. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing"

The wiki-id User:Iqinn often asserts that material referenced or referenceable to WP:RS had to be excised because it was "dehumanizing".

As I wrote here, I have been frustrated in my attempts to understand which wikipedia policy, guideline or established convention Iqinn is relying on in characterizing these passages as "dehumanizing". (User:Iqinn's reply here)

Here is one of those edits.

In many other instances they have objected to sections of articles that provides references to WP:RS that document that an individual has been referred to using a variety of alternate names, asserting both "dehumanizing", and WP:OR. I plan to ask about that at WP:NORN. WRT to the "dehumanizing" aspect, it seems to me that no one would object to referencing that Joseph Stalin's real name was "Lavrenti Djugvali", that Mark Twain's real name was "Samuel Clemens". I honestly don't understand their objection here.

I'd appreciate input from informed, uninvolved third parties.

Thanks in advance! Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all i would like to ask user Geo Swan why he did discuss and address the given arguments on the talk page where a discussion about this topic has been started? Talk:Ismael_Ali_Faraj_Ali_Bakush#Identity. IQinn (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Geo Swan's view here. The information that Iqinn is removing isn't "dehumanizing" or original research (it would have to be an "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources", which it is not). There is a matter of whether or not the information in Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif#Identity is too trivial to include, but that is a not an OR or BLP matter. NW (Talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone with a bee in their bonnet. This material looks to be reliably sourced and neutral, I don't see the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections like this Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif#Identity creates an idea that is not stated in any of these RS. That is OR by WP:SYN. Such a sections dehumanize the detainees as it deprives them of their individuality. These sections have been mass added just by one editor who is listing any misspelling from mostly primary source he can find. Notable alternate names of the detainees have been added to the infobox. These "Identity" sections are encyclopedic and unnecessary. IQinn (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What idea do you feel he has created ? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The wrong impression (idea) that the "Identity" of the detainees is in question. The identity and name of the detainees are not in question and well documented in reliable secondary sources. IQinn (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

While the "dehumanizing objection" doesn't hold up, the fact remains the original section strongly appeared to be poisoning the well, rather than simply identifying alternate names of the article's subject. I have made an edit to clean it up. If another editor wants to restore the material I deleted in a more appropriate section (such as detailing what DoD documents refer to him, and how and why), that is their prerogative. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". What role should my personal notion of what is "the wrong impression", or any other wikipedian's personal opinion of what is "the wrong impression", play in choosing what belongs in an article? I don't think any of our personal opinions of what is "the wrong impression" should play any role in what belongs in article space.

The personal opinion expressed above that: "[T]he identity and name of the detainees are not in question and well documented in reliable secondary sources." Sorry, this personal opinion is incorrect. For some of the Guantanamo captives genuine doubt about the captive's identity did exist.

• Shed Abdur Rahman / Abdur Sayed Rahaman was one of the 38 captives whose CSR Tribunal determined was not an enemy combatant after all, who claimed he was the victim of mistaken identity, because his real name had a vague resemblance to the name of senior Taliban leader.
• Abdullah Mehsud, Mullah Shahzada and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar were the first three former captives to be identified as former captives who "returned to the battlefield". The official account of their early release was that they tricked the camp authorities about their real identity.
• Abdullah Khan was identified as Khirullah Khairkhwa by American intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, for the first two years he was in US custody, even though the real Khirullah Khairkhwa, a famous individual in Afghanistna, bad been captured years earlier, and was present, just a few hundred yards away, in another compound in Guantanamo.

So, no, I can't agree that their identities have been unquestionably established. I think the record shows that, for some captives, confusion over their identity unquestionably existed. So, what about the other individuals? If WP:RS don't document identity confusion then nothing in article space should state captives were held due to identity confusion. I honestly believe these sections don't state any of the captives were held due to identity confusion.

I think we need to proceed from the assumption that we should respect our readers' intelligence, and trust that if our material is neutrally written, cites WP:RS in a fair manner that doesn't distort the meaning of what the WP:RS say, then we can't characterize the conclusions our readers come to as "the wrong impression". Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you truly believe there is a question over the person's identity, then we may be violating BLP by inserting material that isn't even about him. The article isn't named "Detainee 215", after all. But the reality is that there is no identity question: transliterating from Arabic to English is more art than science, and the person falls well below the bar for notability as well. Merging all these detainees into one single list-oriented article is certainly appropriate. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are certainly entitled to have doubts about the notability of Fahd al Sharif. And, if you think the article should be deleted, you are entitled to voice that opinion at {{afd}}. I see you have someone nominated the article for deletion. So, would it be possible for us to confine questions of whether Fahd al Sharif, or any other individual, merits deletion, to other fora? Could we confine this discussion to the specific question of when it is appropriate to assert a referenced passage is "dehumanizing" and whether BLP authorizes that characterization? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of primary sources there? Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif It looks like a report of court records, are these detainees individually notable, is this person really notable in independent citations? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

<- He wouldn't identify himself using any of those names since his name is written in Arabic, no ? So, perhaps his name in his language should be in the article just like other biographies. Would that help at all ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a whole bunch of details from court records collected together. Is that a correct thing to do on wikipedia to create a BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope and frankly who gives a shit about arabic->english naming variations in a collection of court records. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you...I thought the general idea was to report what other people had reported about people, not to be the primary reporter of court documents and legal documents.Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't matter. A secondary source needs to care, not us. That's what I thought anyhow. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am going to request those participating here help resolve the question as to when it is appropriate to justify excising material based on assertions that it is "denumanizing".
• Who cares about Arabic -> English transliterations? Without references that verify that a transliteration is actually, verifiably, the individual in question, diligent readers and other contributors, can't confirm that our references actually all refer to a single individual. Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should individuals with Arabic names have their names represented in the Arabic script? Sure! Do you know how to find an WP:RS that sets out the name in Arabic script? I do not. I know that some articles on individuals with Arabic names have had a tag placed on them, requesting wikipedia contributors fluent in Arabic to render the name into the Arabic script. I believe that in almost all cases these volunteers have done this by using their experience, and judgment, and making an educated guess. The reliability of these educated guesses is going to have to vary, based on the individual volunteer's fluency, the trickiness of the underlying names, and the (unknown) reliability of the original rendering from Arabic into English. I don't want to criticize any of the volunteers who offered their best guesses as to how these individual's names should be rendered back into Arabic -- but aren't their best guesses what we would normally call "original research".
• Even if, for the sake of argument, we found a rosetta stone -- an official document, from, lets say, the Saudi embassy, that listed the captives' names first in English and then in Arabic, why wouldn't we still need to list, and reference, the variant transliterations used in English language WP:RS? This is, after all, the English language wikipedia. Almost none of our readers are fluent in Arabic, almost none of our contributors are fluent in Arabic, so even a perfectly reliable Arabic transliteration is going to help someone who finds a reference elsewhere to a name that might refer to this individual is the same name as one that was used in an WP:RS that we know refers to this individual? Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The mention article is not the only one - let's not forget that we have (had) hundreds of these sections that has been mass added to Guantanamo detainee biographies. Here are some more examples. [37],[38], [39], [40], [41] and there are even worst examples. We have 600 - 700 hundred of these BLP's and they are often solely based on primary source and in addition these primary sources are often heavily redacted. IQinn (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My initial question here concerned an edit summary that I was concerned was making a questionable interpretation of BLP in this edit to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo. Most of the comments here concern Iqinn's defense of [their edit to Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif. While I find the other comments very interesting I hope people won't forget my request for opinions on the claim that it was "dehumanizing" to list the variants of the Uyghur's names on an article about the Uyghurs. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask you before why he did discuss and address the given arguments on the talk page where a discussion about this topic has been started? Talk:Ismael_Ali_Faraj_Ali_Bakush#Identity? Where we started a general discussion about 'dehumanizing' in the Guantanamo section specially the concerning the Identity sections. I think it has been done here now. For the addressing of the this edit to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo i suggest that can be done on the articles talk page by discussing in detail how many names we include for each detainee based on the sources. IQinn (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above the reason I asked for third party input here on your use of the term "dehumanizing" is that I have been frustrated because, even though I have tried hard, I could not find an explanation, anywhere in your responses, of how the material was "dehumanizing" that complied with my understanding of our policies, guidelines and established conventions. If you interpreted this as a personal attack then that was a mistake. For all I knew the consensus here would back your interpretation of what is dehumanizing. But, by asking for third party input, even if you are right, and I had a blind spot that was preventing me from understanding a valid point you were making, some other person might be able to explain this, where I have found your explanations didn't help me. Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

David Miller

Possible Conflict Of Interest/ Wikibombing: I nominated this for deletion as the subject seemed laughably below the bar for notability, and the article text had numerous issues.

Initially, the only person who objected was a person who I strongly suspect as being the subject of the article. Then, four days later, the delete notice is suddenly flooded with "keep" votes from IP editors (and two registered users who haven't edited in years). Looks like a clear case of Wikibombing, from this being posted to a Linux forum somewhere.

I don't really have any emotional stake in this, but I wondered if there was policy to cover this sort of situation. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would let it go, you could add — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. to any such accounts or IP's which will discount or diminish their votes , chalk it up to experience and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The AFD already has those along with a Template:Not a ballot message mentioning it was linked to from [42]. In such a case, there's really not much more to do, and the closing admin would presemuably have considered this in closing the discussion, remember this isn't a vote. Ultimately it appears keep won because there are sufficient reliable sources discussion the subject. Edit: Er I see those were added later, I guess from this discussion. Anyway I'll leave my comment for the benefit of other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep; the delete request prompted a couple editors to rework the article entirely, so it wasn't a total waste by any means. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine "wikibombing" sounds a lot cooler than it actually is. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Constant Kusters

A note for review and transparency. Having seen this article at AfD (here, I blanked the article of a substantial amount of largely negative unsourced content (here). The article is now a stub although as I don't speak Dutch I'm not even sure the source properly supports the content of the stub. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Al-Habib

Resolved

 – deleted

I just stumbled on this article while vandalism patrolling. It appears to me that it has serious problems from several perspectives and requires some close attention. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems to meet the criteria of speedy deletion as an attack page, I've taken the liberty of nominating it, and have blanked it as requested in the deletion template message. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully it was deleted swiftly by Excirial. Apparently it began innocuously, and a user maliciously turned it into an attack article. An administrator may want to look into the now disappeared article history and take appropriate steps. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bimbapboo

Resolved

 – blocked Guy (Help!) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bimbapboo (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose attack account. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay Park

Jay Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article in question is subject to vandalism and numerous BLP violations. There is some difficulty in addressing this as the majority of the sources are in Korean. -Reconsider! 08:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If no Korean editors are available to assist I suggest removing any especially contensious claims and semi protecting the article for a month or so. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Rifkind

Content issue now being discussed on talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne gangland killings

This article looks to me to be a BLP mess. I've started going through removing parts of the article that associate living people with crimes or criminal enterprises without reliable sources. But other sets of eyes would be warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I am trying to get something sorted out.

I am concerned about biased and potentially inflammatory language being posted in the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords), specifically under the "Gun Rights" and "Outsourcing" headings. The statements under these headings clearly violate Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I have a conflict of interest, so I am hesitant to make edits myself. Rather, an impartial third-party editor should take a look at the page and I am happy to provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.

Thanks,

Stephanie4815162342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie4815162342 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords. I've tweaked the Outsourcing section but I'd like to hear your concerns about the Gun Rights section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gun Rights section is technically accurate, however its incompleteness makes it one-sided. I would like to add the following: "Giffords touts her status as a 'long-time gun owner.'(1) In 2008, she joined in the amicus brief for the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the appellate court ruling that overturned the controversial DC gun ban.(2)

1) http://giffords.house.gov/2008/09/VOTESTOREPEALBANONHANDGUNSINTHENATIONSCAPITAL.shtml

2) http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf

I would also like to expand the "Outsourcing" section to a more complete and accurate "Immigration" section which would include the following edits and additions: "In 2008, Giffords introduced legislation to raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa) from 65,000 per year to their pre-2003 levels of 130,000 per year. Detractors, including programmers' unions, felt the increased cap would put existing workers at a disadvantage. Supporters of the increase, such as Microsoft Founder Bill Gates, said the move was necessary for high tech companies to recruit and retain world-class high-skilled workers.(1)

"Arizona's 8th Congressional District is one of 10 in the country bordering Mexico. Giffords has been an advocate for stronger U.S. – Mexico border enforcement, sponsoring or cosponsoring legislation to increase Border Patrol personnel in the region and provide them with 21st century technology (H.R. 1867).

Giffords supports stronger penalties against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She sponsored the Employee Verification Amendment Act (H.R. 6633)(2) and cosponsored the New Employee Verification Act (H.R. 5551)(3) to improve federal programs to verify citizenship of new employees (4).

1) http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid183_gci1306494,00.html

2) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06633:

3) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05515:

4) http://giffords.house.gov/2009/10/effort-to-extend-improve-employee-verification-program.shtml

Beyond these specific changes, I am still concerned that there are users making edits to this page who are not making them in good faith. I'm not sure what procedures Wikipedia has in place for these situations, but I wanted to be sure and flag it for you. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please copy the above to Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords so editors interested in that article can comment. I (and probably others) am now watching that article so any changes will be scrutinized more closely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved it over to Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords -- thanks for your attention! Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can another editor please scrutinize the edits of User:Parallel process? [43], [44] makes me think some synthesis is being used to subtly twist the subjects' view on outsourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat and other related articles

• Simon Fraser, 16th Lord Lovat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See user's contribs for other affected articles

• • Lord Lovat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Chiefs of Clan Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scolpaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

May also involve this IP (probably a simple not-logged-in)

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

Serious POV pushing related to some off-wiki dispute (Lord Lovat's estates and one or more tenants). Although the content added is minor (mostly linking to an off-wiki campaign site as if it were RS), it's widespread and needs action.

The user's talk seems quite up-front about their agenda and intentions towards WP, none of which appears acceptable to the project's aims:

Internet name of tenant of Lovat Highland Estates who has legitimate and established issues with aforementioned Lovat Highland Estates.

If this doesn't concern you keep your beak out of it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now edit-warring too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gave him a uw-npov3 and he seems to have stopped for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in women's sports

• Homosexuality in women's sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sectionHomosexuality in women's sports#Notable lesbian.2C gay and bisexual_athletes is a mess. Because we have List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, which is well-cited, do we even need this page? It sounds like something that would much better serve as an overview article rather than a list. NW (Talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as it is one of the articles that has a LGB Template I have left the project page a note about this thread here . Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a problem, only three entries have a source, all to the same site. The others have links to wiki pages on them, and may have some sourcing there. We have pretty clear guidelines on this - we do not report rumours, but reliably sourced reports, such as the individuals' own words. I'd be tempted to get rid of this article, because as it stands, without considerable effort, it violates BLP policy. Anything worth covering should be in the List article - and the names could be copied over to the talk space in case anybody who maintains that page wanted to look at adding these in with appropriate sourcing. Mish (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked a random 4 from the list of 32 and they all had sources, and the claims were not controversial. I don't think it would take considerable effort to add the sources and remove names which are unsourced or controversial, so I don't think it will take considerable effort to make this page BLP compliant as the work has already been done at the relevant individuals pages. Delete the ones that haven't been sourced, copy the sources across from the ones that have, and don't let anyone add any new ones without updating the relevant persons article. Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing" -- redux

I am sorry if I seem to be bringing a question here that seems repetitive.

Four days ago I asked for third party input on a series of excisions of passages that had been justified, in part, based on a concern those passages were "dehumanizing". It was my impression that no one shared the concern of the excising wikipedian that the passages in question were dehumanizing, although some respondents had other concerns.

Subsequently the wikipedian who had that concern has continued to excise these passages, as they did to the article on Abdul Rahman al-Amri, the fourth Guantanamo captive to have been reported to have committed suicide. On Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri they wrote:

Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions. I have no doubt that the Identity section had "dehumanizing" character and was WP:OR and the section has been removed for at least WP:OR that was the result of the discussion.

I responded, "I am not sure whether you are saying that since you think "Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions", that you are authorized to ignore the opinions offered at BLPN, or whether you think some of the contributors who responded there would share your opinion this edit was authorized on the grounds the section you excised was "dehumanizing"."

Either way I am concerned, because I thought the consensus was clear -- and that none of us is entitled to simply ignore the consensus of a discussion.

I just initiated a discussion over at WP:NORN, over the assertion these passages lapse from WP:OR.

If possible I'd like this discussion to be confined to the question of whether the excision of this passage was authorized by WP:BLP, and have discussion of whether or not the passage was dehumanizing take place at WP:NORN.

If possible I'd like to request that any other concerns with this passage take place elsewhere -- I suggest Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri.

Thanks in advance! Geo Swan (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said four days ago on a near-identical passage, this content has BLP and false light issues, not the least of which court documents are specifically excluded as valid material under BLP policy. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I noticed your false light concern first time around.

First, these documents are't "court documents". The Guantanamo CSR Tribunals and annual status reviews are not legal procedures -- a point the officers who run them repeated over and over again, when the captives asked why they weren't being allowed legal advice.

Second, WRT to the "false light issues", the US Judicial system addressed the question of whether publishing these documents damaged the captives' privacy. The Associated Press had sued for access to these documents under the Freedom of Information Act. And the Department of Defense declined to make the documents available. The DoD did not claim publication of the documents would damage National Security. Rather they claimed they could not publish them because doing so would damage the captives' privacy. The AP sued the DoD. US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff heard the case. FWIW he ruled that the publication of the documents did not damage their privacy. No, I am not suggesting the wikipedia is actually bound by Rakoff's ruling. But I think it is worth noting that he thought the publication of the documents was actually in their interest. Geo Swan (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kazi Zafar Ahmed

• Kazi Zafar Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel a little out of my depth with this one as I rarely edit political articles. The article is virtually unsourced with only a single source (not inline cited). POV issues aside for the moment, my main concern lies with the use of words such as "corruption allegations", "misappropriation of funds" and "political vengeance"; all unsourced. There appears to be an older, weakly cited and substantially different version of the article here. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it could be a copy vio, but this http://www.abitabout.com/Kazi+Zafar+Ahmed is legitamate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused - the link you provided is a self proclaimed wiki mirror. Are you saying the information in the Ahmed article is legit? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the mirror and thought it was a copy vio but the content in the article now looks fine Actually looking at both versions it is pretty much ok and he's clearly notable, but it should be either stubbed back or cited. There are a few citations on the old version and I saw a couple more, it just needs a interested editor to buff it up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that he's clearly notable, my concern is that there is a large swath of unsubstantiated claims including corruption allegations and the insinuation that the allegations were mocked up by the government. There are no references included in the article to verify the info, the single link included makes no mention of it. I have to log off for a while; I will likely pull out everything contentious and unsourced when I'm back (unless someone has additional input or edits that article while I'm away). Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There were allegations and charges but they should be cited I agree, feel free to trim it back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe-job

See the names at the end of [45], the accounts have been renamed but there are several pages of suspected sockpuppet investigations etc. where a copy-paste replacement needs to be done. I have no bot-fu so have to do it the hard way, if anyone can help out by fixing this before tomorrow then please do. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, you are looking for a bot to replace the signatures with the new user name? –xeno^talk 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)